Greenpeace got more than it bargained for during this protest....

[mark]

I found this from a friend:

From Foxnews

"Mission: Impossible?

Thirty-five Greenpeace (search) protesters got more than they may have bargained for when they stormed the International Petroleum Exchange in London on Wednesday. According to "The Times" of London, they slipped into a closing door and then roared onto the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding foghorns.

They were hoping to paralyze oil trading at the exchange. But the traders, most of them under 25 years old, rushed the protesters, pushing filing cabinets on top of them and kicking and punching them until they retreated. Twenty-seven protesters were arrested. Two were hospitalized, one with a broken jaw and the other with a concussion. One protester says, "I have never seen anyone less amenable to listening our point of view."

My comment........
I LOVE IT !! It's about time someone got back into the faces of these wacko protestors that thinks they can have their way all the time!! My friends, I'll tell you, when a protestor gets into your way & affects YOUR ability to make a living ( ie-paycheck ) those nutcases better get ready for a battle!!
Nobody likes anyone messing with their paychecks or their livlihood. Just because these wachos can't or won't get a job--doesn't mean they can't mess with others!

I back those oil traders 110%.

What's your thoughts?? ..................see ya Mark

[tkcomer]

It’s a good thing it happened over there. Here, the politically correct police would have arrested the oil traders. I believe in the right to protest. But disrupting meetings and harassing people is not acceptable to me.

[Jeremy]

I guess the old adage is true: Never bring a whistle to a filing cabinet fight. The Green Peace guys should go back to secretly sabatoging oil rigs and bulldozers rather than relying on the human sensibilities of a bunch of white collar paper traders. On one hand you have a group that feels passionately that the actions of the oil industry is crippling the environment, and only have the entire world's interests in mind, and on the other hand you have some people defending a day's worth of trading and the almighty dollar. And which one turned violent?

[dpolley]

So in your opinion, it's okay to disrupt and/ or vandalize anything at any time just to get your point across?

[Jeremy]

My opinion? People have the right to enter a public place and do what they wish as long as it does not physically harm the other people or cause such harm. These people knew they could be arrested for disrupting the oil trading, but they shouldn't have gotten their jaw broke for it. There was no mention of vandalism in Mark's post, but if so then the appropriate action would be to have them arrested. I do believe it is one's duty to disrupt something if they feel very passionately that the thing they are disrupting is wrong. Otherwise, how would anyone know it is wrong? In regards to this particular situation, I expect people to be civil, even if they don't agree with each other. There's no reason to turn an annoyance of horn and whistle blowing into broken jaws. Call the police and go about your day.

[dpolley]

Wait.......listen........do you hear it?
The sound of the world's smallest violin!
If you do something like these people did, you get what you deserve, period. No questions. The line was crossed, and they paid the price. Like a lot of things in today's world, the minority thinks that they can impose their vision on all of the rest of the population, then whine when their plan backfires on them.

[Jeremy]

The line you talk about is an imaginary line that people made up to justify taking anger out violently. Although I don't totally agree with the Green Peacers, environmental issues are big and the world is suffering for over industrialization. I can see how the oil industry may have crossed the line and have no intentions of stopping their harmful actions. Does that mean I should go and get a baseball bat, beat the crap out of them, and then give them a violin and say stop whining you deserved that? Violence does solve problems, but it only solves them in the interests of whoever is stronger, not necessarily who is right. An opposing view is sometimes a good thing.

[Jeremy]

I'd also like to add that popular is not always right or in the best interests of the world at large. 51% of high school students believe that newspapers should only publish stories with the approval of the government.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[dpolley]

No need for a reply to your last post. You're on the edge.

[Jeremy]

I'm on the edge? I'm not the one on here aplauding people for breaking jaws and giving people concussions for what boils down to a simple interruption of their daily activities.

[Chuck]

I am confused. These folks did not "Get what they deserved" the got over kill.

If you think folks should get hospitalized for a protest then maybe we should legalize all acts of violence, murder and mayhem.

Vigilante justice is wrong and there is good reason for it. How would it be if we could just beat a person for speeding down the road or for double parking.

This protest rated jail time not Hospital or Coroner time.

[annieap]

My opinion? People have the right to enter a public place and do what they wish as long as it does not physically harm the other people or cause such harm.
I do believe it is one's duty to disrupt something if they feel very passionately that the thing they are disrupting is wrong. Otherwise, how would anyone know it is wrong?

