Is greenpeace a terrorist organisation?

[flappist]

If a group of religious extremists attacked and occupied a ship or aircraft disrupting and endangering the occupants while they were doing legal things just because the religious extremists beleived that it was wrong according to their beliefs then then any extremists captured would be face the wrath of the soverign state that owned the vessel is question.

Al Quaeda, Jamal Islamia, IRA etc have committed crimes against others in the name of "Freedom", "Justice", "Truth" and "The quest to improve the human race by stopping the evil".

None of the above started by killing people, it was all just trying to make a statement but as they continued along they just got worse and worse.

Greenpeace is an extremist organisation that has shown it has no respect for the legal system and that they believe that the end justifies the means.

Are they not terrorists?

Is not terrorism the act of a group against another group of sovereign state without a formal declaration of war?

After all if you go to Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or Afganistan you might find that they think WE (Australians) are terrorists as we go over there and kill thim because we don't like what they do and how they live their lives.

Or is the definition of a terrorist anyone who does bad things that we disagree with?

And if it is ok for Greenpeace to act this way then why is it not ok for (as an example) Harold Scrooby and his mates to sneak around disabling cars they look like they might be able to speed or putting nails in speed bumps at maccas on friday nights to stop hooning?

Greenpeace have attacked a lawful vessel on the high seas. This is piracy. It is now legal for a Japanese warship to protect the whaling ships with lethal force.
For any soverign state to support greenpeace could become and act of war.

Whether you agree or not this is the law.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...........

[MITCHAY]

They can sink both ships for all I care but yes you have a good point.

[GreenMachine]

Yeah, I'm with you on this one... As unpalatable as we find it, they do have a legal right to kill whales, and people with beards on a ship named after someone who exclusively wore khaki (Steve Irwin, Fidel Castro, whatever) trying to stop them is not on.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Yeah, I'm with you on this one... As unpalatable as we find it, they do have a legal right to kill whales, and people with beards on a ship named after someone who exclusively wore khaki (Steve Irwin, Fidel Castro, whatever) trying to stop them is not on.

The High Court passed a law that the Japanese cant kill whales in Australian waters. Outside of that you are correct.

[GreenMachine]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The High Court passed a law that the Japanese cant kill whales in Australian waters. Outside of that you are correct.

Has there been any suggestion that they're doing it in Australian waters?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Has there been any suggestion that they're doing it in Australian waters?

I believe in the Australian part of Antarctica's waters they were, hence the court ruling.

[FGII-XR6]

the antarctic waters to the south are australian territorial waters this is recognised internationally with the exception of japan

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Has there been any suggestion that they're doing it in Australian waters?

[atec77]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

Yeah, I'm with you on this one... As unpalatable as we find it, they do have a legal right to kill whales, and people with beards on a ship named after someone who exclusively wore khaki (Steve Irwin, Fidel Castro, whatever) trying to stop them is not on.

The international rule is no whales , the japs decided that their internal law overrides others and so under the name of testing slaughter for food many whales , Jap behavior is illegal and certainly it is not palatable so if they ignore the rules short of bringing deaths reasonable interference cannot be regarded as improper when suitable notification is and has been made .
Personally is someone torpedoed those whale boats I would not shed a tear.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by flappist

Greenpeace have attacked a lawful vessel on the high seas. This is piracy. It is now legal for a Japanese warship to protect the whaling ships with lethal force.

well what about the Rainbow Warrior...... a Greenpeace ship sunk using explosives by one nations armed forces while docked in the port of a second nation, in the process killing a couple of crewmembers......

surely that would be considered an act of war?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

well what about the Rainbow Warrior...... a Greenpeace ship sunk using explosives by one nations armed forces while docked in the port of a second nation, in the process killing a couple of crewmembers......

surely that would be considered an act of war?

No it was not an act of war. That can only be between two or more nation states.
That was a criminal act and those who did it were prosecuted and served custodial sentences.

Again, the law and justice do not always agree.

[rigs]

Originally Posted by flappist

No it was not an act of war. That can only be between two or more nation states.
That was a criminal act and those who did it were prosecuted and served custodial sentences.

Again, the law and justice do not always agree.

Interesting take on it.

The rainbow warrior criminals were said to be employed by the government of France - and as such most likely were acting under orders.

Then there was the another recent indiscretion - israeli nationals caught counterfeiting passports.

If either crimes happened in/against one of the more sabre-rattling major powers - then I could envision these acts being held in a very hostile light.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by rigs

Interesting take on it.

The rainbow warrior criminals were said to be employed by the government of France - and as such most likely were acting under orders.

Then there was the another recent indiscretion - israeli nationals caught counterfeiting passports.

If either crimes happened in/against one of the more sabre-rattling major powers - then I could envision these acts being held in a very hostile light.

Yes France is a soverign state, Greenpeace is not.

We went to Afganistan to to fight the terrorists etc. We did not declare war on Afganistan.

Again it is a legal not logical difference.

Just so it is clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT JAPAN OR WHALING IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM.

I just do not like it when this sort of thing happens because it is always the thin edge of the wedge.......

[TadKa]

I know they fight the same causes but are Greenpeace and the Sea Shepard movement linked. They probably are but I wasn't aware of it.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by TadKa

I know they fight the same causes but are Greenpeace and the Sea Shepard movement linked. They probably are but I wasn't aware of it.

Greenpeace said Sea Shepards methods were dangerous and illegal, they claimed they were only going to block the harpoons etc. What has happened is contrary to what Greenpeace were saying for the last couple of months that they weren't planning on any illegal activities.

[cob115]

yes there a bunch of tools (GREENPEACE)and to name there floating ferrel cruzline after Steve Erwin is in my opinion offencive,we eat lamb beef witch is natrul for us,the japs eat whales and have done for years i would give it a go !!!,who are we to tell them its wrong ,thats there culture, i know if some ning nong came over here telling us what we can and cant eat we would be less than impressed .If i was a lazy dole bluging bum,and was being suported buy the govnment .(like a lot of them)i would have time to go and protest about greenpeice being idiots ,but i work and havnt got time ahh i feel better now iv got that out

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cob115

yes there a bunch of tools (GREENPEACE)and to name there floating ferrel cruzline after Steve Erwin is in my opinion offencive,we eat lamb beef witch is natrul for us,the japs eat whales and have done for years i would give it a go !!!,who are we to tell them its wrong ,thats there culture, i know if some ning nong came over here telling us what we can and cant eat we would be less than impressed .If i was a lazy dole bluging bum,and was being suported buy the govnment .(like a lot of them)i would have time to go and protest about greenpeice being idiots ,but i work and havnt got time ahh i feel better now iv got that out

After translating this to english I have just thought of an interesting point. In India cattle are sacred. We eat them. Does India (population 1,000,000,000 i.e. 50 times us) have the right to force us to stop eating beef and dismantle our beef and dairy infastructures because in their opinion we are doing something evil?

[Mark351]

Originally Posted by flappist

In India cattle are sacred. We eat them. Does India (population 1,000,000,000 i.e. 50 times us) have the right to force us to stop eating beef and dismantle our beef and dairy infastructures because in their opinion we are doing something evil?

Cows are neither a threatened species or slaughtered under the guise of scientific research. Cows are sacred to Hindus, which does not account for all Indians either.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

After translating this to english I have just thought of an interesting point. In India cattle are sacred. We eat them. Does India (population 1,000,000,000 i.e. 50 times us) have the right to force us to stop eating beef and dismantle our beef and dairy infastructures because in their opinion we are doing something evil?

Cows aren't endagered.

Japan as well as some nordic countries (Finland and Iceland I think), hunt endagered whales under the "scientific research" loophole. Whale formed a major part of many Pacific Islanders diet and trade, Tonga for one, but after the international moratorium they had to suffer hardship so whale stock could once again return to sustainable levels. Japan is preventing this by continuing to hunt.

