From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Notch another one up for the Greennazis
Followup-To: talk.environment,sci.energy
Date: 12 Nov 1992 17:01:55 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<JMC.92Nov8204409@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Nov9.145946.4373@inel.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dpe@inel.gov's message of 9 Nov 92 14:59:46 GMT

>> They tried to get between the plutonium ship and its escort,
>> got bumped and accused the Japanese of brutality or something
>> like that.  I assume the reporters on Greenpeace boat will
>> tell the story the Greenpeace way.

=/= If you know so much about the events there, why did you not
correct the assertion (made by the orginator of this thread)
that the collision involved the Japanese plutonium ship (the
Akatsuki Maru), when in fact it was with the Japanese escort
ship (the Shikishima)?

=/= Greenpeace's version of events is that the Shikishima has
been bullying the Greenpeace ship (the SOLO) during the voyage.
The collision occurred when the Shikishima *rammed* the SOLO.

> Let's try to remember that [there] are international rules
> governing the safe navigation on the open and coastal seas.
> A ship cannot just go willy-nilly anywhere it wants to travel.
> Who ever was in charge on each ship must know and understand
> this.  It is something that Greenpeace has convienently
> overlooked in the past because "their protest is above
> international law" type of attitude.

=/= Oh?  Can you give any examples of this that might be germane
to this voyage?  I can imagine that such things as entering the
line of fire between whalers and whales might be unsafe (for
Greenpeace), but I don't see that that's going willy-nilly, nor
do I see how that's germane to this voyage.

=/= In fact, here's what Greenpeace has to say on the matter:

    [SOLO] Captain Albert Kuiken said the Shikishima had
    constantly broken several maritime laws. The SOLO had,
    at all times, maintained a safe distance of at least
    three miles from the Akatsuki Maru and was adhering to
    all maritime laws.  Last night, Kuiken contacted the
    the English coastguard to report the Shikishima's
    dangerous manoevers.

    "In more than 20 years at sea, I have never seen
    behaviour like this from another ship," he said.

I will be posting the full Greenpeace press releases on this
matter to misc.activism.progressive and talk.environment.

> The end result is if Greenpeace is not careful on how
> they operate their ships, the Japanese will be well within
> international law to take them to court for intentional
> violations of the international rules-of-the-road.

=/= Actually, it is *Greenpeace* who has made the first step
toward legal action against the Japanese government.

>> They are better than the terrorists - somewhat.
>> . . .
>> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

=/= Okay, Professor McCarthy, let's try a little arithmetic.
Consider these facts about Greenpeace:

    (1) They are founded on and operate under the Quaker
    principle of "speaking truth to power."  All their
    actions are nonviolent.  There's a rumor flying around
    talk.environment that Greenpeace has rammed boats, but
    no evidence of such has ever been provided.  Likewise,
    no evidence has been provided to justify the "notch
    another one up" in this thread's subject heading --
    another *what*?

    (2) The Greenpeace ships, as always, are unarmed.

Now consider these facts about the French/Japanese governments'
collaborative effort to transport this plutonium:

    (1) The French government boarded and seized a law-abiding
    Greenpeace ship, damaged the ship, knocked crew members (and
    several journalists) to the ground, and pointed their guns
    at the heads of crew members.  A French military helicopter
    buzzed an inflatable raft; another was rammed, resulting in
    two hospitalizations.

    (2) The French and Japanese governments have refused to
    provide information pertaining to the safety of this voyage.
    The best we've got is a leaked French memo, expressing some
    rather important doubts about the safety of the voyage.

=/= Okay, Professor McCarthy, add them up:  2 + 2.  Who's more
believable?  Who are the terrorists (or "somewhat better than
terrorists")?  What's that?  The answer you get is 5?  Well, I
can't say I'm surprised.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment