How Greenpeace Wrecked One of the Most Sacred Places in the Americas

[CaptainCrunch]

Yup if they arranged for the offending people to turn themselves into the police and submit to whatever is required that would be a step in the right direction.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

From burninator's post

That doesn't read as we will identify for the Peruvian authorities all people who performed, funded, planned or organized this event.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I haven't had time to read the links, but was this a local branch of Greenpeace that actually did the physical work, or did they actually fly foreigners in to commit this vandalism?

Also, did they ever outright name the person that came up with the plan (a foreigner, I am sure).

I doubt they will, I'm hoping that this episode forces some of these idiots into the light.

If you look at GreenPeaces deplorable actions in terms of the Golden Rice, Filipino Eggplant and their stance against Chlorinated water purification, they've jumped from environmental awareness to stupidity. On top of that it just seems that most of their stunts aren't as much about raising awareness as showing "Oh my god, we're cool and risky now give us money"

But I doubt that Green Peace will do anything to help the investigation beyond lip service, its their way.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn't read as we will identify for the Peruvian authorities all people who performed, funded, planned or organized this event.

"We will cooperate fully with any investigation." pretty much covers it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

"We will cooperate fully with any investigation." pretty much covers it.

Won't believe it until I see it.

sorry Greenpeace doesn't earn the benefit of the doubt here.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Twice in that letter it states that they apologize for "the offence caused by (their) activity". Nowhere do they apologize for the vandalism and damage they caused to the fragile historic site.

That is what I noticed too. "...for the offence caused...", "...looks bad...", "...came across as...". After that, they simplify down to "sorry, sorry, sorry".

But as noted, at no point do they apologize for the damage. At no point do they apologize for trespassing. At no point do they make any offer of restitution. They do say they are willing to "face fair and reasonable consequences" - but I doubt their view of "fair and reasonable" matches what a regular person would think.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Thanks for posting that. Reading the letter in full, there's no doubt that they're sorry for their actions and are willing to take responsibility for it

People are just too quick to assume it's an apology for reactions when it's for the actions.
Give credit where credit is due

Read it out loud just one more time...

Without reservation Greenpeace apologises to the people of Peru for the offence caused by our recent activity

Not apologizing for the activity there... just for the offence caused by it.

We take personal responsibility for actions

Oh look! They are taking responsibility! But still not sorry.... Anything else in there maybe?

Dr Kumi Niadoo, the International Executive Director of Greenpeace, will travel to Lima this week, to personally apologise for the offence caused by the activity

Nope, still not apologising for the activity, but rather the offence caused by it. They do take responsibility but then again it's hard not to when they already but their name on it.

But wait....

We fully understand that this looks bad.

ha.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Doing stupid ####, directly causing damage, taking no responsibility. Just another day for Greenpeace.

[Barbecue]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Read it out loud just one more time...



Not apologizing for the activity there... just for the offence caused by it.



Oh look! They are taking responsibility! But still not sorry.... Anything else in there maybe?



Nope, still not apologising for the activity, but rather the offence caused by it. They do take responsibility but then again it's hard not to when they already but their name on it.

But wait....



ha.

Again, not realizing that "offense" where offence means a violation or breach of a law, custom, rule, etc

but there's no point in arguing with people hell bent on being cynical on public apologies.
It's too bad that people these days cant accept "sorry" as an apology for simply being sorry for the actions and have to twist it in believing it as a way to protect an organization's way of saving face without admiting fault.

The part where they said they're willing to cooperate in investigations and accept responsibility pretty much confirms it for me that it was a genuine apology

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is what I noticed too. "...for the offence caused...", "...looks bad...", "...came across as...". After that, they simplify down to "sorry, sorry, sorry".

But as noted, at no point do they apologize for the damage. At no point do they apologize for trespassing. At no point do they make any offer of restitution. They do say they are willing to "face fair and reasonable consequences" - but I doubt their view of "fair and reasonable" matches what a regular person would think.

Like any other big corporation, I am sure they have lawyers carefully choosing words for them to use. It's like when BP had the big spill in the Gulf. They kept apologizing for "events that led to the spill", but they avoided outright apologizing for the damage.

I definitely hold Greenpeace to a higher standard when it comes to damaging something of natural significance (from a heritage perspective), but as a corporation, they are all pretty much going to protect themselves legally the same way.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Barbecue

Again, not realizing that "offense" where offence means a violation or breach of a law, custom, rule, etc

but there's no point in arguing with people hell bent on being cynical on public apologies.
It's too bad that people these days cant accept "sorry" as an apology for simply being sorry for the actions and have to twist it in believing it as a way to protect an organization's way of saving face without admiting fault.

The part where they said they're willing to cooperate in investigations and accept responsibility pretty much confirms it for me that it was a genuine apology

There's more than one definition for the word "offense", as others have noted. In the context of that particular sentence, it's blatantly clear that they're referring to the reaction their own actions caused.

