I couldn't agree more Bronwyn

Well said

The evidence does not show that Greenpeace is to blame in fact when the evidence was reviewed by a marine law expert from Monash University he said the whalers were to blame. Here’s the article about it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000AB29A-F71A-13C4-81BC83027AF1023A

Also if we look at the photos released from the ICR in detail we can see they support Greenpeace’s claim. Here is the view of one blogger after reviewing the evidence at length: http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/01/a_greenpeace_member_responds.php

This opinion is guilty of what it attacks other reports about: jumping to conclusions without reviewing the evidence full

I agree plerdsus, and crop circles are made by aliens and John Howard didn't lie to win the past two elections. Facts are not opinions but you seem unable to grasp that concept. As far as the article is concerned, read the reports from people that were there rather than quote third hand reports.

frat

I hope Graham is wrong about Greenpeace being the aggressor, which may be the case, but isn't 'obviously' apparent. The fact is, if you're fighting the good fight, it undermines your cause if you act badly, and your efforts are undermined if your actions are reported inaccurately. It is the core purpose of the journalist to report the facts, and to not do so affects the integrity of themselves, and those who they defend, possibly moreso than if a factual, albeit negative article was released.

In regards to the suggestion of spraying arsenic, etc. on a whale to stop such activies, such ideas are fundamentally good, but in effect would be counter-productive. As the whalers would maintain the line that they were performing 'scientific research', a whale sprayed with arsenic would be considered contaminated for this justification also, and would thus be dumped, and not included in the quota, which would not drop.

Tim.

Greenpeace and "aggressor" do not belong in the same sentence. Should Greenpeace become truly aggressive in their efforts, then perhaps they would attract greater support from the mainstream.

Graham, your CV gives a pretty clear indication of your perspective of the world in general. That is not mentioned as a fault, just an observation.
What you do say has merit, if the premise of fault is correct. If, indeed, Greenpeace has falsified what has happened they do themselves, and their supporters, a great disservice. Greenpeace, I believe, has a well-deserved reputation due to its unswerving and ethical approach to the truth. The Rainbow Warrior affair and Greenpeace’s campaign against French nuclear testing that highlighted France’s lies regarding the damage to the atolls, exemplifies the courage of their convictions. If they begin to adopt the tactics of the ‘enemy’ then they also adopt the same traits of those that they remonstrate against.
The footage that I have seen is inconclusive, at best. The orientation of the ships is difficult to determine, as there are no terms of reference to indicate who turned toward whom.
I cannot help but give Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt for they deserve that, at the very least.
One question I would dearly love answered. Why do Indonesian fishermen get crucified for fishing in our waters while Japan can kill whales with impunity? This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like an explanation if there is a legal one.