Greenpeace tenders attacked by reckless police

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Coops

The facts as shown then are that this organisation thinks that it is above the law, tried a ridiculous and dangerous publicity stunt and one of it's members got injured. That is the risk that they take. That is my reading of this and no amount of quasi-political, evangelistic, spin doctor talk will change my opinion.

Coops.

Yep, that's Coops, no amount of 'facts' is going to change your opinion.

[BlueBuddha]

At the end, none of this would have happened if everyone had been on sailboats using only their spinakers! I say put GP and the Armada in Catalinas 22s and let them go at it! :-)

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

At the end, none of this would have happened if everyone had been on sailboats using only their spinakers! I say put GP and the Armada in Catalinas 22s and let them go at it! :-)

And the really militant ones from both sides I'd put in Walker Bays to get their minds off of the confrontation.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

what a rediculous unintelligent argument.

Your actually claiming that no one can be environmentally conscious unless you live like a Hamish farmer. Yeah right.

I'll take that to mean you happily guzzle oil when it suits you but wail and moan when your neighbor does.

These people are just kooks who intentially goaded the spanish navy into action...and they got it.

Where was your outrage when innocent workers on fishing boats were put in danger by greenpeace's raming tactics?

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

what a rediculous unintelligent argument.

Your actually claiming that no one can be environmentally conscious unless you live like a Hamish farmer. Yeah right.

So you are OK with oil drilling - just not this oil drilling?

To say that one is an environmentalist and then attempt to stop drilling somewhere and then use oil is blatently hypocritical.

It is akin to saying, "I got my oil so f8ck you."

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Those who want to raise silly 'what type of boat do you have, does it run on diesel' I'm not going to bother to respond to. The lack of intelligence in those sort of arguments is not worthy of a response.

I would Implaud people to stick to the facts as known.

<snip>.

The facts as known.

- Repsol is conducting a legal drilling operation
- GP was told to stay clear
- GP repeatedly refused to stay clear with their mother ship
- GP launched multiple ribs and approached the drilling ship.
- Efforts to ward off the GP ribs escalated to a ramming (multiple) incident
- One of the GP people got hurt

For the Spaniards to board the GP ribs it would have required the coopoeration of the GP ribs. These are both high powered boats and could have resulted in injury to the Spaniards.

Ramming was OTT? Maybe but I can see how it escalated.

If I were Spanish Navy I would have boarded and seized the mother ship (like the Russians did) and arrested the master and mates.

All this "proportional response" talk is interesting while sitting in an armchair but it is ludicrous.

You win conflict with overwhelming force and defeat the opponents will to fight. The authorities have basically unlimited power and resources. They should be borne to bear to protect legal activities and to protect the drilling crew from harm and the Spanish navy personnel from harm.

The fundamental basis is that GP was breaking the law - and you do that you suffer consequence. The alternative is anarchy.

There are no headlines picketing the Spanish legislature.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

So you are OK with oil drilling - just not this oil drilling? Of course. That's the whole issue. It would be akin to drilling oil in the Great Barrier Reef, so of course 'location' matters. As does the reliability and regulation. Hell yes. Have you learnt nothing from Prince William Sound disaster.

To say that one is an environmentalist and then attempt to stop drilling somewhere and then use oil is blatently hypocritical. It is akin to saying, "I got my oil so f8ck you."

Alternatively you seem to be saying you can't be an environmentalist, e.g care about the environment, unless you live like some kind of hermit and don't use anything that uses oil. Which means plastics, iron, machined wood etc etc. What a radical proposition. That argument is like saying you can't care about animal welfare unless your a vegan, or you can't be against nuclear power if you use nuclear medicine.. etc. It's not hypocritical in the slightest. It's an exceptionally silly argument.

The facts as known.

- Repsol is conducting a legal drilling operation
- GP was told to stay clear
- GP repeatedly refused to stay clear with their mother ship
- GP launched multiple ribs and approached the drilling ship.
- Efforts to ward off the GP ribs escalated to a ramming (multiple) incident
- One of the GP people got hurt

For the Spaniards to board the GP ribs it would have required the coopoeration of the GP ribs. These are both high powered boats and could have resulted in injury to the Spaniards.

