Try to scale a Russian oil platform? You might be a Pirate

[Lagmonster]

Well, so much for Putin's promises: they have all been charged with piracy.

I'm not up to speed on Russian politics, but does he have the power to have made such a promise in the first place? Earlier in the thread you seemed certain that Putin could make the law 'whatever he says it is', so I assume he's by definition a dictator who can direct the police/courts?

[Thanas]

Well, so much for Putin's promises: they have all been charged with piracy.

I'm not up to speed on Russian politics, but does he have the power to have made such a promise in the first place? Earlier in the thread you seemed certain that Putin could make the law 'whatever he says it is', so I assume he's by definition a dictator who can direct the police/courts?

He is. He can dictate who receives what sentence. Not legally, of course, but he can make a few phone calls and the "justice" system will spring to action.

[K. A. Pital]

They had to count on this. Don't seize dangerous naval equipment in the sea. Period.

[mr friendly guy]

Greenpeace finally tried to take on someone who can fight back. And lost. Ha. Makes a difference from when they destroy GM crops being tested.

[Thanas]

Meh. They had to deal with the french commandos sinking their ships with mines in the past.

[mr friendly guy]

Which was what, almost 3 decades ago? For all I know, Greenpeace might not have been douche bags back then. In any event the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior didn't exactly require Greenpeace to physically confront the French agents. If Greenpeace really did commit piracy it at least is a change from cowardly vandalising things which don't fight back. Too bad for them they came off second best. Maybe they should take lessons from Sea Shepherd.

That last line was a joke for those who sarcasm detectors are broken.

[Thanas]

Which was what, almost 3 decades ago? For all I know, Greenpeace might not have been douche bags back then. In any event the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior didn't exactly require Greenpeace to physically confront the French agents.

If Greenpeace really did commit piracy it at least is a change from cowardly vandalising things which don't fight back. Too bad for them they came off second best. Maybe they should take lessons from Sea Shepherd.

That last line was a joke for those who sarcasm detectors are broken.

Lol. You really don't know a lot about Greenpeace. Call them deluded whatever, but they are not cowards.

[Siege]

In any event the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior didn't exactly require Greenpeace to physically confront the French agents.

Why do you suppose the DGSE bombed the Rainbow Warrior to begin with? Greenpeace regularly sailed near or into the quarantine zone around Moruroa where the French were conducting their nuclear tests, in fact as I recall they intended to place protesters on the island in question. During previous nuclear tests their ships had been boarded by French marines. That's about as physically confrontational as you can get in a ship. That's what got them blown up.

[mr friendly guy]

Which was what, almost 3 decades ago? For all I know, Greenpeace might not have been douche bags back then. In any event the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior didn't exactly require Greenpeace to physically confront the French agents.

If Greenpeace really did commit piracy it at least is a change from cowardly vandalising things which don't fight back. Too bad for them they came off second best. Maybe they should take lessons from Sea Shepherd.

That last line was a joke for those who sarcasm detectors are broken.

Lol. You really don't know a lot about Greenpeace. Call them deluded whatever, but they are not cowards.

Because apparently using violence against things that can't fight back (crops) but pretending to be all high and mighty about non violence against foes which can fight back (Japanese Whalers) is a sure sign of bravery. What would you label someone who only uses violence against foes which don't fight back, but then preaches pacifism when it comes to those that can fight back? Part Time Pacifist perhaps? Or maybe the epitome of bravery?

Oh, BTW if you want me to provide links to back my claims about Greenpeace, I will do it and pre-emptively retort that you don't know as much about Greenpeace as you think you do.

In any event the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior didn't exactly require Greenpeace to physically confront the French agents.

Why do you suppose the DGSE bombed the Rainbow Warrior to begin with? Greenpeace regularly sailed near or into the quarantine zone around Moruroa where the French were conducting their nuclear tests, in fact as I recall they intended to place protesters on the island in question. During previous nuclear tests their ships had been boarded by French marines. That's about as physically confrontational as you can get in a ship. That's what got them blown up.

Fine. I will admit in the 1980s Greenpeace was at least willing to get physically confrontational with human foes who could potentially cause injury, during the time before the French blew up the Rainbow Warrior.

[Thanas]

Because apparently using violence against things that can't fight back (crops) but pretending to be all high and mighty about non violence against foes which can fight back (Japanese Whalers) is a sure sign of bravery. What would you label someone who only uses violence against foes which don't fight back, but then preaches pacifism when it comes to those that can fight back? Part Time Pacifist perhaps? Or maybe the epitome of bravery?

