Environmentalists vow to ram whaling vessels

[Barrett808]

Source: AAP

RADICAL environmentalist group Sea Shepherd has again vowed to ram Japanese vessels involved in the hunting of whales, including humpback whales, in the Antarctic Ocean.

Japan's six-vessel whaling fleet took off from the western port of Shimonoseki for its five-month voyage on Sunday heading to the Antarctic Ocean for a hunt that will include humpback whales for the first time.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society says it will physically stop the hunt by ramming whaling vessels if necessary.

"Basically we're going down there to stop them," Sea Shepherd's Jonny Vasic told Channel 9 this morning. "We're not going down there to protest; we're going down to directly intervene and put an end to this criminal behaviour. We've been known to ram a vessel that's engaged in illegal activity as a last ditch effort to get them to stop. We have a reputation of direct action and we mean business. We, too, are a non-violent group, but we don't have a problem with economic destruction when it's engaged in illegal activity."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22789732-421,00.html

[Deja Q]

1. Okay, I'll have sex for the cause of virginity.

In other words, isn't ramming a ship going to cause bits of it to fall into the water and kill all sorts of tasty little animals and plants? Especially if they hit a gas line?

Stupid twits...

[Hayduke Lives]

18. No, actually

Capt. Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Society have saved a lot of whales and sunk a lot of whaling ships - probably more than you and me combined.

Anyone catch that article in the Atlantic Monthly last month on the SSCS? I hope that old pirate keeps the wind in his sales this season. Arrgh.

[Turbineguy]

34. Let's hope Captain Watson remembers:

"A collision at sea can ruin your whole day!"

[Thothmes]

74. Better to risk the lives of sailors, than allow a whale to be harmed

Since there crime is whaling. Judge Jury and Executioner.

[The Stranger]

102. No, it is actually the whalers who are risking their lives by violating international law.

Put it where it belongs.

[Thothmes]

158. You would prefer dead sailors to dead whales. Whose at fault

is not the issue. Sink one of those ships, drown some of those sailors, that murder, regardless of the justness of the cause.

[Nihil]

161. I would prefer dead whalers to dead whales. No question.

I would even more prefer the whalers to give up their illegal & immoral trade
and not run any risk whatsoever but that's purely their choice ... sort of
how I have no sympathy for a drug-runner who risks death for the sake of
their chosen occupation ... or a mercenary for that matter ...

:shrug:

[slowry]

162. Nobody is sinking ships, nobody is murdering sailors. stafoo pls. n/t

[Duppers]

69. you've gotta be joking

this is serious. don't you give a shit about the humpbacks whales?

[Deja Q]

119. I do, but it's hardly a win-win situation.

I've never cared for vigilante "justice". Get the cops out there instead. Or will that become a "police state"? Or "police ocean", technically?

[minnesota_liberal]

125. I didn't know anyone enforced treaties within international waters

Seems unlikely that you'll find a "cop" when (and where) you need one.

[lakeguy]

132. okay, take back what i said in my last repsonse to you

i am going to be rude now, even though we have met. cops on the ocean? you really are one of those tv only kinda people aren't you? man, u gotta get out in the real world and learn some stuff. you sound like an idiot and the more i read of your posts, i think you may be in the wrong party.

you never cared for vigilante justice? that's because you fear. you are afraid of what will happen to your puny little life as you know it. get some balls man (sorry women). nothing in this country is really going to change for the better until you decide to put down your 'i am not a vigilante type' mindset and actually do something. look up how the union got established or any other sort of movement that really ever amounted to anything. people died man. and you don't care for ships ramming each other?

i'm sorry, but that kind of shit makes me want to vomit.

[SyntaxError]

77. Actually, I thought sea life love sunken ships like that...

[lakeguy]

129. whats your solution there smart guy?

you have all kinds of 'funny' replies but don't really offer an alternative. how you going to get these ships to stop whaling? the rules are already in place, and they are abusing them. you going to sit on your sofa and armchair these hunters away? oh, sorry didn't mean to interrupt...now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

as for the supposed pollution you are so worried about during the 'attacks' on these vessels. you are looking at less than a hundredth of a percent of what gets dumped into the ocean ever day, worst case scenario. hows that armchair sofa workin for you now?

i'm sorry, because i've actually met you before and i don't mean to be rude. but people like you are exactly what's wrong with this country, and the world. and until we can convince people like you that some things are worth fighting for, and getting hurt for (via jobs, jail time, whatever), nothing will ever change. corporate media will be happy to feed you everything you want to believe and you can sit at home and soak it in (got a tv, good...time to turn it on now). have fun. meanwhile the planet you live on continues to collapse, while you preach peace or whatever it is that allows you to justify non-action on your part. in your case, you are more concerned about hitting a gas line (???) than saving some of the most magnificent creatures on this planet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. Joe Horn? Is that you? n/t

[Ian David]

2. Fortunately, we have a secret weapon...

[TomInTib]

3. I would love to be with those guys.

That's the kind of stuff that keeps you (me, anyway) alive.

I could use a little excitement right now and those whalers are effing scum.

[Red Zelda]

4. agreed

anything I could do I would to help crack these savages in the head

[The Stranger]

106. Give to Sea Shepherd. That is one way to support them.

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. Those are not "environmentalists". The media is slandering real environmentalists with that label.

Sea Shepherd is a grandstanding money-hungry bunch of misguided voyeurs.

[ORDagnabbit]

6. why because they actively doing something?

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. Yeah, because they're actively doing something.

:eyes:

[cstanleytech]

98. Oh, I wonder would you say the same if

it was one of those nutjob pro lifers bombing a clinic or taking a rifle and killing a doctor who performs abortions.
After all thats actively doing something to.

[Bo]

111. I AGREE, THERE PRO ACTIVE..PIRATE ON!

[slowry]

7. You're right.

Most "real" environmentalists don't actually get results.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Yeah, using up tonnes of fuel to go out and cause a fuel spill is "results".

