Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NEWS: Sea Shepherd attacks the whalers "Death Star"

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Its funny, the only thing about this story that I feel I need to comment on does not reflect my opinion about whalers,

here goes:



...after the whaler rammed a Greenpeace ship.


Come on now guys, as much as I hate and detest whaling, we all know that Greenpeace put thier ship right in the path of that whaler with the sole purpose of disruption. The whaler simply chose not to be disrupted. If I abruptly cut somebody off in traffic and they ended up hitting me, did they in fact "ram" me? Nope.

So, way to go Sea Sheppard and Greenpeace, but lets call a spade a spade here: That caption is blatant propaganda.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I am with you on the anti-whaling point, but I am not so sure about your take on the 'ramming'. Example. Gandhi used passive resistance in his struggle to gain India independence. One tactic was sitting on railroad tracks. I'd place responsibility on the train engineer if he got run over. I realize that is quite different. Another one, a couple of years ago a Canadian college student was in Palestine protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes to make way for new Jewish settlements. She was killed when a bulldozer ran her over. It is my view that in all three cases, if it is possible for the person to avoid the collision, then they should. Unless their goal is to hit them, as the anti-whaling protest ships under Paul Watson have often done to illegal whaling ships.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
It is not that easy for a ship at sea to stop, it can take up to a mile for a ship that size to stop.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
"Quotes" from LazarusTheLong
REPLIES from me......

".... I will claim my right to out regurgitators of the worst government propaganda since mcarthy....."

REPLY: History shows that Macarthy was absolutelt correct. There was a very large, very well organized Japanese intelligence group operating nationwide...

".... and considering that greenpeace was and is, the foremost leader in grass roots (often, the only kind that actually does something) protest of environmental violations... we all should thank them"

REPLY: Read the UN's Agenda 21, which Greenpeace agrees with... that would place them in the "terrorist" catagory, and is all one needs to know.... hardly grass roots.

".... this world would already be long gone if not for them... and you and i would be dead from toxins, or radioactivity, or bad water, or lack of safe food, or lack of air to breathe"

REPLY: No... the world would still be here. It's the people of different countries that make their laws that have made the most environmental changes; Oh.... and don't forget capitolism.... which allows enough profits for the companies to clean up after themselves. Americas air is now cleaner than it was BEFORE the Industrial revolution.

The world isn't going to go away, and the air isn't going evaporate.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Talk about rewriting, revising and spinning. Excellent job well done!

There you go Laz, the perfect set up.


Tuk

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What i hate about whaling is that whaling countries say that they are "whaling for scientific purposes" while in reality whales are going to be used for luxury foods, not researched.
Those two faced bastards..


If they won't stop whaling, atleast they should be honest and say that they don't care about international regulations and will countinue to hunt whales until whales run out..

IMO as long as hunted whales are used for luxury foods & etc, "green freedom fighters" can disrupt whalers as much as they want. As long as nobody gets hurt badly.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by zappafan1
"Quotes" from LazarusTheLong
REPLIES from zappafan......
with replies from LTL in bold
sorry for the sloppy format

".... I will claim my right to out regurgitators of the worst government propaganda since mcarthy....."

REPLY: History shows that Macarthy was absolutelt correct. There was a very large, very well organized Japanese intelligence group operating nationwide...
What does movie stars being accused of communism have to do with Japan? (not communist, but imperialist at that point), and if you are saying that macarthy was correct, then you are indeed a unique person...

".... and considering that greenpeace was and is, the foremost leader in grass roots (often, the only kind that actually does something) protest of environmental violations... we all should thank them"

REPLY: Read the UN's Agenda 21, which Greenpeace agrees with... that would place them in the "terrorist" catagory, and is all one needs to know.... hardly grass roots.
You really need to actually read the article that you are commenting on... Greenpeace isn't the one using "terrorist methods" Sea Shepard is!...again, search "gandhi" and "Passive resistance" for an introduction for peaceful methods of resistance and the amazing things they have accomplished in history. and, Thank you for the rainforests Greepeace, I really enjoy the oxygen

".... this world would already be long gone if not for them... and you and i would be dead from toxins, or radioactivity, or bad water, or lack of safe food, or lack of air to breathe"

REPLY: No... the world would still be here. It's the people of different countries that make their laws that have made the most environmental changes; Oh.... and don't forget capitolism.... which allows enough profits for the companies to clean up after themselves. Americas air is now cleaner than it was BEFORE the Industrial revolution.

And why do you think that companies/countries started considering the environment?... believe me, they wouldn't care, if no one brought these issues to the forefront by doing things like placing themselves between a whale, and a ship... and you are absolutely correct, I was wrong regarding the world not being here... it would be, but we wouldn't without the environmental restrictions that have come about since Greenpeace began. Or more accuratly, in a lot worse shape at the least

The world isn't going to go away, and the air isn't going evaporate.