Are you capable of knowing the difference between things and humans and are you also capable of knowing why one side might condemn violence against humans while considering violence against things a different thing? Also, I assume you have conceded the whole china thing?

[K. A. Pital]

Well Paul Watson was not a hypocrite because he used violence against everyone - even Japanese whalers. However, it got him labelled a pirate way faster than Greenpeace, he-heh.

[Siege]

It looks like there's going to be an arbitration process over the seizure of the Arctic Sunrise. The spokesman for the Russian foreign ministry said that Russia is "generally and hypothetically" prepared to go along with arbitration -- after, I should point out, the Dutch government threatened to take the case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg (the Arctic Sunrise is registered in The Netherlands). Apparently the charges of piracy may be dropped as well.

My prediction right now is that there'll be a bunch more huffing and puffing, and then diplomacy wins the day and Greenpeace will be allowed to have their people and their ship back.

[mr friendly guy]

Because apparently using violence against things that can't fight back (crops) but pretending to be all high and mighty about non violence against foes which can fight back (Japanese Whalers) is a sure sign of bravery. What would you label someone who only uses violence against foes which don't fight back, but then preaches pacifism when it comes to those that can fight back? Part Time Pacifist perhaps? Or maybe the epitome of bravery?

Are you capable of knowing the difference between things and humans and are you also capable of knowing why one side might condemn violence against humans while considering violence against things a different thing?

Ah, so violence is ok against a person's possessions but not the person huh? Nice to know. Never mind that depending on what possession you destroy can cause abject harm. Would you like me to explain that last bit to you with diagrams?

But lets play along with Greenpeace apologism and take a leaf straight from Greenpeace's criticism of Sea Shepherd.

linky

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm. That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

Did Greenpeace just admit that they considering damaging their opponent's property, shock, horror, violence. Say it ain't so Sherlock. Funny how you have to make excuses for them about playing with semantics about violence when Greenpeace themselves don't hold such views. Maybe since you apparently know so much about Greenpeace might want to actually I don't know, read some of their statements before trying to make excuses for them, excuses which they don't even believe in. Kind of makes you look less silly that way.

What can we conclude from this?

1. Despite your hand waving, GP clearly does see destroying property as violence, and even goes so far as to say its still bad even if ultimately no one is directly harmed by it.
2. They have no problems using this violent behaviour in situations as stated. Since you aren't disputing the destruction of GM crops I take it you agree with my claim about GP on that score?
3. Where they do use violence has been against property where there is no one there to defend it, and whine about violence when someone is there to protect it.

I further conclude they aren't willing to use violence against opponents who can fight back (but virtue that they are present at the time GP will have to confront them), but do so when people aren't there, which seems kind of cowardly. But according to you its because they see things totally different between attacking human possessions and humans themselves even when they fucking state they consider destruction of property is violence as well.

Let me guess what you are going to say. You are going to say disabling a ship with people on board is bad because there is adverse consequences for those humans on board, but destroying crops which can feed people apparently doesn't.

Also, I assume you have conceded the whole china thing?

When I was active, there was no reply when I checked the thread next day, and I had been busy so I haven't looked back. No idea whether you replied or not since then, but fine. Give the word and I will go right back in.

[mr friendly guy]

Oh before Thanas jumps in with more semantic games, from the same link.

We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.

So its not a matter of GP sees violence against humans differently from violence against human's possessions, its they see destruction of human possessions as violence (and bad) just like how they see violence against humans as bad, and they will never stoop to violence period. Except when no one is there in sufficient numbers to protect the possession of course.

Like here and over here.

[fgalkin]

Well, so much for Putin's promises: they have all been charged with piracy.

I'm not up to speed on Russian politics, but does he have the power to have made such a promise in the first place? Earlier in the thread you seemed certain that Putin could make the law 'whatever he says it is', so I assume he's by definition a dictator who can direct the police/courts?

He is. He can dictate who receives what sentence. Not legally, of course, but he can make a few phone calls and the "justice" system will spring to action.

So, now he's a bad guy because he's not abusing his power to manipulate the justice system?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

So, now he's a bad guy because he's not abusing his power to manipulate the justice system?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Of course Putin regularly abuses his power to manipulate the justice system. But really, I don't understand your point here...what do you mean?

Ah, so violence is ok against a person's possessions but not the person huh?

It is not ok, it just is a degree less worse.

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm. That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

Did Greenpeace just admit that they considering damaging their opponent's property, shock, horror, violence. Say it ain't so Sherlock. Funny how you have to make excuses for them about playing with semantics about violence when Greenpeace themselves don't hold such views. Maybe since you apparently know so much about Greenpeace might want to actually I don't know, read some of their statements before trying to make excuses for them, excuses which they don't even believe in. Kind of makes you look less silly that way.

Only a nitwit would consider "ramming ships in the arctic is bad because people might get hurt, because it is the freaking arctic" to be same as "damaging property is bad". Also, nobody ever claimed that damaging things is not violence, what I am claiming is that it is on another level compared to attacking people.

Let me guess what you are going to say. You are going to say disabling a ship with people on board is bad because there is adverse consequences for those humans on board, but destroying crops which can feed people apparently doesn't.

Indeed, last I checked nobody is in danger of immediate death from destroying experimental GM crops who are not used for feeding people at all.

Also, I assume you have conceded the whole china thing?

When I was active, there was no reply when I checked the thread next day

You posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:56 pm
My last reply to you was: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:51 pm

, and I had been busy so I haven't looked back. No idea whether you replied or not since then, but fine. Give the word and I will go right back in.

Feel free to do whatever you please.

[K. A. Pital]

So, now he's a bad guy because he's not abusing his power to manipulate the justice system?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Of course Putin regularly abuses his power to manipulate the justice system. But really, I don't understand your point here...what do you mean?

The point is, judges' opinion differs from that of Putin, but he does not interfere to bring them in line. This is not exactly the worst that he could do, you know. Forcing the justice system to give a more lenient accusation is no different from doing the same to get a harsher penalty.

[Thanas]

Ah, got it.

It just is kinda funny how harsh sentences are handed out against political opponents whenever he feels like it but does not want to interfere in this.

[K. A. Pital]

Why would he though? He gains nothing from being lenient with them.

[Thanas]

Score points in the west, but that is probably nothing compared to scoring points with his oligarch buddies.

[K. A. Pital]

Many people in Russia say those who try to seize vessels at sea should be given the French solution, so I guess it is a public relations win for Putin at home.

[Thanas]

"french solution"?

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Guillotine, maybe?

[K. A. Pital]

"french solution"?

Sinking their ship, like the French did.

[mr friendly guy]

Only a nitwit would consider "ramming ships in the arctic is bad because people might get hurt, because it is the freaking arctic" to be same as "damaging property is bad".

Good thing I never claimed that. I even underlined the part I was focussing on. Maybe I need to enlarge it because you missed the underlined part, so lets reiterate. I used the modest example of damaging propellers. You know, that part I kind of underlined. Which is a more minor point and thus more comparable so you couldn't weasel out and go, hur hur you think ramming ships is the same as damaging crops. Oh wait.

Also, nobody ever claimed that damaging things is not violence, what I am claiming is that it is on another level compared to attacking people.

I am however claiming GP uses violence against easy targets because they are too cowardly to go against bigger ones. Your explanation for why they go against easy targets is that those easy targets just so happen to be property, which they believe violence against property is less bad compared to attacking people. Unfortunately we find that is just your belief, because Greenpeace's own statement shows that they officially don't find that much different. They even gave the explanation why, but I guess because I didn't enlarge it you missed it.

Let me guess. You will back peddle and say you were commenting on the morality of the action rather than whether GP believes as you do. Which of course begs the question, why you made such a statement in reply to my point about GP being cowards when it had nothing to do with it.

Indeed, last I checked nobody is in danger of immediate death from destroying experimental GM crops who are not used for feeding people at all.

1. Didn't you read GP memo? Its the potential consequences. Certainly the potential consequences for crops with higher yield are great in a world where there are people starving.
2. Nor is crippling but not sinking the ship either, when a rescue ship can be dispatched. Oh wait, you ignore the part about damaging propellers and focus in the part about ramming, and forget that GP consider both so bad that its a line they won't cross.

You posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:56 pm
My last reply to you was: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:51 pm

You do realise that the next day isn't the same as one whole 24 hour period right? If I last posted just before midnight and checked it when I woke up and checked the thread at 6 in the morning (which is what I do a lot of times) its still the next day. Jesus, do I have to explain it to you like a child? Or maybe you don't realise that other countries have different time zones.