Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seanie · 03-17-2003, 01:45 AM

The thing that sticks in my mind is sanctions.

The French send the secret service to another country to blow up a boat, killing someone in the process, and who has sanction imposed upon them?

New Zealand.

variable · 03-17-2003, 02:48 AM

isn't it odd when we hear about stuff like this that the people involved have a bad case of short term memory? maybe short term memory isn't it exactly, but it's this sort of reactionary, insta-judgement that occurs shortly after things pop up in the media. like we go for how long without having your average john doe know much of anything about north korea/yugoslavia/france/kuwait, and then as soon as some news hits, *bang* people form an opinion. like how come people can't see how completely fake and manipulated their opinions become on this kind of basis.

reminds me of people talking about their trip to country x & saying that people were really friendly. but in country y they had some terrible service and spotted several drug addicts. so after hearing this you wonder... ok... so this person had an experience among tens of millions of people and yet what can end up happening is associating countries with thoughts of "bad service" or "friendly atmosphere"... people just have to get better at understanding the foundations of their judgemental states. i mean honestly, the freedom fries have got to go.

Ut · 03-17-2003, 05:10 AM

Auckland's police summary of the Rainbow Warrior affair
Time's report of the Rainbow Warrior II affair

Reading these reports helped refresh my memory:

Quote:

Originally posted by marylandnaturegirl:
Remember, France is the nation that TWICE has bombed and sunken Greenpeace unarmed ships. TWICE! Two different ships, 2 different times!
[...]
They also rammed and gassed Rainbow Warrior II in 1995 when it was trying to protest the French Polynesia nuclear testing situation.

So they attacked both Rainbow warriors, the first sunk the 2nd one that was rammed and gassed I'm not sure if that one ended up sinking or not.

The French did not sink any ships, nor did they kill anybody, in the Rainbow Warrior II affair. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior happened in Auckland's port, not in international waters. Of course, that does not make it any better.

Quote:

Originally posted by lunachick:
[Also killed] was a NZ volunteer Greenpeace worker. An environmental scientist, if memory serves me well.

From Auckland's police report, only the Portugese photographer died in the sinking.

Ut · 03-17-2003, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marylandnaturegirl
I've been abhored with France since the 80's and protesting Chirac since the 90's.
[...]
France has been testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere long after the cold war was over and after the other countries agreed to give that up.
[...]
Frances pro-nuke status has made the French and Chirac the subject of boycotts for quite a number of years. In the mid 90's people used to put boycott France and nuclear symbol stickers on all the French wine and french cheese in stores. WHY? Because France is very militant and in total disregard of the nuclear fallout they cause. The islands that are their territories are now totally radioactive from nuclear fallout for all the testing they do there and the people have become sick from it.

Why are you still protesting Chirac? According to the FAS report on France's nuclear arsenal, France has, as it had declared, stopped nuclear testing after their 1995-1996 tests.

You might want to compare your claim that "[t]he islands that are their territories are now totally radioactive from nuclear fallout for all the testing they do" with the conclusion from the IAEA study on this matter:

Quote:

Conclusion of the Study:

There will be no radiation health effects which could be either medically diagnosed in an individual or epidemiologically discerned in a group of people and which would be attributable to the estimated radiation doses which are being received or which would be received in the future by people as a result of the residual radioactive material at Mururoa and Fangataufa.

Overall, the expected radiation dose rates and mode of exposure are such that no effects on biota population groups could arise, although occasionally individual members of species might be harmed, but not to the extent of endangering the whole species or creating imbalances between species.

Given the measured and predicted radionuclide activity levels, and the low dose levels estimated for the present and for the future, and with account taken of international guidance, no remedial action at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls is needed on radiological protection grounds, either now or in the future.

Similarly, no further environmental monitoring at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls is needed for purposes of radiological protection.

Although many assumptions were made in the modelling of systems. the findings are robust: i.e. the expected extent of changes in the conclusions due to uncertainties in the parameters used in the modelling is slight. Furthermore, the predicted doses are so low that large errors (even of an order of magnitude) would not affect the conclusions. An important conclusion is also that future exposures are predicted to be less than today's exposures.

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by marylandnaturegirl
Greenpeace often has ships get close to ships that are going to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere because ships are not allowed at the time to do a nuclear tests while other ships are in a certain radius.

France has been testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere long after the cold war was over and after the other countries agreed to give that up.

Since when have they been testing in atmosphere?! Last I heard France tested deep underwater.

Loren Pechtel · 03-17-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marylandnaturegirl
More details as I was going off my memory alone of stuff that was 18 years ago and 8 years ago.

The islands I was referring two are French Polynesia.

It was the French Secret Service that bombed Rainbow Warrior I (Greenpeace's ship of peace) .The sinking was in 1985 in New Zealand.

They also rammed and gassed Rainbow Warrior II in 1995 when it was trying to protest the French Polynesia nuclear testing situation.

So they attacked both Rainbow warriors, the first sunk the 2nd one that was rammed and gassed I'm not sure if that one ended up sinking or not.

The French also rammed the Vega , another Greenpeace ship.

Anyhow, ask the Polynesians and the Africans how peaceful they think France and Chirac to be.

The French government hates Greenpeace of course and I had personal confirmation of that when I happened to discuss Greenpeace with the wife of the French Ambassador at the French Embassy in DC in 1995.

Why does France hate Greenpeace? For constantly getting the way of their atmospheric nuclear testing.

I find the "rammed" assertion odd--the normal rule of both sea and air is that the maneuverable gives way to the non-maneuverable. Regardless of geometery it's almost certainly the maneuverable guy at fault.

I seriously doubt Greenpeace has ships of the size of even the smaller warships. Since all the ships involved were normal engined ships this would mean that the Greenpeace ship was the maneuverable one.

