Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19840
PAGE 1 of 3
These Japanese bastards should be hunted down and harpooned!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems the smaller boat should have been quicker and more maneuverable, and should easily have been able to get out of the way of the much larger ship. If you're going to cross someone's bow, you might want to watch your speed and distance.
This is in no way a defense of Japanese whaling; just pointing out what looked like some very risky decision-making on the part of the smaller boat's crew.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with you kwicko, though the smaller boat was stationary at the time and it appears to me that the Japanese ship veered towards them at speed at the last instant. A very deliberate and dangerous attack.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I agree with you kwicko, though the smaller boat was stationary at the time and it appears to me that the Japanese ship veered towards them at speed at the last instant. A very deliberate and dangerous attack.
The accident would not have occurred but for the reckless and irresponsible behaivor of the protestors against a legal and legitmate business.
I don't support whaling any more then I support smoking, but both are legitimate and legal businesses with long histories that played vital roles in the development of various nations and cultures. Unlike smoking I agree with many folks that whaling should be illegal. Japan has chosen to disagree and it is their soveriegn right to engage in the practice. I support pressuring Japan to change its laws. I support protesting through reasonable means any outdated practice that I disagree with.
Ultimately, however, it is the responsibilty of the protestors to avoid dangerous confrontations and accidents on the high seas. Protestors have no right to attempt to disrupt, delay, or interfere with these Japanese whaling ships. If they do then they are being dangerous and irresponsible at best and at worst they are committing an act of criminal violence on the high seas (ie piracy).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only savages need to harvest whales. Interesting that the largest animals on the planet are also the most gentle creatures God graced us with.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was a crew of semi-anarchic "pirates" a while back who took on illegal drift-netters out there by ramming the equipment that hauled in the net and then weighting the nets down and sinking them, something I considered maybe more of a hazard than necessary - but anyhows, they did take some footage, including being shot at and having knives and stuff thrown at em by the targets, who of course couldn't exactly make official protest without admitting they were doing something illegal as hell.
I dunno about whalers, but there's a couple folk out there with a gripe about others conduct on the sea and the means to do something about it - that was what started the Somali pirates off in the first place, other nations illegally dumping waste and fishing their waters, which if ya do it in the same place is kinda triple stupid, innit ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh dear, I'll have to refrain from ranting here, because this one just makes me wanna 
Thank you for starting this thread; I heard about it and have been seething ever since.
I played my own small "part" in stopping commercial whaling back in the '70s and '80s, working at the time with Greenpeace and the IWC (International Whaling Commission) when many nations still hunted whales. The IWC's got no "teeth", it's nations only agree not to whale; those taking whales for "scientific purposes" actually do so commercially, and any nation can leave the IWC whenever it wants to.
A moratorium was declared by the IWC back in 1982, except for aboriginal subsistence whaling which is permitted from Denmark (Greenland, fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, gray whales), St Vincent and The Grenadines (humpback whales), and the USA (Alaska, bowhead and occasionally off Washington, gray whales). Canada is not a member of the IWC. The annual whale catch by these groups is probably less than a dozen each. So now we got 12 nations that still kill whales legally.
We went ape shit when the moratorium was declared, it was one of the most exciting "victories", along with the tuna boycott being semi-successful. But in environmentalism, it's never a true victory; we can stop/slow down activities, but it's a continual battle...unless "they" win, in which case whatever we were trying to save is lost forever.
The IWC allows whaling for "scientific purposes," Since 1986 only Norway, Iceland and especially Japan have been issued whaling research permits. Norway lodged a protest to the zero catch limits in 1992 and is no longer bound by them. Iceland left the IWC in 1991 but rejoined in 2002. In addition the Faroe Islands, a non IWC nation, kills around 1000 Long-finned Pilot Whales in the annual whale "grind," where the fishermen drive the whales ashore, cut their arteries and allowed to bleed to death.
Japan has made the largest catches under the IWC "scientific" permit. The extent of 'science' in the catch can be demonstrated by the fact that the majority of Iceland's 'scientific' catch is sold to Japan, Norway sells to Iceland and the Faroe islands and would sell to Japan if the Japanese were not concerned with pollution in the Atlantic. So they're not involved in any "legal and legitimate" business, Hero; they hunt commercially under the guise of "research".
So you have four nations that still have active whaling industries. The Faroe Islands, actually an autonomous region of the kingdom of Denmark, with about 1000 a year, all Long-finned Pilot Whales, actually a large dolphin.
Nations that hunt larger whales;
Iceland with about 100 in 2004.
Norway with about 600 in 2004, but Norwegian Parliament voted to increase the number to 1,800 animals per year by 2006.
Japan with about 800 in 2004, but actively working to remove restrictions.
Back when I was actively involved, it was Greenpeace which was doing the protesting; long since, the Sea Shephard Conservation Society ha taken over and has been active ever snce in harrassing whales and attempting to put the Japanes commercial enterprise out of business.
As to the Adi Gil, it wasn't an accident, trust me. The whalers have tried many ways of "dissuading" the protesters for years, from water cannons to lasers and more. There was no "crossing" of someone's bow, Mike: The SSCS's Australian director, Jeff Hansen, said in a telephone interview that the trimaran “was pretty much at a full stop” and that the Japanese ship had deliberately run into it. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07whales.html?partner=rss
&emc=rss
Thank gawd The Bob Barker was close enough to fish them out, and of course it won't stop them from trying to halt Japanese whaling. Believe me, they know all too well the danger they're in, and are willing to risk
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In this view, it looks to me like the Ady Gil was still moving forward, across the path of the Shonen Maru. It also looks like the Maru didn't attempt to veer off, and in fact may have turned into the Gil, but the Gil doesn't seem to be stopped dead in the water, and once struck, she looks to be making a pretty quick full-reverse retreat.
Lucky for all involved that no one was killed.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In some case I would argue against the Sea Shepherd Society, but here there are right...
What needs to happen is an international convention on economic activity in Antarctic Waters, much as there already is for land operations.
With that sort of legal base, whaling vessels could be seized, likely by interesting nations operating in their own zones of influence... Australia in this case.
Turning Antarctica into a conservation zone with no fishing, could actually boost fish stocks in all the southern oceans long term, and that would be to the benefit of all the neighboring countrys.
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists 
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero
If I understand Niki right, the only legitimate reason to whale is for scientific study. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as a 'legitimate whaling business.'
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike, from one report I read, they had just started their engines when they were hit, which might explain what you see at the last minute. Yes, by the time they were hit, their engines were running, hence the ability to pull back--which, also, looks like more than it is because the Japanese vessel then veered away from them. Nonetheless, there is no question that they were reversing. I could be wrong, of course.
Gino: Everything you said, and more. I think it would be LOVELY, but I'm not holding my breath. Since the IWC has no "teeth", they can only try to get nations to pressure each other (via IWC membership) and issue "guidelines", sadly.
Yup, Rue, you nailed it. As a member of the IWC, Japan has exemption to take whales for "research", but they don't try to hide the fact that they're actually taking them for commercial purposes. Hence it IS a business, and despite the IWC having no way of stopping them, they're playing footsie by being part of the IWC and then finding ways around the moratorium.
So I guess it's both "yes" and "no" in a way. What they're doing isn't "illegal", since there are no international laws to stop them, but at the same time it's not "legitimate" because, as members of the IWC, they should abide by the moratorium.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, I'd like to point out that the Ady Gil is also the very same boat that was purpose-built and set a speed record for circumnavigating the globe. It does seem that if they WANTED to get out of the way, they easily could have.
I think they deliberately put themselves in harm's way for a laudable goal, and they lost their boat as a result. But I *don't* necessarily agree that they were attacked or that they were completely blameless in the whole cock-up.
Now, if you can get nations to sign on to a plan like Gino proposed, more power to ya. I'm right there with you, and I'll fully support that.
As or whether or not there is such a thing as legitimate "business" when it comes to research, I'd say you're opening a door you really might not want to walk through, Rue. Are research and business mutually exclusive? Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I know about the Adi Gil...but IF they saw the ship coming and realized it was going to ram them while their engine was off, and just had time to start the engine before being hit, speed doesn't come into it. I think your theory that they did it deliberately is fallacious. I'd find it hard to believe, given how careful they've been in the past, plus the fact that they're not a violence-oriented organization, and the loss of the Adi Gil is a major blow.
I don't think there's any question about the "legitimacy" of Japan's actions. Hunting whales for research is one thing; hunting them for profit is entirely different. And when it comes down to it, while the Japanese put on a face of doing it for research, they're don't try to hide the fact that they make a profit off it. They just found a convenient loophole. There's a big difference between hiring people to go out and gather research animals being "in business" with them and hunting whales because they're popular as food in Japan. I see no correlation whatsoever.
Japan resisted the IWC for a long time, and still takes the highest percentage of whales of the IWC member nations. Norway and Japan were, at the time I was involved, the two nations most bent on going against the IWC. They're still at it, as far as I'm concerned..."selling" whales between one nation and another is a pretty fair indication of lack of need for "research" subjects, if you ask me.
Also, just 'cuz:Quote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100107/ts_afp/australiajapanwhalingnzeal
SYDNEY (AFP) – A militant animal rights group locked in a bitter high seas battle with Japanese whalers have the support and funding of a Hollywood A-list including Sean Penn and French screen siren Brigitte Bardot.
One of the world's best known and more extreme marine activist outfits, the not-for-profit Sea Shepherd Conservation Society prides itself on "innovative direct-action tactics" to confront so-called "illegal" activity on the high seas. Related article: Probe into whaling protest collision
It was established in 1977 in Canada by environmentalist Paul Watson who claims in his biography to have co-founded Greenpeace but said he parted ways with the the group over arguments about protest tactics.
In its 30-year history the group has used acoustic weapons, water cannons and stink bombs against whalers, trailed seal hunters and fought campaigns for sharks and dolphins, as well as regularly patrolling the Galapagos Islands.
Longtime patron Bardot sits on its board of advisers, along with Penn and fellow US actors Martin Sheen and Pierce Brosnan.
Sheen, Darryl Hannah and US soap star Richard Dean Anderson have all accompanied Sea Shepherd on protest actions.
Its diverse and high-profile benefactors include rock legend Mick Jagger, Red Hot Chili Peppers frontman Anthony Kiedis, surfing champion Kelly Slater, and actors Christian Bale and Edward Norton.
Former US television game show host Bob Barker donated five million US dollars to help Sea Shepherd buy and fit out a former harpoon ship for its 2010 pursuit of Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.
Hollywood businessman Ady Gil bankrolled a second vessel for the 2010 season -- a two-million dollar trimaran superboat originally known as Earthrace which claimed the world record for circumnavigating the globe.
andseashepherd
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Are there NEVER times when you might privately contract someone, for pay, to go out and gather research subjects for you? If you do so, aren't you "in business" with them?"
Researchers hire people all the time - dishwashers, technicians, data entry clerks, statisticians - hell, they even hire 'volunteers' by paying them to participate in studies and trials. If a researcher couldn't hire ANYONE and had to do EVERYTHING by her lonesome, research would be dead in the water.
But a whaling boat which bypasses even a pretense of study (which research group hired them ?, what is their experimental question ?, where is their research plan ?), takes their catch directly to commerical market - and receives larges sums of money for said catch - is clearly not doing research.
I honestly can't imagine a scenario where one could mistake hiring a research function for a for-profit commercial venture.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
In some case I would argue against the Sea Shepherd Society, but here there are right...
What needs to happen is an international convention on economic activity in Antarctic Waters, much as there already is for land operations.
With that sort of legal base, whaling vessels could be seized, likely by interesting nations operating in their own zones of influence... Australia in this case.
Turning Antarctica into a conservation zone with no fishing, could actually boost fish stocks in all the southern oceans long term, and that would be to the benefit of all the neighboring countrys.
Gino,
There actually is such a convention - it's called CAMLR, the Convention on Antarctic Marine Living Resources. I don't know what it says about whaling, but it theortically governs all sorts of activities on land and sea including tourism and scientific research. The contracting parties meet every year, and it has detailed protocols for all sorts of things. I'm mostly familiar with the penguin parts of it, and it's quite strict. But then the scientists are acting in good faith and trying to makes sure impacts are minimized. Such is not true with the whalers. And, it has the same problem as the IWC - it's voluntary.
And Hero, if the Japanese were staying within the terms of their "research exemption" (such Orwellian terminology for an obviously commercial product), then I'd agree that what they are doing is legal, but they aren't. It has been conclusively demonstrated (via genetic testing of whale meat in the Tokyo Fish Market) that they are killing and selling everything; blue and humpback whales (both under complete harvest bans for decades before the IWC came into existence), sei whales Bryde's whales and many others. Their "exemption" includes a few fin whales (2nd largest after blues), but almost all of the exemption is for Minke whales, the smallest of the great whales. They violate the living hell out of their supposed commitments and publish very little bona fide research - and that only in a journal published in Japanese by the national fisheries agency. Legitimate Japanese biology researchers who want to disseminate results publish in English. Legal it ain't. It's a baldfaced lie.
And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters. What I can oppose is grossly unsustainable harvest, which is the only term that can be applied to the whole history of whaling. Every single stock has crashed when fished in any but the lightest manner (including Minke's though they would be easiest to manage and the data on their population size aren't very good). The reasons are too complicated to explain here, but both biology and economics (investments in high seas ships) are involved, but sustanability has never been achieved.
perfessergee
eta the word "involved" in the past paragraph
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Originally posted by perfessergee:
And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
And whalers can be shot like the murderers they are with no moral reservations, God told me so, and his law is above ours.
Okay, a little nuts there, but my point is that we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits for hunting as two year old human children are.
The only conceivable logical disagreement with this would be that we're ALL game, unless you go with that "Only humans have souls" crap.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Perfesser
I have one (very) small item to gloat on when it comes to people eating whale meat. It's a little like the Smothers Brothers' routine: ' White man, you smok'um peace pipe with tobacco in it. he he he ... Rot your lungs.' It's: 'go ahead - EAT your PCB and PDBE and dioxin soaked whale meat. Enjoy ! he he he ... rot your gonads.'
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If I understand Niki right, the only legitimate reason to whale is for scientific study. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as a 'legitimate whaling business.'
Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.
If you'll look at the picture you see a big clunking whaling ship with "RESEARCH" painted on the side. You also see a sleek black highly manuaverable boat with a skull and crossbones painted on it. We all know that if they wanted to get in the Jap's way and cause this accident they could and if the Jap's set out to do all they could to ram that black boat, there is simply no way it could happen if the black boat didn't want it to.
In any event, this idea of commerical whaling hiding behind a research permit is an issue for the courts, not violence on the high seas. Yes the Japs have used water cannons and such, but I note for the record that a water cannon does not shoot very far...if you were close enough to get wet, you were too close and interfering in their business. Ships also use water cannons to stop pirates.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hitler did a lot of 'legal' stuff too.
Originally posted by Hero:
Providing whales for research is a business. They had a permit.
Until someone decided to tell him it wasn't, and interfere with his efforts using violence.
It's all a fucking game.
The not-so-laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"They had a permit."
Here, btw, is the langauge: "... special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research ..."
And what, pray tell, was the purpose of the 'study' ?
"Each Contracting Government shall (not may or should, but SHALL which is the same as MUST) transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV."
And how have they met the requirement to provide these results ?
This is 'research' of the same type as Mengele's - a fraud.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with perfessergee wrote: What I can oppose is grossly unsustainable harvest,
While personally I do think we have and should grow beyond whale hunting... that cannot be the only consideration. As with Chris pic, hunting a species to extinction is illogical.
CHRISISALL wrote I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits
I have raised cattle, shot deer etc... never slaughtered one of my cows because well... I couldn't. Selling them off was hard enough, but I do eat red meat... Cows are fairly intelligent you find if you spend alot of time around them.
I do disagree with the Sea Shepard's on seal hunting though...
two things there, man has practically eliminated many of the seals natural predators in these areas and two, commercial fish stocks are very low due to our history of overfishing ( which also caused problem 1 )
Until we manage to correct the two problems, I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...
A bad situation where we need to correct other problems before we can change the situation the shepherds are against. But it will take years to accomplish...
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another point...
At least the Japanese are eating / using what they kill
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0402/p09s02-coop.html
Smarten up naval sonar to save the whales
Obama can silence harmful echoes from the Bush administration.
Santa Barbara, Calif; and Los Angeles
The Bush administration may be gone, but whales and other marine life along our coasts will be hearing from it for years to come – literally.
On its way out of town, Bush's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Navy released a series of regulations that, during the next five years, could cause environmental harm on a staggering scale. But by acting decisively, the Obama administration can prevent it.
The regulations allow approximately 11.7 million instances of harassment, injury, or even death (the legal term is "take") to marine mammals by exposing them to high-intensity military sonar training in coastal waters around the United States. These estimates – the Navy's own – include 9.7 million takes along the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico; 630,000 off the coast of southern California; 650,000 along the coast of Washington and Oregon; 140,000 in Hawaii; and another 500,000 off the coast of Florida.
Sonar exposure is not, as the Navy suggests, a mere matter of annoyance to whales and dolphins. In fact, the harm ranges from significant disturbance to important behaviors – feeding, breeding, migrating, communicating, finding mates – to hearing damage and even mass stranding and death.
continues
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who escalated the confrontation ?
Both sides here have acted violently
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-Wars-How-wa
s-the-Sea-Shepherd-s-new-ship-sunk
I think it really shows the need for the international community to act, before this gets further out of hand
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I say escalate the confrontation further!
and pick a side...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...
Allow me a free-association moment, Gino...
I think we need to be the police that checks the terrorist population, if not Democracy have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the states will hate us anyway...
Don't know how relevant that is, just popped to mind is all.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With who?
" Japan with about 800 in 2004, but actively working to remove restrictions. "
" or the US Navy with 11.7 million instances of harassment, injury, or even death "
The best approach, if possible ( Calhoun your from Australia right? ) is to lean on your government to act...
In a protection zone like I proposed whaling ships could be seized and fines levyed
or Australia could deny them travel through their waters, access to their ports... hell extend that to all Japanese flagged vessels if needed
If these confrontations turn into shooting matches ( and the way this is going ) are the Sea Shepard's realistically going to strap on the Japanese Navy?
Better if local govs came together, agreed on some laws, and then enforced them... Either by having law enforcement confront the whalers, or making the cost for Japan to allow the whaling too expensive.
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we need to be the predator that checks the seal population, if not fish stocks have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the seals will starve anyway...
Allow me a free-association moment, Gino...
I think we need to be the police that checks the terrorist population, if not Democracy have zero chance of bouncing back, and many if not all the states will hate us anyway...
Don't know how relevant that is, just popped to mind is all.
The laughing Chrisisall
Ah yes, but that proposition assumes that democracy is what you are promoting ( a false assumption ) and if you allowed said states a free choice maybe they wouldn't hate you? ( for that reason anyway )
Seriously though, I do think we need to return balance to a system WE screwed up in the first place... but it took us 50-75 years to screw that system up... If left alone maybe it takes 500 years to self correct. Does it not make sense to try and limit the damage while helping that correction come back faster ? Or would letting that collapse occur in order to give the problem more momentum a better choice?
I'm not a biology guy, just going from some reading is all
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interestingly, I don't expect to much unbiased coverage from the Christian Science Monitor, and didn't get it. What DID surprise me were the comments on the article:Quote:
The ramming of the Ady Gil (Earth Race) was quite different from the tactics of Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd while controversial and aggressive has not attempted to sink occupied vessels. A few feet difference in the ramming and six people would be dead. The Japanese attacked without regards to human life, it is a miracle that no one died. The attempted murder of six people is a far far bigger crime than anything Sea Shepherd has ever been accused of.
Whales are creatures with brains larger than our own. Anatomical studies on whales who died of natural causes show brain structures thought to be unique to humans and our closest relatives. Whales don't just have huge brains, they have anatomical features which are closely associated with high intelligence and awareness.
These are not creatures to "sustainably harvest" they are our cousins, the first intelligent life we find in the universe and Japan turns them into dog food. I don't care what supposed Japanese tradition is involved, we don't condone head hunting despite its long tradition, nor should we accept the brutal murder of other intelligent life forms.Quote:
While some may disagree with the tactics employed by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, we should all support their noble goal of protecting the whales from brutal and illegal hunting - especially in sanctuary waters. Likewise, we should all implore the whale hunters to stop and consider the grave consequences of their actions. Quote:
Paul Watson may be controversial but at least he's trying to do something to prevent the descruction of the existence of whales. Some of the rare species these boats hunt are on the absolute verge of extinction. Sanctions should be imposed against Japan, we all know that their 'scientific research' is a load of rubbish and the rest of the world needs to say we won't stand for it. Quote:
This is a very one-sided and opinionated piece. I question Greenpeace - what results have they attained in the Southern Oceans? A few hundred photos of whales being killed to be used as propaganda in order to raise donations does NOT count as "results". SSCS and Paul Watson may not be perfect and Watson has certainly published materials in the past that makes people question his intent - but he IS actively doing something to stop whaling, and "anything" is more than anyone else, including Greenpeace has done in the past. The Japanese are in this for the money. Greenpeace's "all talk and no walk" won't get them off the bargaining table. Watson is right about one thing - if whaling is to be stopped, the whalers have to be economically damaged to the point that it is no longer profitable.Quote:
I left out some of the "God" parts of a couple of the quotes.
I for one am proud of the people associated with the Sea Shepards. At last they dont sit on their computer at home and say oh wow someone should do something to stop the whalers. At least the put their private lives on hold and try.
