Greenpeace tenders attacked by reckless police

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I was referring to the comment about grappling hooks, cutters etc? Where did that come from?

Incidents like this bring out such hyprocritics. The 'ramming' in a reckless and dangerous manner is fully justified by you two when it's the police doing the 'ramming', but when sea shepherd do the policing against illegal poaching, then you criticise them.

Yeah. I forgot to comment on the ramming. I won't say it was uncalled for as I don't know the context. I don't know what else was tried to ward off the approaching ribs in advance of the ramming.

Clearly the Greenpeace ribs were attempting to come alongside the drilling vessel - what for? can you explaing that?

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

And of course the object itself is another thing. The drilling for oil in the Canary islands? Seriously? Are you guys just sailing for what? Absolutely no care in the world for the environment you sail in?

I am not saying it is right or wrong. But it is ironic as pointed out that Greenpeace runs these big diesel ships...

I made my argument for how they should protest - I won't add further other than to reiterate - you don't do it at sea at a legal operation putting professional seamen at risk while they are just doing their jobs.

Take it to the government steps - Oh unless you are trying to antagonize the operation to get "shocking" video clips.

If you can't see both sides of this thing then maybe you need to clean your lenses.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I was referring to the comment about grappling hooks, cutters etc? Where did that come from?

Incidents like this bring out such hyprocritics. The 'ramming' in a reckless and dangerous manner is fully justified by you two when it's the police doing the 'ramming', but when sea shepherd do the policing against illegal poaching, then you criticise them.

And of course the object itself is another thing. The drilling for oil in the Canary islands? Seriously? Are you guys just sailing for what? Absolutely no care in the world for the environment you sail in?

Big difference between the legal authorities enforcing the law after giving the thugs plenty of oppurtunity to vacate the site vs thugs with a boat illegally pushing thier agenda.

Before you get all high and mighty about protecting the environment, I'm sure your boat:
- Has no engine
- Certainly not made from oil based FRP
- Doesn't use modern oil based sail materials.
- Doesn't use any teak or other rare woods.
- Doesn't use any of that nasty bottom paint
- Etc....

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

and in my mind have a right to protect their operation.

You do think a government agency ramming small vessils at sea resulting in a broken limb is an acceptable way to go about this?

That's the question here.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by conachair

You do think a government agency ramming small vessils at sea resulting in a broken limb is an acceptable way to go about this?

That's the question here.

It's not the only question. Did you miss this post?

Yeah. I forgot to comment on the ramming. I won't say it was uncalled for as I don't know the context. I don't know what else was tried to ward off the approaching ribs in advance of the ramming.

Clearly the Greenpeace ribs were attempting to come alongside the drilling vessel - what for? can you explaing that?

BTW - Did you see how close they were to the drilling ship?

Maybe pirates just need to raise a "Greenpeace" flag in order to come alongside any ship at sea. Oh and don't tell me they weren't pirates because they were white.

I won't validate the grappling hook theory but who on board the drilling ship or the authorities knew the intent of the Greenpeace ribs? Maybe they wanted to attach a sticky bomb to the ships hull and sink it.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Maybe pirates just need to raise a "Greenpeace" flag in order to come alongside any ship at sea. Oh and don't tell me they weren't pirates because they were white.

Maybe not pirates, but terrorists.

[bgallinger]

Originally Posted by StuM

From the horses mouth:

The Spanish News in English: Greenpeace boat rammed by Spanish Navy, four injured (Video)

"The Greenpeace ship, Arctic Sunrise, occupied the drill site off the Canary Islands prior to the arrival of the drilling vessel. And it stayed there, despite strong pressure from the authorities. The video below shows the captain of the Arctic Sunrise, telling the Spanish authorities that they were staying put, and telling the navy ships to stay away at a distance of at least one mile:"

WTF did they expect, "Yes sir, our navy will obey your commands in our territorial waters"?

Aahh...there's the greenpeace we all know. All showmanship and no substance, and no sense of reality.

[thinwater]

I think it's interesting that the Spaniards have outlawed fracing, but are comfortable drilling off-shore. A double standard?

As for Greenpeace's maritime antics, if you create situations and push the envelope over and over again, there will be incidents. Any reasonable judge would consider the impeccable Green Peace safety policy and record, and filter any facts accordingly.

[zeehag]

i found it most enlightening that the owner/captain (per self) of ship SEA SHEPHERD when in marina del rey in 1991 was bragging on how much concrete he had had poured into the bow of his ship so he could "ram other vessels " in the zones in which he was to patrol.
he was 2 fingers away from our boat, which was on main channel in tahiti marina
seems a little off to me that something supposedly out in the name of alleged peace should depart with a verbalized intent to RAM other boats in international waters.
no i do not support these folks. they are soulless and hypocritical.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by conachair

You do think a government agency ramming small vessils at sea resulting in a broken limb is an acceptable way to go about this?

That's the question here.

