Strange Stories about FNH's CEO


PDA






Wes Janson
September 9, 2007, 12:56 AM
Found this through some sort of random arcane digging on Wikipedia:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2087877,00.html

The gist of the story is that FNH USA's president and CEO was a French intelligence service operative who led the team of agents who sunk a Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand in 1985, killing one person. And that despite US law against allowing individuals with ties to terrorism into the country, that he lives in D.C. and runs FNH.

Who knows about the validity of the sources, though.

I don't quite know what to make of all of it, but it certainly is an interesting tidbit of information. Makes one wonder what the heck really happened behind the scenes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Stories about FNH's CEO" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tommygunn
September 9, 2007, 01:24 AM
FNH USA's president and CEO was a French intelligence service operative who led the team of agents who sunk a Greenpeace vessel in New Zealand in 1985, killing one person.

So? Who says that is terrorism? You might not like it but since he was leading a team of intelligence operatives, I doubt that the U.S. government would consider that terrorism.
While I'm sorry about the fact one person died, OTOH, I shed no tears for Greenpeace. Despite the opinion of some here, it's not really wise to mess around with the French.

Lucky
September 9, 2007, 01:38 AM
So? Who says that is terrorism? You might not like it but


Dude wake the F up, what part of bombing protesters in a foreign country do you consider to be legitimate? If a gov't employee commits murder it's supposed to be suddenly OK? The French live in a ****ed up country with ****ed up versions of basic rights and freedoms and ****ed up view of basic human priorities, the less one has in common with them the ****ing better. You might as well be citing ****ing KGB operations and telling us they prove what's OK and not.


Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
- Sir John Harington (Harrington),

Any appeasement of tyranny is treason to this republic and to the democratic ideal.
- William Allen White

Geronimo45
September 9, 2007, 01:42 AM
French intelligence... and France's GIGN is buying FN's Five-Seven line. Very interesting.

General Geoff
September 9, 2007, 01:53 AM
The only difference between terrorism and patriotism is who wins.

2RCO
September 9, 2007, 02:03 AM
Um Wikipedia is possibly the worst source for information possible.
Anyone can post BS on the thing. By the way Greenpeace has been accused of terrorism in the past. Look into some of their operations they have a few psychos within the bunny and treehuggers.

Gator
September 9, 2007, 02:13 AM
Yep, the Greenpeace folks were the terrorists. Vive la FNH!

max popenker
September 9, 2007, 03:18 AM
RE: Greenpeace

Not sure about them being terrorists, but here in Russia this organization is usually closely tied with CIA - too many spy-catching stories here started when someone "green-PC minded" passed some highly classified but "ecology-related" data (i.e. details of the Russian Navy nuclear facilities) to the Greenpeace.

Warren
September 9, 2007, 04:42 AM
I've noticed that most stories accusing GreenPeace of violent acts end up being about another group and the rest are just made up out of thin air.

Earth First is not GreenPeace

Sea Shepard is not GreenPeace.

PETA is not GreenPeace

and so on...

When I worked there we had to sign a contract stating we would not engage in any sort of violence while on GreenPeace business. The upper types were very serious about that sort of thing. This was an GP wide philosophy and policy.

I now am opposed to most of their stances but I would not call them terrorists.

I'm pleased and a little suprised that someone did not come into this thread claiming it was GP that sunk a French naval vessel in Auckland Harbor.

Many blockheads believe this even though the truth is easy to find.

Destructo6
September 9, 2007, 07:19 AM
The only difference between terrorism and patriotism is who wins.
Uh, not even close.

RLsnow
September 9, 2007, 09:08 AM
one mans terrorist is another mans patriot?

sacp81170a
September 9, 2007, 09:21 AM
And that despite US law against allowing individuals with ties to terrorism into the country,

Uh, just because you or I or the guy next door calls someone a "terrorist" doesn't make him or her or them a terrorist according to U.S. law. The label "terrorist" is getting tossed around and used like the label "assault weapon". According to some, your gas operated, shoulder fired, magazine fed semiautomatic weapon isn't just an "assault rifle", it's a "weapon of mass destruction."