Actually, Greenpeace DID harass the whalers long ago, that was going on when I was involved. They gave up fairly soon, however, and SSCS took over.
Whaling caused us to believe the wonderful blue whales off the California coast were extinct. You can only imagine the thrill when one was spotted, and now the population is increasing. I do abhor whaling, along with some other things, despite the fact that I occasionally eat red meat. Here I find a vast difference between mankind breeding things for consumption and taking things out of the wild which are part of the ecosystem. Neither is right, admittedly. We’ve ruined so much by taking predators out of the environment that, yes, now we have to “cull” prey species, which is bad enough, but faking killing for “research” is unconscionable to me.
I also disagree that killing a shark is different fro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Agreed. I just wince at killing.
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Seriously though, I do think we need to return balance to a system WE screwed up in the first place
Maybe release some salt-peter into the water to reduce the seal-on-seal friction action?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Niki, given a choice, would you rather possibly starve to death, or certainly be clubbed to death? I guess that's it comes down to with the seals. The thing with the sharks is plain mean. Makes me think the culinary peeps in Japan are a bunch O' freaks.
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that killing a shark is different from killing a sea lion, for the opposite reasons I THINK Chris is arguing.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, dear, I can't stop. This is such a hot issue among environmentalists; here's some more. I want you to understand just how absurd this is, and respond to a couple of the things people have said. As to them doing it for "scientific research":Quote:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/whales/2007/11/catching_whales_for_scienc
In 1987, the ban on commercial whaling came into force for Japan. Yet despite the ban the whaling fleet which had previously conducted the commercial hunt sailed at its usual time to the same whaling grounds in the Antarctic to take the same species of whale they had caught the year before and return them to Japan boxed in 15 kg cardboard cartons, ready for sale. This was made possible by ‘scientific’ whaling.
e_is.html a whale is killed, scientists collect data from the animal's remains on its age, birthing rate and diet; the meat is then packaged and sold.
....
Japan has cited its long history as a whaling nation and its historic reliance on whale meat for protein as reasons why it should be continued to allow to hunt despite the IWC ban. But Japanese consumption has become so negligible that local governments are encouraging schools to incorporate whale in their lunch programs, while thousands of tons of whale meat remain stockpiled in freezers.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html
Justify that, if you can.Quote:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=nw200811171
It also says whales are to blame for a decline in world fish stocks, though environmental groups dispute this.
01302910C946472] That's just pure bullshit, whales eat krill for the most part, not fish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obviously that's a false question, Chris. The sharks don't just "starve", they suffer hugely; my argument was to say killing seal lions wasn't better than killing sharks. If you mean would I, as a seal, rather starve to death than be clubbed to death, watch some footage of seals being killed, then tell me which is better. I have, and I'll never forget it.
Gino's got it right; to solve ALL the problems we need to get some smarts and think long-term instead of everyone thinking about their profit next week or next year. Meanwhile, I think a limit on what mankind is allowed to take from the seas is a better answer than killing the predator species!
Not that I have any hope of that happening until it's too late, but I refuse to agree that we should sacrifice yet another species in the wild because we like the flavor of its prey. If we've got to do something only halfway sensible, we should create "fish farms" for those species want, rather than killing off the OTHER predators...they don't have that option.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Obviously that's a false question, Chris. The sharks don't just "starve", they suffer hugely; my argument was to say killing seal lions wasn't better than killing sharks.
No, I agree with you about the shark torture, it's unnecessary & cruel. It was just the sea lions I was talking about.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Niki2:
The ramming of the Ady Gil (Earth Race) was quite different from the tactics of Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd while controversial and aggressive has not attempted to sink occupied vessels. A few feet difference in the ramming and six people would be dead. The Japanese attacked without regards to human life, it is a miracle that no one died. The attempted murder of six people is a far far bigger crime than anything Sea Shepherd has ever been accused of.
Sorry, Niks, but I stopped reading at that point, because that post is utter bullshit. It's not YOUR post, but the comments from others that you posted, that I take issue with. Watch the second video (the one at the END of the second article Gino posted from CSM), where the Sea Shepherds' OTHER ship - itself a whaling vessel - deliberately rams another ship. This kind of bullshit behavior on the high seas leaves me not feeling a bit sorry for this douchebag, and has me actually GLAD that he lost his precious little toy. After all, if he's bragging about ramming ships on the high seas, putting lives in danger just to get ratings for his shitty TV show, then why would I feel bad about him suffering the same fate?
By the way, are they lying when they list him as taking credit for the sinking of another whaling ship with a limpet mine attached to its hull? Should that be seen as an endorsement of the French sinking of the Rainbow Warrior using similar methods?
Am I against whaling? You bet. But am I willing to go to any lengths and employ any means, legal or extralegal, to try to get my way? Nope. And I'm not a big fan of trying to ram and attack those with whom you disagree, and then whining and bitching about it when they behave in a similar fashion towards you.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that when ANY group starts using the old "by any means necessary" tactic, it's a short walk to the torture room at Gitmo or to strapping on a dynamite vest on your way to the airport.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Niki, given a choice, would you rather possibly starve to death, or certainly be clubbed to death? I guess that's it comes down to with the seals. The thing with the sharks is plain mean. Makes me think the culinary peeps in Japan are a bunch O' freaks.
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that killing a shark is different from killing a sea lion, for the opposite reasons I THINK Chris is arguing.
The laughing Chrisisall
Killing ONE of either of them I could maybe deal with, especially if it were a life-and-death scenario. I run into issues when you start HARVESTING them, hunting them to extinction "just because".
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Gino's got it right; to solve ALL the problems we need to get some smarts and think long-term instead of everyone thinking about their profit next week or next year. Meanwhile, I think a limit on what mankind is allowed to take from the seas is a better answer than killing the predator species!
Bingo. Now that I can agree with! :)
And if killing the predator species IS the answer, then I guess we better start up the eugenics programs, because WE are the ultimate predator, after all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Mike, I'll agree with you there. I don't like the use of violence to make a point either. I know I'm prejudiced because I've been in this fight for so long and have become frustrated by the inability to stop the Japanese from their game, so I'll grant you my view is skewed.
Nonetheless, while I agree it's wrong, at the same time I can understandhow frustration would make people take violent measures. This battle has been going on for fifty or sixty years now, and still whale species are being killed to the point of endangerment. Again; yes, it's wrong to take violent measures, you're right.
As far as us being the ultimate predator; there are ways to co-exist with other predators if we gave a damn. It's tough, it's controversial, like re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone, but it could be done if people just friggin' woke UP!
Here, we're getting an increase in population of mountain lions, and will eventually no doubt be faced with dealing with it. We've just recently had coyotes come into the area. But for now at least, we need both species to cut down on the prey population, which is burgeoning. I think here the problem will be less, as NO hunting is allowed at all, so if the ecosystem is left alone, the population of prey determines the population of predators, since they can't increase their range. If we were in competition, it would be another matter.
They've developed to the East steadily, which has put them in conflict with the native mountain lions, and there have been problems. I THINK a predator species coming into an area which is pretty well balanced except for an overabundance of prey species will balance itself, but I don't know for sure, time will have to tell us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki2 wrote:
Gino, I’m afraid that culling the seals won’t save the fish. The fewer seals around, the more the stocks of fish will be taken. Mankind isn’t too good at limiting himself, if you’ve noticed. The more fish there are, the more they’ll take, to the point where a number of fish species off our coast are in danger of disappearing.
Alone yes, but in combination with other efforts...
interesting article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fishing/cod.html
On April 24, 2003, almost 11 years after the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans imposed a moratorium on cod fishing off Newfoundland, the federal fisheries minister, Robert Thibault, announced the outright closure of what remained of the cod fishery in Newfoundland, the Maritime provinces and Quebec.
continues
It has gone so far Canada has fired on Spanish Trawlers
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/world/canada-and-spain-face-off-over
-fishing-zone.html?pagewanted=1
as well as acting to stop US overfishing in Canadian waters
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/22/world/canadians-end-blockade-in-salm
on-fishing-dispute.html?pagewanted=1
At least trying, is better than to do nothing
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Okay, Mike, I'll agree with you there. I don't like the use of violence to make a point either. I know I'm prejudiced because I've been in this fight for so long and have become frustrated by the inability to stop the Japanese from their game, so I'll grant you my view is skewed.
Nonetheless, while I agree it's wrong, at the same time I can understandhow frustration would make people take violent measures. This battle has been going on for fifty or sixty years now, and still whale species are being killed to the point of endangerment. Again; yes, it's wrong to take violent measures, you're right.
As far as us being the ultimate predator; there are ways to co-exist with other predators if we gave a damn. It's tough, it's controversial, like re-introducing wolves to Yellowstone, but it could be done if people just friggin' woke UP!
Here, we're getting an increase in population of mountain lions, and will eventually no doubt be faced with dealing with it. We've just recently had coyotes come into the area. But for now at least, we need both species to cut down on the prey population, which is burgeoning. I think here the problem will be less, as NO hunting is allowed at all, so if the ecosystem is left alone, the population of prey determines the population of predators, since they can't increase their range. If we were in competition, it would be another matter.
They've developed to the East steadily, which has put them in conflict with the native mountain lions, and there have been problems. I THINK a predator species coming into an area which is pretty well balanced except for an overabundance of prey species will balance itself, but I don't know for sure, time will have to tell us.
I like the approach Parks Canada has taken with Bears and Wolves...
over the year they collect and freeze roadkill from the highways, then in the spring around the time these animals start to move around they use helicopters to drop the carcasses into the back country to keep them from coming out too early, giving the berry crops more time to grow... keeping them from looking for food in towns, etc
seems to work, and low cost too
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I disagree. I think it's all degrees. Killing a fly & a cow are on vastly different levels.
Originally posted by perfessergee:
And I should point out that though I really don't like whaling, I can't be morally opposed to it, and I believe that no one who eats meat can do so. Killing critters is killing critters.
Killing a shark is different than killing a sea lion.
And whalers can be shot like the murderers they are with no moral reservations, God told me so, and his law is above ours.
Okay, a little nuts there, but my point is that we are all animals, and that the more evolved ones should be as off limits for hunting as two year old human children are.
The only conceivable logical disagreement with this would be that we're ALL game, unless you go with that "Only humans have souls" crap.
Chris,
We have little to dispute, except for the notion that I think that the term of "murder" is reserved for killing one's own species, though we irrationally exclude warfare from our own collective definition of murder. Mind you, we aren't the only murderers - our closest relatives, the chimps, do it too. And so do many other species. And in a very real sense, we ARE all game - if you don't believe that, go for a walk around Hudson Bay in the fall when the polar bears are waiting for the winter ice (please don't actually do this!)
The most relevant question here is "who ought to be allowed for killing/eating?"