[edit on 11-1-2006 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I surgest you guys check 2 things:

1) an artcle in the new zealand herald in witch a marine law expert blames the whalers for the incident: www.nzherald.co.nz...

2) a bloggers view who carefully views the evidence from both greenpeace and whaler view: dontgointothelight.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Wow, if i understand correctly, The New Zealand herald is saying that the video is edited, and the original version shows that the Japanese vessel set the whole incident up, in much the same way, that a person being tailgated, would slam on their brakes, to cause an accident...

of course a rear end collision is always the fault of the person following too close,
BUT, if a preponderance of evidence shows that the stop was an intentional effort to cause a wreck, then insurance fraud investigation would result in a refused claim, with evidence supplied to the prosecutor for an insurance fraud complaint.

so Greeneace might just win this one after all... especially as these waters are closest to New zealand, and Japan might get kicked out of yet another fishing ground



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
REPLY: No... the world would still be here. It's the people of different countries that make their laws that have made the most environmental changes; Oh.... and don't forget capitolism.... which allows enough profits for the companies to clean up after themselves. Americas air is now cleaner than it was BEFORE the Industrial revolution.

And why do you think that companies/countries started considering the environment?... believe me, they wouldn't care, if no one brought these issues to the forefront by doing things like placing themselves between a whale, and a ship... and you are absolutely correct, I was wrong regarding the world not being here... it would be, but we wouldn't without the environmental restrictions that have come about since Greenpeace began. Or more accuratly, in a lot worse shape at the least

The world isn't going to go away, and the air isn't going evaporate.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

First point, true, new laws have made an impact. But, without lobbying by Greenpeace and others, would those laws have even been presented as bills?
I want to think that profits have often been raised at the expense of nature. ie: toxic waste being covertly dumped in rivers rather than paying to process it. How many times has that happened? I support any companies who clean up after themselves. But, that includes US and Canadian companies when they are working abroad too, which is not always the case. I am stunned at the air cleanliness stat. Wow! The air before the industrial revolution must have been pretty bad. Of course not too long before that, I guarantee it was cleaner than now. It had to have been man's fault it was dirty then too? Bet it was.
The air just might evaporate though, it did in a dream about the end of the world. The sky just kept getting darker and darker as the air leaked out.
Bummer if it does happen. I'm not worried about it.
I used to donate to Greenpeace for years, but my view of their effectiveness dropped off, I didn't see them doing much, but they may have been lobbying and stuff like that. The Sea Shepherd tales are more newsworthy, so they would be more noticeable. And likely more effective.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by picklewalsh
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.


Sorry about that, three little letters that didn't belong there. Try this one:

Try this one

As for making money...it's called whale-WATCHING not hunting. Try it some time, half of the SA coast is reccomended as suitable. So, I guess standing on the shore and watching beautiful and huge marine mammals swim passed is not much better than sailing factory ships into the Southern Ocean and hunting them with harpoons after all.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Its funny, the only thing about this story that I feel I need to comment on does not reflect my opinion about whalers,

here goes:



...after the whaler rammed a Greenpeace ship.


Come on now guys, as much as I hate and detest whaling, we all know that Greenpeace put thier ship right in the path of that whaler with the sole purpose of disruption. The whaler simply chose not to be disrupted. If I abruptly cut somebody off in traffic and they ended up hitting me, did they in fact "ram" me? Nope.

So, way to go Sea Sheppard and Greenpeace, but lets call a spade a spade here: That caption is blatant propaganda.


From the Southern Ocean (link above):


Shane Rattenbury, Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner saying:
"...The Nisshin Maru performed a 360 degree turn, coming along and causing a direct collision..."


and


Arne Sorenson, Captain of Arctic Sunrise saying:
"...This morning's collision between the Nisshin Maru and the Arctic Sunrise was solely the responsibility of Captain Toyama of the Nisshin Maru. He was in breach of the collision avoidance rules at sea..."


Captain Sorensen then explains that ships with ships to their starboard must "give way". Sorenson was to Toyama's starboard and simply held his course.

and


6. Nisshin Maru appears to collide with Arctic Sunrise - filmed from bridge of Greenpeace vessel MV Esperanza (no audio)



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Like picklewalsh and majic have stated even the slightest disruption on the ocean is could be very detrimental to a ship’s safety, we all got to see that no matter how we feel about the whaling situation. It’s like give somebody a slight tap in space it doesn’t look overtly hostile, but with some sort of tethering it would be a death sentence in space. I don’t agree with industrialized whaling, I give some credence to traditional whale hunting but you know what, in my opinion you gotta get over it at some point. When the whale population posses a threat to the ocean (which isn’t any time soon) we really don’t need whaling in our day and age.

