Greenpeace tenders attacked by reckless police

[a64pilot]

The Greenpeace folks got exactly what they wanted, they couldn't have planned it any better.
The Spanish Navy screwed the pooch, someone lost a career that day.

The Spanish should have simply arrested the protesters

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The Greenpeace folks got exactly what they wanted, they couldn't have planned it any better.
The Spanish Navy screwed the pooch, someone lost a career that day.

The Spanish should have simply arrested the protesters

May be they're not as politically correct as we are here and will not bow to the pressure from greenpeaceniks. I believe their Constitution still lists Christianity as official state religion.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I actually sympatize with and support their goals but definitely not their tactics. And no I am not a "fox watching rightwinger". But I also detest them for using nazi-like tactics of disregarding the law for advancing a just cause and creating situations where others have no choice but to respond with counter-violence. These were not peaceful demonstrators out to make their views known. These were obnoxious and unruly zealots who do not count the popular sentiment against them as a guide for their actions but rather as a prod for more antics.

I agree with this, but let's not forget that there is a place for civil disobedience in the world. Where would we be without Rosa Parks? Without Gandhi? So I don't agree that there is never a place for disregarding the law. But you are right that these are nasty tactics, intended to provoke violence, and not to be confused with truly peaceful protesters like Rosa Parks and Gandhi, who never whined about taking the legal penalty for their acts of civil disobedience, which besides that were truly peaceful and never provocations to violence.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

True. But Rosa Parks also lived in an era where civilian ribs did not attack and blow up naval vessels, passenger planes were not used to crash skyscrapers and people in general did not aspire to use illegal means to effectuate lofty and moral goals. The argument of disproportionate response is not very compelling if one takes into account disproportionality of the initial GP actions which led to Armada response. Why attack or threaten the working stiffs there when the real culprits behind the drilling are in the seats of power elswhere?

Perhaps I missed something, but when was a civilian RIB ever used to blow up a Naval vessel? If I remember the Cole incident correctly it was a fiberglass speed boat. Did I miss anther boat attack on a naval vessel using a RIB?

As for people blowing up things in protest, it has been going on in the US since the 1800's. Every decade had had at least one bombing except perhaps the 40's. I would submit that Rosa Parks did live in a time when such things happened. Look at the history of the KKK in the US. Though in her case one might argue that the KKK was on the side of the authorities. Granted the use of airplanes against buildings by civilians is a new one, though I would classify Al Queda as a military organization myself. It is and always has been quite common for guerrilla movements to use civilian vehicles as weapons, just because they are now using modern vehicles instead of horse drawn wagons, and they are more effective, doesn't change the tactic.

It's my opinion that aside from the fact that we live with a 24 hour news cycle and every incident produces global headlines things are not that much different than they have been in the past. The level of paranoia here is unbelievable. You people are seeing terrorists under every bush. Terrorist don't announce that they're coming. The 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Cole bombers, the World trade center 1993 bombers, the Boston marathon bombers, the Oklahoma city bombers, the Olympic bomber, and I could list many more, never announced that they were going to protest something in advance. Everyone who protests is not a terrorist or even a potential terrorist. Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Get real people.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

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....

what a rediculous unintelligent argument.

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

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Perhaps I missed something, but when was a civilian RIB ever used to blow up a Naval vessel? If I remember the Cole incident correctly it was a fiberglass speed boat. Did I miss anther boat attack on a naval vessel using a RIB?

As for people blowing up things in protest, it has been going on in the US since the 1800's. Every decade had had at least one bombing except perhaps the 40's. I would submit that Rosa Parks did live in a time when such things happened. Look at the history of the KKK in the US. Though in her case one might argue that the KKK was on the side of the authorities. Granted the use of airplanes against buildings by civilians is a new one, though I would classify Al Queda as a military organization myself. It is and always has been quite common for guerrilla movements to use civilian vehicles as weapons, just because they are now using modern vehicles instead of horse drawn wagons, and they are more effective, doesn't change the tactic.

It's my opinion that aside from the fact that we live with a 24

hour news cycle and every incident produces global headlines things are not that much different than they have been in the past. The level of paranoia here is unbelievable. You people are seeing terrorists under every bush. Terrorist don't announce that they're coming. The 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Cole bombers, the World trade center 1993 bombers, the Boston marathon bombers, the Oklahoma city bombers, the Olympic bomber, and I could list many more, never announced that they were going to protest something in advance. Everyone who protests is not a terrorist or even a potential terrorist. Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Get real people.

I'm with ya

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

The issue of proportionality is always dismissed when the victims are those whose politics you disagree with. Had these been right wing activists protesting a Greenpeace boat, most of you defending the Armada would be complaining about the Armada's unnecessary use of potentially deadly force. We all see the world through the lenses of our politics and the well-being of others is only our concern when the "others" think like us.

one of the few sensible responses that doesn't twist the facts, adds things that didn't happen, bring the 'terrorists' word in. And you clearly articulated the issue. The authorities used reckless behaviour which was over the top for what was occurring.

[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.

[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.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Perhaps I missed something, but when was a civilian RIB ever used to blow up a Naval vessel? If I remember the Cole incident correctly it was a fiberglass speed boat. Did I miss anther boat attack on a naval vessel using a RIB?

As for people blowing up things in protest, it has been going on in the US since the 1800's. Every decade had had at least one bombing except perhaps the 40's. I would submit that Rosa Parks did live in a time when such things happened. Look at the history of the KKK in the US. Though in her case one might argue that the KKK was on the side of the authorities. Granted the use of airplanes against buildings by civilians is a new one, though I would classify Al Queda as a military organization myself. It is and always has been quite common for guerrilla movements to use civilian vehicles as weapons, just because they are now using modern vehicles instead of horse drawn wagons, and they are more effective, doesn't change the tactic.

It's my opinion that aside from the fact that we live with a 24 hour news cycle and every incident produces global headlines things are not that much different than they have been in the past. The level of paranoia here is unbelievable. You people are seeing terrorists under every bush. Terrorist don't announce that they're coming. The 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, the Madrid train bombers, the Cole bombers, the World trade center 1993 bombers, the Boston marathon bombers, the Oklahoma city bombers, the Olympic bomber, and I could list many more, never announced that they were going to protest something in advance. Everyone who protests is not a terrorist or even a potential terrorist. Civil disobedience is not terrorism. Get real people.

We're going on a tangent here but anyway.

Terrorists do anounce in general that they're coming but we usually either disregard their warnings or downgrade them until it's too late. Just like Hitler announced all of his intentions and goals in Mein Kampf in the early 20s, almost 20 years prior to the camps and the ovens.

And my oppositon to GP tactics in this instance has nothing to do with terrorism or paranoia. I am just voicing the possible point of view of the captain of that ramming vessel. Yes. personally, in his place, I would shoot out or punctured the rib and fished the protesters out of the water. But I wasn't there so I can't say if the captain was right or wrong in abstract. But in my world view the guilty always is the person who started not the person who may have overreacted in their response. So yes I will not condemn a person against whom a knife or a fist is used and hwo pulls out a gun to protect him or her self.

As to Cole attack does it really matter if this was a true rib or a fully FRP or an aluminum boat? And did the attackers fly a flag and had insignia as per Geneva Convention? I don't think so.

As far as living in a 24/7 news cycle you probably noticed yourself if you lived or stayed for any length of time outside US that there are lot of news very important news that never make it on Fox, CNN or any other US based media. So I'm not even going to address it as that "news cycle" is just as manufactured or tweaked for a particular market as any commercial for breakfast cereal.

This incident certainly was not an act of civil disobedience but a willful and deliberate act of attempted sabotage and criminal trespass. And should be treated as such.

[Island Time O25]

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.

That actually better fits those who harangue everyone to be "green" yet themsleves impose an enormous carbon foot print on evertyhing they touch. And to criticize their hypocracy somehow shows "lack of intelligence"? Wow...

[BlueBuddha]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

This incident certainly was not an act of civil disobedience but a willful and deliberate act of attempted sabotage and criminal trespass. And should be treated as such.

The question again is about proportionality. The definition of "Treated as such" depends on the context. In your world view, would you agree with the Armada if they had simply pulled some machine guns and killed everyone on those boats? I would assume not (If you do, then there is little to debate. We truly live in different ethical worlds). But I assume that you and most if not all in this thread agree that killing everyone with machine guns would not have been justified. This is because we all agree that proportionality is needed (regardless of who started it). We may disagree however, on whether using the boat as a weapon was proportionate. Here, even reasonable people may disagree even when we both agree on the need for proportionality.

[rwidman]

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..

That says it pretty well.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by BlueBuddha

The question again is about proportionality. The definition of "Treated as such" depends on the context. In your world view, would you agree with the Armada if they had simply pulled some machine guns and killed everyone on those boats? I would assume not (If you do, then there is little to debate. We truly live in different ethical worlds). But I assume that you and most if not all in this threat agree that killing everyone with machine guns would not have been justified. This is because we all agree that proportionality is needed (regardless of who started it). We may disagree however, on whether using the boat as a weapon was proportionate. Here, even reasonable people may disagree even when we both agree on the need for proportionality.

You keep saying "proportionality" like it has a fixed definition. It is in the eyes of the beholder. For you responding by ramming is dispoportional but not say puncturing the tubes. To me also killing them would be disproportional (as any killing would be other than in response to being shot at). To someone else anything short of applauding GP attackers, pinning a medal upon them and haulting the oil production is disproportional. And so on. The best solution not to have to deal with "proportionality" issue in the first place is for GP not to run around the oil rigs especially with the news being what they are from the Middle East, etc. And work with their support base in making politicians accountable to the electorate and not just to the lobbyists or donors.

While not a tree hugger, like I said I fully sympatize with the GP goals of no oil rigs in the middle of the ocean but their antics will not stop drilling and could actually backfire. Which I fear was the whole prupose of this stunt what's with the Keystone vote coming up in Congress. Now every fox watching yahu will clobber their congressmen with "drill baby drill".

[Island Time O25]

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.

Well said. And most importantly - succint.