My view is that of an academic ecologist. Should only plants be "allowed to be eaten"? Well, nobody would rationally argue that - certainly not the plants. What about predators like wolves and mountain lions? Surely their prey would like to be left alone, so should we kill the predators? The point is that ALL species are dependent on other species for their survival and reproduction. Those of us who are not plants (not green, don't photosynthesize) are parasites in the biological sense. Everybody else depends on those green plants for their survival. We may eat each other, but nobody else other than plants actually produces any biologically useful energy.
Lastly, I completely agree that there are differences among species. Swatting a fly is not the same thing as killing a whale. But, there are indeed degrees, though I deliberately avoided that issue above.
(For others following this thread, sharks eat seals on a fairly regular basis, but sometimes seals eat sharks - usually young ones). Who's "in the right"?
PS Chris, thanks for a provocative question!
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hitler did a lot of 'legal' stuff too.
Until someone decided to tell him it wasn't, and interfere with his efforts using violence.
What a stupid example.
I note for the record that nobody told him his actions were illegal. In fact they went out of their way to accomodate him when he violated international treaties. Hitler was never prosecuted for breaking German law. Nobody interfered with his efforts using violence. War was not declared until AFTER Germany invaded Poland.
There is no moral equivilant between harvesting whales and invading Poland, also these protestors are not a nation acting in its own defense or with regards to their treaty obligations.
Your example would require war with Japan rather then violent action on the high seas by non-government actors.
In this case we have one party accusing another of illegal action and then taking illegal action to stop them. In that situation...the only folks who should be prosecuted are the protestors.
Vigilante justice has no place in the real world. They are not Batman or Spiderman...just some idiots who got their boat run over and endangered a lot of people.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:
I say escalate the confrontation further!
Sure...provoke a naval conflict with the Japanese. Good luck without the American Navy on your side.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This board is messed up
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas.
Which ship's crew are you referring to? The Japanese ship, or the Sea Shepherd's ship? Seems to me they've both engaged in the same activity (ramming the others' boats), but the Japanese have been rather more successful at it. ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Free, I agree:Quote:
Unfortunately, the mix of opinions you get here are merely a pretty good sample of what you'll get everywhere. That's why nothing gets done about whaling and other abhorrent behavior by man.
This board is messed up
JS:Quote:
You pretty much said it for me. Things have been "legal" throughout history which people had to fight--sometimes with violence--to right. Such is life.
Sometimes you fight the fights that need fighting...period. Plenty of things in the past have been legal. Usually it took some extraordinary action by some for others to wake up and and change the laws. The entire civilized world should condemn Japan for these hunts, especially the ships' crew's act of attempted murder on the high seas
Mike: Ridiculous. The actions by Japan have been far more aggressively violent than those by the SSCS over time; there is no comparison, however this individual incident came about. You can try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you'll convince anyone except those already believing as you do. Those on each side can only agree to disagree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mike: Ridiculous. The actions by Japan have been far more aggressively violent than those by the SSCS over time; there is no comparison, however this individual incident came about. You can try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you'll convince anyone except those already believing as you do. Those on each side can only agree to disagree.
Seems we will indeed have to agree to disagree, because I posted video of the Sea Shepherd ramming a Japanese whaling ship with their own similarly-sized whaling ship, which is the exact kind of bullshit action that can and does lead to sinkings and deaths, even if the dickheads responsible claim that wasn't what they intended to do. I'm sure nobody aboard the Titanic intended to attack that defenseless iceberg, either. ;)
In the articles linked by Gino, it's noted that the Sea Shepherds' leader has bragged about ramming whaling ships, and has taken credit for sinking one of them with a limpet mine. In the face of clear acts of violence and piracy, is it unreasonable for Japanese sailors to defend themselves when they feel they are being attacked?
Also, many have pointed out that there are things that are worth breaking the law for on moral grounds. I'd humbly submit to all of you that Osama bin Laden feels exactly the same way. I can admit that he has a gripe with the U.S. and the West; I can even go so far as to begrudgingly admit that he may have LEGITIMATE issues with us and our policies and actions in the mid-east. But where he loses me, utterly and completely, is with his methods. Apparently y'all beg to differ, and have no problems with killing people whom you disagree on moral issues.
I'll leave you to your hatred.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unfair, Mike. Only one or two have called for violence against the whalers.Quote:
is a snark, pure and simple. I'm certainly not calling for violence, and said I agreed with you on that point, and potentially others.
have no problems with killing people whom you disagree on moral issues.
From what I've read, the Japanese HAVE been more aggressive, but that's neither here nor there. Your comment lessens my respect for you.
I now see you're happy to go after those of us who usually agree with you, and paint us with the same brush as those who are regularly out-there and call for violence. Didn't think you were like that; thanx for putting me straight.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Mike: Ridiculous. The actions by Japan have been far more aggressively violent than those by the SSCS over time; there is no comparison, however this individual incident came about. You can try to argue otherwise, but I don't think you'll convince anyone except those already believing as you do. Those on each side can only agree to disagree.
Seems we will indeed have to agree to disagree, because I posted video of the Sea Shepherd ramming a Japanese whaling ship with their own similarly-sized whaling ship, which is the exact kind of bullshit action that can and does lead to sinkings and deaths, even if the dickheads responsible claim that wasn't what they intended to do. I'm sure nobody aboard the Titanic intended to attack that defenseless iceberg, either. ;)
In the articles linked by Gino, it's noted that the Sea Shepherds' leader has bragged about ramming whaling ships, and has taken credit for sinking one of them with a limpet mine. In the face of clear acts of violence and piracy, is it unreasonable for Japanese sailors to defend themselves when they feel they are being attacked?
Also, many have pointed out that there are things that are worth breaking the law for on moral grounds. I'd humbly submit to all of you that Osama bin Laden feels exactly the same way. I can admit that he has a gripe with the U.S. and the West; I can even go so far as to begrudgingly admit that he may have LEGITIMATE issues with us and our policies and actions in the mid-east. But where he loses me, utterly and completely, is with his methods. Apparently y'all beg to differ, and have no problems with killing people whom you disagree on moral issues.
I'll leave you to your hatred.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
Both case Mike, the failure to have adequate international laws for whaling / fishing or the lack of any redress methods for Osama bin Ladens issues...
The United Nations was founded to provide a forum for both, but over the years it has been subverted into being a mouthpiece to accommodate the politics and policy's of a few influential nations.
I like to talk about conventions and international law... but these are the tools of the folk who allow these things to become the problems they are today. Look at the climate change conference... the PTB behind the leaders aren't interested, and they should be the enemy that is targeted, hunted down, and killed... Not activists, whalers, fishermen, Muslims, or ordinary folk.
While I don't agree with the actions you are talking about,...
anyone ever see the movie the Jack Bull?
Plot summary
The Jack Bull tells the story of Myrl Redding (John Cusack), a Wyoming horse trader who clashes with Henry Ballard (L.Q. Jones), a fellow rancher, after Ballard abuses two of Redding's horses and their Crow Indian caretaker, Billy (Rodney A. Grant). When a local judge throws out Redding's complaint, the war he wages to force Ballard to nurse the emaciated animals back to health escalates into a vigilante manhunt, murder, and the possible defeat of Wyoming's bid for statehood.
The law ( Judge Wilkins ) was bought and paid for by the rich rancher who did whatever he pleased,
John Cusack, while rallying his neighbors against the wealthy rancher, corrupt sheriff and judge said something like " When you have no law, all you have is the law you make"
some truth to that
mind you at the end when the hanged John Cusack, the judge who sentenced him to death, played by an excellent John Goodman said..
Judge Tolliver: Well, I worry about you and me, Judge Wilkins. I swear to God I do, 'cause if this country gets ruined... it'll be ruined by people *like* you and me. This is a territory of unimportant people; most folks around here...
[laughs softly] can't even write their name. You and me... we're the important people. Trouble is, there's not enough of us i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Blah blah blah. Might makes right is all you ever come down to. He who has the gold, makes the rules, and by God, they must be obeyed.
Originally posted by Hero:
There is no moral equivilant between harvesting whales and invading Poland, also these protestors are not a nation acting in its own defense or with regards to their treaty obligations.
Your example would require war with Japan rather then violent action on the high seas by non-government actors.
It was legal to invade Iraq BECAUSE WE SAID SO.
It is legal to kill whales for "study" and then consumption BECAUSE THEY SAY SO.
If everyone in this world were a lawyer, the peeps at the top would develop a "Unique & Profound Ministry" or some such to create a NEW convoluted language to fuck this world up legally in the name of profit.
In your job you certainly do good works, but defending the level of corruption that exists with a simple "well then change the laws" manifests your lap dog status to the MAN, whoever that may be at the moment.
I fart in your general direction.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Unfair, Mike. Only one or two have called for violence against the whalers.
Eff 'em. Live by
die by...whatever.
Jerks. Good Nazis. Murders.
Take your pick.
Sorry. I grew up watching Flipper.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Unfair, Mike. Only one or two have called for violence against the whalers.Quote:is a snark, pure and simple. I'm certainly not calling for violence, and said I agreed with you on that point, and potentially others.
have no problems with killing people whom you disagree on moral issues.
Of course, you SHOULD realize that most of what I post is at least half-snarky, so it's not as if you've never been warned... ;)
Quote:
From what I've read, the Japanese HAVE been more aggressive, but that's neither here nor there. Your comment lessens my respect for you.
Can't help you on the respect issue, but from what I'VE read, it seems there's plenty of aggression and incivility on both sides of this issue.
Quote:
I now see you're happy to go after those of us who usually agree with you, and paint us with the same brush as those who are regularly out-there and call for violence. Didn't think you were like that; thanx for putting me straight.
Wait a minute - That sounds suspciously like you're asking me to apply one set of rules and standards to those I usually agree with, and another set of rules and standards to those I DISAGREE with. I had thought you were more objective than that, and interested in the truth of things more than the agenda and spin of them. Thanks for putting me straight on that. ;)
(And yes, THAT was snark, pure and simple.) You and I *DO* agree on most things, but as Lennon said, "If you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is, Brother, you'll have to wait."
And I realize I quoted your response, but I also realize that YOU personally aren't calling for violence, but you're the most active "opposition" member on this thread, so I tend to quote you and then address others in a more general sense. My apologies for that. My rant against the "by every means necessary" crowd is aimed more at those who are calling for violence. I won't advocate violence against sailors who are, for whatever you may think of them, just trying to do their jobs and earn a living. That's like spitting on soldiers because you disagree with the war. Don't spit on the soldiers, and don't sink the whaling ship with the Japanese sailors on board - if you really MUST go after somebody's blood, go after the heads of the companies that own the ships and sign the contracts to take whales and then sell them. Even if they DO claim it's just for research. (What are they researching, anyway? How tasty whales are? Is that legitimate research?)
Anyhoo, I'm not a big fan of attacking boats, BY ANYBODY.
