The Spanish navy boat collides against greenpeace activists

[Mcabro]

It happened yesterday in the Canary Islands



appalling and despicable

music composed by Mcabro

 

[zzz_pt]

"Protecting" a humongous Repsol ship from 3 tiny Greenpeace boats... by launching boats into them.


From what I read, they (greenpeace protesters) were "commiting a crime". Well. Maybe they were. But this is not how you handle this situations. They had no guns or agressive intents.


What some countries are willing do to protect big companies goes beyond what's reasonable. They could have killed somenoe. A 23yo woman was injured and is on the hospital atm.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Protecting" a humongous Repsol ship from 3 tiny Greenpeace boats... by launching boats into them.


From what I read, they (greenpeace protesters) were "commiting a crime". Well. Maybe they were. But this is not how you handle this situations. They had no guns or agressive intents.

Is there a video without the music? I can't hear much of the speech I'm too old for this YouTube fad of putting music over everything to make it "better"

The point is that any kind of piracy or activism against cargoes of this value is always going to be treated harshly, particularly off the West African coast. It's like the "I've got a bomb!" joke at the check-in desk. You'll get a wildly disproportionate response but you should have expected it.

I'm mostly pro-Green but this kind of sensationalist (and pointless) activism just hurts the cause.

EDIT: This clip's much better:

 

[The Bman]

What some countries are willing do to protect big companies goes beyond what's reasonable.

I'll tell you why;

 

[zzz_pt]

@The Bman Did I ask a question?

ps: Great song though

 

[Omnis]

What some countries are willing do to protect big companies goes beyond what's reasonable. They could have killed somenoe. A 23yo woman was injured and is on the hospital atm.

Sorry, but you don't do stupid crap like this on open waters. Sailing into the right of way of large vessels is asking to be killed. The first boat strike was to head them off. It worked. The police were trying to keep them away from the ship. Don't know what that last sandwich bit was all about. They should have boarded and immobilized the greenpeace dinghies much further away.

From what I read, they (greenpeace protesters) were "commiting a crime". Well. Maybe they were. But this is not how you handle this situations. They had no guns or agressive intents.

Sailing head-on into the path of a large vessel and not diverting course is an aggressive action. I don't understand why Greenpeace can't figure that out. Being out there and ****ing with these huge boats is putting everyone's safety at risk. They ought to get over their egos and put all that time and energy into making solar panels or something.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Sailing head-on into the path of a large vessel and not diverting course is an aggressive action. I don't understand why Greenpeace can't figure that out. Being out there and ****ing with these huge boats is putting everyone's safety at risk. They ought to get over their egos and put all that time and energy into making solar panels or something.

This. Absolutely this. No navy in the world will simply let some random vessel anywhere near a large vessel because the first assumption is that the people on the little boat are attempting to hijack it. Those people should be lucky that they didn't get arrested for their actions.

 

[Omnis]

That's not the first assumption. The first assumption is, "These greenpeace retards are going to kill themselves. We need to keep them away from the boats."

 

[zzz_pt]

@TenEightyOne

I understand that probably the navy deals with pirates and dangerous groups in a harsh and agressive manner. But I don't think that in this situation this was the best way to deal with those greenpeace protesters.



@Omnis

What a patronizing post. You may be used to see this kind of behaviour from the police in the USA and probably that's why you find this normal. I don't. Police and authorities can't simply do whatever they want just because they have a "badge".

Greenpeace has people who knows what is and what isn't dangerous. Do you really think that they are all people like you and me with no experience and training in the sea? That they simply decide to go to the Artic sea because they like to see how it's like to break ice in a ship? They have 3 ships with a crew, capitans and several trained members. BTW, the vessel wasn't moving.

You're talking like they're all a bunch of stupid, ignorant and useless people. Again, too patronizing. Too bad.

 

[Omnis]

Anyone that sails head-on into a ship's right-of-way is a stupid person to me. Sorry if it's patronizing-- that's just my honest feelings.

Interrupting international trade and causing a safety risk to everyone in the water (most especially themselves) is also my definition of useless too.

Greenpeace should not be out there in dinghies around huge ships like this. It accomplishes nothing and probably hurts Greenpeace's mission more than it helps it. That is, unless their mission is to put naive 20-somethings in danger.