I noticed the Greenpeace vid edited out a large chunk of time between the "we're here for a peaceful protest" blurb, and them being close to the exploration vessels. There was a note in one of the articles about it being an exclusion zone, and we are not privy to the actions of the Navy in the missing time period. Did it start with verbal warnings, then escalate? I suspect it did, so I think the action we see would be an acceptable escalation of force. If the protesters persisted in approaching the vessels despite being warned off by the authorities, what would you see as an acceptable response? As someone has already intimated, if terrorists wanted to make a big boom, a rhib carries a lot of C4 - look up USS Cole. There are valid reasons to keep threatening boats away from oil rigs.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by zeehag

i found it most enlightening that the owner/captain (per self) of ship SEA SHEPHERD when in marina del rey in 1991 was bragging on how much concrete he had had poured into the bow of his ship so he could "ram other vessels " in the zones in which he was to patrol.
he was 2 fingers away from our boat, which was on main channel in tahiti marina
seems a little off to me that something supposedly out in the name of alleged peace should depart with a verbalized intent to RAM other boats in international waters.
no i do not support these folks. they are soulless and hypocritical.

Those guys are (probably) well intentioned (positively and certainly) idiots. The first episode of their TV show was a hilarious demonstration of how not to launch a boat, and it just gets more and more unbelievable. At this point I am basically ready to believe anything negative said or written about these bozos.

Just a handful of responsible and professional seamen in the bunch, right from the start, would have done a lot for their image and credibility. As it is, they are their own worst enemy as they seek to bring important issues to the world stage. Few sensible folks will give much credence to a rabble of keystone cop style radical activists who have an utter disregard for the law and tradition of the sea.

[Hud3]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I was referring to the comment about grappling hooks, cutters etc? Where did that come from?...

No photos of grappling hooks, but from the Greenpeace video, it appears that this fellow was geared up for something, likely boarding the drilling vessel.

Governments take vessel security very seriously these days, viz., the vigorously enforced exclusion zones around US Navy ships by heavily armed RIBs. I don't fault the Spanish for doing the same, though it's too bad someone was injured. I can't help but think that the Greenpeace PR folks like to provoke such incidents just so they can splash them around the Internet.
.

[GrowleyMonster]

I might point out that a drill ship on site is a vessel that is under Restricted Ability to Maneuver, according to the colregs, and other vessels are required to keep clear. It's not an option. Hooliganistic interference is not excused by lofty intentions. They should have been arrested and imprisoned.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by StuM

They were repeatedly told to vacate a declared exclusion zone they were occupying. They repeatedly refused and continued to approach the drill ship equipped with cutters, grapnels and climbing gear.

They're lucky they weren't sunk by gunfire.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

I might point out that a drill ship on site is a vessel that is under Restricted Ability to Maneuver, according to the colregs, and other vessels are required to keep clear. It's not an option. Hooliganistic interference is not excused by lofty intentions. They should have been arrested and imprisoned.

I agree, but what was the point of the ramming? It severely injured one person and minorly injured others. I saw no evidence of grappling hooks or any other weapons in the videos and I looked closely several times. I saw no evidence there protesters tried to run or interfere with the Navy boats (police?). I don't understand why they didn't simply pull up to the side of the boat, board them, and place them in custody if they were in fact breaking one of their laws. Trying to take credit for a rescue when they caused the problem was a bit over the top. I've never heard of the cops beating someone to the point of needing hospitalization then trying to claim credit for saving their life by taking them to the hospital. They might claim that the injured party deserved it, but a rescue? I think this was a bit of machismo run amok.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

I agree, but what was the point of the ramming? It severely injured one person and minorly injured others. I saw no evidence of grappling hooks or any other weapons in the videos and I looked closely several times. I saw no evidence there protesters tried to run or interfere with the Navy boats (police?). I don't understand why they didn't simply pull up to the side of the boat, board them, and place them in custody if they were in fact breaking one of their laws. Trying to take credit for a rescue when they caused the problem was a bit over the top. I've never heard of the cops beating someone to the point of needing hospitalization then trying to claim credit for saving their life by taking them to the hospital. They might claim that the injured party deserved it, but a rescue? I think this was a bit of machismo run amok.

You pre-suppose that that the ramming side was 100% confident that there were no weapons or expolsives on board of the rammed boat. What if they followed your advice, boarded with intent to effectuate arrest and were maimed or killed by booby traps, gun fire or c4 explosion? In a case where a boat has already shown disregard for Colregs' based lawful orders by maritime authorities to stand clear it was prudent of them not to engage greenpeaceniks by boarding but rather by rescuing them from the water. Considering that the whole situation was unprovoked and would have been easier and smarter handled by land based protests, boycotts, marches, etc., I'd rather hear of the ire of some greenpeaceniks at being rammed than to hear the ire of those seamen's families at their loved ones dying from some terrorist act which could have been prevented by ramming.

Not to mention all the fossil fuel expended by both the greenpeaceniks and caused to be wasted as a result of their behavior I find this "protest" unconscienable to begin with from a reasonable person's point of view. For each protest like that they loose thousands if not millions of potential allies and supporters and only will attract the craziest of them to their cause. At some point I will begin to think that all of those "greenpeace harrassers" are gov't agents working to destroy enviro movement by their stupid and dangerous antics. Historically not an unheard of method against prior protest movements of all sorts.