A female octopus will lay 200,000 – 400,000 tiny eggs within two months of mating. From the time the female octopus lays her eggs and until they are hatched, she will rarely, if ever, leave her eggs. She will gently caress the eggs with her suckers to keep algae and bacteria from growing on them and she keeps the eggs oxygenated by squirting them with streams of water from her syphon. When the egg is ready to hatch, her gentle caresses become more violent to help the baby octopus escape from the egg case. The eggs can take as long as 4-5 months to hatch. Most females will not eat after laying eggs and die soon after her eggs have hatched. After all the nurturing provided by the female octopus, and the ultimate price of giving her life, only one or two out of 200,000 - 400,00 eggs will survive.

For these reasons, I passionately feel it is wrong for people to dine on calamari. If I don’t protest, how will people know they are wrong to make this menu selection? Does this give me the right to barge into Capronis (a public place) with horns and whistles and disrupt patrons while they are dining? The answer is…ummm…NO! And should I decided to cause a disruption anyway, then more than likely I will receive injuries while being forcibly removed from the premises, then carted on to jail. That is a risk that comes with the territory. One cannot expect to shove an idea or belief in someone’s face without the probability of being shoved back.

[Jeremy]

And if you did get fed up enough to go in to Capronis with whistles and horns you'd expect there to be some bumps and bruises, or people annoyed by you, but a frying pan to the face would be a bit much wouldn't you agree? (Please forgive the analogy if any here are a Capronis employee).

[annieap]

Honestly? It would depend on how carried away I got with my protest. If I was grabbing up patron's plates and dumping the contents over their head and onto their laps, etc., yes, it may take a skillet to the face to calm me. I would hope that wouldn't happen, but that is a risk I would be taking. The course of action (or reaction) would depend on the circumstances of my behavior.

Now...just for the record...I would NOT go into Capronis or any other establishment and make a scene. This is just a scenario to voice my opinion on this topic. Secondly, I hope it doesnt seem I am picking on Capronis. I do go there. They just happen to be the only place in town I know of that serves calamari.

[mark]

...............I've read all these post & the one thing that's not mentioned is..................the wackos were affecting the livlihood of these ordinary hard working Americans. I'm sure those employees could care less if the wackos stayed outside.
However, if ( use Caproni's as the example ) you do throw plates, disrupt the customers, scream & holler.....what do you expect the owners to do?

Stand back & let you destroy the place??
Allow you to disrupt the trading??

Let's ask it this way:

Suppose the oil traders goes to the Greenpeace headquarters tomorrow morning & blow whistles & disrupt their business?? Would Greenpeace employees just allow it to go on??

I'm afraid not. If wackos wants change in something, they need to go thru the same channels as everyone else does.

It's called democracy where I went to school.................see ya Mark.

[Jeremy]

...............I've read all these post & the one thing that's not mentioned is..................the wackos were affecting the livlihood of these ordinary hard working Americans.

I thought they were Brits? But seriously, even if they were Americans I doubt the hour or so for the cops to arrive hardly counts as a disrupting of their livelihood. Blowing horns and whistles does not bring the entire oil industry to a collapse and put people out of work either. And if you argue that the Green Peace people should go through the proper channels to effect change, why not say that the oil traders should have gone through the proper channels and waited on the police to arrive? They weren't defending anything. The oil people have hated the Green Peacers for years and that pent up anger was what caused those filing cabinets to fly.

[dpolley]

Since we're being fanatical here, let's put it on a more personal level. Suppose I buy my wife a fur coat, and she's spotted by a member of PETA. This person gathers some of his/her friends together and follow my wife into our house as she's returning home from somewhere (not too far fetched; the GP'ers got in through a closing door). They proceed to yell, scream, scare the bejeezus out of my wife, and destroy the coat because they "love animals". Do we have the right to use "vigilante justice"?
One of the problems with a free society (and believe me, I love this country dearly, wouldn't leave it for anything), is that people like the Greenpeacers and other thug groups push their beliefs down other peoples' throats, trying to force everyone else into accepting what they do. If you took a poll to determine who the "bad guys" are in this scenario, I bet you'd find out that the majority is on the side of the oil traders.

[Chuck]

You changed the rules. You have taken it from a public protest to a personal in home invasion. You have added felony to the equation.

When you enter my home it becomes a personal attack and not a public protest. This is the line where I would side with you on this topic.

However in the above scenario this was not the case.

This is a scenario that plays better for this thread.

You go to Walmart and complain about a product. You start screaming at the Walmart employee. The Walmart employee comes across the counter and beats you. Do you side with the Walmat employee?