I like Greenpeace, but they need to do positive things for the environment. Saving beached whales is cool.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I understand that probably the navy deals with pirates and dangerous groups in a harsh and agressive manner. But I don't think that in this situation this was the best way to deal with those greenpeace protesters.

A protest outside a shopping centre is one thing. If Greenpeace were challenged in this way during a peaceful street demonstration then I'd share your outrage, even if I didn't agree with their particular cause.

This, however, was a maritime approach to a large, valuable research vessel off the coast of West Africa. To the south of that area is one of the most dangerous piracy areas in shipping - attacks around the Gulf of Guinea now outnumber those off Somalia.

I don't think there should be a moment's hesitation in deterring unknown boats (even if they identify themselves as something different) from commercial vessels of any kind. Anyone who tries to do what Greenpeace did (and I'm not actually clear if they wished to board or simply impede) should expect, and get, a very robust rebuffal.

You're Portugese, I'll generalise and say that, like Britain, your country has a huge maritime heritage, the cost, dangers and effects of piracy can't be unknown to you. And the danger is daily, and very very real.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sailing into the right of way of large vessels is asking to be killed.

Exactly. Smaller boats are faster and more maneuverable. The impetus is on them to get out of the way, if only because they are the ones with the most power to prevent a collision. It's like Sea Shepherd deliberately obstructing Japanese whaling vessels in the Antarctic and then claiming they were rammed.

 

[niky]

The minimum safe distance between vessels plying open waters is measured in miles not yards.

-

What you're watching in the videos above is a page taken straight out of the radical propagandist's rulebook.

1. Establish your innocence. It's always a "peaceful protest" or an "unarmed protest"

2. Create tension. Create the specter of physical confrontation without actually resorting to physical confrontation.

3. If the authorities refuse to use physical force, get confrontational. Scream in their faces. Get close enough to cause probable danger without actually striking the first blow. If all else falis, put yourself in a position wherein a collision is inevitable, whether you're blockading a ship, a cargo truck, or political delegates' vehicles. If we're talking street protests, have somebody off-camera start throwing rocks, bottles, or any other small, non-lethal ammunition, to get the cops all riled up.

4. Make sure you have the cameras rolling when they strike the first blow. Make sure they're focused on the police, not yourselves. If possible, edit out any action you may have done to spark any physical confrontation.

Do we see what happens when they first enter the danger zone around the vessel? No. Do we see the very first contact with the police craft? No. Do we see why and how that last vessel got within several yards of a moving ship? No.

-

Been there, seen that. Having studied at a University where many radicals, leftists and communists recruit their best and brightest. Propaganda is a wonderful thing. Make yourselves out to be the victims, and you can turn any cause into a righteous one.

It's not just big government that knows how to wag the dog.

 

[Joel]

What a patronizing post. You may be used to see this kind of behaviour from the police in the USA and probably that's why you find this normal. I don't. Police and authorities can't simply do whatever they want just because they have a "badge".

I find it funny you call him patronizing then do the cliche America police state thing. I'll remember that next time I'm at the airport in Paris and there's army guys in uniform carrying assault rifles.

This was just utterly stupid and reckless behaviour from Greenpeace. Bombing around in dinghies around massive ships is excessive and senseless danger, it's not going to stop drilling if they're in the path of a huge ship, all they're doing is putting themselves in danger. As was mentioned above, it's an area with a lot of piracy, and the navy was right not to take risks here. You simply do not sail in the right of way of another ship, let alone one that utterly dwarfs yours in an area with rampant piracy.

This would be like going to an airport, waving your hands 10cm away from the security agents' faces, and saying you're peacefully protesting and not touching them. Then being shocked that you're getting arrested and blaming the police state and capitalism or something.

 

[zzz_pt]

I understand what all of you are saying.

My main point was on the (IMO) desproportionate agressive way the navy handled the situation AND the basis for this protest. You may not find the context relevant but that's the reason why they were there in the first place and, being or not supid (that's a question of opinion), defending the cause of Canary's people and regional gov.

Of course there are rules. But when the government gives priority to a private company instead of the interest of the public and specially the people from Canary Islands, something isn't right.

I'll leave a video from the Presidente del gobierno de Canarias. Some points may be arguable (like the "level of peacefullness" or "agressivness" of the protesters and the Navy/Armada) but something should be clear: This decision form the central gov of Madrid is not taking into account the interests of the people of Canary who are against it from the very beggining.



