NEWS: Sea Shepherd attacks the whalers "Death Star"

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Indeed, Greenpeace has become what you say...
they did some good in the past though... the rainforests come immediatley to mind...
their tactics were legal, and much safer than the true "terrorists" like earth first, that openly admit that hurting people is better than hurting trees...

Greenpeace has become something other than the environmentalists that I once respected, and I FREELY and fairly condemn their action as a bad decision
hence, why they should be sued.

I do feel that they still serve a valuable place in the "anti" movement against what has become the NWO. The little guy must keep his voice...

I just hope they continue to observe law, and be held accountable to it, when they slip...




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Greenpeace: A Sad Oxymoron

Openly and deliberately using violence to accomplish what should be achieved through legal means is nothing more than thuggery.

Recklessly endangering the lives of fishermen on the high seas is piracy.

Is is tragic that a group which calls itself "Greenpeace" should choose to use force where persuasion would be more effective.

They discredit the causes they claim to support by resorting to these thoughtless and immoral tactics.

And it is hypocrisy for that group to use terrorism to promote what they think is right.

They are wrong.
:shk:



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Majic, I am surprised at you... you are usually so alert to misleads...
There seems to be an intentional misrepresentation presented here...

Greenpeace is NOT the group that is trying to disable/sink these whaling vessels... they are merely trying to get in the way (passive resistance, look it up- search Gandhi)

Sea Shepard is a much more radical group that openly admits that it has sunk illegal whaling vessels while in port (without injury)
they are the ones still trying to do damage against these "legal" ships.

Greenpeace has not broken the law, with the exception of not moving, when a larger ship was coming... the purpose of this, is to hopefully get sunk, and then get the media sympathy... it didn't work, and people almost got hurt...

many governments are on hand to insure that only legal methods are allowed, and greenpeace was part of these legal methods...

It is due to these independant monitors and SEA SHEPARD- NOT GREENPEACE that Japans military might get involved, IF and this is a big if

IF Australia will allow them to refuel...which considering that they have opposed Japans whaling in the past, is not likely.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Majic
It's not piracy. It's reckless endangerment. Stupidity in the pursuit of a worthy ideal is hardly piracy. That would be stupidity in the pursuit of booty.


I don't like Greenpeace, and they are a sort of terrorist. However, the people who oppose them are often so crazy (on the other side of the insanity coin) that one is inclined to just walk away and let the polar opposites bounce off each other for a while.

For me, the high point of this story was the picture. It really supports that old "worth a thousand words" adage. I could, literally, have written a thousand words and a great deal more, trying to describe the situation in those terms. Look at the enormous black steel shape of progress dwarfing the terrified grad student in galloshes.

Beautiful.

This story really inspired me, and I'm working on a short story about an ornery old-school whale pirate named Snickers, and his Hawaiian mate, Sumo. They run afoul of an enormous Greenpeace boat that threatens to smash their tiny vessel to bits...

Also, here's a Haiku, in support of the poor guys onboard the Death Star, just trying to make a decent living skewering aquatic mammals.

Whales taste like cold crap
Hippies annoy all of us
just one harpoon left...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Okay, you want the news from the source, here it is:

the Source

and if you were a subscriber with a satellite link and a decoder you could get these images in their unedited form. This is where your station gets its news from.

Anyway, as I said on a previous thread (or words to this effect) Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Japan!.

Buncha ba$tards, I say. Sod off back to your own waters and pull this crap there. Oh, what's that you say, you've already killed the whales in your own waters? Well these are our whales for our tourist dollars off Cape Fleurieau, not for your bloody dining tables.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
If you are going to make a intresting argument please post links that actaly work.

Also you just want to use the whales to to make money, this is not much better then Japan does.

Edit: Typo

[edit on 10-1-2006 by picklewalsh]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

According to Dr. Patrick Moore, CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, the organization is no longer an "environmental activist group." Instead, it is an anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization group, masquerading as an environmental group. That’s why he left.

en.wikipedia.org...


Good find Hamburglar that kind of sets the record straight. It also shoots LazarusTheLong's theory/contention all to hell.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Well these are our whales for our tourist dollars off Cape Fleurieau, not for your bloody dining tables.



