No jury in the world would convict.
You’re not the only one. But others think that continuing to funnel (at least indirectly) vast sums of oil money into the hands of terrorists isn’t what we need either.
I’d be honestly curious to hear the pros and cons argued, but I guess this is the wrong time and place. My nearest connection to the organization is having one granola-crunchy vegan friend who I think is a sometimes-donor. My opinion of them, patchily constructed from years of half-remembered media incidents and anecdotes much like the ones offered in this thread, is that they are a group with some laudable ideals, but also (frequently) bad information and poorly-considered tactics—similar to PETA.
Maybe someone will be kind enough to start a thread in Great Debates with a less incendiary title. Something like “Greenpeace: Freakin’ Retarded, or not?”
You’re the one who brought up money. Apparently, all idealists are inherently benign.
For what it is worth, I am a long time member of Green Peace. {Contributor only}
I was a member while still in the Navy when they gave my friends and me a hard time in Vancouver until I mentioned I was a member and that giving 20-year-old sailors a hard time was not going to change anything in their favor and make it harder for them to convince young adults to join them.
The group is anti-nuke and has been so for a very long time, this does not mean all of the members are anti-nuke. I am in favor of building new plants to shut down dirty coal burners. I consider the threat of Global Warming to be greater than the far fetch threat of a terrorist driven meltdown. For that matter, I consider improper maintenance by the civilian power plant operators to be more dangerous than the threat of terrorism*.
I have not seen the youtube clip in question, but using the threat of a terrorist controlled jet to blowup a nuclear power plant would appear to be using fear to make a point in an argument where many environmentalists have stopped agreeing with Greenpeace. I do not believe this makes them idiots, just using standard marketing techniques for their own use.
Despite their anti-nuke power stance, Greenpeace as the largest environmental group in the world has done too much good in too many countries to dismiss them for one of their stands. Doing so might make the Op look rather dumb.
Jim
- I would like to see the Navy run nuclear power plants. I would require some extra funding, but I think it would be well worth it.
The movie wouldn’t d/l for, I just wanted to pop in and say I hope New Line Cinema sues over the use of the Friday the 13th logo.
Punsters do no harm; there’s no need to muzzle 'em.
Nope, they’re in it for the chicks… Or something like that 
I’ve got a bit of a soft-spot for Greenpeace. They got me a job when I was a young lass.
Apparently, Greenpeace had staged some sort of protest at a coal-fired power plant (or had planned to do so at one point–I never got a straight story) involving base-jumping from the smokestacks.
So, I was hired to watch the smokestacks for protestors. It was a great job. I read, watched TV, and went out to sit on the sand dunes and watch the wildlife.
What makes you think the Navy would do a better job of it than the corporations?
Mainly the fact that I knew the training that went into it and that Admiral Hyman G. Rickover left a strong and diligent legacy of professionalism and attention to details. My limited experience with civilian Nuclear plants left me slightly less than confident in their abilities to prevent nuclear incidents.
On the other hand, my limited experience is about 15 years out of date now. I could of course be wrong.
Jim
In the last story in Heinlein’s collection – I think it’s called “Over the Rainbow” or “The Happy Days Ahead” – a character based on Rickover meets with the new president, who asks him, “How come there have been accidents at civilian nuclear power plants but none on your nuclear submarines?”
I wanted to ask – “Hey, wait a minute, Robert – how do you know there have been no accidents on nuclear submarines?! It’s not like it would be impossible for the Navy to keep that a secret!”
There was a very strong representation of ex-British Navy nuclear engineers employed by Ontario Hydro in the design of Pickering and Darlington.
Hasn’t the U.S. lost at least two nuclear subs, the Thresher and the Scorpion?
In any case, I interpret the film as anti-jet more than anti-nuke. I mean, that nuke plant was just sitting there, benignly minding its own business, so calm and relaxed and quiet that a family of Brits or Ozzies or whatever could casually run up and down the beach just a few hundred meters away, in perfect safety until NRRROOOOM! and Mr. Wiseguy Look-at-me-with-my-big-engines-and-wings Jet intruded on the bucolic peace of the scene.
Filthy bugger. Get away from here, you blackguard troublemaker!
Actually, the worst nuclear disaster in US history for release size was in Idaho Falls in a Navy Proto-type. While they do not advertise the problems, they do not hide them. There have been several Navy related nuclear incidents. I still feel they “run a tighter ship” then many of the civilians.
Additionally the Navy Nuke Program is centrally administrated and consistent. We could have 10 great corporations that do everything correctly and one corner cutting miscreant corporation could follow their own system and have a major disaster. I like the idea of a not for profit entity running the plants centrally.
Jim
Once again – how do you know? Even if you are a Navy vet.
That’s exactly what Greenpeace is arguing. If we’d all sit in a giant circle doing nothing all day except for making hemp ropes, things would be fahhhbulous.
Well, yes, they would . . . provided we did not neglect to make full use of the non-fibrous parts of the plant. 
Okay, I do not know. I am foolishly placing my trust in a system that has revealed several mishaps along the way. This includes losing a nuclear warhead near Japan. Seems like an easy thing to cover-up, why did it get reported and into public information?
Do you trust civilians profit making corporations more than the Navy Nuclear Program? That is my question to you.
Jim
Corporations can get sued and shut down. Nobody is going to shut down the Navy, and I don’t even know if the Navy would allow itself to be sued.