I would like to see the return of sustainable whaling. But this is being undermined by wealthy nations who refuse to join the rest of the world on this.

[starwars_guy456]

I don't own a boat, and hardly go on the seas much...

However, if I was in that position, I guess I would be feeling the same way as if somebody had broken into my home. I would be quite scared/****ed off/willing to 'restrain' these people to hand to the nearest authority at my first available opportunity.

It doesn't really matter what the motivations of these burglars are... they could have a weapon looking to steal my stuff, or like this case looking to shove their views down my throat. I'm still going restrain them legally to stop them from escalating the situation even further.

My question is - if the Greenpeace activists were so willing to just talk, why couldn't they have used the same radio channel as the other vessel to talk? Why couldn't they have drawn closer and used a loudspeaker to protest? Why couldn't they have just played some sonar down into the ocean to scare away the whales? Instead they chose the method of the greatest provocation without really thinking about whether their own actions were legally or morally right.

maybe it's just a tactic used by Greenpeace to draw more public/media attention to the issue... but to me, it's the wrong way going about making your view heard.

Edwin

[Mark351]

Sea Shepard is not Greenpeace.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Death351

Sea Shepard is not Greenpeace.

Jamal Islamia is not Al Quaeda.........

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by flappist

Jamal Islamia is not Al Quaeda.........

[Mark351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Jamal Islamia is not Al Quaeda.........

Do some basic research. The only link between Greenpeace and Sea Shepard is that a founder of Greenpeace formed Sea Shepard in 1977 as he believed Greenpeace weren't doing enough to protect the environment through pursuing laws, etc.

It was also a Sea Shepard ship that rammed the Japanese whaling ship last season, not Greenpeace's. Sea Shepard are much more an eco-terrorist group and Greenpeace ever were.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Death351

Do some basic research. The only link between Greenpeace and Sea Shepard is that a founder of Greenpeace formed Sea Shepard in 1977 as he believed Greenpeace weren't doing enough to protect the environment through pursuing laws, etc.

It was also a Sea Shepard ship that rammed the Japanese whaling ship last season, not Greenpeace's. Sea Shepard are much more an eco-terrorist group and Greenpeace ever were.

Not all Japanese eat whales or support whaling.

The point I am trying to make is:

Is it ok to break the law in the pursuit of what you believe to be the greater good?

And if it is ok to break the law then who decides what is and is not the greater good?

After all a very effective way to stop speeding would be to execute the families of anyone found over the speed limit.

Probably a bit extreme for such a minor offence but such things have happened before and are probably happening right now.

Laos or North Korea or Tibet maybe, Columbia and Cuba spring to mind.......

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by flappist

The point I am trying to make is:

Is it ok to break the law in the pursuit of what you believe to be the greater good?

And if it is ok to break the law then who decides what is and is not the greater good?

After all a very effective way to stop speeding would be to execute the families of anyone found over the speed limit.

Probably a bit extreme for such a minor offence but such things have happened before and are probably happening right now.

Laos or North Korea or Tibet maybe, Columbia and Cuba spring to mind.......

Flappist, you might be making an interesting argument, but the fact that your confusing Greenpeace with the Sea Shepard organisation has ruined your creditibility on the matter - and the fact your posting with so much emotion.

Greenpeace wants NOTHING to do with Sea Shepard, they both have two ships down in the Australian Whale Sanctury, Greenpeace's Esperanza and Sea Shepard's Steve Irwin, and neither are co-operating with the other in relation to searching for the Japanese whaling fleet.

Have a read of these reports, it's by one of the BBC's reporters on the Greenpeace vessel, the Esperanza:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7171409.stm

Originally Posted by BBC reporter [size=2

Jonah Fisher [/size]aboard Greenpeace Esperanza]
The Esperanza and the Steve Irwin belong to rival conservation groups Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. There's little communication and no information sharing between the two ships' crews.