If, in the process of preventing the killing of a few whales, they sink the Japanese and/or their own ship, thereby causing the death of a myriad of Ocean critters (including whales, perhaps), is that still ok with you?

I bet it is, because you're quite obviously blinded by the illusion that charlaton "Captain" Watson has created.

[slowry]

16. Yeah, you can tell I'm "blinded" by the 9-word post I just wasted on you.

I encourage anyone unfamiliar with Sea Shepherd to ignore both mine and Harper_is_Bush's opinions on their activism, and do some research into their 30+ years of saving "a few whales".

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. I've researched them. The "Captain" is a habitual liar, and the organization makes millions off of

these grandstanding events.

In this day and age global warming should be the moral imperative of anyone who cares about whales or any other animal.

Captain cares about his coffers, and the way to fill them is to chase Japanese whalers around.

[slowry]

25. Done responding to you, but I again encourage anyone to ignore us, and do their own research n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Yeah, ignore us.

:eyes:

[Matariki]

135. ...

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:


Nothing personal. I just like the 'eyes' thing. And the 'wink' thing. ;-)

[Judi Lynn]

46. Hey, if he said he researched, that's good enough for me! Well, maybe not!

It probably works for some people but we wouldn't want them contributing too much here.

You are so right. If anyone finally gets even the faint tickle of a doubt, THAT'S the time to start using his/her own time, energy, and intelligence and REALLY start reading everything at hand on a subject.

People who actually put their lives on the line to encourage someone to turn back from criminal actions like slaughtering whale are HEROES. There is no other term which works.

People who make up insults and slurs, slanders and vicious attacks on them are people I don't want to hear from. They have nothing to offer, never will.

[northzax]

80. criminal activity?

yes, it is illegal under US law, but please cite the chapter and verse of Japanese law that makes this illegal? in fact, please cite the IWC resolutions that make the Japanese hunt illegal.

so the relevant governing bodies; the Japanese government and the International Whaling Commission don't agree that this is illegal, but since you do, I guess that makes the case, right?

[Heywood J]

123. The hunt itself is not illegal, per se.

It's that the hunt is claimed as a scientific expedition, yet once the ship reaches home, the meat is sold out the back door to the highest bidder. Whaling for profit or sale is illegal, and the argument as to illegality is that this is a way of concealing the true mission of the ship.

[The Stranger]

138. If that is the purpose for the killing, then it is illegal per se.

It would be similar to poaching. It is irrelevant whether the poacher claims to be poaching in the service of science.

[Canuckistanian]

32. Got any proof that Watson is a "habitual liar"?

I asked you this question several months ago and you vaguely mentioned something about Paul Watson claiming something about the resignation of an MP. I asked you for clarification.

I'm still waiting for those links, BTW. I went searching for them myself and came up with bupkis.

I really don't understand where this vitriol for Watson comes from. Even the RWers don't seem to regard him as much of a threat as you do.

What gives? Did he steal your girlfriend? Make fun of you in a chatroom somewhere?

If you do, indeed, have something substantial and he is, indeed, living a millionaire's life somewhere on a tropical isle, I apologize.

But to me, the man's an inspiration. A living example of fighting for a cause, consequences be damned.
And ecological Hemingway, if you will.

Pray tell me what vexes you about him?

And I would prefer specifics.

Thanks.

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. Yes, that's one lie. He claimed his actions caused the resignation of an MP.

It was pure bullshit.

I don't recall our exchange or if I provided you links or not. I suggest you google "canada sea shephard mp resigned", or something like that.

His lies are evident, but then...would you expect he wouldn't lie to achieve his goals? What are those "goals"? Why, to be as well known and controversial as possible. Does he do ANYTHING other than mount militent operations against his enemies? And conduct profitable fund raising campaigns? No.

[Canuckistanian]

36. Who are his enemies?

To be fair, one of his old Greenpeace colleagues consider him to be "insane", but I can't even find the context for the quote.

As for the MP thing, I tried AGAIN to find this celebrated "MP resigning" thing you seem to think is so relevant, using YOUR suggested keywords and multiple variations. Nothing. AGAIN.

And again, you claim "the lies are evident". To whom? What lies?

Again, I beg for links (or even a fucking clue what you're referring to).

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. He lied about the reasons for a Canadian MP leaving office.

He took credit.

If you're REALLY interested, you can find your own links. I went through this song and dance before.

[slowry]

97. I made an honest, educated effort to find anything like what you describe and...

zilch. Taking a different approach, I searched all your posts on DU, for anything related to "Sea Shepherd", "Paul Watson", and even just "Watson". All assertions, no evidence. Just more claims that you've somehow proved, time and time again, that any of what you claim is true.

Your main charge, that he lied about the reasons for some politician leaving office, doesn't strike me as unforgivable, either -- even if there is hard evidence of it, anywhere at all.

Would love to see your little song and dance again, for the first time.

[Occulus]

101. I searched Google using his exact phrase

both with and without quotes. There's literally nothing found when putting it in quotes, and lots of junk- but nothing really relevant- found without them.

I'd say the guy's talking out his ass, wouldn't you?

[Occulus]

100. uh- problem with that Google term

There's nothing found, period.

Without putting your terms in quotes, the only other item I could find of any interest or connection to what you're saying is this:

http://101people.blogspot.com/

An obviously biased, onesided list of "wrongdoers" written by some two-bit hack from Up North. Sure, I'll trust that :eyes:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mind_your_head]

59. Sure in having "done your research"......Please share it with us n/t

[LanternWaste]

92. Isn't the watertight integrity of most fishing/whaling vessels...

Isn't the watertight integrity of most fishing/whaling vessels, and the self-sealing fuel tanks strong enough to withstand most sea collisions... especially when one compares the sizes of the two vessels?

[flvegan]

43. Is that so?

Wanna debate that, friend?

[Duppers]

70. ? Oh, just like GREENPEACE?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1119/whales.html

[LostinVA]

96. Hey, how about those sHarp seals?

What a bloody surprise... not.