I can understand why tempers get heated during this debate, and about this issue. Still, "Kill the fuckers!" is hardly ever the correct course of action, and there's usually more constructive ways of meeting the problem and solving it.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Violence is never the best solution. And it should be the last option to consider, always.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I can understand why tempers get heated during this debate, and about this issue. Still, "Kill the fuckers!" is hardly ever the correct course of action, and there's usually more constructive ways of meeting the problem and solving it.
But then, I would shed no tears for peeps on a whaling ship should they be killed by some wacky extremists. Just like I shed no tears for the cooks aboard the Death Star- they knew what was up, what they were serving aboard.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I accept what you say, Mike. And no, I wasn't asking you to use different sets of rules, I dislike it when you snark at anyone, often because your snarks don't really relate to what was actually said. I have the right to resent it when what you say seems directly aimed at me and is patently untrue.
I'm NOT the most active opposition voice on this issue; reread and you'll see that.
I'll freely grant that the Sea Shepherd has been condemned for using violent means, and recently HAS used more violence against the Japanese whalers than they have against SSCS, but historically that wasn't the case. There are documented instances of the SSCS' violent actions against Japanese whalers, and the IWC is calling for them to be condemned. But the fact is it's happened on both sides, period. And both sides are wrong. You can easily find more recent stories on the Sea Shepherd's actions against the whalers, so I'll just quote a couple of stories on the other side:Quote:
The anti-whale hunting group the Sea Shepherd said a Japanese security ship has illegally followed them into French Antarctic waters and fired "a military class weapon" at their helicopter.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said the Japanese ship the Shonan Maru No 2 had been following its vessel, the Steve Irwin, for nine of the 10 days it had been sailing since leaving Fremantle.
A Sea Shepherd spokeswoman said the Steve Irwin entered French Antarctic territorial waters, with permission from the French Base at Dumont Durville, in a bid to lose the Shonan Maru.
But, the Shonan Maru No 2 followed the Steve Irwin without the French's permission, Sea Shepherd said.
The Sea Shepherd group said the French base had confirmed that the Japanese ship neither requested nor received permission to enter French waters.
The spokeswoman said the Steve Irwin helicopter then flew back to film the Shonan Maru in its pursuit.
"In response, the crew of the Japanese ship activated their Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) at the Sea Shepherd helicopter," she said.
"LRAD is a military class weapon."
Helicopter pilot Chris Aultman said activating the weapon was extremely irresponsible.
"That device can cause nausea and disorientation and the use of it against an aircraft is extremely dangerous," he said.
The Sea Shepherd helicopter returned to the Steve Irwin for safety, at which point the Shonan Maru increased speed and aimed their water canons at the helicopter on the landing pad, the spokeswoman said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/sea-shepherd-compla
in-about-japans-military-fightback/story-fn3dxity-1225811661366
The Australian SenateQuote:
condemns the violent actions of the Japanese whaling fleet, who have reportedly thrown metal balls at environmental activists
http://www.thegenerator.com.au/index.php/news/8-sustainable/2565-the-a
ustralian-senate-condemns-japanese-violenceQuote:
....A group of extremist whalers were deliberately trying to ram the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin and trying to disable the ship's propeller....Over the last week we have witnessed and documented Japanese whalers throwing projectiles at Sea Shepherd crewmembers
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-090211-1.html
I repeat: Both are wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Violence is never the best solution. And it should be the last option to consider, always.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I can understand why tempers get heated during this debate, and about this issue. Still, "Kill the fuckers!" is hardly ever the correct course of action, and there's usually more constructive ways of meeting the problem and solving it.
But then, I would shed no tears for peeps on a whaling ship should they be killed by some wacky extremists. Just like I shed no tears for the cooks aboard the Death Star- they knew what was up, what they were serving aboard.
The laughing Chrisisall
I wondered if anyone was going to bring that argument up. Surprised it took so long. :)
As you say, I might not shed tears for the crew of a whaling ship if it were sunk, but I'll likely not shed any tears for a bunch of environmental terrorists if THEY were sunk, either. Both sides are behaving badly, and saying, "They did it, too!" isn't a justification in second grade, so I don't know why it would be in this instance, either.
Others refuse to play by "the rules". That doesn't mean WE have to follow. We can be better than that; we really can. We can refuse to torture. We can refuse to be terrified. And we can refuse to endorse piracy on the high seas.
I can understand why those poor Somalis take the actions they take, too, but I sure as hell don't condone those actions, and I'll not shed a tear when a crew of pirates gets shot in the neck by snipers. As with the Death Star crew, they knew what they were doing, and they knew the risks before climbing aboard.
I'm with Gino on this one. Wanna enact stricter laws and harsher penalties? I'm in. Wanna seize boats and levy heavy fines? Woo boy, let's go. Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own. And remember, if I decide I don't like what YOU are doing, I'm fully within my rights (according to you) to sink your boat, too.
Sometimes you go by the law even when it's a shitty law, because if the law doesn't protect all of us, it doesn't protect any of us. And you work for better laws.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Niki:
I repeat: Both are wrong.
Yup, I figured there was something in this mess we'd find to agree on.
About "Hero" and his point about taking on the Japanese Navy: The Japanese Navy hasn't been a viable force since the Battle of Midway, and hasn't officially even EXISTED since 1947, when it was permanently disbanded under Japan's new constitution. They DO have a Maritime Defense Force, but it is critically short of offensive capabilities (by design and constitutional decree), and is also critically short of resupply ships and logistical support, so it is incapable of projecting military power much of anywhere without strong support from the United States Air Force and Navy.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting, while I have my own take on the topic at hand, and for a couple reasons cannot add my two cents to it, I do think this semi-related and very salient bit should be chewed over by all.
Would You Hurt Me If I Said No to Your Politics?
http://www.strike-the-root.com/node/25638
The way disagreement has the potential to spiral brought it to mind as very relevant.
Which always begs the question of how MUCH force are you willing to use, if negotiation and reason fail ?
I think the folk in that extremely awesome looking boat there shouldn't bitch so much - they were aware of the potential when they entered the situation, and knowingly entered it of their own free will - at which point they HAVE to assume some responsibility for the risks they deliberately took.
Doesn't absolve the other ship of responsibility for THEIR actions, but trying to pretend they're blameless is bullshit, unless you need rescue or are transferring supplies/passengers, you don't come THAT close to someone elses boat on open water unless you *want* to start something, period.
Oh, and just a personal pet peeve, at any time during which you have prominently displayed, or especially, raised on the mast, the Jolly Roger...
Do *NOT* go whining to the law about anything that happens during that period, it's fucking disrespectful and insulting - if you're gonna go outlaw have the damned balls to stand behind it.
Sorry, that rooks me on a personal level, is all.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Unfair, Mike. Only one or two have called for violence against the whalers.
Eff 'em. Live by
die by...whatever.
Jerks. Good Nazis. Murders.
Take your pick.
Sorry. I grew up watching Flipper.
The laughing Chrisisall
Effin' A Chris! Besides, how could anyone in the world continue to kill whales after her tearful and powerfully desperate pleas on behalf of whales???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder if the Japanese could take them prisoner, and hold them as "enemy combatants"...
Of course, I'm sure we'd hear plenty of talk about how "they're AMERICANS, DAMMIT!" and "they have AMERICAN RIGHTS!" - even though they're in international waters far, far away from American soil and jurisdiction...
And Frem, thanks for jumping in. I've been wondering what your take on it would be, and on the Jolly Roger bit, I'm right there with ya. If you're going out with the specific intention of disobeying the laws of the high seas, then for the love of all that's right and holy, DON'T COME BITCHING ABOUT IT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DISOBEYS THOSE SAME LAWS AND SINKS YOUR ASS! Honestly, it's not that they're mad at being sunk - they're just mad because they got sunk FIRST, and they got sunk before they were done filming.
And that's the part that rooks ME, really - they're not doing it because it's anything they profoundly believe in, I don't think; they're doing it FOR A FUCKING REALITY SHOW. For ratings. For money. And they're bitching about the whalers whom they say are only in it for money.
Seems disingenuous, is all.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here I'll insert a remark from the "Animal Intelligence" thread, just 'cuz: Isn't it amazing how gentle and compassionate almost all whale and dolphin species are, in return, to man (well, not counting killer whales, but they DO mostly only attack men when they mistake a wetsuit for a seal)? Even going out of their way numerous times to save them? Wolves almost never attack humans, yet we go after them like crazy! Which is the more compassionate species? (rhetorical question, obviously!)
Just to keep things even: The people who go out in the Sea Shepherd know perfectly well the danger they are in and they accept that danger. It's totally predictable for them to make hay in the media over the Japanese boat's action...everyone does. Simple as that.Quote:
I cry bullshit--unless you're just snarking--otherwise, are you seriously saying you know what their full intent was and what's in their minds?? By the way, they've never "sunk" another ship, but irregardless of that, I take issue with your assumption. Like I said, they'll use the media, and this was a prime way to get coverage and rile people up against the Japanese whalers. Working pretty good, too, from what I see on the internet and news. No doubt, except for Faux Noise.
it's not that they're mad at being sunk - they're just mad because they got sunk FIRST, and they got sunk before they were done filming.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Absolutely agree, matey.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
at any time during which you have prominently displayed, or especially, raised on the mast, the Jolly Roger...
Do *NOT* go whining to the law about anything that happens during that period, it's fucking disrespectful and insulting - if you're gonna go outlaw have the damned balls to stand behind it.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I may not have read everything on the matter, but did they go whining to the "law"? I thought they just broadcast the incident and used it for media coverage; there literally IS no law to run to out there, is there? Just as the Japanese couldn't get them to stop harrassing them, they can't look to anyone else to keep them safe from the Japanese, isn't that so? Also, if you want to be totally accurate about it, the Japanese whalers are doing something against the "law" in the first place...except there's no law against THEM, either.
I'm not arguing in favor of the Sea Shepherd, by the way, despite my heart being with them; I'm trying to keep things even, because I believe they ARE. Both are performing actions which should be illegal, neither one has my sympathy or support when they do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very much so, which is what struck me raw as well.
Reason it pushed a personal button is that in my youth we did raise the Jolly Roger over something we pulled against one of the companies dumping toxins in the Patapsco river, and because not one of us would confess the "authorities" couldn't build a case against us over it.
Thinkin back on it, I woulda never guessed I'd be sittin here one day with a real pegleg, eyepatch*, and a cat flopped on my shoulders...
Yarr?!
-F
*Nothin serious, just that one eye going off on it's own, so we're hoping this'll help fix it, but it's screwing with my depth perception something awful and it's all I can do not to hurl the thing in frustration right now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mmmm, a bit of trouble with that one, Frem. You say YOU utilized the Jolly Roger to make a statement, yet you couldn't be caught and punished because nobody would cop to it. Ergo, you understand the reason for using it.
Then, despite the button-pushing issue, how can you be so vehement against the Sea Shepherd doing the same? THEY can't run away and not be caught and held responsible for the action, like you and your helpers could...eh?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
THEY can't run away and not be caught and held responsible for the action, like you and your helpers could...eh?