At present both organisations are searching independently in freezing and often impenetrable conditions while the Japanese whaling operation almost certainly continues at the rate of several whales a day.

At the centre of the disagreement is veteran campaigner Paul Watson.

The 57-year-old Canadian was an early member of Greenpeace - but left in the late 1970s to found the rival group.

The two conservation groups haven't seen eye to eye since.

Having been on board Greenpeace's ship for over three weeks and heard lots about Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson, I called him on board the Steve Irwin.

Watson's tactics are the main reason why Greenpeace refuse to work with him. In the past Sea Shepherd has rammed whaling ships, sinking some of them.

This direct action has earned them supporters but also condemnation from governments and the label eco-terrorists.

For Greenpeace - which prides itself on its peaceful methods of protest - it has made co-operating with Sea Shepherd extremely difficult.

"Everything we have done in the last 30 years has been non-violent," Paul Watson insists. "Nobody has ever been killed or injured as the result of our actions."

Having been cut off by Greenpeace, Watson regularly talks of their differences.

Stressing his willingness to co-operate "for the good of the whales", he's offered to share his helicopter and promised to publish the co-ordinates of the whaling fleet when he finds them. But for the most part his offers have been simply ignored.

Watson believes that Greenpeace has lost touch with the ideals of direct action which he says it stood for while he was an active member in the 1970s.

"If you want a story, I mean a real story, not about hanging banners and making whale snuff films then I would encourage you to follow our progress," he told me. "We are not down here to protest these killers - we are down here to stop them."

Greenpeace's strategy, when and if they find the whalers, is to deploy inflatable boats between the Japanese harpoons and the whales. It is a tactic which they call "protecting individual whales rather than targeting the whalers".

Watson says safety concerns mean he won't ram the Japanese if he finds them in the Southern Ocean.

In 2007 his ship collided with a Japanese spotter vessel with both sides blaming the other. This time he is expecting the whalers to simply take flight.

"When we show up they start running," he says. "No whales will be killed while they try and get away from us."

Watson says he's acting under a United Nations charter for nature which he says allows individuals and groups to protect endangered species.

Japan says that its whaling is legal and that Watson is a "eco-terrorist".

The regulations of the International Whaling Commission allow individual countries to authorise whaling if it is for the purpose of scientific research. This year that has meant Tokyo approving the killing of 935 minke and 50 fin whales.

Whatever the legalities, a small as yet undetermined part of Antarctica could soon be a very busy place. As well as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, an Australian government ship the Ocean Viking is also on the lookout for the whaling fleet.

[Fev]

lol owned...

Hey since we like lamb beef and chicken so much we started farming it.. hey the japs are ingenuitive.. FARM WHALES(yes i know 99% impossible). i dont think they should be whaling.. there are too few whales left, they dont breed fast and the whaling fleets are depleting them faster then they can re populate.. neither do i like them fishing for sharks for their fins (they take the fins and throw them back.. christ atleast make stew out of them or somthing!)

[mcflux]

I think the Sea Shepard group have done a smart thing, smart in the sense of them using a shrewd tactic to achieve their goals. My understanding is that if one vessel detains members of another vessel who have boarded illegally on the high seas (an act of piracy), they MUST extradite the detained members immediately to go under trial.

So, greenies illegally board whaling ship. Whaling ship detains greenies. Under law, the whaling ship must transport the detainees to their nearest soverign port immediately. This would mean that ship must stop whaling immediately and waste a month or whatever going back to Japan.

As for my personal opinion of these greenies? I wish all their fathers had settled for a blowjob instead.

[Fev]

i belive their ships should be sunk and the workers sent back to the microchip factories to make us cheaper quad core intells and motherboards(too tight to pay full price :P)

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Fev

.... the workers sent back to the microchip factories to make us cheaper quad core intells and motherboards(too tight to pay full price :P)

I think you'll find most of those computer components are made in Taiwan, Singapore or China, and not Japan.

[irlewy86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeE3t...eature=related

Bloody greenies