[xchrom]

8. as it should be. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Did they finish spiking all the trees?

Did they burn down all the research labs?

Shoot all the animal researchers?

[slowry]

13. Name one person they've injured, in over 30 years of action, please. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Sea Shepard? I don't know of any.

But they're threatening to put people in a great deal of danger.

[slowry]

17. They're threatening to give criminals a bit of a run for their money.

If you knew anything about Sea Shepherd's methods, before posting, you'd know the only beings in danger are the whales, and the wallets of those exploiting their deaths.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. They are criminals.

They're threatening "vigilante" violence.

[slowry]

21. They're acting in accordance with international law; something both the Japanese government

and yours oughta be doing.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. They're also threatening violence.

Which is illegal.

Not to mention immoral.

[slowry]

24. Ramming into the whaler's ships, to delay/annoy/discourage them from illegally

killing whales (the real violence going on here) is not violence. "Ramming" is the wrong word anyway -- they sideswipe ships. It's a little like standing in front of a tank, except you're big enough to give them a nudge.

But you're clearly hellbent on defaming Sea Shepherd, so you're welcome to the last word.

[flvegan]

53. It's a high seas PIT move.

[northzax]

81. international law?

wait a minute, you mean UNCLOS? pretty sure deliberatly putting human life at risk is banned there. maybe you can find the citation where it isn't. or IWC regulations concerning whaling? I notice that IWC has yet to condemn the Japanese hunt and sanction them under the provisions of the IWC, so it's hard to find that as illegal.

so what international law are the Japanese violating again?

[slowry]

99. The IWC voted 40-2 (27 non-votes) to PASS a resolution calling on Japan to discontinue its killing

of whales who are some combination of a) endangered, b) in a sanctuary, and c) not actually being used for research, which is the big lie from the Japanese government.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/resolutions/Resolution2007-2rev.pdf

Other than that, not only are they not upholding their duties, under the http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm">UN World Charter for Nature:

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and
consultations;

(b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that
may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for
assessing these effects;

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the
conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not
cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

they are also actively engaging in just the kind of conduct they should be policing against -- something which nobody but Sea Shepherd, with a few exceptions, has been doing (for political and economic reasons). That may be why it's so easy to assume Japan is within their rights, as far as international law is concerned...

[Hayduke Lives]

28. Good Lord!

You sure fell for the whole Government-sponsored "Green Scare" program, didn't you?

Tree Spiking? How many people have ever been harmed by tree spiking? (Answer: 1 back in the mid '80s which courts showed was placed there by an angry Republican land owner in Nor Cal.

Burning down labs: No on injured. Ever.

Shooting animal researchers!? Where did you get that from? I could offer my own witty rhetorical answer but that would be self-indulgent.

It was Attorney General Ashcroft that said "eco extremists" represent the greatest domestic terrorist threat facing this country - just before the feds added terrorism enhancements to the sentences of a dozen non-violent, yet slightly misguided environmentalists. The term "eco-terrorist" was coined in the 1980s by an Ron Arnold and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. They've been working like dogs ever since to get that language woven into our common parlance.

If you've bought into its use, and you fear who the government tells you to fear, and you repeat their propaganda, and you lash out against Paul Watson (who, granted has some rather interesting personality traits), and you post your fears up on DU...then what else are you buying?

Unless your Japanese grandpa is manning the harpoon on one of those ships or you've got a hankering for whale burgers, I don't understand the objection to the SSCS. I would wager that what really bothers most armchair environmentalists (like me) is that these people are take action in the 3-D world, whilst we type away on our computers. I've seen this for decades now. It's easy to critique someone else's tactics (or personality) but it's harder to take real action.

[Judi Lynn]

49. Thanks for clearing that up. I was astounded, slightly, hearing such wild ones flung out here.

Apparently there are people who assume DU'ers have a very low ability to recognize truthful claims from pure crap spun by someone fairly stupid.

It seems the guy is confusing the labs with family planning centers and clinics. That's where you'd look for the assassins, that, and the back yards of their employees who've been shot through the window by these clowns hiding in the dark with rifles.

[appal_jack]

88. word-up Hayduke. eom

[seriousstan]

12. I guess I will here no crying when the whalers fire upon them. He has stated his intent.

[Harper_is_Bush]

15. The whalers should defend themselves by any means necessary, imo. n/t

[ORDagnabbit]

19. so how do the whales defend themselves from the whalers?

[villager]

41. Exactly the question, but not many on DU dare ask it...

n/t

[Duppers]

71. why?

because we're to let some assholes here intimidate us?!

Thanks, villager. I agree too.

[villager]

114. Well, I was thinking that many DUers are still a pretty anthropocentric bunch...

n/t

[Judi Lynn]

50. What a sick way to look at "life," thinking anything which can't kill back is going down,

and someone has the right to kill it.

They confuse having the ABILITY to kill with the right to kill it. Having the right to kill anything finally means you have no moral obligation to do anything, or refrain from it.

[SyntaxError]

78. by evolving into a gun platform?

:P

[chatnoir]

84. Exactly the question, Thank you. n/t

[JVS]

126. They swim

[depakid]

26. Seems to me the Australian or New Zealand navies should board and/or scuttle them

and if they won't, then Watson should take all necessary methods to put an end to this illegal activity.

This kind of thing is going to become necessary MUCH more often in the coming decades, otherwise the greedy will deplete the world's fisheries beyond the point of no return.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[girl gone mad]

37. What a sick statement.

I would support anyone trying to keep whales from being murdered purely for consumption by wealthy individuals.

[Harper_is_Bush]

38. regardless of their tactics?

If so, then THAT is the sick statement, not mine.

[girl gone mad]

66. Regardless of their tactics.

Why is it that you believe the Japanese have a right to murder whales in international waters and no one else has the right to defend the species?

The whalers are acting unlawfully, have been given fair warning to stay away, and deserve no special protection.

