I drew a pertinent distinction, which you seem to be ignoring. Or are you confusing me for another commenter? I made no statement previous to the one you replied to.
Did Greenpeace edit this interview to do something like give a false impression of what this guy actually told them? That's what Project Veritas often does. For instance, here's a conservative news outlet dissecting the kind of deceptions they engage in: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2011/03/10/does-raw-video-of-n.... The article outlines a lot of deceptive edits in one video, but some of them are particularly egregious, e.g.:
> So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation.
I mean, that's not too far off from this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_yJ4QhrAaM&t=57s
I believe the actual issue with Project Veritas is the highly deceptive edits they make to their targets' statements, not that they falsely identified themselves to get their targets to talk. It's totally consistent to be opposed to the former and not the latter.
Also, your statement is a non sequitur. It's like responding someone who says it's fine to be a vegetarian by saying they must be fine with Hilter and his genocides (since he was a vegetarian too). Sometimes you can trip people up with statements like that, but it's dumb, doesn't prove anything, and makes you look like an ass.