That's not what the video shows. The video shows repeatedly the ability for them to be boarded.

Ramming was OTT? Maybe but I can see how it escalated.

If I were Spanish Navy I would have boarded and seized the mother ship (like the Russians did) and arrested the master and mates. All this "proportional response" talk is interesting while sitting in an armchair but it is ludicrous. You win conflict with overwhelming force and defeat the opponents will to fight. The authorities have basically unlimited power and resources. They should be borne to bear to protect legal activities and to protect the drilling crew from harm and the Spanish navy personnel from harm. Yep, perhaps you would agree with capital actions. Let's shoot them? That's what Chinese do with protesters.

The fundamental basis is that GP was breaking the law - and you do that you suffer consequence. The alternative is anarchy.

There are no headlines picketing the Spanish legislature.

I do think more 'factual' information needs to be known. But what is clear to me is that the navy over reacted and I doubt, they had the legal authority to do what they did. The mere fact that the navy is now telling the press something entirely different to what you see happened in the video I think is evidence that the navy know they were too heavy handed.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

............... The fundamental basis is that GP was breaking the law - and you do that you suffer consequence. The alternative is anarchy................. .

Ant those are words to live by.

[snort]

What I saw in the video could have had fatal consequences. The police were wrong.
I actually used to live there and some of these guys are absolute pricks, so I'm with Greenpeace on this one.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Yep, that's Coops, no amount of 'facts' is going to change your opinion.

Facts can change my opinion. Rubbish information posted as facts that are mere sensationalist, inspired from biased opinions, can never do so.

Coops.

[Island Time O25]

And yes, I believe that protesting nuclear power in abstract but then using it's advances in medicine is hypocritical. As well as being an animal welfare advocate and also a meat eater. Isn't it obvious? It is very easy to be for or against something on someone else's dime. It's quite another thing to put your money, comfort and lifestyle where your mouth is. Whether it's a politician wanting to ban guns yet very comfortable with his own armed security detail or Hollywood celebrity extolling the virtues of "green living" while hopping around in 6.7L SUV, one of many kept in his 20,000sf mansion.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by snort

What I saw in the video could have had fatal consequences. The police were wrong..............

No, GP was wrong. They intentionally broke the law to bring a reaction from law enforcement and they got what they asked for. Hopefully, they will learn from this (though I doubt it because the leaders aren't the ones putting themselves in harm's way).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Those who want to raise silly 'what type of boat do you have, does it run on diesel' I'm not going to bother to respond to. The lack of intelligence in those sort of arguments is not worthy of a response.

I would Implaud people to stick to the facts as known.

One of these claims that the general public are against Greenpeace actions is simply not factual. Read the Spanish newspapers. The Canary Island populace along with the Canary Island council are also strongly apposed to this drilling. The fisherman are against, as are the tourist operators. It's a very unpopular federal government operation in support of big rich business.

"Implaud"? And with a capital "I"? I thought I knew the English language pretty well, but I drew a blank with this. Is it "implode"? "Exploit"? "Implore"? Or what? And why the capital "I"? Throw us a bone over here.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif View Post
............... The fundamental basis is that GP was breaking the law - and you do that you suffer consequence. The alternative is anarchy................. .

Originally Posted by rwidman

Ant those are words to live by.

Rosa Parks keeps coming to mind on this thread...

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by conachair

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif View Post
............... The fundamental basis is that GP was breaking the law - and you do that you suffer consequence. The alternative is anarchy................. .



Rosa Parks keeps coming to mind on this thread...

She did have a legal right to be on that bus and sit on any unoccupied seat. Even if the state authorities while disregarding US Constitution thought otherwise.

Don't think you can say the same thing about GP and the oil rig.

If anything it is the oil rig people who are the "Rosa Parks" in this situation. And btw I'm definitely not a fan of big oil and their ilk. But do hope everyone follows the same rules when registering a political protest.

[Coops]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Implaud"? And with a capital "I"? I thought I knew the English language pretty well, but I drew a blank with this. Is it "implode"? "Exploit"? "Implore"? Or what? And why the capital "I"? Throw us a bone over here.

I know that there is no such word as implaud, with or without the capital, in Australia either. I'm betting on implore.

Coops.