[northzax]

82. actually, whale meat is not rich man's food in Asia

it is a street food in Korea, and tends to be served in schools in Japan.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

103. The whalers are fucking criminals and should be stopped by any means necessary.

Oh, I fogot the "imo."

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Maritime law allows it.

Piracy is frowned upon.

[Patchuli]

30. I love the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

and anyone who has a problem with stopping whale slaughter is a worthless waste of skin!!!!!!!!!!!

Kicked & Recommended!!!!

[MasonJar]

31. Thank you, Sea Shepherd for at least trying to save these innocent creatures from

a cruel and unnecessary death.

[CK_John]

35. I predict since he stated his intent, someone's navy will sink the Sea Shepherd. n/t

[Kolesar]

39. Watson is half direct-action, half publicity monger

And that's the way it is with animal rights activists. The good ones.

[CK_John]

55. Well if he gets within sonar range of any of these ships on the high seas, his ass is grass. n/t

[LeftyMom]

65. Nah. He's tagged a few of them real good before, and sank others elsewhere.

He's got things under control, especially with the newer faster ship.

[Bonobo]

159. Funny, I remember exchanging posts with you where you denied they rammed.

Weird, huh.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Oh, by the way, about 90% of the Japanese people know nothing about the issue and, if they did, would be as opposed to hunting whales to extinction as you are.

[Nihil]

68. Really? Whose?

It wouldn't be Australia's or New Zealand's (as they have so far failed
to enforce the existing laws which would have required the arrest of the
whalers in previous years).

It wouldn't be Japan's (as they have no more authority outside their
coastal waters than France or India or whoever).

It wouldn't be America's (as theirs is a little bit busy at the moment and,
anyway, there's no oil involved).

So whose navy is going to attack one SSCS ship (whose stated intent is to
uphold the law) rather than the four whalers (whose stated intent is to
break the law)?

:shrug:

[RantinRavin]

79. I guess you missed the story about North Korea thanking the American Navy

for protecting one of it's ships that was under attack by pirates a few weeks ago.

[girl gone mad]

110. Sea Shepard..

is not a pirate ship.

[RantinRavin]

115. Duh...really

But it shows the error of the statements:

It wouldn't be Japan's (as they have no more authority outside their
coastal waters than France or India or whoever).

It wouldn't be America's (as theirs is a little bit busy at the moment and,
anyway, there's no oil involved).

[Duppers]

72. yeah, like the French and Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior

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

Some of us don't forget.

The Sea Shepherd stands for good, whale killers don't.

[Dukkha]

118. I know all about that

Because unlike the nay sayer armchair activists I've been out there!
That's me 17 years ago when I was a deck hand on the second Rainbow Warrior. I was much younger and much harrier. Best two years of my life was spent in Greenpeace. I went away truly knowing I made a difference in our world, and I have the rap sheet to prove it ;) Shortly before this photo we succeeded at stopping the Icelandic whale hunts. I was arrested for placing a giant inflatable whale on a fish truck. Here the ship is being restocked and maintenance check for the voyage back to the Mururoa Atoll again the French testing.

[Duppers]

120. Wow! You're a HERO in my book!

My hat's off to you!


End this...

[Kajsa]

157. Thank you, Neo!

You are a hero to me, too.

:D

[villager]

40. What's "radical" is the Japanese plan for plundering the oceans

Go Sheps!

[Dukkha]

42. a whale's life is sacred and worthy of this action

Humans have gone to war and committed atrocities just to protect oil fields. To save one the the oldest and most intelligent species in Earth's history from total extinction, any direct action is justified. Poachers in Africa have been killed on site during their attacks on Gorillas and Elephants before. All Watson is advocating here is disabling their ship to save a whale's life and it's meat that the overwhelming majority of Japanese don't even want. If one of the whale killers gets hurt, tough shit. They knew the risks before accepting the voyage.

[Harper_is_Bush]

48. what about the earth itself, and it's ability to support the whales?

Is that worthy of this action?

If "Captain" Watson thought so, maybe he'd also rally his troops against less romantic but far more dangerous threats, like coal power plants.

But no, he's all about the whales and the gullible people who will send him money to carry on in this fashion.

[Judi Lynn]

52. You actually believe you are making sense?

"what about the earth itself, and it's ability to support the whales?" What on earth were you thinking?

[Harper_is_Bush]

54. global warming

maybe you've heard of it?

good grief.

[Judi Lynn]

56. And you imagine you're making some kind of sense. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

57. yes, I've made perfect sense.

Is this another round of idiotic nonsensical attacks a la flavgen?

See post 42. You understnd that coal plants are causing global warming?

Yes?

Either clearly explain your confusion or stop posting to me.

[Judi Lynn]

58. What on earth would this have to do with slaughtering whales?

Are you attempting to imply that it's fine if anyone slaughters whales because of global warming?

Is that prudent?

[Harper_is_Bush]

60. No. I'm saying if the "Captain" really cared about whales he would make global warming one of his

main causes.

It's not that complicated.

Global warming threatens whales much more than these Japanese whalers....but it won't drum up donations for the Captain as much as this dramatic confrontation.

what's Captain Watson doing about global warming? Does he care? Do you? Do you understand the effect it will have on whales?

[Judi Lynn]

61. So it's o.k. to slaughter the whales who are here right now, reducing the number of any possible

survivors who will perish later, anyway?

Do you stop to consider that working at sea is something he already does well, and that he knows his abilities are fitted to that pursuit far better than any other environment endeavor?

In the meantime, the whalers will have polished off the remaining whales.