Well, they CAN'T run away, because their boat's been sunk. They COULD HAVE run away BEFORE their boat was sunk, but they chose not to.
And yes, at this point I'm just playing. I'm trying to inject a little levity into the situation.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I cry bullshit--unless you're just snarking--otherwise, are you seriously saying you know what their full intent was and what's in their minds?? By the way, they've never "sunk" another ship, but irregardless of that, I take issue with your assumption. Like I said, they'll use the media, and this was a prime way to get coverage and rile people up against the Japanese whalers.
Please don't cry. You should KNOW I'm just snarking. I've never been completely serious about anything in my life, Niki. I was the guy laying on the gurney in the E.R. with more than a dozen broken bones and a team of doctors telling my parents that I was almost certainly going to lose my leg, and I was the one cracking jokes and telling the staff, "Don't worry - I'm sure there's absolutely nothing wrong with me that a series of expensive operations can't prolong."
I learned a long, long time ago that you have to find the humor in bad situations, because if you start crying about the all the tragedy in the world, you'll never stop.
And no, I don't know exactly what their motives and intents were towards the other ship. But at the same time, none of you here know with any certainty what the intentions of the Japanese were towards the Sea Shepherds. That hasn't stopped several people here from saying that the whalers "clearly" and "violently" "attacked" the Sea Shepherds, despite having no real evidence to back any of those claims.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cause not only did they admit it, they went on to try to morally justify it, which they might have a point with and all, but my issue is that if you're gonna raise that particular banner over an act, you absolutely, totally, should not be claiming any moral superiority whatever - it's an admission of sorts that you are knowingly doing something criminal... I dunno how to explain it, call it a code, if you like, but once you put the banner in the air, any pretense to moral high ground is gone.
They actually did "catch" us, but without an admission they didn't have enough evidence to charge us - besides which, I doubt the company in question would want it on record in open court exactly what was comin outta them pipes we stopped up.
I'm not all that much against what they did, mind you - just that they strike me as playing a victim/martyrhood mentality which ill suits their actions and comes off as kind of weaselish, yes ?
Aw hell, I probably ain't gettin it across so well, but leastways I tried.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If you're going out with the specific intention of disobeying the laws of the high seas ..."
Well, there are a few navigation laws, along with who has authority (ie the captain). (Coastal and high seas navigation - that's another thing I studied up on, aside from helicopter ground school and a few other odd things - ADD has its benefits, sometimes. Anyway ...) A smaller ship doesn't cut into the path of a larger ship. Two ships meeting in that configuration must both move to (their) starboard. It doesn't look as if the smaller ship was actively cutting into the path of the larger ship. BOTH vessels should have moved to starboard. By aiming at the smaller vessel, the captain of the larger ship was in violation.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Kwicko wrote:
Friday, January 08, 2010 11:01
Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own.
The Australian Gov/Navy intercepts people smugglers, confiscates their boats and sinks them without the killing.. perhaps this is the way we should go?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:Quote:
Kwicko wrote:
Friday, January 08, 2010 11:01
Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own.
The Australian Gov/Navy intercepts people smugglers, confiscates their boats and sinks them without the killing.. perhaps this is the way we should go?
or even better impound them until the fines are payed, or auction them
then use the funds to pay for the interdiction mission
mind you ships that size do make nice reefs
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If you're going out with the specific intention of disobeying the laws of the high seas ..."
Well, there are a few navigation laws, along with who has authority (ie the captain). (Coastal and high seas navigation - that's another thing I studied up on, aside from helicopter ground school and a few other odd things - ADD has its benefits, sometimes. Anyway ...) A smaller ship doesn't cut into the path of a larger ship. Two ships meeting in that configuration must both move to (their) starboard. It doesn't look as if the smaller ship was actively cutting into the path of the larger ship. BOTH vessels should have moved to starboard. By aiming at the smaller vessel, the captain of the larger ship was in violation.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
See, when I watched the video, it looked to me like the smaller vessel DID cut across the path of the larger one, and the larger one DID veer to starboard. Maybe we're seeing the video differently, but from what I saw and you said, it seems the whalers are the ones in the right. (And it pains my hands to even type those words together!)
It's all screwy...
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:Quote:
Kwicko wrote:
Friday, January 08, 2010 11:01
Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own.
The Australian Gov/Navy intercepts people smugglers, confiscates their boats and sinks them without the killing.. perhaps this is the way we should go?
Perhaps. It's not a bad idea, especially if you make artificial reefs of them, which become home to more sealife (I was going to say "fish", but surely someone would then have to point out that whales aren't fish, they're mammals...) ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:Quote:
Kwicko wrote:
Friday, January 08, 2010 11:01
Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own.
The Australian Gov/Navy intercepts people smugglers, confiscates their boats and sinks them without the killing.. perhaps this is the way we should go?
or even better impound them until the fines are payed, or auction them
then use the funds to pay for the interdiction mission
mind you ships that size do make nice reefs
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
Now you're talking! There's an idea I can 100% get behind.
Or, seize their ships if in violation, and if they can't/won't pay the fines, you could always give their ships to the animal rights groups, just as an added extra "Eff You" to the whaling industry. :)
Oh, and one last thing - Maybe we can push to get some REAL clarification and restriction upon what "research" consists of. I mean, if these "research" vessels are taking whales that consistently turn up in fish markets and restaurants, the only real "research" I can see behind that is the research into how tasty and delicious whale meat is, and I wouldn't really consider that a valid scientific endeavor.
So, in the end, most of us have the same ideals and goals; we're just approaching them from wildly differing points of view. It's almost as if we're all touching different parts of some giant animal and trying to describe what that animal is. ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by Calhoun:Quote:
Kwicko wrote:
Friday, January 08, 2010 11:01
Wanna sink ships because their crews are doing stuff you don't like? You're on your own.
The Australian Gov/Navy intercepts people smugglers, confiscates their boats and sinks them without the killing.. perhaps this is the way we should go?
or even better impound them until the fines are payed, or auction them
then use the funds to pay for the interdiction mission
mind you ships that size do make nice reefs
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
Now you're talking! There's an idea I can 100% get behind.
Or, seize their ships if in violation, and if they can't/won't pay the fines, you could always give their ships to the animal rights groups, just as an added extra "Eff You" to the whaling industry. :)
Oh, and one last thing - Maybe we can push to get some REAL clarification and restriction upon what "research" consists of. I mean, if these "research" vessels are taking whales that consistently turn up in fish markets and restaurants, the only real "research" I can see behind that is the research into how tasty and delicious whale meat is, and I wouldn't really consider that a valid scientific endeavor.
So, in the end, most of us have the same ideals and goals; we're just approaching them from wildly differing points of view. It's almost as if we're all touching different parts of some giant animal and trying to describe what that animal is. ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
But now that we are there....
What do you do, as in the case of the Somali pirates... they went to the UN, stated what was going on showed evidence, etc...( mid 90's I believe) and were then ignored
Not so much as they didn't agree with you
Not so much as you didn't have a case
just they didn't care to do anything...
where do you go from there?
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Unfair, Mike. Only one or two have called for violence against the whalers.
Eff 'em. Live by
die by...whatever.
Jerks. Good Nazis. Murders.
Take your pick.
Sorry. I grew up watching Flipper.
The laughing Chrisisall
Chris,
I know you're not laughing in the least at this photo, and thanks for providing me some ammunition about Japanese whaling. The head in this photo is of a whale belonging to the Family Ziphiidae, often called the "beaked whales". They are by far the least known of all whales; they live on the high seas and never come near shore, and a few species are known only from the skeletons of carcasses that have washed up onto beaches (some of them as much as a century ago).
My point here has to do with the "mindset" of the Japanese whalers (I was going to say "philosophy", but that word suggests some degree of thought within the context of marine ecology and I doubt that there is any such thing).
And that "mindset" values the killing of the rarest of the rare - species that we don't know anything about! I've already pointed out that the Japanese kill and sell all kinds of whale, legal or not.
(Note that "Hero" never responded to my post that the Japanese have vastly exceeded their legal rights according to treaties they agreed to and signed. Any comments "Hero"?)
And then there's the issue of the tradition of the sea, of rescuing those in need (even during warfare, once a battle was concluded, the victor assisted in salvaging the vanquished). Instead of helping those involved in a collision in the coldest and most hazardous of oceans, the whaler hosed them down with pressure pumps. The most reprehensible conduct imaginable. Absolutely disgusting. They should be prosecuted under international law.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
]Violence is never the best solution. And it should be the last option to consider, always.
But then, I would shed no tears for peeps on a whaling ship should they be killed by some wacky extremists. Just like I shed no tears for the cooks aboard the Death Star- they knew what was up, what they were serving aboard.
The laughing Chrisisall
But dude... don't you live in the east end of the death star?
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
(Note that "Hero" never responded to my post that the Japanese have vastly exceeded their legal rights according to treaties they agreed to and signed. Any comments "Hero"?)
And then there's the issue of the tradition of the sea, of rescuing those in need (even during warfare, once a battle was concluded, the victor assisted in salvaging the vanquished). Instead of helping those involved in a collision in the coldest and most hazardous of oceans, the whaler hosed them down with pressure pumps. The most reprehensible conduct imaginable. Absolutely disgusting. They should be prosecuted under international law.
Japanese Whalers are acting legally unless and until they are convicted in Court. If you are not satisfied with the Courts then run people for office, make signs, stand around chanting 'we shall overcome', rally public sntiment, pressure the govt to change the laws, etc. However, the evidence and charges are being brought by the same folks who are engaged in repeated acts of violence against the whalers. Not a lot for the public to support (unless the Jap whaler were to ram an innocent protest vessel).
Its self-serving at best.
The issue here is not the conduct of the whalers, its the conduct of the protestors.
If you watch these videos... http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea.htm
...you see Japanese whalers being rammed (twice) by protest boat the Steve Irwin.
You see bottles of toxic acid being fired at the whalers.
You see close approaches and 'crossing the bow' by the Ady Gil (the ship that allowed itself to be run over).
Why the dangerous close approach? You can see them deploying ropes to catch in the Jap's rudders and propellers to disable them and so a laser device could be used against the whaling ship.
All the attacking ships have a skull and crossbones. This is piracy and terrorism and its only a matter of time till they get someone killed.
Edited to add: Bob Barker (he's old, but still kicks ass) rescued the stranded protestors and left the area. The Jap ship remained 'on scene' and recorded the rescue and would have been available to pull them from the sea had it been necessary. As for being hosed down...that's only after hosing them down for a good long time before the collision, if they didn't like getting wet, they should never have approached in the first place, the video shows those pumps have extremely short range. It also does not appear that they were intentionally hosed down after the collision, but rather as the ship was passing in the few seconds immediately following the incident as part of the continuing action. Now if you have video of the ship stopping or coming around for another pass with the cannons, then I'd say you have an issue, but the video speaks for itself.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Edited to add: Bob Barker (he's old, but still kicks ass) rescued the stranded protestors and left the area.