Now that I got that out of the way, most of the environmental and animal rights movement have been taken over by a bunch of wackos lately, I mean I stand with the vast majority of the Ideals of greenpeace and other like minded groups but some of the rhetoric and extremist actions coming out by most of these groups makes me cringe, and like somebody said here before, I may respect their ideals but I cannot in any good conscience align myself or support some of the extreme activities these group go by. I wouldn’t go as far as calling them terrorist but they are extremist and dangerous. The more I started learning about the rhetoric of these groups when I was younger and thinking of getting involve in these issues was completely put off by some of the stuff I was learning about ELF/ALF and the peta crap, some of these people are really out there. Granted those are some of the most extremist part of the other side is often flaky and with their heads in the clouds when it comes to the practicality/Ideals of their belief.

On another note, just what options does a ship have on open (international) waters to defend themselves from an hostile/disruptive vessel. I mean, like Majik said trying to disable a ship in open water is a very hostile act, what exactly can they do to defend themselves.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by skippytjc
Its funny, the only thing about this story that I feel I need to comment on does not reflect my opinion about whalers,

here goes:



...after the whaler rammed a Greenpeace ship.


Come on now guys, as much as I hate and detest whaling, we all know that Greenpeace put thier ship right in the path of that whaler with the sole purpose of disruption. The whaler simply chose not to be disrupted. If I abruptly cut somebody off in traffic and they ended up hitting me, did they in fact "ram" me? Nope.

So, way to go Sea Sheppard and Greenpeace, but lets call a spade a spade here: That caption is blatant propaganda.


From the Southern Ocean (link above):


Shane Rattenbury, Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner saying:
"...The Nisshin Maru performed a 360 degree turn, coming along and causing a direct collision..."


and


Arne Sorenson, Captain of Arctic Sunrise saying:
"...This morning's collision between the Nisshin Maru and the Arctic Sunrise was solely the responsibility of Captain Toyama of the Nisshin Maru. He was in breach of the collision avoidance rules at sea..."


Captain Sorensen then explains that ships with ships to their starboard must "give way". Sorenson was to Toyama's starboard and simply held his course.

and


6. Nisshin Maru appears to collide with Arctic Sunrise - filmed from bridge of Greenpeace vessel MV Esperanza (no audio)


Not to split hairs, but I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the captain of the Nisshin Maru, he'd say the exact opposite. And, if you asked the PR spokesperson for his company, that person would also say it was Greenpeace's fault.

I don't know that we can take the word of either party as some sort of unbiased evidence.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The International Whaling Commission(IWC) has set this area of water as a whale sanctuary thereby it is prohibited for commercial fishing for any reason.

I am not agreeing with the methods conducted by the parties involved, but there are whales of different varieties in these waters that are protected under law for fear of some of them becoming extinct.

It would seem to me that the Japanese are breaking the law.
And if true that they are in fact responsible for starting this altercation, they should be held accountable for both.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Alphacenturi, you beat me to it!

I just found that out as well....
The Japanese are killing whales in a Whale santuary!

How bad is that?
stuff.co.nz...


Two Greenpeace ships, the Arctic Sunrise and the Esperanza, have been dogging the Japanese fleet in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary south of New Zealand since December 21, in a bid to stop it killing whales in its scientific research programme



"The fact is the Japanese whaling fleet is in blatant violation of international law and nobody is doing anything about it," Watson said.


As well Greenpeace are working WITHIN the law, which has been proven in court.


Watson said he was acting under the United Nations World Charter for Nature, which he said stated non-government organisations could use powers to uphold international conservation law, a defence which had seen him acquitted by a jury in Canada in 1995 for "chasing" Spanish drag trawlers.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Netchicken]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Netchicken this was from The National Post here in Canada.

Despite international protest, Japan has this year more than doubled it's planned catch of minke whales to 935 and added 10 endangered fin whales, with plans to eventually lift the number to 50 along with 50 rare humpback whales.

Who the %#$* do they think they are!

This is a good article with lots of info but I am having trouble with the hyperlink. This is the site

http:www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.

You obviously have more experience with the linking, maybe you could add this for others to view. Much appreciated.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
You were missing the // in the link


www.canada.com...

rats still not working, the actual page is missing.... sorry

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Netchicken]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Here's the link:

national post

There was a whole bunch of letters and numbers missing.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
War Is Peace

And the hypocrisy continues.

If people want to condone this sort of violence, that's their right to choose.

For my part, I believe there is a legitimate place for war when diplomacy fails.

However, I am honest about it, don't indulge in the Orwellian perversion of labeling war "peace" and don't wrap myself in a cloak of lies and sanctimony.

People are free to earn my distrust by sanctioning violence on the high seas. I would appreciate it, however, if those who do so would trouble themselves to be honest enough to avoid calling this sort of lunacy "nonviolent".

Doing so is an attack on what true nonviolent action is.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join