[northzax]

90. actually, yes

global warming, especially the shrinking of Antarctic sea ice, is a much greater threat to whale populations in the Southern Ocean than the limited whaling (mostly for Minke whales which have rebounded quite well since the moratorium) the impact of declining krill populations is much greater than the very limited hunt the Japanese and Norwegians are involved in. Even CITES and IWC list an estimated population of 184,000 in the Atlantic Ocean, and a general estimate of the Antarctic Ocean population in 2004 from a circumnavigation count was 338,000. (T.A. Branch (2006). "Abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales from three completed circumpolar sets of surveys, 1978/79 to 2003/04". IWC SC paper SC/58/IA18: 28). Minke whales are doing fine, taking 2,000 or so out of a population of 500,000 isn't going to hurt the population. half the females taken in 2006-2007 season were pregnant, that is a sign of a healthy, breeding population.

[Beaverhausen]

122. They aren't hunting Minke whales this time. Now they are after endangered Humpbacks

you might want to read the article.

[slowry]

62. Google: site:seashepherd.org "global warming" -- 85 results -- happy reading, friend

on edit:

site:seashepherd.org "climate change" -"global warming"

for another 4 results, making 89 total references.

[Judi Lynn]

63. Sorry, I confused you with uh, one of the pro-whaling individuals. Yikes!

What I wrote would make no sense whatsoever in that context.

Sorry. I'm glad to see you're one of the sane ones!

[slowry]

64. edit: (borat voice): high five n/t

[Duppers]

73. you're using an either / or argument

We each have to do what we can---what our talents will allow us to do. Period.

I don't think anyone on this thread doesn't think global warming is the most important issue facing the planet. Sure, stop coal-fired plants, stop the oil burning, stop the wars, stop cutting and burning our forests, but hell stop the damn vessels from going to sea to kill in the first place.

This thread is about stopping whale killers. We all want to stop global warming, except for the few on DU who think it's a hoax. (PM me and I'll give you a name.)

[plasticsundance]

113. Just out of curiosity

Do I take it you're from Canada? If so, do you have an ancestry that might belong to a country that also indulges heavily in whaling?

[girl gone mad]

67. The threat to these whales' lives..

is imminent.

Many people are working to promote alternative energy and stop global warming. I fail to see how this act precludes that work.

[LanternWaste]

93. It appears you're implying...

It appears to me that you're implying that there's a pre-approved list of threats and that organizations and individuals are doing more harm than good when not working off this list...

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boricua79]

75. umm...raming ships is not "non-violent", buddy

When you ram someone else's ship, you could be in for injury to yourself or to others.

If you want to block their fishing or whaling by getting in the way, by all means. And while it may be illegal, I'd even say cut their nets or other fishing lines when they're in the water (if you really want to get in their face about it).

But ramming ships...took it too far there.

[Hayduke Lives]

76. Educate yourself on the tactics of the SSCS first

They have never harmed anyone. Period.

They have saved a lot of whales and more importantly, drawn the media's attention to the collapse of ocean ecosystems.

One doesn't achieve that through mamby-pamby tactics. You don't get those results by being a "lilly livered banner hanger" (to quote Watson, many years ago). You achieve results by taking bold action in defense of ecosystems. You take it to the bastards that are doing the killin'.

What bothers me most about this thread, is that it confirms my suspicion about my species. Specifically, even those who should care (do care) are so mentally straight-jacketed by civilization and spend so much time lost in cyber-nothingness that they are completely divorced from the natural world. Even in the wild oceans of antarctica, their loyalties are to the law, the corporations, the manufactured world.

I'll do a dis-service to my own argument by invoking the Unibomber Manifesto. While old Ted's actions were completely deplorable in EVERY way, his assessment of our situation and civilization's effect on people was spot on. If you've never read his 60,000 word screed, just ignore this paragraph.

[boricua79]

83. hey,

all I know is that they said they were going to ram ships. So, based on that, I don't think it's non-violent. Whenever you forcefully stop someone or something, that's violence. Getting in the way, but not actually touching someone is non-violence. I'm willing to stretch the non-violence thing to including cutting fishing nets or altering the usability of tools like Harpoons, or blocking their shooting, but even that action could be considered violence.

Ramming ships is a violent act...been so for thousands of years and used as a military tactic by ancient armadas. It's combat. It's violence.

I'm all for drawing attention AND protecting the whales. I'm not for ramming ships.

[LeftyMom]

85. There's a size disparity. The whaling ships are MUCH larger.

The aim is to damage on enough to require it to return to port or stop what it's doing and repair, and with the size disparity even that is rather unlikely.

They've done more serious damage, but in port on unoccupied ships. Which is consistent with the respect for life at the root of the AR movement.

[boricua79]

86. so again,

they're being violent.

I can fight a bully when's not picking on me...he may be bigger and beat me up, but I committed an act of violence when I struck him.

Economic damage is violence...it's ramming a ship. Who knows what could happen. What happens if the ram causes an explosion in the other ship's hull or fuel lines? What happens if the explosion kills or injures people on both boats?

Again, they can block their attack of whales, but the ramming of ships is too much (for me at least).

[LeftyMom]

87. "Economic damage is violence" my ass. Picketing Walmart is not the same thing as beating up a Walton

Trying ineffectively to get in the way DOES NOT WORK. Greenpeace has done it for years, and it hasn't kept anybody from whaling.

Making whaling too expensive to be profitable by damaging equipment works. SSCS has done it before and got companies that were whaling to quit.

[boricua79]

91. Picketing Walmart is not ramming ships

Nobody gets hit, pushed, shoved, rammed, broken, or destroyed when you picket Walmart.

Just a thought.

[CTLawGuy]

130. this is equivalent

to throwing rocks through WalMart's windows and burning merchandise, clearly a crime.

[slowry]

142. It is EXACTLY like that

if Walmart was located in a whale sanctuary, and was killing whales illegally, and the people throwing the rocks were sideswiping ships, and had every right, under international law, to attempt to prevent harm to the environment.

It's uncanny!

[Ignis]

145. *snort*

Thanks for the laugh. Great analogy, slowry.

:rofl:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

89. I find it amusing that someone with...

a Malcom "By Any Means Necessary" X avatar would object to what Sea Shepard is doing. :D

[The Stranger]

105. I agree. Funny how when you make it real and present day, suddenly the taboo against violence of

the ruling elite starts being mouthed by supposed supporters of Malcolm.