Note: "Bob Barker" in this case refers to the SHIP, the Bob Barker, not the actual PERSON Bob Barker, who was nowhere near all this kerfluffle.
For the most part, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with "Hero" on this one. But I do take issue with his claim that someone is acting legally unless and until they're convicted in court. That's a lie. They're acting ILLEGALLY; they just haven't been convicted and punished - YET.
You wouldn't argue that a serial killer isn't a criminal, would you? Or that Bill Ayers ISN'T a terrorist, right? I mean, I thought you were one of the ones who claimed he IS (and WAS) a terrorist, just one who could never be convicted. If that's so, then by your standards listed above, he wasn't doing anything illegal; if he were, he'd have been convicted, and if he wasn't convicted, there was no crime.
You seem to be falling into the notion that if there's no punishment, there's no crime. I don't buy it. A drug dealer who doesn't get caught is still breaking the law.
Now, as to what the Sea Shepherds can do about it... I suppose they can try to sue the Japanese whalers, and whoever sent the Shonen Maru out on this run, in civil court. They'd likely find a sympathetic jury (even though the jury is SUPPOSED to be impartial) to listen to their case, and I'm sure they could dig up all sorts of nastiness in discovery to embarrass the whaling industry, and they might win significant damages. But a lot of what they have on record might ALSO come out in discovery, so that can be a double-edged sword...
Of course, that all presumes that an international court would hear the case, and that the rules of evidence at least somewhat follow those in the U.S. court system, which is not a foregone conclusion.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
My point here has to do with the "mindset" of the Japanese whalers (I was going to say "philosophy", but that word suggests some degree of thought within the context of marine ecology and I doubt that there is any such thing).
And that "mindset" values the killing of the rarest of the rare - species that we don't know anything about! I've already pointed out that the Japanese kill and sell all kinds of whale, legal or not.
Thank you, Perfesser, for putting that so succinctly. While I may disagree with the ACTIONS of the protesters, I fully agree with their goal. We share the same destination; we differ on which route to take to get there.
And yes, there IS a certain "cachet" to eating the rarest of the rare. If you can find an endangered species, you'll also find someone who wants to roast it on a stick, just so they can brag about eating something so rare. It's a sickness of the soul, I think.
Quote:
(Note that "Hero" never responded to my post that the Japanese have vastly exceeded their legal rights according to treaties they agreed to and signed. Any comments "Hero"?)
It's beyond time for the international community to put pressure on EVERY governing body to ramp up the pressure on Japan in this area.
Quote:
And then there's the issue of the tradition of the sea, of rescuing those in need (even during warfare, once a battle was concluded, the victor assisted in salvaging the vanquished). Instead of helping those involved in a collision in the coldest and most hazardous of oceans, the whaler hosed them down with pressure pumps. The most reprehensible conduct imaginable. Absolutely disgusting. They should be prosecuted under international law.
That's also where I have my biggest problems with the Sea Shepherds group, in the other videos where they are clearly ramming whaling ships with an equally large vessel. This isnt in your bathtub, or in the nearby lake - THIS IS HUNDREDS, IF NOT *THOUSANDS* - OF MILES FROM SHORE!!! You fuck up and unintentionally sink somebody out here, and people are most likely going to die. This kind of assing around, by EITHER SIDE (or by ANYBODY, when you get right down to it), is unconscionable and unacceptable. I'm glad the Barker was there to pick up the stranded crew of the Ady Gil, but you'll note in several of the pictures that the Shonen Maru is at a full stop close by, just in case. Sailors - even ones who are bitter enemies - generally DO have a sense of honor and obey "the rules", whether written or unwritten.
In this instance, it appears both sides my have violated those rules, but when it all went wrong, clearer heads did seem to prevail.
On the bright side, this incident, while it cost the group their "flagship" DID bring them a metric shit-tonne of publicity and exposure, so I've little doubt that they'll pick up something new with which to attack other ships.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You seem to be falling into the notion that if there's no punishment, there's no crime. I don't buy it. A drug dealer who doesn't get caught is still breaking the law.
I'm not falling into anything...except the presumption of innocence.
For liberals that presumption is subjective. If you like the Defendant, they get all the protections and presumptions in the world. If you don't like them then they are guilty regardless of actual innocence.
We are not talking about drug dealors being guilty. Besides the fact that the whalers are engaging in a legal activity, which drug dealing is not...we're talking about Joe, the guy accused of being a drug dealor or in this case Hiro, the guy accused of whaling illegally.
Joe gets the presumption of innocence, I can't just go out and ram my car into his. Hiro is guilty, because you hate whalers. Perhaps a lynching is in order.
And lets not ignore the cultural and racial implications of some white (mostly European) liberal intellectual types dictating to the little misguided orientals just what business they are allowed or not allowed to engage in.
And finally, Japan is no slouch or 2nd rate country to be screwing around with. In about fifty years they went from Feudal swords to sinking the Russian Navy in a war of industrial powers. Fifty years from now do you want Japan telling Sweden what their laws should be and using this as a precedent to enforce them on the high seas.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
For liberals that presumption is subjective. If you like the Defendant, they get all the protections and presumptions in the world. If you don't like them then they are guilty regardless of actual innocence.
Oh how quickly you forget...
You were among the blithering hordes who wanted to lynch Obama for "palling around with domestic terrorists" like Bill Ayers, who was never convicted, and therefore MUST be considered innocent. Unless you're one of those "liberals" you accuse of having subjective presumptions about guilt. ;)
In fifty years, Japan built a navy. And in five years, they went from the largest aircraft carrier force in the world, and the second-largest navy on Earth, to not having a navy at all. So what was your point?
By the way, you misspelled "dealor". Haven't you learned yet that spelling matters? Seems if only they'd spelled Cap'n Underpants's name right, they'd have had him before he stepped on a U.S.-bound flight. So yes, spelling DOES count. :)
Quote:
Joe gets the presumption of innocence, I can't just go out and ram my car into his. Hiro is guilty, because you hate whalers. Perhaps a lynching is in order.
Can you show me where I presumed or pronounced "Hiro" guilty?
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:"Fuck you, asshole."
Originally posted by Hero:
I'm not falling into anything...except the presumption of innocence.
Really, I'm done with you man. There was a time when you seemed to be making sense, now it's same-ol-by-the-book dogma with you. Like a good little man of law, objective reality does not exist. Unless a judge, the most incorruptible & infallible of all God's creations, says it does.
So sorry you broke up with that girl; she was a good influence on you.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't disagree on any particular point.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This isnt in your bathtub, or in the nearby lake - THIS IS HUNDREDS, IF NOT *THOUSANDS* - OF MILES FROM SHORE!!! You fuck up and unintentionally sink somebody out here, and people are most likely going to die. This kind of assing around, by EITHER SIDE (or by ANYBODY, when you get right down to it), is unconscionable and unacceptable.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geez, I go away overnight and look what happens! Guess I just have two things to add:Quote:
It's true, they are technically acting "legally" in that there is no international law against whaling...which is what we need. I don't know we get one tho'...does anyone know how you get an INTERNATIONAL law for what happens on the high seas? I'd like to know.
Japanese Whalers are acting legally unless and until they are convicted in Court.
Because electing officials ain't gonna do it...it has to be numerous countries agreeing on anything to impact the legality of their action. They've been condemned for their actions for decades; they don't care. There is no court under which to sue them, and they’d lose a lawsuit because there is no “law” they’ve broken.
They are acting "illegally" in that they did sign a "treaty" and are continuing to take whales under the guise of "research". That can't be enforced, even tho' the vast majority of countries in the world are strongly against whaling. (as evidenced by the actions and writings of the IRWC). Nobody's going to hold Japan accountable, so who else is there to fight for the whales who are being taken "legally" illegally?
There is no defense for either side except the use of violence, which should not be acceptable to anyoneQuote:
No support from YOU, and many like you, but vast support from everyone all over the world who recognizes that what the whalers are doing is a sham and wrong in these days when we’re destroying species daily, and where whale and dolphin intelligence has been recognized and is thought highly of. Look at the furor this incident raised internationally to see for yourself.
Not a lot for the public to support (unless the Jap whaler were to ram an innocent protest vessel).Quote:
What bullshit!! It’s downright laughable. What about all the laws the past administration inflicted on our legal system? What about the people who have made a hero out of the abortion-doctor killer? There are a million examples of right-wingers IGNORING the illegalities of those they “like”. To say it’s just the liberals is just plain absurd.
For liberals that presumption is subjective. If you like the Defendant, they get all the protections and presumptions in the world. If you don't like them then they are guilty regardless of actual innocence.Quote:
Again laughable. Aside from what was dictated after America WON A WAR against Japan, who started that war against us, the Japanese have done precisely whatever they want, irregardless of how it might harm another country! Add to that the fact that all the countries in the IWRC voted FOR the ban on whaling except four, three of which are white Europeans. Here’s the membership list of the IWC. Show me all the “poor little” countries that "America" is telling what to do with regard to whaling: http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm#nations
And lets not ignore the cultural and racial implications of some white (mostly European) liberal intellectual types dictating to the little misguided orientals just what business they are allowed or not allowed to engage in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"See, when I watched the video, it looked to me like the smaller vessel DID cut across the path of the larger one, and the larger one DID veer to starboard. Maybe we're seeing the video differently, but from what I saw and you said, it seems the whalers are the ones in the right. (And it pains my hands to even type those words together!)
It's all screwy..."
The laws of the sea are different from traffic laws b/c your FIRST AND ONLY duty is to avoid collision at all costs - even if you don't follow the rules of the road (so to speak). And speaking of which, since there are no lane markers or road signs or stoplights, what there is is agreement on who gives way and how do you pass each other.
As to who was to give way to avoid collision, in the two videos I saw, it was pretty much a draw AS THINGS WERE AT THE START. The larger vessel, being larger, is presumed to be less maneuverable. However, the smaller vessel may not have been underway at the time. At the least, moving more slowly gives it a right to stay its course.
Generally, each vessel moves to starboard. BUT - to ENSURE that they avoid collision in this case - the vessels each needed to move to port. They signal their intentions with two short blasts to avoid misunderstandings.
In this case, the larger vessel veered so as to collide with the smaller one, violating the first duty. That should lose the captain his captaincy, at minimum.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero
Quote:
All the attacking ships have a skull and crossbones. This is piracy and terrorism and its only a matter of time till they get someone killed.
That's being redundant, Piracy I'll give you, that's where my issue is with it, once you've raised the Jolly Roger you do *NOT GET* presumption of innocence anymore, not whatever.
All else aside, that's kinda my issue with the folks in the pretty little boat there.
When you raise the pirate banner and get in someone elses personal space on the high seas, whatever happens to you AFTER that, isn't something you can bitch about to me - morals be damned, YOUR intentions were made clear by that single act alone.