@TenEightyOne I think any navy knows how to distinguish between pirates and greenpeace protesters. I don't know. My point was not about if it's right for the navy to do something. I'm with you on that. It was about the way they did it. And, as I've stated in my first post, about the reasons they (GP) were there. Because the Spanish gov favored Repsol and didn't listen to the people from Canary Islands.

@prisonermonkeys Where did you see a "risk" of colision between the 3 boats and the unmoving vessel?

@niky Where did you see moving vessels?

@Noob616 Of course you find it funny. He's a moderator and I'm not even a premium member. It was the fisrt explanation I've found for his attitude. "Cliche America state police thing"? I don't find it a cliche. It's a fact.

Do you think the famous "Tank man" who stood in front of 4 war tanks was "asking" to have his head blown off? Or did he have a point? Even in your country you are probably proud of the French Revolution and the breaking of rules for a "higher cause". It's an exagerated comparison but unfortunatly the government and state authorities aren't always right. That's why protests and revolutions exist.


___


Again and to be clear. I didn't say the spanish navy shouldn't do anything to stop them nor did I say that the protesters were "angels".

1. I think that the way they handled the situation wasn't the best (and of course only from what I can see in the video and what I've read in some spanish and english sites).
2. The reason GP was there is, IMO a valid reason. We can disagreed on that as well. But at the end of the day, their protest was reasonable.


___


Don't get me wrong on this but... this is at least the 2nd time I respond to a moderator or someone from the team that happens to disagreed with me and other team members appear in minutes to back up their teammate. Nothing personal here. I just find it interesting. Maybe I'm seeing things here or was a coincidence. 👍

 

[Omnis]

Where did you see moving vessels?

The ship stopped so that the police and greenpeace toids wouldn't get killed.

Do you think the famous "Tank man" who stood in front of 4 war tanks was "asking" to have his head blown off?

In fact, he was. That was the point. You cannot compare halting a tank column to protect peaceful protesters to a bunch of loonies harassing and disrupting a peaceful trade ship.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne I think any navy knows how to distinguish between pirates and greenpeace protesters. I don't know. My point was not about is it's right for the navy to do something. I'm with you on that. It was about the way they did it. And, as I've stated in my first post, about the reasons they (GP) were there. Because the Spanish gov favored Repsol and didn't listen to the people from Canary Islands.

Cool, so pirates just need to look like Greenpeace boats and it's full steam ahead, right?

I recall the original Repsol application and, if I remember correctly, there was a large amount of environmental approval that had to be gone through. Spain, and the Spanish (which includes the Canarians) need oil (they're currently at the mercy of imports) and wish to establish some energy security.

The opposition to the drilling (if it happened it would be at least 40 miles offshore) is the potential for a large oil-spill accident rather than the drilling itself, it seems. The Canarians don't seem to let that stop them servicing/alighting large cargo vessels (including tankers) that are guest in their waters.

I think the real root of this is the perennial dispute between the Canarian government and Central Spanish goverment (Spain is just as split on the mainland, of course).

 

[Northstar]

I think any navy knows how to distinguish between pirates and greenpeace protesters. I don't know.

It's harder than you may think, there is nothing stopping a bunch of pirates from painting "Greenpeace" on the sides of their boats. Just look at the Iraq war, several attacks were made on U.S. soldiers by Taliban soldiers in U.S. clothing and I'd imagine those are a hell of a lot harder to get a hold of.

Because the Spanish gov favored Repsol and didn't listen to the people from Canary Islands.

I don't see what the Navy did here as being any different than police giving a truck containing a large amount of money an escort through a bad part of town. It's not so much choosing business over citizens as it is protecting people when they are going through your area with a target on their backs.

1. I think that the way they handled the situation wasn't the best (and of course only from what I can see in the video and what I've read in some spanish and english sites).

I'd say it was commendable actually. You have a group of people with unknown intent approaching a vessel in waters with known pirate activity, they are lucky they didn't get blown into fish food.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Omnis I wasn't comparing the Tank Man to the GP protestors. I was talking about the context of breaking the rules/law or not obey the authorities with good reasons.

If the vessel was moving I doubt GP protesters would put themselves in that situation. What I see in the video is that the vessels aren't moving. I don't know, but I imagine that they need to be stoped to be doing what they were there to do.