[boricua79]

107. No, don't get me wrong

I never said I'm against violence as a means of SELF-DEFENSE...such as when cops enter neighborhoods and gun down people who have wallets in their hands. That's what the Black Panther party stood for, and that's what a lot of radicals stood for.

I'm against ramming ships with human beings in them to defend whales. For some people, it's a perfectly legitimate equation. For me, it's not. It's not like the Japanese whalers are itching for a fight with the activists and are preparing to harm them. then I'd be for violence.

Malcolm advocated violence as a means of self defense (an eye for an eye). He was against the timidity of the Christian theory of "turning the other cheek". He felt it perpetuated white racism and abuse (because they got away with it).

So, I'm all for people fighting back against a cop that is abusing them...i'm not for people ramming ships because they want to defend whales. I am for them doing everything they can to disrupt "the hunt" without resorting to harming the boats or the lives of the whalers.

[Hayduke Lives]

109. Take Malcolm X's philosophy...

...and view it through a bio-centric lens.

That's where SSCS and Earth First! and much of the modern environmental activist community is coming from.

The only difference is that environmental activists are LESS inclined toward REAL violence than was Malcolm X. People who consider property destruction to be "violence" (the same as physically harming people) are not being morally honest.

[boricua79]

112. I can see where you are coming from

but I don't agree that we should be ramming whalers. Self-defense would be the whales ramming the boats. Humans doing it is just violence against others.

But, hey, you know what...I've grown tired of discussing it. Ram away! Whatever happens, happens.

[fascisthunter]

124. Whaling Isn't Non-Violent Either

Wiping out species and screwing up eco-systems we humans depend on isn't non-violent either.

[Barrett808]

94. Sea Shepherd: The Whale Killers Are On the Way

The Whale Killers Are On the Way

The Japanese "Death Star," the Nisshin Maru, the ship that intends to torture, kill and mutilate over 1,000 whales including 50 endangered humpbacks and 50 endangered fin whales has departed from Japan and is heading southward towards the coast of Antarctica.

The departure ceremony was bizarre with family and friends waving and holding smiling whale balloons and signs as a brass band played "Popeye the Sailor Man" on the dock. It's all a big circus for those who inflict horrific pain and death upon some of the world's most beloved and gentle creatures. They not only kill without remorse, they flaunt their disrespect for the whales with images and music that trivialize these intelligent and socially complex beings.

The ship left the Japanese port of Shimonoseki on Sunday, November 18th. A Greenpeace ship waiting 12 miles off the coast to follow them south failed to notice the departure and lost the trail. The Greenpeace ship is presumably heading southward also. The Japanese fleet is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Antarctica in three weeks. Greenpeace has stated that they will not inform Sea Shepherd of Japanese coordinates despite the fact that Sea Shepherd provided Greenpeace with the coordinates for the Japanese fleet last season.

"We welcome their involvement and the more ships opposing the whalers, the better," said Sea Shepherd International Director Jonny Vasic, "but our effectiveness would be greatly improved with Greenpeace cooperation."

Apparently Greenpeace disapproves of Sea Shepherd's tactics of intervention despite the fact that Sea Shepherd has never caused a single injury in 30 years of operation or been convicted of a felony crime. Sea Shepherd founder Captain Paul Watson was a co-founder of the Greenpeace Foundation in 1972 and of Greenpeace International in 1979. All attempts by Captain Watson to work in cooperation with Greenpeace over the years have been rejected by the Greenpeace leadership.

The Sea Shepherd crew will depart from Melbourne the first week of December. Sea Shepherd is approximately 7 days from the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.

"We need to find and intercept these vicious killers as soon as possible. Every day of searching will cost the lives of whales," said Captain Paul Watson. "I hope that New Zealand and Australia will begin to cooperate and let us know where the fleet is instead of simply continuing to posture with words not backed up with action. I hope that Greenpeace will understand that cooperation can save whales. The Japanese whaling fleet is an international criminal operation targeting highly endangered whales in a whale Sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on whaling. They operate because they know that no other governments have the guts to oppose them."

The Sea Shepherd Antarctic crew is composed of international volunteers from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, South Africa and France.

http://seashepherd.org/news/media_071120_1.html

Tax deductible donations:
http://seashepherd.org/donate.html

[Barrett808]

95. The Independent: The saviours of the whale

The saviours of the whale
As the Japanese harpooners set sail, their bitterest foes are also mobilising – and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society will stop at nothing to protect the humpbacks
By Jerome Taylor
Published: 20 November 2007

Among the thousands of humpback whales that have begun making their way south towards the icy waters of the Antarctic's Southern Ocean this month is one of the world's most unusual and dazzling animals, a 40-tonne, bright white humpback known as Migaloo.

Believed to be the only entirely white humpback whale in the world, Migaloo, named after the Aboriginal word for "White Fella", was first spotted breaching the ocean's surface in 1991 and has since become the most recognised member of one of Mother Nature's great migrations.

But this year Migaloo's journey home is nothing short of perilous. Tracking him and his family is Japan's internationally despised whaling fleet, a mechanised armada of death that has, for the first time in 40 years, vowed to bring back 50 harpooned humpbacks on top of their annual "quota" of more than 1,000 whales.

Migaloo's family, part of six humpback communities that make their winter migration from the warm shallows of the South Pacific to the Antarctic each year, will have to dodge the Japanese harpoon guns and state-of-the-art satellite tracking techniques. The only thing standing between them and the whalers are two environmental groups comprised of hardened eco-warriors who travel to the Southern Ocean every year in their dilapidated vessels to try to act as a buffer between the whales and their would-be killers in a maritime game of cat and mouse.

But while activists on board Greenpeace's vessel the Esperanza will stick to their non-violent tactics of blockading and filming the Japanese ships, the second group will resort to much more controversial tactics.