That's not to say I don't sympathize with their cause and all, just that once you've put the banner in the air, anyone not flyin it has cause to consider you a potentially armed hostile and act accordingly, up to and including sinking your ass on the spot - and while not well versed in maritime law, I do believe they have legal justification to forgo "duty to render assistance" if they belive it will present a danger to their vessel, AND I believe they have full justification to actually outright seize any vessel flying the banner, although they must return it to it's country of origin thereafter.
That said, with all the bruha raised about it, one could say they accomplished their objective more successfully than they had hoped to.
I just wish they fully understood that the mere act of even raising that banner is entirely sufficient justification for any craft under any flag to blow you out of the water right on the spot, and leave any survivors to fend for themselves - it's not just an idle prank, it means something.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, Rue, and Niki,
YES to pretty much everything each of you posted in your most recent posts.
There absofreakinglutely need to be stronger laws and treaties. The UN is a place to start, but given our recent actions, it's not like we hold any moral high ground when it comes to trying to get people to follow what the UN says...
Most modern seafaring craft have some sort of GPS systems on board, so it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out who did what, and when, in leading up to this incident. 'Course, one boat is now a couples miles down under the ocean, so it's data isn't going to be easy to retrieve, but authorities can likely get a look at any "black box" the whaler has onboard.
And as Frem has pointed out, for all the cock-ups on both sides, this certainly HAS given the anti-whaling crowd a huge boost in publicity.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Frem, Rue, and Niki,
YES to pretty much everything each of you posted in your most recent posts.
There absofreakinglutely need to be stronger laws and treaties. The UN is a place to start, but given our recent actions, it's not like we hold any moral high ground when it comes to trying to get people to follow what the UN says...
Most modern seafaring craft have some sort of GPS systems on board, so it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out who did what, and when, in leading up to this incident. 'Course, one boat is now a couples miles down under the ocean, so it's data isn't going to be easy to retrieve, but authorities can likely get a look at any "black box" the whaler has onboard.
And as Frem has pointed out, for all the cock-ups on both sides, this certainly HAS given the anti-whaling crowd a huge boost in publicity.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
So what happens if this goes before the UN and once again they take No Position...
does that make the Southern Oceans something like the American West before statehood... a place where laws really don't apply?
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Japanese Whalers are acting legally unless and until they are convicted in Court.
WHAT?!!! Good god you are a hypocrite. Damn, I thought that even you had some rational ethics in your background, but you have proven me wrong. Anything that backs up your prejudices appears to be OK, including hosing down a disabled ship after it had been rammed. Do you have any sense of decency at all? You have apparently no honor whatsoever. Heaven save us from prosecutors who think they should rule the world....
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thank you, Perfesser, for putting that so succinctly. While I may disagree with the ACTIONS of the protesters, I fully agree with their goal. We share the same destination; we differ on which route to take to get there.
That's also where I have my biggest problems with the Sea Shepherds group, in the other videos where they are clearly ramming whaling ships with an equally large vessel. This isnt in your bathtub, or in the nearby lake - THIS IS HUNDREDS, IF NOT *THOUSANDS* - OF MILES FROM SHORE!!! You fuck up and unintentionally sink somebody out here, and people are most likely going to die. This kind of assing around, by EITHER SIDE (or by ANYBODY, when you get right down to it), is unconscionable and unacceptable. I'm glad the Barker was there to pick up the stranded crew of the Ady Gil, but you'll note in several of the pictures that the Shonen Maru is at a full stop close by, just in case. Sailors - even ones who are bitter enemies - generally DO have a sense of honor and obey "the rules", whether written or unwritten.
In this instance, it appears both sides my have violated those rules, but when it all went wrong, clearer heads did seem to prevail.
I agree. The actors on both sides of this issue are being hideously stupid (homicidally stupid as well, at least in terms of risk). Neither side has any moral ground for claiming benefit from preventing human casualties.
A pox on both their houses
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, apparently you've been laboring under a misconception of exactly what a prosecutor *IS*, there, Perfesser.
You see, their whole job consists of throwing someone in jail, it don't matter whether they're innocent or guilty, it don't even matter when they are OBVIOUSLY innocent, as the prosecutors office runs on conviction rate, not justice, which it ain't got a damned thing to do with.
Add to this, that the State allows them to stack the deck, even helps them do so, whether it be pre-stacked jury pools (and here you thought that selection was RANDOM ? HAHAHAHA!) to violations of discovery, illegal jury instructions, picking favorable venues or judges, even provides them with an opponent perfectly willing to take a dive (the public defender) who's whole job is to tank the case while making the prosecutor look good, cause if they do that *enough* they get a shot at the other side of the courtroom and eventually the bench, see ?
In fact, prosecutorial immunity allows them to go so far as to fabricate evidence or testimony in efforts to convict you - more or less outright frame you, free of any particular consequence - I do NOT jest, this is actually a current issue being chewed on by the Supreme Court after decades worth of blatant abuse.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/how-broad-is-prosecutorial-immunity/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/what-would-prosecutors-do/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/us/05scotus.html
"The men then sued Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and two former prosecutors, saying the prosecutors had ordered them arrested without probable cause, had coerced witnesses and had fabricated and concealed evidence.
"In November, lawyers for the prosecutors argued before the Supreme Court that they were immune from lawsuits because they were acting within the scope of their job."
You can find more about that here.
http://truthinjustice.org/systemworks.htm
Before our justice system was so thoroughly corrupted, prosecutors were often as not the aggrieved party themselves and viewed with proper skepticism, and for some time after the adoption of a "professional" one - they were considered lower than tax collectors on the scale of humanity, which is where they belong, but lots of bullshit myth-making and media spin have somehow created the fictional idea that they're decent human beings, which is as much of a shoveljob as police work being dangerous - and lied about mostly for the same reasons, to excuse conduct that really should be inexcusable for ANYONE.
A prosecutor is nothing more than a paid bully for the state, pounding on someone who that State has stripped of both their freedom and income, often leaving the only defense they can obtain or afford in the hands of the States professional dive takers, or for braver souls, their own hands, which is considered mostly a joke because while the State supposedly *HAS* rules, exactly how do you enforce that when the party that would be enforcing them happens to be the one breaking them, eh ?
So, a Bully, with the loaded deck and the full force of the State behind them, whom you are supposed to cheer on as they hammer down, humiliate, and then incarcerate, whatever poor schmuck the cops rounded up to close the case and get it out of their hair so they can get back to the lucrative exortion of ticket spamming and asset forfeiture.
And once you fully understand that, the true nature of the creature in question, then it's behavior makes perfect sense when placed in a real world context instead of the make believe fantasy your civics class fed you, it being part and parcel of the same "system".
Government can't stop crime because Government *IS* crime, they just hate competition, is all.
-Frem
PS. It also explains why he's so bloody awful at making his arguments in the real world, especially here - since he doesn't have a Judge holding his hand and silencing his opponents, nor does he have a pre-stacked deck of State worshipping idolators to salivate over his every proclaimation.
And the results of THAT, are as
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:O.M.G. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Government can't stop crime because Government *IS* crime, they just hate competition, is all.
PS. It also explains why he's so bloody awful at making his arguments in the real world, especially here - since he doesn't have a Judge holding his hand and silencing his opponents, nor does he have a pre-stacked deck of State worshipping idolators to salivate over his every proclaimation.
I can't *wait* to see Hero's response to THIS, Frem!!! You
with such extreme eloquence & decisiveness!!On the high sea of reason, you've sunk Hero's dingy, I'm afraid!
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What? No defense against the specified charges, H?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
WHAT?!!! Good god you are a hypocrite. Damn, I thought that even you had some rational ethics in your background, but you have proven me wrong. Anything that backs up your prejudices appears to be OK, including hosing down a disabled ship after it had been rammed. Do you have any sense of decency at all? You have apparently no honor whatsoever. Heaven save us from prosecutors who think they should rule the world....
As a Prosecutor I see daily the power the State has. We can come into your home seize you and your property and imprison or execute you. We can do all those things provided we can make our case in a court of law.
Are you and the liberals on this board advocating we eliminate the Courts in all situations or just the ones involving folks and practices you don't approve of?
Or maybe, since no State was involved, you want to approve violent action by non-state actors when they fail to get what they want by peaceful mean. That's a dangerous path, especially since you wont find Batman on that path, but Al Queda is hanging out at the end wondering why they got so close and didn't just blow themselves and the Jap ship up. I note for the record that if these protestors approached a US warship in the same manner the protestors would be fired on (because of the Cole).
I linked to videos showing the incident was clearly the result of the pattern of irresponsible acts of the protest boat, videos that show numerous "crossing of the bow" incidents, videos that show attempts to damage or disable the Jap ships, and videos that show the intentional ramming (twice) of a Jap whaler by the Steve Irwin, a large ship similar to the whaler, not a small racing boat like the one damaged in the most recent incident.
On the other side the videos show the Japs using water cannons and noise generators to drive off the attackers (noting for the record the same tactics are used by commercial vessels to repel pirates).
As for hosing down the disabled ship, the video speaks for itself. It was only a few seconds as part of the ongoing hosing down of the vessel as it moved dangerously close (noting that the water cannons have a very short range).
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
As for hosing down the disabled ship, the video speaks for itself. It was only a few seconds as part of the ongoing hosing down of the vessel as it moved dangerously close (noting that the water cannons have a very short range).
LOL,
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A prosecutor is nothing more than a paid bully for the state, pounding on someone who that State has stripped of both their freedom and income...
Wow, somebody has a lot of hostility. I wonder why he sees things so one sided?
Quote:
Government can't stop crime because Government *IS* crime
Oh, he hates govt, well no wonder he hates me. I work for the govt. He described our City Hall Janitor the same way:
Quote:
A City Hall Janitor is nothing more then a paid bully of the State sweeping up helpless dirt and cleaning innocent public toilets soiled through not fault of their own.
Quote:
It also explains why he's so bloody awful at making his arguments in the real world, especially here - since he doesn't have a Judge holding his hand and silencing his opponents, nor does he have a pre-stacked deck of State worshipping idolators to salivate over his every proclaimation.
Wow, so your for surrending to international authority over local laws, having others tell you what business or industry you can engage in, vigilante justice, and removing the protections of the courts.
Good luck with that.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps the question will be resolved when the Sea Shepard's purchase a replacement vessel ?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23392713-for-sale-to-a-fore
ign-navy-the-british-warships-that-could-have-saved-hostages.do
HMS Dulverton, Brecon and Cottesmore, which cost £35million each when they were built in the Eighties - are now likely to be sold to a foreign navy or commercial buyers for as little as £200,000 each.
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I am correct, your hottie left you. Not that I take pleasure in that, not at all. But a woman in our lives is the balance we crude asshole males need to keep us real.
Otherwise we are just Terminators.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME