Is greenpeace a terrorist organisation?

[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.

[MRJUCY]

Environmentalism is a religion & they're no different to any other religious extremists.

[FGII-XR6]

I see your point and I mostly dissagree with the methods of greenpeace but the boarding was an unarmed non violent act and done after there was a ruling that the whaling was infact illegal. As their acts are not calculated to endanger lives the term terrorist is a bit strong. ratbags , lunatics, fanatics, zealots all could apply to this group but their intentions are non violent so terroist would seem to be in appropriate in this case. often the causes of greenpeace are over the top but the harvesting of whales which are endangered ( not all whales are) in the name of science ( lets scientifically test which breed tastes best ????) should be stoped it's just the methods which are questionable

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

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

[/size]

OK, I was just going by what I saw on TV and Sea Shepard and Greenpeace seemed to be intermixed quite often. It is interesting that most of the responders agreed with me so the media have spun this quite a bit.

The IRA and Sinn Fein were two facets of the same argument also, one legal the other not so.

Rename the thread "Is Sea Shepard a terrorist group" if it will make it easier but the point I was trying to debate is the "End justifies the means".

This also applies to people who sit is trees to block clearing or whatever.

The "I am right and you are wrong so anything I do to stop you is ok" mentality is becoming far too prevalent.

[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?

[drew`SEVNT5]

is it not a fact that only Australia and New Zealand recognise our claim on those waters?

[fmc351]

Id say nice try Flappist, but its not even close. The intentions are very important, there is no intention to cause death or injury, a fundamental part of terrorism.

Whaling is not legal in the area the Japanese are doing so. The area is a reserve.

They are not pirates as they covered their butts with a letter of intent, and have not ventured beyond that letter of intent according to the information available so far. A pirate seeks to take command of a ship. The Sea Shepherd crew have merely created an incident that causes no physical harm that gains attention, while stopping the Japanese ship from carrying out its illegal actions.

No-one is saying the Japanese eating whales goes against our sensibilities, Jesus you dont need to worry about India and cows for examples, theres vegans you could compare to, talk about sensationalism. Whales are endangered, the numbers are not great, although improved due to world efforts to stop what Japan is doing.

Lets look, half baked idea, connections that dont exist, scare tactics using terms like piracy and terrorism with no foundation in law.Do you write for Today Tonight Flappist? Build your soapbox out of wood, this cardboard one is flat.

If it wasnt for actions like these, nothing would be done. The Japanese are, and always have hunted in protected waters. The government is meant to protect the sanctuary and enforce its purpose, but they do nothing but send a politican to enjoy the other nations hospitality and air grievances, only to have them return again as if nothing happened. What about the mockery of our past government not enforcing its obligations under the reserve? What do you say when Indonesian ships fish the northern waters?

Like it or not, these people have more Aussie spirit than most on here. Think about the things we as Aussies enjoy, and then think how we went from being convicts with no rights or at best subservients of Kings, to what freedoms we enjoy today. Eureka Stockade, unions fighting (not simple strikes) for conditions in the late 19th century continuing to the early 20th century. Agree or disagree with current unions only a halfwit is unaware of the necessary fight of that period. You forget where you come from, or where whatever you enjoy comes from. What we enjoy does not stem from world wars, wars protect us from forces outside, the rights we enjoy result from battles within.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by flappist

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.

NZ is a sovereign state, and at the very least the port was NZ. The US would regard an event as an act of war if the Taliban or Al Q sunk a private vessel in their territory.

We did declare war on the Taliban who until that point were the recognised government of Afghanistan.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Id say nice try Flappist, but its not even close. The intentions are very important, there is no intention to cause death or injury, a fundamental part of terrorism.

Whaling is not legal in the area the Japanese are doing so. The area is a reserve.

They are not pirates as they covered their butts with a letter of intent, and have not ventured beyond that letter of intent according to the information available so far. A pirate seeks to take command of a ship. The Sea Shepherd crew have merely created an incident that causes no physical harm that gains attention, while stopping the Japanese ship from carrying out its illegal actions.

No-one is saying the Japanese eating whales goes against our sensibilities, Jesus you dont need to worry about India and cows for examples, theres vegans you could compare to, talk about sensationalism. Whales are endangered, the numbers are not great, although improved due to world efforts to stop what Japan is doing.