(more)

http://environment.independent.co.uk/nature/article3177018.ece

[The Stranger]

104. FIGHT ON, SEA SHEPHERD!

Raise the Jolly Roger! Full steam ahead! Prepare to ram!

Fight on, my brothers and sisters.

[GliderGuider]

116. It's better than that! They fly the Five Nations flag.

In June, Paul Watson received the flag of the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy in a ceremony that would make all the hair on your body stand straight up.

The Canadian government arbitrarily changed the Sea Shepherd's ship classification from pleasure to business while they were out at sea. When they pulled into port and make to show their registration papers, they were charged -- yes, charged -- with having false papers.
(Watson demanded to know exactly when he was supposed to have gotten the "correct" papers.)
So our toady government told him he could no longer fly the maple leaf.

The Five Nations people heard about this. They invited Captain Watson to the reserve, which is, take note, inland. They presented him with a ribbon shirt and the Flag of the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy.


The Sea Shepherd is the only ship on the planet to fly this flag.

Too cool.

[Turbineguy]

117. OK, here it is....

the Golden Rule for at-sea (or even in-port) collisions:

Make sure the Bridge Telegraph is set to "Full Astern" just prior to impact.

Admiralty Lawyers will be lining up to clean out Greenpeace.




Note: I was on a vessel involved in a collision. Cost: damage to both vessels, $85,000; legal fees, $450,000.

[and-justice-for-all]

108. GO SHEPHERD GO!!!!! nt

[ellie]

121. Rock On Sea Shepherd!

God bless you!

[CTLawGuy]

127. property destruction is not "economic destruction"

It is violent crime and doesn't behoove the animal rights movement.

[LeftyMom]

128. Got a better idea? 'Cause 50 humpbacks and 900 or so other whales could use one real soon.

If not, we'll stick with plan A.

[CTLawGuy]

131. yes

the civil authorities, call them and have the whalers thrown in jail... What a radical concept.

It's better than your Bush-style "preemptive war" strategy. I can imagine him saying 30 million Iraqis need a better idea quick to save them from Saddam than an invasion.

Pathetic.

[LeftyMom]

133. Don't you think somebody's tried that?

There's no real enforcement under the IWC, the whalers work FOR the Japanese government, and the Aussies might do something about it this year depending on how the election goes, but they probably won't want to piss off a trading partner.

[CTLawGuy]

134. then pass laws to stop it,

elect people who WILL do something about it, but ramming boats will do nothing but:

(1) embolden the whalers
(2) piss off the average disinterested person who hears about it
(3) likely land Sea Shepherd members in jail themselves. (hard to save the whales from jail)
(4) embarass and discredit the Democratic party and the left in general
(5) and finally be morally wrong.

[LeftyMom]

136. It's already illegal and you're 110% wrong.

1. nah, they usually quit or their countries give up whaling
2. whaling doesn't have a lot of fans
3. generally whaling countries don't want the publicity and refuse to prosecute
4. the anti-whaling movement isn't associated with any political party in the US
5. letting whales die is moral cowardice. Saving them is heroism.

[CTLawGuy]

137. ha

1. Doubt it; they'll be back (probably with firearms)
2. neither does violent destruction of property.
3. that makes no sense, couldn't you spark publicity FOR the failure to prosecute and work that way?
4. it's associated with the "left"; ask Rush Limbaugh
5. Bush was saying the same thing, except exhcange "Iraqis" for "whales".

[LeftyMom]

140. We let Rush Limbaugh dictate our actions now?

Maybe you do, but I sure as hell don't, and won't.

Damage to and sinkings of whaling ships have got whaling ended in the past (as in Iceland) and the IWC hasn't (both Japan and Norway are ignoring them, Japan with a legal fiction, Norway by telling them to fuck off.) failure to prosecute is typical (see Iceland again.)

Face it, you don't know the history of this conflict or any of the details of this situation. So stop bleating at people who do.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

141. Oh, if I could nominate a single post.

+1

[Nihil]

144. Kick and great applause!

:applause: :toast:

(Hopefully this is sufficiently innocuous as to avoid winding up the mods ...)

[CTLawGuy]

150. nice ad hominems

""Elect people who will do something"?? Which government would that be, exactly? Japan? The local penguin colony? As for the crew being arrested, they work on the high seas...the long arm of the law can't reach them."

well we could try the home governments of the whalers, unless of course they live on the high seas :eyes: and we could also try intenrational treaties, or even faster, we could try non-violent demonstration.


"The "embarrassment" to the democratic party is the lilly-livered corporate apologists and their lack of spine, their deference to corrupt authority, and most of all - their lack of balls; so lacking, in fact, that they become offended by those who do have them."

The embarassment is to every person who believes in civilized and orderly civil discourse, apparently not you...


"You say the SSCS's actions will "piss off the average person". No, it pisses off the average neutered DLC corporate apologist. I'll wager the average person is inspired by bold actions on the high seas. Everybody loves a pirate. Bold action inspires people."

Yeah, the average person loves quasi-terrorist tactics by radical environmentalists... right. Everyone loves a pirate? You are the one who needs to get off campus and into the world once in a while.


"So, you're saying the survival of imperiled ocean ecosystems is subordinate to the sanctity of corporate property? Is that your worldview? Your ire at the Sea Shepherd belies your true loyalties. I'm guessing you don't get outside much, do you?"

my worldview is that quasi-terrorism has no place in civil discourse. I am not allowed to come to your house and burn it down becuase I don't like you. I am not allowed to break into your dorm room and break your bong because I don't like the smell of pot smoke. If you are against a particular practice you lobby for the legal authorities to stop it or educate the populace and turn them against it.

It may be difficult to do, but it is the right thing to do. Heaven forbid some fundie planning an abortion clinic protest adopts your "worldview."

[Nihil]

152. Fortunately, you appear to have "divine" protection ...

... as only the anti-whaler posts seem to be disappearing round here ...