Those whales are your whales!?! Whoops, sorry about that!

I think maybe the whales would disagree. Anyhow whale meat tastes like crap. Really oily. Tried it once just to annoy some crusty hippy vegetarians I was eating with. Once was enough.

I think it is mainly the novelty factor that appeals to the Japanese. The fact that it is naughty to be eating it. Also circumventing the rules to thumb their noses at the internaional community. It is a cultural thing I have seen many times here. There are the rules and there are the ways to get around them, it's just not seen as wrong by them.

Though I do like the suggestion that they are given a fair quota to hunt as long as it is done by traditional methods, i.e. harpoons thrown by hardy men from small boats.

Also WyrdOne, that is one movie I would like to see, loved the haiku!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I have to note that this is the first time I have ever encountered negative comments about Greenpeace. Its facinating.

However to call Greenpeace "terrorist" or that ugly new Bushspeak "terroristic" is laughable and to me speaks of the numerous writers having at least one of 3 misconceptions.

1. That they don't understand the meaning of "terrorist" or "terrorism". To lump Greenpeace together with suicide bombers, decapitaters, and flying planes into buildings is just wrong. Its surely below the level of analysis I would have thought here.

2. They have taken on board the Bush driven propaganda of anyone you don't like or disagree with being labeled "terrorist".

Welcome to Newspeak and propaganda, you have learned to use the terms pumped into you via your media. Do you think they should be "rendered" as well?

3. They totally misunderstand the reasons for the actions against the whalers. They are trying to get between the whalers and the whales to prevent whales getting killed. This passive, non violent form of protest has a long history in democracy.

Were the bus boycotters against black segregation in America terrorists as well?

How about the anti abortion people picketing abortion clinics, terrorists?

What about people protesting about nucleur weapons such as Greenham common, were those women just more terrorists?

How about anti war protestors during the Vietnam war? Evil terrorists I bet, under the Bush NewSpeak.

Same concepts same actions same philosophy, I guess that evil gandhi was a terrorist as well.

Its time people realise the blinkered and conformed mindsets they hold and try to break out from those boundaries, but then again you might start acting like those anti NWO and anti globalization terrorists so it does carry risks.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by Netchicken]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   


Though I do like the suggestion that they are given a fair quota to hunt as long as it is done by traditional methods, i.e. harpoons thrown by hardy men from small boats.


Not sure you can compare Eskimos using "traditional" methods and the Japanese. The Inuit have hardly changed much in recent centuries, bar buying snow mobiles and rifles, whereas the Japanese are a developed nation, where "traditional" whaling methods are a matter of opinion.

One could argue that "traditionally", Europeans could hunt whale too. It was rather popular all across Europe a century or two back.

Seeing as we "traditionally" hunted the creatures in Tall Ships with packs of smaller dighys, would that count as hunting using "traditonal" methods, or would we have to use Kayaks too?

I mean, it is current "tradition" in Japan to use large whaling ships, before that, they would have used the Tall ships and dinghys and then before that it would have been smaller kayaks and such. Which is a traditonal method? It is subjective to the level of technology available at the time so really cannot be used in an argument.

The only reason why the Inuit are allowed to use the kayaks is because they never used anything else, therefore making the kayak a "traditional" method and never actually threaten to overhunt as it is rather difficult to get 10 whales in your canoe....

At the end of the day, it should be stopped. These are creatures that are arguably as intelligent as the Great Apes, maybe more so and we are not allowed to hunt them, so why should we hunt these creatures? Also, the methods for actually killing the poor creatures are sick and would not even be allowed on farmed cattle or chickens, let alone an intelligent and rather endangered Sea creature.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Good find Hamburglar that kind of sets the record straight. It also shoots LazarusTheLong's theory/contention all to hell.


Thanks. Although I'm not sure it shoots LTL's theory anywhere. The Greenpeace folks, of course, claim that Dr. Moore has been bought off by the corporate interests they fight against (of course, that is rather suggestive that they are actually anti-corporate).

LTL makes a good point, though. They are a powerful group. They have focused a lot of attention on the environment. In fact, even if they are totally wrong about the need to save the Western habitat of the Green-Balled Mystery Bird, at least some folks are becoming more aware of the potential environmental costs of their collective actions.