@TenEightyOne No. They would need in the first place to hijack GP's ships. The Navy talked with GP capitan. They know who he is. On the other hand, I wonder if any real pirates were trying to hijack vessels in the west african coast that day... and if the spanish navy would chose to protect Repsol's vessels from Greenpeace (how many hijacks and people did GP killed recently) instead of a "real" threat. I don't remember pirates informing they would go to a certain location in the opean see to protest against something. Nor do I recall of a pirate group to have a boat with "Greenpeace" written on it. If that was so simple, probably someone would've already done it.

Canary are islands. They need to allow cargo vessels for its own survival (to bring them what they need). And having vessels passing has not the same impact of an oil platform (I'm just guessing here. It would make sense).

I agreed with your last sentence. I also think there's a lot of "political" issues arround this. I mean, every spanish wants to be independent nowadays. I'm portuguese and it would be boring to have 73 countries alongside and my fridays of "Champions League" ruined I'm kidding. But this is a serious problem for Spain, Europe and of course for Portugal.

 

[Joel]

@Noob616 Of course you find it funny. He's a moderator and I'm not even a premium member. It was the fisrt explanation I've found for his attitude.

I'm not sure why this is relevant.

"Cliche America state police thing"? I don't find it a cliche. It's a fact.

You're saying it's a "fact" that America is a police state and implied the police/coast guard there regularly overstep their bounds. And supposedly the guy that said it's dumb to pilot a dinghy in the right of way of a huge ship under military protection is patronizing.

Or did he have a point? Even in your country you are probably proud of the French Revolution and the breaking of rules for a "higher cause".

I'm Canadian, I live in France right now as a student for a year. We politely asked Britain for our independence and even allowed her to remain as the queen.

I brought up the army guys at the airport in Paris because I've actually found it to be the opposite of the "US Police state" cliche. I've been to the US many times and through Canada, and not once in either country seen a police officer with anything other than a standard issue sidearm, nor have I ever seen soldiers in active duty uniform in public. Since being in Europe, every major train station and every airport I've been in has been patrolled by serious looking dudes in uniform carrying assault rifles. Call me crazy but that feels like a pretty aggressive and overzealous show of force.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm Canadian, I live in France right now as a student for a year. We politely asked Britain for our independence and even allowed her to remain as the queen.

Take her, she's stinking-rich and German, more power to you!

 

[niky]

@niky Where did you see moving vessels?

We only have the word of Greenpeace and a short, heavily edited video showing their side of the story. And even then, it shows Greenpeace dinghies in very, very close proximity to the ship. As in: touching close. That is both dangerous and provocative.

Point is: merely approaching a seacraft without permission is already considered an act of aggression. Even if you're on the bullhorn claiming you're "unarmed." If you are not given permission to approach or board, do not approach. If the ship has a Navy escort, then you should take warnings not to approach even more seriously.

1. I think that the way they handled the situation wasn't the best (and of course only from what I can see in the video and what I've read in some spanish and english sites).
2. The reason GP was there is, IMO a valid reason. We can disagreed on that as well. But at the end of the day, their protest was reasonable.

As to point 1: Again, refer the radical's handbook. Seriously, I've been at radical protests. I've seen how these people operate up close.

Are you pissed off at "the man"? Check.

Do you think they were victimized by "the man"? Check.

Mission accomplished, Greenpeace.

These people knowingly invite violence to prove a political point. And if the authorities do not resort to violence, they will do everything humanly possible to incite it. And the media typically buys it, hook line and sinker.

This is not to say that this is what happened in this case, or that the cause is either just or unjust. But you have to recognize what this incident is: It's a mere propaganda tool for Greenpeace. Otherwise, they wouldn't release it to the public.

-

Again: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for a small watercraft to be close enough to a large vessel for the Navy patrol boats to ram it against its side. NONE AT ALL.

That's not a "peaceful protest". That's intentional provocation.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Grayfox]

That's not a "peaceful protest".

Greenpeace's definition of peaceful protest is diametrically opposed to normal peoples definition.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Greenpeace's definition of peaceful protest is diametrically opposed to normal peoples definition.

Yup, imagine if they'd been really annoyed

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't know what Greenpeace was protesting, nor is it relevant. I don't even know exactly where this is (someone mentioned Canary Islands), nor is it relevant. I don't know why the boat that was being protested was there, nor is it relevant.

What I know is what I see in the video(s). My gut-reaction, knee-jerk instinct is to say that the authorities appear to be overstepping. But then two things occur to me: 1) If they intended harm they have much more effective ways to do so. 2) What led up to this altercation?

Let's take #1. Boats claiming to be Greenpeace (considering four jets can appear to be fully legitimate airliners, because they were that morning, I don't think faking a GP boat would be hard. Boats are easy to buy and paint) approach a vessel at distances too close to for security and safety purposes when not given permission to board. In this age of terrorist bombing and pirates I would imagine that any security patrol vessels would be put on high alert. Small boats were approaching close enough to bomb or board a ship. However, non-lethal means were used. This tells me that the naval/police crews gave them the benefit of the doubt that they were Greenpeace, but weren't about to allow them to violate security protocols. The first impact even appeared to be a glancing, warning blow. As the GP boats continued the attempts to stop them escalated, until their ships were stopped after they came within touching distance. I am unsure how you stop another boat that refuses to stop without using lethal force without having a collision of some form.

Ultimately, in comparison to a police state, this appears to be more like tazering a suspect who refuses to stay off the private property of the person/group that they are protesting. This is very far from the equivalent of shooting or beating a suspect. Truth be told, it looks like the water version of a PIT maneuver. That seems fairly tame in light of this being the water version of leaving a backpack in a crowded location or jumping the fence at the White House.

As for #2, I can make no judgments on the validity of my thoughts on #1 without knowing this. All I have is the few seconds before each collision. If Greenpeace wants my sympathy they need to release unedited footage. In some of the clips, they are so tightly edited that GP could have swerved in front of the patrolling boats to force the collisions. I can't tell.


So, until I have more information I can only make one judgment: Greenpeace was acting like jackasses, and they received an equal response. Everyone is guilty and deserve to be poked in the butt by pitchforks before the mobs burn down their castle.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Everyone is guilty and deserve to be poked in the butt by pitchforks before the mobs burn down their castle.

But only if it can be done in a carbon-neutral way.

 

[jlmcmillan1978]

We only have the word of Greenpeace and a short, heavily edited video showing their side of the story. And even then, it shows Greenpeace dinghies in very, very close proximity to the ship. As in: touching close. That is both dangerous and provocative.

Point is: merely approaching a seacraft without permission is already considered an act of aggression. Even if you're on the bullhorn claiming you're "unarmed." If you are not given permission to approach or board, do not approach. If the ship has a Navy escort, then you should take warnings not to approach even more seriously.



As to point 1: Again, refer the radical's handbook. Seriously, I've been at radical protests. I've seen how these people operate up close.

Are you pissed off at "the man"? Check.

Do you think they were victimized by "the man"? Check.

Mission accomplished, Greenpeace.

These people knowingly invite violence to prove a political point. And if the authorities do not resort to violence, they will do everything humanly possible to incite it. And the media typically buys it, hook line and sinker.

This is not to say that this is what happened in this case, or that the cause is either just or unjust. But you have to recognize what this incident is: It's a mere propaganda tool for Greenpeace. Otherwise, they wouldn't release it to the public.

-

Again: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for a small watercraft to be close enough to a large vessel for the Navy patrol boats to ram it against its side. NONE AT ALL.

That's not a "peaceful protest". That's intentional provocation.

Mission accomplished.

This post is so correct nothing else needs be said really.

The enviro-mental-ist left is interested in nothing less than anarchy and complete revolution if that's what it takes to bring down evil evil capitalism and supposedly save the planet from ourselves. Their extreme behaviour and their absolute bigotry towards any who don't share their opinion is also why anyone capable of independent thought and opinion should be wary & sceptical of any agenda they push. They have gained too much power and support in recent years sadly. All on the back of climate change and the supposed evils of carbon emissions. I for one don't buy any of it, but like anyone who declares themselves openly as a 'non-believer' I will continue to be derided for my opinion, at least until the world sees common sense once more.

 

[Jawehawk]

Greenpeace continueing to be as obnoxious as ever. The navy ought to blow them out of the water when they don't take the hint to leave the area.

 

[Grayfox]

But only if it can be done in a carbon-neutral way.

Kill them, cut them up and feed them to sharks.

There, they are helping nature by feeding it