There won't be anything close to resembling a sincere apology until all the dust has settled and the wrongful parties are prosecuted, that letter was straight off the boilerplate from their lawyer's office

[troutman]

We need groups like Greenpeace to help with Global Warming, but blunders like this really hurt the cause.

Greenpeace stunt wrong approach to climate change: Bob McDonald

Group's defacing of Nazca Lines hurts climate change cause

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/gr...nald-1.2870270

Dealing with climate change is a complicated issue, involving the environment, the economy, industry and politics. While scientific data indicates that fossil fuels are at the root of our warming world, change will not come about easily by characterizing oil companies as evil and environmental activists as saviours.

This confrontational, white hat/black hat mentality leads to name-calling, so each side digs in their heels and nothing moves forward. Extreme posturing is like a revolution, where one side battles the other - it triggers violence, destruction of property and, usually, an aftermath of chaos.

[flamefan74]

“We took every care we could to try and avoid any damage. We have 40 years of experience of doing peaceful protests,” Greenpeace spokesman Kyle Ash told The Guardian. “The surprise to us was that this resulted in some kind of moral offense. We definitely regret that and we want to figure out a way to resolve it. We are very remorseful for any offense that we’ve caused and we’re very remorseful for that.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/11/pe...-sacred-sites/

Doesn't seem like they were as concerned about the damage done as to the moral offense. They seem to think that they took care to avoid damage. If that were the case, they would have known how sensitive that area is and not done it in the first place. I wouldn't have any problem seeing jail time for those responsible.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by troutman

We need groups like Greenpeace to help with Global Warming, but blunders like this really hurt the cause.

Greenpeace scored one of the worst "own goals" against the environment by leading the protest movement against nuclear power back in the 70s. How much lower would global CO2 emissions be today if most of the electricity needs of the developed world had been met with clean nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels (coal in particular) for the last ~30-40 years?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by troutman

We need groups like Greenpeace to help with Global Warming, but blunders like this really hurt the cause.

I disagree.
We definitely need advocats to get the message and proper information out about climate change, but I sincerely believe these clowns do more harm than good.

Look at this example. They tried to make some statement, and it is being completely lost due to the manner in which they did it. This totally ruins this message, and it means that when they do other things, valid or not, people will look at it and simply associate the mesage with those clowns who damaged a historic site.

We need rational and reasoned information and messages. Not the garbage these guys do on a regular basis.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

We need groups like Greenpeace to help with Global Warming, but blunders like this really hurt the cause.

Greenpeace isn't that group, their CEO commutes 250 miles to work by jet. Their boats are pretty much mass polluters as they for example added engines to them so that they could travel at high rates of speed to elude coast guards. The helicopters and seaplanes that they purchased were not known for fuel efficiency or clean operation.

Their international travel alone is also a huge source of green house gases.

Greenpeace is fairly hypocritical in its messaging.


I don't disagree with you about the need for anti-pollution advocacy groups, but I think people get sick of the whole do as we say not as we do mentality of some of them.

[Dan02]

Greenpeace is a activist organization not a environmental organization, they exist to feed their own egos and line their own pocketbooks, akin to these charities we hear about which spend almost all the money they raise on more fundraising with very few dollars going towards the actual cause.

And this was just another incident, they attempted to raise their own profile by doing something absurd, they may have guised it under some environmental cause but honestly I cannot recall a single greenpeace initiative where i remember what message greenpeace was trying to get across other then greenpeace did another stupid stunt.

If you want to donate to a environmental organization give your money to the WWF, if you want to feed the bloated egos of a bunch of people more worried about making a statement and being known, then give to Greenpeace.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

“We took every care we could to try and avoid any damage. We have 40 years of experience of doing peaceful protests,” Greenpeace spokesman Kyle Ash told The Guardian. “The surprise to us was that this resulted in some kind of moral offense. We definitely regret that and we want to figure out a way to resolve it. We are very remorseful for any offense that we’ve caused and we’re very remorseful for that.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/11/pe...-sacred-sites/

Doesn't seem like they were as concerned about the damage done as to the moral offense. They seem to think that they took care to avoid damage. If that were the case, they would have known how sensitive that area is and not done it in the first place. I wouldn't have any problem seeing jail time for those responsible.

"We know what we're doing"

No, stupid, you don't.

[bizaro86]

Experience doing peaceful protests != Experience maintaining historic/archaeological sites

[old-fart]

For their next message, they should cut down huge swaths of trees and all vegetation in the Amazon to spell "trees are important lolz - love Greenpeace". That way if anyone flies over they'd be able to see this critically important message.

Or they could work with BP to create a contained oil spill in the Atlantic Ocean in mile high letters saying "Fishies r like totes rad, munching dem makes us sad - love Greenpiece".