Ask any accountant, it's always good to be aware of costs.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar

at least some folks are becoming more aware of the potential environmental costs of their collective actions.

Ask any accountant, it's always good to be aware of costs.


Worth repeating.


Wow. We agree Hamburglar. I may drop that annoyance suit I filed.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
However to call Greenpeace "terrorist" or that ugly new Bushspeak "terroristic" is laughable and to me speaks of the numerous writers having at least one of 3 misconceptions.


Yes, I agree. As someone with a B.A. in English, it is horrifying to see this "Bushspeak" gain ground as acceptable speech.

In fact it's just as terrible as the other scourge of our language, “liberalese.”

This is characterized by an overuse of the words “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “BushCO.” It is also marked by poor analogies to 1930’s Germany and an inability on the part of the speaker/writer to articulate anything positive. The exception to this latter rule is when discussing anything related to the possible downfall/failures of the GOP.

Finally, the calling card of liberalese speakers/writers is the Tourette’s like blurting about how, yet again, the evil Bush is somehow responsible. Even in a thread about Japanese whaling boats.

We should condemn both on all fronts.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Hamburglar]



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
"traditional" whaling methods are a matter of opinion.


Those not concerned with semantics may take it as any method pre-industrial age. Basically, anything which makes it harder, so less killing of whales would occur.

Also it seems that whale populations are in fact bouncing back, if you use Japanese research that is!!!

www.gaijinpot.com...

Japanese kids can once more taste their "traditional" food!!

Also arguing that because one animal is more intelligent than another and thus we can't eat it doesn't wash with me. They are all still stupid animals. Hey, pigs are relatively (to other animals) quite intelligent, but that doesn't mean I am going to give up sausages!



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   


Also arguing that because one animal is more intelligent than another and thus we can't eat it doesn't wash with me. They are all still stupid animals. Hey, pigs are relatively (to other animals) quite intelligent, but that doesn't mean I am going to give up sausages!


Shows how much you know then.

A Gorilla can be taught language and is aware of "self", hence is capable of cognotive thought, therefore is Sentient.

Like you.

Whales and Dolphins have highly developed brains and are at least as intelligent as Gorilla's, if not more so. They can also produce far more sounds than a human can and exhibit what can only be described as a "language" in the production of those sounds.

Describing them as "stupid animals" really does nothing apart from display your ignorance in the subject.

I sense your next witty installment to enlighten us with something like "Well, if they're so intelligent, then why don't they have civilisation?".

Well, my whale hunting friend, you cannot have a civilisation without tools or fire.

Now, whilst it has been demonstrated that Dolphins use tools for certain things, the lack of anything to meaningfully grasp a tool and use it well is limiting.

I think the fire thing is self explanatory.

Apes have been shown to use a wide range of tools for different tasks and recent research has indicated that they may well have a kind of "culture". Knowledge is certainly passed on from one generation to the next. They are undeniably intelligent, sentient creatures.

Now take that and transpose it into a situation where you where stripped of your "civilised" ways and were left without tools or fire.

Just because you display an apparent Primitiveness, you will still think and feel the same as you would do as if you were at home on your playstation.

Does your apparent ferral nature allow me to hunt you, just because I happen to have technology and you do not?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good steak as much as the next man, but eating another sentient animal is wrong.

There is a big difference between a cow and a whale, but not alot of difference between a whale and a human.

At the end of the day, we are hairless apes who got lucky in the evolutionary process.

We have two choices now, either continue with our animal instincts and behave like one at the top of the food chain, or use the abilities we have been endowed with to realise that we are not the only sentient animals on this planet and somewhere we have to draw the line with the killing.

If we really want to stand out from the rest of the animals on this planet, I would go with the latter.

Demonstrating an ability to identify, plus a compassion and understanding for, an intelligent life form other than our own, rather than butchering everything left and right, would stand us apart from the rest, allowing us to truely claim to be different.

Maybe that is what the Aliens are waiting for?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
War Is Peace


Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Greenpeace is NOT the group that is trying to disable/sink these whaling vessels... they are merely trying to get in the way (passive resistance, look it up- search Gandhi)

I used to be a sailor. Sailing on any sea is inherently dangerous, a countless people have died simply doing that.

Any conduct which deliberately and intentionally endangers anyone at sea is reprehensible and indefensible.

I don't accept rationalizations for violence dishonestly euphemized as "peace". What these bozos are doing is not passive, and it is not non-violent.

If you walk up to a woman and pin her against a wall, prohibiting her from moving, that's non-violent, right? Anyone can do it, right? And it's okay to slip her shoes off so she can't go anywhere, right?

Because you're not hurting her, so it's okay? Right?

This is the same principle – and worse. If you disable a ship at sea and leave it adrift, people can die as a result.

A ship without propulsion cannot maneuver away from storms or other hazards, can run aground or capsize in heavy seas, and crewmen can die attempting to unfoul screws vandalized by these Greenpeace thugs.

The Sea Shepherd is using force – dangerous force – to interfere with a lawful activity. Just because they disagree with it does not justify their violating international law.

Immoral Equivalency

Please consider what you're trying to rationalize away.

There is no moral difference between trying to disable a ship legally making way on the high seas and torching a bunch of SUVs ala the Earth Liberation Front -- with the exception that the SUVs don't have people in them.

Interfering with the right-of-way of ships peacefully navigating on the high seas is piracy. If a pirate leaves you adrift for sport instead of robbing you, he's still a pirate.

Terrorism is the use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political objectives.

The Sea Shepherd is threatening to damage and disable the Nisshin Maru and is making deliberate maneuvers with the expressed intent of doing so.

That is terrorism, by definition.

Lying about it – and attempting to impugn those who are honest about it -- doesn't change that.

Nor does it save whales.

How To Actually Save The Whales

I'm not pro-whaling. It's obvious that whale populations have suffered terribly due to centuries of excessive and irresponsible whaling.

I support a complete worldwide moratorium on whaling until populations return to healthy and sustainable levels, and that will take a long time.

And it must be done legally.

Doing what the Sea Shepherd is doing is wrong. Instead of this juvenile grandstanding, they could peacefully monitor and document the activities of the ship they are harassing and use the documentation it produces to promote a complete ban on whaling.

These sorts of theatrics, on the other hand, seem calculated to generate opposition to their cause. Certainly, I cannot in good conscience align myself with such lawlessness.

For those who express disappointment in me for believing this, I challenge them to explain how this is any different from anyone else justifying “war for peace”.

It's hypocrisy, and those who support this have no moral foundation for criticizing President Bush using the same justification.

You may choose the side of war and violence, or the side of peace and cooperation, but not both.

Choose wisely.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Shows how much you know then.

A Gorilla can be taught language and is aware of "self", hence is capable of cognotive thought, therefore is Sentient.

Like you.


I won't argue that it isn't sentient, of course Gorillas are. However the level of sentience doesn't push much past "ug, give us a banana" or "nice arse on that female". Hang on. That could describe certain levels of human society...errrr.....backtracking...backtracking...

Anyhow...



Whales and Dolphins have highly developed brains and are at least as intelligent as Gorilla's, if not more so. They can also produce far more sounds than a human can and exhibit what can only be described as a "language" in the production of those sounds.


I've seen Flipper dude.



Describing them as "stupid animals" really does nothing apart from display your ignorance in the subject.


I still haven't perfected a writing style to show I am writing something "tongue-in-cheek" when it comes to posts. I need an emoticon for that.



I sense your next witty installment to enlighten us with something like "Well, if they're so intelligent, then why don't they have civilisation?".

Well, my whale hunting friend, you cannot have a civilisation without tools or fire.


Er, no.

Ants seem to do pretty well for themselves as a society working together. Your definition of civilisation needing tools and fire seems lacking. I would argue the ability to write or keep written records, or indeed the ability to pass on knowledge through oral story-telling would mark the genesis of a civilization.

If Dolphins and Whales could pass on knowledge through their songs, that would be really interesting. Prove that and the whaling would probably stop?

By the way, I don't condone whale-hunting. I have eaten it out of curiosity, found it lacking. I am of the opinion that the Japanese eat it out of scorn for the rest of the world.



Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good steak as much as the next man, but eating another sentient animal is wrong.


Ahhhh yes. Here in lies my question for you. What is the line we draw in level of sentience when we consider which animals to eat? Cows, sheep and pigs are sentient too, but people have no problem eating them. Who gets to decide how much sentience an animal has to have to get taken off the menu?

They will eat practically anything here in Japan. They do tend to draw the line at monkeys and snakes though. I think the fact that the combined fact of monkeys looking so human and that there isn't much good eating in them. Snakes, while being tasty it seems, are off the menu because they are considered gods. So the big fat juicy whales and dolphins really have no chance staying off the menu.



There is a big difference between a cow and a whale, but not alot of difference between a whale and a human.


Yeah, right. LOL.

Whales were fierce predators back millions of years ago. Human ancestors were quite often their dinner. They took the hippy singing in the sea route of evolution and humans evolved into the predominant species on the planet. BIG difference.



Maybe that is what the Aliens are waiting for?


I am an unapoligetic carnivore. Every vegetarian I meet, I ask the same question. Why? The reasons range from the silly to the serious. However, one time I got an answer which really stumped me for a come back. The girl in question said, "We as a race are sufficiently advanced enough not to need to kill animals to survive. We have both the technological and agricultural ability to grow enough healthy nutritious food to eat."

And in that, you have your point, maybe that is the next step for us as a race.

p.s. I still eat meat.....muwahahahahaa....



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
The Menacing Language Of “Peace”

Nothing reveals a person's true thoughts more honestly than the words they choose.

Let's take a look at what Netchicken really thinks about this “mission of peace”...


Originally posted by Netchicken
NEWS: Sea Shepherd attacks the whalers "Death Star"

There is a real battle brewing in the Southern Ocean between Greepeace protesters trying to halt the slaughter of whales and Japanese ships intent on killing whales for "scientific" purposes.
After the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru struck a Greenpeace ship the renegade Sea Shepherd ship is vowing revenge.

This has nothing to do with peace, and your own words are the testimony of it.

As for the distinction between Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, both of these groups are ramming the Nisshin Maru and seeking to disable it.

Using the pretext of the Arctic Sunrise ramming the Nisshin Maru as an excuse for Sea Shepherd to attack it has all the integrity of Hitler invading Poland because “they invaded Germany first”.

I'll gladly present and accept a Godwin Award for comparing these scurrilous and similar tactics.

If you prefer, you can instead accurately compare this disgraceful ploy to one gang of hoodlums ramming your car from behind, and another gang of hoodlums slashing your tires for “revenge”.

Some role models, these guys. I'm glad they don't live around here.


The distinction between Greenpeace – ramming the Nisshin Maru – and Sea Shepherd – attempting to disable its propulsion -- is as relevant as the distinction between two different bullies on the same playground, or two muggers double-teaming a victim trying not to fight back.

They're still thugs, and they're still wrong.

Those who defend these tactics and quibble over semantics and technicalities in the face of clear and deliberate criminality diminish themselves by doing so. :shk:



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I have heard from people who have met Paul Watson that he is a controlling, egotistical, and generally disagreeable individual. But he is also one of my heroes. His decades of service in defense of the ocean's various animals has been without equal. His group were the only ones to try to enforce anti-whaling laws when rogue nations defied them, no one else cared.
I salute their heroic and thankless work.
It is better to err on the side of caution, just ask all the animals we have made extinct.
I read Mr. Watson's reply to a fellow who was vigorously chastising him for his actions, and it was priceless. He basically said he didn't give a **** what that guy thought, cuz he isn't doing it for him, he is doing it for the whales. I loved that.
I am surprised that he was miffed Greenpeace got rammed. They hate him.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Here is a link to a news program I warched where they showed the footage of the conflict between the Japanese ship and GreenPeace. I watch this show on satellite ch 9415 Free Speech TV, no commercials, no corporate or government sponsors at all, totally viewer supported. You can also download it and watch it online. Sorry I don't think they have a direct link to the conflict but they do show it during the show.

www.democracynow.org.../01/09/1455259&mode=thread&tid=25





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join