• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Greenpeace thugs force Shell icebreaker to turn around

 
 
 
Thugs? They are impeding an icebreaker from moving. They have caused no damage to the ship. They have hurt no one. The only damage could be said to be economical. I wasn't aware that got someone tossed under the "thug" category.
 
I thought thug was a term for unruly black youth. I don't see any evidence that the Greenpeace people are black. This thread does not deliver.
 
thebeave said:
I thought thug was a term for unruly black youth. I don't see any evidence that the Greenpeace people are black. This thread does not deliver.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that they're clearly so evil and such a problem for civilized society that they may as well be black.
 
That really is the image that comes to mind when I think of Greenpeace. How dare they fight for a cause that doesn't make someone money? Assholes.
 
I think referring to nonviolent protests as "thugs" reveals more about the poster than reality.
 
Derec said:
This is the latest actual article on this: Shell Icebreaker Leaves Dock, Heads For Protesters but there is a live feed here.

Greenpeace should be liable for any cost associated with the delays. If they had to pay for their antics they would either calm down or go bankrupt. The actual Greenpeace "protesters" who forced the ship to turn around should be arrested.
Click to expand...

wow, so much more outrage for a blocked in icebreaker than for a murdered man.
 
Derec said:
This is the latest actual article on this: Shell Icebreaker Leaves Dock, Heads For Protesters but there is a live feed here.

Greenpeace should be liable for any cost associated with the delays. If they had to pay for their antics they would either calm down or go bankrupt. The actual Greenpeace "protesters" who forced the ship to turn around should be arrested.
Click to expand...

After reading the article, I find it hard to call them "thugs" or even all that much in the wrong. How is this any different than people chaining themselves to trees or that guy who stood in front of that tank in China? It is people standing up against what they perceive to be corrupt corporations/governments. It is protest that causes economic harm, and maybe that should be looked at for damages, but in doing so it raises awareness.
 
cycomiko said:
Why is "protesters" in quotes?
Click to expand...
Because protesters protest things to express their opinion publicly. These ecomentalists' goal was not to express their opinion but to prevent others from going about their business.

Preventing people from doing lawful things is not protesting. Let me put it in terms you and some of the others here can understand. If you hold placards outside an abortion clinic is protesting. Preventing people from entering the clinic is not.

- - - Updated - - -

cycomiko said:
That really is the image that comes to mind when I think of Greenpeace. How dare they fight for a cause that doesn't make someone money? Assholes.
Click to expand...

Their MO is to impose their will onto others by preventing them to go about their business, causing them monetary damages. They should be liable for these damages.

- - - Updated - - -

Jimmy Higgins said:
The term also has nothing to do with the protestors you are talking about.
Click to expand...

These are not protesters.
 
Derec said:
Because protesters protest things to express their opinion publicly. These ecomentalists' goal was not to express their opinion but to prevent others from going about their business.

Preventing people from doing lawful things is not protesting. Let me put it in terms you and some of the others here can understand. If you hold placards outside an abortion clinic is protesting. Preventing people from entering the clinic is not.
Click to expand...

Still technically a protest in either way. One of the forms of protest just happens to get you arrested. Holding signs doesn't always get the attention required to start the movement.


Derec said:
Their MO is to impose their will onto others by preventing them to go about their business, causing them monetary damages. They should be liable for these damages.
Click to expand...

In that case, shouldn't Shell be suing them? Would they win? I actually have no idea. Is there any precedent for such a thing?
 
Derec said:
Because protesters protest things to express their opinion publicly. These ecomentalists' goal was not to express their opinion but to prevent others from going about their business.

Preventing people from doing lawful things is not protesting. Let me put it in terms you and some of the others here can understand. If you hold placards outside an abortion clinic is protesting. Preventing people from entering the clinic is not.
Click to expand...
They are committing acts of civil disobedience. I still don't see how that makes them "thugs".
 
Maybe we can send some of our police officers out there to arrest the protesters and have them all killed while in custody? Would that be an acceptable solution to the problem, Derec?
 
atrib said:
Maybe we can send some of our police officers out there to arrest the protesters and have them all killed while in custody? Would that be an acceptable solution to the problem, Derec?
Click to expand...
You can't prove the thugs didn't present a threat. I mean they are thugs after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom