Come on people. Let's use formalistic definitions here.
Piracy
Quote:
piracy
n. the crime of robbery of ships or boats on the oceans.
|
Quote:
robbery
n. 1) the direct taking of property (including money) from a person (victim) through force, threat or intimidation. Robbery is a felony (crime punishable by a term in state or federal prison). "Armed robbery" involves the use of a gun or other weapon which can do bodily harm, such as a knife or club, and under most state laws carries a stiffer penalty (longer possible term) than robbery by merely taking.
|
Applying the appropriate, formalistic definitions, there's no way you can construe the actions as piracy. There was no threat of harm nor was there an attempt to take property.
Quote:
|
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought
|
Once again, applying formalistic definitions, that the Greenpeace members were not engaging in an act of terrorism. While it's clear that Greenpeace uses its actions and communications to try to reach a larger audience, the lack of violence or a threat of violence puts this action in a different category.
Q. Do you know what you call (in most places) shooting a trespasser who does not threaten you with serious bodily harm?
A. (attempted) homicide
Why do so many here try to poison the well by making foregone legal conclusions with inappropriate word choice?
The real issue is here is why hasn't GP learned to wage a PR war after all its years of existence? Pissing off some shipping workers in a low-profile stunt like this does nothing to hinder the coal industry, does nothing to reach the target audience, and subjects GP members to unjustifiable risks. I mean, even if the MSM got wind of this story and ran with it, how many people would understand or identify with this act of protest? In this net-roots world we live in, couldn't their money and skills be put to better use in the battle against environmental damage? Isn't it a sign that this well intentioned organization is turning into a dinosaur, a relic?