We of all people should be wary of using inflammatory labels. How long is it before you'll hear the term "terrorist" being used as a substitute for "Constitutionalist"? In fact, I think I've seen that happen... ;)

Wes Janson
September 9, 2007, 10:22 AM
Uh, just because you or I or the guy next door calls someone a "terrorist" doesn't make him or her or them a terrorist according to U.S. law. The label "terrorist" is getting tossed around and used like the label "assault weapon". According to some, your gas operated, shoulder fired, magazine fed semiautomatic weapon isn't just an "assault rifle", it's a "weapon of mass destruction."

I'm not making a judgment call on the issue, I was merely summarizing the news article. Whether or not the French government's actions were moral is not my concern; the question at hand is whether US law was deliberately ignored to give the guy a pass for political reasons. My reason in posting the entire thing is simply to bring it up for discussion, and to hear what others have to say on the claims of the article.

ilbob
September 9, 2007, 10:26 AM
there is a significant difference between the actions of a bona fide agent of a sovereign power and that of a private organization with many ties to groups known to use violence in support of their objectives.

if there was credible evidence against him, the whale huggers should take it to court.

GunTech
September 9, 2007, 11:24 AM
Dude wake the F up, what part of bombing protesters in a foreign country do you consider to be legitimate? If a gov't employee commits murder it's supposed to be suddenly OK? The French live in a ****ed up country with ****ed up versions of basic rights and freedoms and ****ed up view of basic human priorities, the less one has in common with them the ****ing better. You might as well be citing ****ing KGB operations and telling us they prove what's OK and not.

Good thing the US doesn't do stuff like that. ;)

30 cal slob
September 9, 2007, 11:26 AM
that'll show those greenpeace '***** to get in the way. lol.

Lucky
September 9, 2007, 11:35 AM
The times gov'ts can officially kill people are strictly defined. It's a little concept of fundamental justice, regarding people inside your country, and sovereignty in regard to those not of.

sacp81170a next thing you know it will be disallowed to refer to the Ruby Ridge sniper as a murderer, that word being tossed around so much. The definition of terrorist is not murky and is quite available for you to look up for yourself, basically anyone using force or threats to engender change of any type is officially a terrorist in the US. I think it's a little broad, in fact I think that they should simply be charged with the crimes they commit, but the law is the law and the majority seem to feel 'safer' with more redundant laws.

GunTech
September 9, 2007, 12:30 PM
Lucky, this is straying way into politics and away from guns, and i expect th moderators to lock it soon.

But I ccan't help commenting. By the definition posted: "basically anyone using force or threats to engender change of any type is officially a terrorist in the US" pretty much makes the US a terrorist nation.

A more traditional definition of terrorism is the use of violence primarily against non-combatants to effect political change. The attack on the Maine barracks in Lebanon, was by the rules of war, a guerilla action, since military facilities are legitimate targets under the rules of war. Flying planes into the World Trade Center is terrorism.

Whenever a government backs violent action, it becomes tricky. If one makes the argument that Greenpeace was a legitimate security threat to the nation of France, their actions were legitimate - although not necessarily proper to western sensibilities. Further, since Greenpeace is not a government, and is regarded by many as a criminal enterprise, terrorism doesn't really apply.

One might make the argument that is was inappropriate government action, in the same sense as Ruby Ridge, or Waco. Given that member of Greenpeace are frequently tied to domestic terroprist groups like PETA, ALF, etc. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them. Seems to me the French only erred in that they got caught and embarrassed.

YMMV

geekWithA.45
September 9, 2007, 12:36 PM
Since the membership has psychically predicted both the closure and the reason, I'm not even going to comment.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Stories about FNH's CEO" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!