I strongly suspect they were getting in the way trying to cause the French to turn. Rather like the EP-3 incident with China.

seanie · 03-18-2003, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
I find the "rammed" assertion odd--the normal rule of both sea and air is that the maneuverable gives way to the non-maneuverable. Regardless of geometery it's almost certainly the maneuverable guy at fault.

Well that ain't the rule of international navigation.

Ships at risk of collision head on should both turn to starboard.

When ships may collide in a crossing situation the ship with the other to its starboard should take evasive action.

Oh and powered vessels should give way to sailing vessels.

And guess what?

Vega was a 38' ketch.

So despite your incredulity the French did indeed ram the Greenpeace boat. And they did so on more than one occassion.

seanie · 03-19-2003, 02:50 AM

Just so you're not in any doubt.

If you look here you'll find a copy of the international navigation rules. Strictly speaking these are "inland" but that don't matter much in this context. I'm only using this because it was from the US Department of Transport. However if you want to check the rules on the high seas you can also look here.

If you look at Rule 14 you'll see what action is to be taken when faced with a head on collision;

Quote:

(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

Rule 15 states;

Quote:

(a) When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.

So clearly the normal rule of the sea is indeed based on 'geometry' i.e. the relative position of the boats.

However there are other factors to consider.

If you care to look at Rule 18 you'll see;

Quote:

(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:

(i) a vessel not under command; (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing; (iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of: (i) a vessel not under command; (ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver; (iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

As well as;

Quote:

(d) (i) Any vessel other than a vessel not under command or a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid impeding the safe passage of a vessel constrained by her draft, exhibiting the signals in Rule 28.

So nothing about smaller boats giving way to bigger boats or 'more' manoeuvrable boats giving way to 'less' manoeuvrable boats. But there is a clear instruction that powered vessels must give way to sailing vessels.

But not in all cases.

A sailing vessel must give way to "a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver" or "a vessel constrained by her draft".

Now what does that mean?

Luckily we have definitions under Rule 3.

Quote:

The term �vessels restricted in their ability to maneuver� shall include but not be limited to:

(i) a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;

(ii) a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;

(iii) a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;

(iv) a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;

(v) a vessel engaged in mineclearance operations;

(vi) a vessel engaged in a towing operation such as severely restricts the towing vessel and her tow in their ability to deviate from their course.

(h) The term �vessel constrained by her draft� means a power-driven vessel which, because of her draft in relation to the available depth and width of navigable water is severely restricted in her ability to deviate from the course she is following.

Difficult to see how any of that could possibly apply to the French minesweeper.

And take a look at the attatchment below. That's a Bay Class minesweeper similar to the French boat. Not exactly constrained by her draft now is she? Looks fairly nimble to me. Just the kind of ship you'd want when trying to ram a yacht. That'd be tricky with a Destroyer.

So without even knowing the exact circumstances it's reasonable to assume any collision was due to the French.

However, given the circumstances, your comment that "I strongly suspect they were getting in the way trying to cause the French to turn" is just jaw droppingly bizarre.

You do know what was going on right? What the French were doing there? What the Vega was doing there? You wouldn't be making baseless assertions concerning something you know jack shit about would you?

No. I can't believe you'd do that.

However, just to refresh your memory, the year was 1972. The French had announced they were to conduct an atmospheric nuclear test at the Mururoa Atoll. As part of that they had declared an exclusion zone that illegally extended into international waters.

Greenpeace sent the Vega to get as close as possible to the atoll in an attempt to disrupt the test. That was their goal. To get as close as possible to Mururoa.

What was La Paimpolaise doing there?

It was trying to stop the Vega getting as close as possible to Mururoa. That was it's only goal.

So what the fuck would the Vega be doing trying to make La Paimpolaise turn?

Turn away from what? Its course? What fucking course?

La Paimpolaise wasn't going anywhere specific. It was just trying to stop the Vega continuing on its course.

And after eight days of getting in the way trying to cause the Vega to turn, after eight days of failure because the skipper of the Vega was a plucky bastard, they gave up and rammed him, illegally, in international waters.

Which is what the French civil courts found too when they awarded $21,000 in compensation the following year.

I'm sure this is all coming back to you now.

03-17-2003, 12:15 PM	#25
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Re: France IS just as miltant, pot calling kettle black Originally posted by marylandnaturegirl Greenpeace often has ships get close to ships that are going to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere because ships are not allowed at the time to do a nuclear tests while other ships are in a certain radius. France has been testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere long after the cold war was over and after the other countries agreed to give that up. Since when have they been testing in atmosphere?! Last I heard France tested deep underwater.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2003, 01:45 AM	#21
seanie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Edinburgh. Scotland Posts: 2,532	The thing that sticks in my mind is sanctions. The French send the secret service to another country to blow up a boat, killing someone in the process, and who has sanction imposed upon them? New Zealand.

03-17-2003, 02:48 AM	#22
variable Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: canada Posts: 54	isn't it odd when we hear about stuff like this that the people involved have a bad case of short term memory? maybe short term memory isn't it exactly, but it's this sort of reactionary, insta-judgement that occurs shortly after things pop up in the media. like we go for how long without having your average john doe know much of anything about north korea/yugoslavia/france/kuwait, and then as soon as some news hits, bang people form an opinion. like how come people can't see how completely fake and manipulated their opinions become on this kind of basis. reminds me of people talking about their trip to country x & saying that people were really friendly. but in country y they had some terrible service and spotted several drug addicts. so after hearing this you wonder... ok... so this person had an experience among tens of millions of people and yet what can end up happening is associating countries with thoughts of "bad service" or "friendly atmosphere"... people just have to get better at understanding the foundations of their judgemental states. i mean honestly, the freedom fries have got to go.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.