[dpolley]

I disagree. I see very little difference at all, considering that these groups don't differentiate if it's a public building or a group of women coming out of a restaurant wearing expensive mink coats. If you invade my place of work and harass me beyond a certain level, you are open to reprisal by me or my co-workers, no matter what the company's customer service policy is. If you'll notice how I prefaced my last post, I was simply keeping in step with the off-the-wall direction this discussion has taken. Also, for the record, most people would not do what you state in your example (unfortunately, some would, but not the majority). There is a fine line with how much anyone has to take from the public, or in this case, a misguided group of vigilantes, no matter what their "cause" is.
By the way, I wonder what form of transportation the Greenpeacers used to get to the building they invaded. Surely, they wouldn't drive a gas powered vehicle, or ride public transportation, would they???

[annieap]

This person gathers some of his/her friends together and follow my wife into our house as she's returning home from somewhere

I see very little difference at all, considering that these groups don't differentiate if it's a public building or a group of women coming out of a restaurant wearing expensive mink coats.

There is a huge difference in a public protest and a personal attack at your home.

[dpolley]

Not if I'm one of the people in that public place. This protest, if that's what you want to call it, is unacceptable in a civilized society (boy, that's gonna get a response!). Why should anyone be subjected to the type of thing that these people put these workers through? Would any of you like it if I came to your place of business (I'll keep the home angle out of this one) and raised cane? Bottom line, there is no place for this type of action, period. All of the rationalizing in the world does not make it right. Drawing back on one of Mark's earlier comments, how would the GP'ers react if a group of ordinary people crashed their headquarters? You better believe that they would be the victims, at least in their eyes.

[annieap]

Umm...dpolley, I think we are on the same side here... if someone protested again something I was doing, yes, I would be the victim...on the flipside...if I were the one protesting, I would deserve whatever happened to me in the process. That is the point I was trying to make with the calamari scenario.

[dpolley]

I understand your point. The only thing I'm saying is that in my opinion what the GP'ers did is a criminal act just as much as the scenario that I presented, and both warrant appopriate action. The course of action, by the way, shouldn't be determined by anyone other that the person(s) being victimized.
Good conversation though, huh?

[annieap]

Yes it is a good converstion and I do see your point as well. If I were being protested in public my reaction would be different though than if someone followed me in my home and protested.
The GP's had no right to barge in and disrupt the oil trading. And in an article I just read, they even went as far as to have three individuals scaling the outside walls of the building to attach a banner from the roof.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-16-2005-65870.asp

[Jeremy]

Thank you for that link, it gives background information to the specific case we are talking about. The treaty they were speaking of in that article "binds 38 rich countries - excluding the US and Australia, which refused to sign - to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, mainly caused by burning fossil fuels." The GP people were there to protest the actions of the people who refused to sign. They weren't there to kill anyone. They were there to hang a banner and blow a few horns.

What motivations do the people who didn't sign have? Here's a quote from their own mouths:

"We were disappointed with security for allowing this commotion just at a time when the [crude] market was pushing higher on the back of reports that a missile had been fired at Iran."

These are the same people who pushed for the war in Iraq for the oil money. If they were on the losing side of the war they would be called war profiteers. They were ****ed off that they were losing money on a missle that had been fired.

Now, I'm not much of a protestor myself. And I don't support many of the actions of GP. For example dumping paint on an otherwise useful coat of fur makes the coat useless and so the animals died in vain. That doesn't make any sense. But look at the guys you are defending here. These are not hard working Americans. These are war mongers who got ****ed and cracked a few skulls because they were losing money on the oil sales from a missle that was fired. Give me a break. Anyone who has seen Schindler's list saw that those who exploited WWII for personal profit (the weapons manufacturers of Germany) were hunted down and hanged as war criminals.

This isn't off the wall. It's straight from the article.

[mark]

.............OK, I agree ( & also forgot ) that this happened in the UK. I still think the very same situation could happen here too. I disagree with the "disrupting" business I read earlier. When one is trading & dealing with millions of $$, an hour can make a REAL difference ! My point is..........when wackos protest & disrupt one's livlihood, they should expect some retaliation.

My question hasn't been answered yet.

What would happen if the oil traders climbed up on GP's roof & hung a banner claiming GP'ers were frauds?? Hmmm??

I bet CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC would be beating each other up trying to get there 1st with their cameras. ( & driving gas guzzling SUV's or large vans to get there )

If more ordinary citizens would retaliate, some of this nonsense would stop.

I still back the oil traders 110%. .................see ya Mark

[Jeremy]

Fox News wouldn't show up? :)

To finally answer your question, Mark, I suppose that if the oil traders went to GP and tried to put a banner up and blow some horns the oil traders would be arrested. Or if the the GP people decided to crack the heads of the oil traders (like the traders did to them), instead of waiting for the police, I would be criticizing their actions. There's a lot of what-ifs. I've been trying to stick with what actually happened, the motivations behind it, and why violence is bad.