Is greenpeace a terrorist organisation?

[Mark351]

Sea Shepard have claimed to have sunk ships before. Check out this list from the Wikipedia page.

Sea Shepherd claims to have sunk ten whaling ships since 1979, referring to these ships as "pirates".[21] The claimed attacks include:

1979 - The whaler "Sierra" rammed and sunk in Portugal.
1980 - The whalers "Isba I" and "Isba II" sunk in Vigo, Spain.
1980 - The whalers "Susan" and "Theresa" sunk in South Africa.
1981 - The whaling ships "Hvalur 6" and "Hvalur 7" sunk in Iceland.
1992 - The whaler "Nybraena" sunk in Norway.
1994 - The whaler "Senet" sunk in Norway.
1998 - The whaler "Morild" sunk in Norway.

[Taxman]

I have heard it often said, "The only true wilderness is between a greenies ears".

[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.

[blur1]

the yanks should have finished what they started in 1945.

[NAK302]

very emotional issue this one for plenty of folks who see the horrible pictures spread across the nightly news.
regardless of the emotion involved those two fellas should have been tried for piracy, not saved by our kneejerking government.

[nugget378]

I wonder if whale tastes like chicken? :P

[aye you]

everything tastes like chicken

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by aye you

everything tastes like chicken

except chicken.

[kremmen]

Let em kill 500 whales a year, who cares.

Its the tuna the Japs have hunted to near extinction. The tuna stocks will be so hammered in 5 years time that it will be impossible for them to repopulate. As if the Japs give a F*&%. They will just keep paying higher and higher prices getting the smaller countries to illegally fish tuna to extinction.

If you can't farm it, don't f&^%ken eat it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by kremmen

Let em kill 500 whales a year, who cares.

Its the tuna the Japs have hunted to near extinction. The tuna stocks will be so hammered in 5 years time that it will be impossible for them to repopulate. As if the Japs give a F*&%. They will just keep paying higher and higher prices getting the smaller countries to illegally fish tuna to extinction.

If you can't farm it, don't f&^%ken eat it.

But tuna isnt cute and hasn't been in kids movies, cartoons or Star Trek.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

But tuna isnt cute and hasn't been in kids movies, cartoons or Star Trek.

What is that supposed to be a statement of?

Do you think there arent environmentalists who would champion the cause of Tuna? Might help if people didnt brand them with slurs and actually listened to the arguments before making a judgment. Problem with most people is stocks of anything need to be perilously low before most buffoons can see there is a problem, at which time the road to recovery is dangerously close to impossible.

Wonder why that happens? You can bet it isnt the lack of an animal movie star. The media target audiences, thats you, how do you respond to an environmentalist speaking on issues such as the above? How many posts would I need to re-read to find out?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fmc351

What is that supposed to be a statement of?

Do you think there arent environmentalists who would champion the cause of Tuna? Might help if people didnt brand them with slurs and actually listened to the arguments before making a judgment. Problem with most people is stocks of anything need to be perilously low before most buffoons can see there is a problem, at which time the road to recovery is dangerously close to impossible.

Wonder why that happens? You can bet it isnt the lack of an animal movie star. The media target audiences, thats you, how do you respond to an environmentalist speaking on issues such as the above? How many posts would I need to re-read to find out?

Have you always been this angry with the world? So wound up in your private crusade to save the universe that you can't see that it was a joke?

It is a historical fact that people who attack other members personally rather than their arguments tend to have shorter life spans on here.

[cob115]

[QUOTE=AC/DC]The Japs on the whaling boat should have shot the dinghy with the whale harpoon.

And they need a 100m flame thrower.

right on!!! but befor they do, make sure that bald penut Peter Garret is in the dinghy too Bloody hippy filth!!!

[Steffo]

The solution to this is easy. Lots of developed countries have very big armies that they don't do much with. Lots of countries are needlessly hunting various animals to extinction.

How about this... continue to hunt endangered species and face military action. That kind of ultimatum would scare alot of people.

The Japanese seem to be able to make lots of useless gizmo's nobody cares about, like robot fish, bins that sweep streets by themselves, and lots of other useless junk. Why not make farms for endangered animals they like to eat? Same thing goes for everyone else.

Not that I'm a greenie fan... but certain facts are inescapable. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can do whatever they want to on their own land. Its their land. But everyone shares things like the water. Begin to stuff that up and you should be given a swift butt kicking...

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Have you always been this angry with the world? So wound up in your private crusade to save the universe that you can't see that it was a joke?

It is a historical fact that people who attack other members personally rather than their arguments tend to have shorter life spans on here.

Do you look in a mirror before you post? What you call anger in the post is merely your personality coming out in reading text. If you read anger in that, thats you, not me. Its text. I have opinions and I voice them when someone raises something, do you see me starting threads like this? Who has the anger/obsession issues?

It wasnt just a joke, the line and mantra are used often by those who I described in the post. At least stand by your statements.

[kremmen]

Originally Posted by flappist

But tuna isnt cute and hasn't been in kids movies, cartoons or Star Trek.

sadly true

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

But tuna isnt cute and hasn't been in kids movies, cartoons or Star Trek.

Hahahah the Star Trek movie where they save the whale. Cracks me up everytime.

[SpooN XL]

I think a few people are getting a little off topic.

I agree with flappist, they had no right to board the Japanese boat, letter of intent or not.

How does this letter of intent work? And how does it make it okay for them to board another vessel without permission?

[GTP534]

Firstly, I don't support the Japanese with regards to whaling. As far as the Sea Shepherd is concerned I would have thought even if they had a letter of intent it would be illegal to board another ship if they did not have permission. In my view the 2 that boarded the ship are ratbags and bring more negative publicity than good to conservation movements/groups. Thank goodness no one was hurt or killed.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by flappist

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?

Does this look like a terrorist organisation to you??..


My apologies flappist, I'm in a good mood today. :

Here's Sea Sheperd's view from the wikipedia website...

The society was founded by Paul Watson in 1977 after Watson, one of the three founders of Greenpeace, concluded that "bearing witness" to environmental damage was an inadequate response compared to actual enforcement of international laws, regulations, and treaties.[4]

In contrast to Greenpeace, which maintains a policy of non-violent opposition to whaling, Sea Shepherd endorses a deliberate policy of sinking or sabotaging vessels they believe have violated international whaling law.[5] As a result, Greenpeace has officially disavowed any connection to Sea Shepherd and refused to assist their efforts, stating "...we are not going to help people who have said they will use violence. We are here to save the whale, not put the lives of whalers at risk."[6] Watson has since referred to Greenpeace as "The Avon ladies of the environmental movement."[4]

In this case Sea Sheperd have gone too far in fighting for their cause, I guess they feel there's no other logical way to stop the Japs whaling...

Greenpeace on the other hand is like a political organisation with nearly 3 million financial supporters worldwide....below from the Wikipedia site...

Greenpeace uses direct action to attract attention to particular environmental problems. For example, activists place themselves between the whaler's harpoon and their prey, or invade nuclear facilities dressed as barrels of radioactive waste.

I wouldn't call them terrorist organisations though...seem's a bit harsh.