"quasi-terrorist" indeed ...

:eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

153. sorry

you can't mete out insult after anti-intellectual insult and stay posted on this board. It's sad that civilized people support throwing "bottles of chemicals" at fellow human beings.

[Nihil]

156. You seem to manage ...

> you can't mete out insult after anti-intellectual insult and stay
> posted on this board.

Besides, the "anti-intellectual" insults obviously weren't aimed at you :P

> It's sad that civilized people support throwing "bottles of chemicals"
> at fellow human beings.

Damn, I forgot ... "civilized people" use an air force to do that!
The people who throw "chemicals" by hand are obviously TERRISTS!!11!

I find it infinitely more "sad" that supposedly civilized people still
support (directly or tacitly) the distinctly uncivilized people who
slaughter whales purely for profit.

[CTLawGuy]

165. except that's wrong

first of all, you think you're clever calling me non-intellectual... Is that all you have?

civilized people don't use an air force, they use words, persuasion, LAWFUL force, and rule of law to stop criminal behavior. I don't support illegal whaling just because I don't agree with SSs quasi-terrorist tactics.

[Nihil]

168. Hardly ...

> first of all, you think you're clever calling me non-intellectual...

No, I was responding to your self-appointed claim that you *were* intellectual.
You have shown little sign of it so far so I replied in kind.

> civilized people don't use an air force, they use words, persuasion,
> LAWFUL force, and rule of law to stop criminal behavior.

Sea Shepherd are applying LAWFUL force after the years of words & persuasion
have failed to get the whalers to obey the rule of law and stop their
illegal & immoral behaviour.

> I don't support illegal whaling just because I don't agree with SSs
> quasi-terrorist tactics.

You ARE supporting illegal whaling by your inaction, by your constant
willingness to wait for "words & persuasion" to take effect and by your
attacks on a conservation society.

Each year we wait, whales are slaughtered for profit.
Each year we wait, a species is driven closer to extinction.
Each year we wait, the greedy bastards involved are making more money,
laughing at the world's naive hope that they are going to stop simply
because they KNOW that it will take far more than talk to make them
change, they KNOW that people like you will swallow their crap excuses
and they KNOW that every "voice of patience" translates into money in
their pocket.

How LONG do you suggest we wait for the Japanese to stop slaughtering
whales, dolphins, and every other damn creature they can?

(Again, "quasi-terrorist" ... what a quaint label to show that you
don't understand the situation.)

[CTLawGuy]

151. " You also need to educate yourself on the SSCS's tactics. "

Ok, look at these gems from the article:

"Karli Thomas from the environmental group Greenpeace, said they were determined to stop the hunt once the fleet reached the Southern Ocean, but would not go to the same lengths as Sea Shepherd.

"We will do what we can in the bounds of non-violent direct action to stop them hunting whales," Ms Thomas told Nine."

I guess Greenpeace is "neutered" too, huh? They are ignorant of maritime law as well, huh?



"During the last expedition, Sea Shepherd activists threw bottles of chemicals at the whalers in hopes of disrupting them."

Chemical weapons, nice... some tactics! Would make Osama proud!


"Australia, Britain and New Zealand have condemned the decision to go ahead with the catch."

Well, I guess you're right, there are no authorities to turn to :eyes:

[LeftyMom]

154. the "bottles of chemicals" were essentially stink bombs- harmless but smelly.

SSCS split from Greenpeace in the 70's over tactical issues, and there's something of a rivalry there, so keep that in mind whenever you hear one talking about the other.

As for international condemnation, unless they get a ship or three down to the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and they know it.

[CTLawGuy]

155. So is Greenpeace "neutered"

as I was ungraciously termed for disagreeing with SSs tactics? Do you send them angry letters filled with insults for not ramming ships?

You have governments who will help you at least pressure Japan to arrest the whalers or possibly they would be able to arrest the whalers themselves, you should spend time lobbying them.

If they are stink bombs, it's still not a good idea. The whalers don't know what's coming at them and they could decide to defend themselves, with possible deadly results for the activists.

[LeftyMom]

163. Arrest the whalers? The Japanese government OWNS THE FLEET. They sign their checks!

You really ought to get some clue of what you're talking about before you post.

SSCS was in radio contact with the whaling fleet first, and told them that they were in violation of international law and to leave the sanctuary, or they would be made to do so. So the "no warning" thing is bogus. And anyhow, the Sea Shepherd crew know what the risks are and they're happy to take them, so I'm not sure why that's an issue.

As for Greenpeace, of course I don't write them angry letters- I have better shit to do. (Like writing angry letters to my braindead neo-con senator.) I don't write them checks either, because I think that (on this issue at least) they're totally fucking worthless.

[CTLawGuy]

164. even easier then

you can put international pressure on Japan to stop the whaling.

If they are willing to break international law to whale, then they aren't going to be deterred by a group of environmental activists...

[LeftyMom]

166. Fucking A, don't you think that's been done?

Stop wasting people's time, you have no clue.

[CTLawGuy]

167. Have a happy thanksgiving then

NT

[Haole Girl]

143. Good for them!

I admire their passion.

Hope they get the attention the need... so people don't forget this is still going on.

:woohoo:

[MadHound]

147. Go with grace Sea Shepard!

And now for ramming speed!

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

149. As a whale eating half norwegian

As a half norwegian, with (ex-)whalers in the family and having tastes whaleflesh and found it tasty i have to say...

Go for it Sea Shepperds! No hunter and no fisher of sane mind extincts its prey. Extinction is irrevocable. Allthough i can not share a general despise for whaling, i despise ruthless and limitless hunting. Sink these idiot whalers if they go after the endangered species and especially the white one. It's sacrilege to nature to bereave it of it's species.

[Kajsa]

160. Good for you, Sea Shepherd!

Thank you!

:yourock:

[Endangered Specie]

169. What Sea Shepard really needs is one of these:

[codjh9]

170. Go, Sea Shepherds! n/t