Lets look, half baked idea, connections that dont exist, scare tactics using terms like piracy and terrorism with no foundation in law.Do you write for Today Tonight Flappist? Build your soapbox out of wood, this cardboard one is flat.

If it wasnt for actions like these, nothing would be done. The Japanese are, and always have hunted in protected waters. The government is meant to protect the sanctuary and enforce its purpose, but they do nothing but send a politican to enjoy the other nations hospitality and air grievances, only to have them return again as if nothing happened. What about the mockery of our past government not enforcing its obligations under the reserve? What do you say when Indonesian ships fish the northern waters?

Like it or not, these people have more Aussie spirit than most on here. Think about the things we as Aussies enjoy, and then think how we went from being convicts with no rights or at best subservients of Kings, to what freedoms we enjoy today. Eureka Stockade, unions fighting (not simple strikes) for conditions in the late 19th century continuing to the early 20th century. Agree or disagree with current unions only a halfwit is unaware of the necessary fight of that period. You forget where you come from, or where whatever you enjoy comes from. What we enjoy does not stem from world wars, wars protect us from forces outside, the rights we enjoy result from battles within.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

NZ is a sovereign state, and at the very least the port was NZ. The US would regard an event as an act of war if the Taliban or Al Q sunk a private vessel in their territory.

We did declare war on the Taliban who until that point were the recognised government of Afghanistan.

Maintain the rage........

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Maintain the rage........

I didnt start the thread. Id say youre the one with the rage.


An activist is an activist, no matter which side of the fence he sits.

[ubute]

Excuse my ignorance if I'm wrong, but the greenies boarding the whaling (research) ship wasn't an act of terrorism or illegal in that they declared their intentions to board to deliver a letter, which my understanding is legal to do in nautical laws. It is also my understanding that the Japs are illegally whaling (researching) in Australian territorial waters of Antarctica...

[Dave_au]

Food for thought (or Whale for thought)

For the record, the Japanese plan to take 950 Minke whales, which are classied as "near threatened", with estimates of a global population by the IWC of 184,000.

Therefore, the Japanese plan to hunt and kill 0.0051% of the population of Minke whales, or 5 in 1000.

The Japanese also plan to take 50 fin whales. The IWC lists these whales as endangered, with a global population estimates of fin whales uncertain, ranging from 5000 - 82500.

Therefore, the Japanese plan to hunt and kill between (at worst) 2.5% to 0.0006% of the Fin whale population, or 10 per 1000/ 6 per 10,000.

[irlewy86]

Don't forget the 50 humpbacks they wanted to nab as well.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Don't forget the 50 humpbacks they wanted to nab as well.

They relented and decided not to go for the humpbacks.

[flappist]

This thread is going off topic.

The idea to be discussed is not "Is whaling bad" but "Is it ok to break the law if you think you are doing good".

Regardless of intentions or messages unless they had permission the greenies cannot board a vessel on the high seas.

I did expect this to get a bit emotive as like the rest of the world, we have within our ranks those who burr up and tend miss or ignore the big picture.

Reading back over the thread it appears that the general concensis is that:

1) Whaling is bad and should be stopped.
2) The boarding incedent went a bit too far.
3) Greenpeace/SeaShepard are extremist ratbags not terrorists because they have not killed or hurt anyone.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

Therefore, the Japanese plan to hunt and kill between (at worst) 2.5% to 0.0006% of the Fin whale population, or 10 per 1000/ 6 per 10,000.

My bad - at worse 1%

[T3ts50]

Originally Posted by flappist

This thread is going off topic.

The idea to be discussed is not "Is whaling bad" but "Is it ok to break the law if you think you are doing good".

It really depends on what your defination of good is. IMO, if the law being broken isnt going to hurt anybody any way at all, then I say go for it.

[Fev]

dont call them hippies.. call them SEEAAAA POLIIIICCE!!! lets make a tv series out of it and their boat talks in a weird stiff accent

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by T3ts50

It really depends on what your defination of good is. IMO, if the law being broken isnt going to hurt anybody any way at all, then I say go for it.

/me drives to nearest industrial estate with stockies on the back

[Fev]

heheh THATS THE WAY!!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by flappist

This thread is going off topic.

The idea to be discussed is not "Is whaling bad" but "Is it ok to break the law if you think you are doing good".
.

you opened the can of whales oops worms it was always going to include whaling given the situation as whaling is at the heart of the issue

[flappist]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

you opened the can of whales oops worms it was always going to include whaling given the situation as whaling is at the heart of the issue

So true

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

This thread is going off topic.

The idea to be discussed is not "Is whaling bad" but "Is it ok to break the law if you think you are doing good".

Regardless of intentions or messages unless they had permission the greenies cannot board a vessel on the high seas.

I did expect this to get a bit emotive as like the rest of the world, we have within our ranks those who burr up and tend miss or ignore the big picture.

Reading back over the thread it appears that the general concensis is that:

1) Whaling is bad and should be stopped.
2) The boarding incedent went a bit too far.
3) Greenpeace/SeaShepard are extremist ratbags not terrorists because they have not killed or hurt anyone.

The question is also did they any illegal acts like piracy or anything of that nature? Current theory is no, the letter of intent puts their actions within the scope of maritime law, or international law. If thats true, your entire premise behind the thread falls over.

Given your first conclusion based on the thread, your third makes no sense. The Japanese using loopholes in protected waters has been going on for years, not weeks or months. If GP or SS werent doing something, there would be no-one doing anything. They are the only ones actually making a difference, and their 'antics' are what make governments sit up and act on things like protecting whales in the first place.

Oh, and clearly you burr up and miss the big picture, you only ever see your own soapbox while hypocritically pointing at others. Since you want to digress into insults like a schoolboy Ill address you like one, whenever you point at someone, three of your own fingers are pointing back at you. You started the thread, activist. Oh thats right, its your soapbox, obviously this is something different.

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by fmc351

The Japanese using loopholes in protected waters has been going on for years, not weeks or months.

The waters are not protected, they are designated as international waters. The Australian claim to the waters is not recognised, we have 0 juristiction over the area.

[Falcon_Phill]

They killed animals. It is cruel as it was just for them to eat when they dont NEED to. So as far as im concerned the Japanese can get stuffed and should let the boys go. It all comes down to ****ing money, not whether someone is a terrorist or not.

[ebxr8240]

90% of it is going into cat food ....
No they are not terrorists...
The young Japanese don't eat it anyway...
Besides there's too much Mercury in it ....

[Falcon_Phill]

Oh theres too much mercury in it, so lets just kill them all. Who gave humans the right to kill them anyway? I could write a book discussing why this is wrong, but I'm tired, and it will only be combated with another argument that will eventually get this topic locked.

Good on Greenpeace.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Walkinshaw

The waters are not protected, they are designated as international waters. The Australian claim to the waters is not recognised, we have 0 juristiction over the area.

Australias claim to the waters is not relevant. They are in the Southern Ocean, an ocean protected by the moratorium on whaling. Most of the waters sth of 40 degrees south are protected waters. We are the most likely, and best suited nation to defend them. Even the US runs most of its Antarctic missions from here and NZ.

This thread wouldnt have anything to do with Rudds claims before the election to use NAVY ships to enforce the moratorium, and righty loons electioneering claims that would be piracy? When in reality it would be Australian naval vessels acting as a visual deterent to anything that went beyond the loophole. I mean Im looking at the OP, remembering his threads before the election, and cant help but wonder.

[minheim]

At least SS and GP are not hypocrites like the Japanese. As I understand it whale meat only became a "cultural" food at the conclusion of WW2 when the occupied Japanese needed to be fed a high source of protein. The current Japanese activity is commercial whaling not true research and basically is unnecessary. As I understand it the stockpiles of whale meat are so large and unwanted that it it is used for pet food and recently the Japanese have started a program to introduce it into schools in the hope they can create a market. DNA testing of meat at markets I understand has also revealed on occasion the prsence of other species like blue whale (highly endangered). The Norwegians aren't much better either so. It is well known that the Japanese want a full resumption of commercial whaling and are prepared to and have been buying votes at the IWCC meetings. Once commercial whaling becomes the norm you can kiss goodbye to rare species as they will be taken if the opportunity presents.

Sure SS and GP can be extremist but they are not terrorists or murderers.

[FPV GT]

Most certainly.

Especially when they try and block re-circulating water outlets, and not realise
1. The pressure behind the water.....
2. The ensuring explosion damage etc, that would have blown them up.

[AC/DC]

The Japs on the whaling boat should have shot the dinghy with the whale harpoon.

And they need a 100m flame thrower.

AC/DC