It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Sea Shepherd attacks the whalers "Death Star"

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Majic, you can't use weasel words to slink out of the argument that way


They are using the same violence sanctioned under law as would any government representative in preventing illegal whaling in a Whale Santuary.

Like a gamekeeper preventing people from shooting deer in a park, or a zoo keeper stopping seal clubbing in a zoo.

Now if its officially santioned, is it still illegal violence, and therefore morally wrong, or is it legal violence such as used by any police or arresting officer?

We shown that Greenpeace are NOT acting as terrorists and NOT breaking the law, therfore your objections are merely based on false premices.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Netchicken]




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Meow Meow, Woof Woof!

My objection is to the tactics being used, and to the hypocrisy of labeling them "nonviolent".

Arguing that ramming, disabling or -- in the case of our glorified Paul Watson -- sinking ships is "nonviolent" is dishonest and hypocritical.

That's why I oppose doing so.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Thanks for finding the link guys


Majic, Understand where your coming from but Watson and his activists at first since Dec.21/04 were peacfully trying to intervene, not to mention putting their lives on the line.

If our governments had of lived up to their responsibilities and upheld the law these people woudn't be here in the first place. Do we wait until they have slaughtered them all and then hang our heads in shame again after the fact.

I believe this has already been done too many times.

The only crimminal offence I see here is done by the Japanese whalers.

I like how Jun Yamagi wants Canada to live up to it's Domestic Laws but he completely disregards Ineternational Law. I for one would like to see our Government step in and do the right thing.

Somebody has to bear responsibility for this.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The Case For Vigilantism

I understand the frustration, but let's bear in mind that the whole point of having governments is to represent the interests their respective peoples.

Vigilantes are individuals who take it upon themselves to act when governments don't do what they want them to do. There are plenty of other titles for them, and I've used a few in this case, but that's basically what's going on here.

People can claim that Paul Watson can act as an "NGO" under UN treaties or whatnot, but that sort of self-deputization from a non-sovereign body is questionable. A jury in Canada may recognize that, but others may not.

I wouldn't, and I don't. Under this reasoning anyone can basically call themselves an NGO and do what they please.

But the truth is that even authorized representatives of governments are not free to do whatever they please. If a cop shoots you for jaywalking, he has himself violated the law and committed murder. If a cop pursuing a felon rams your car, you can sue him (or more likely the department) for that.

Most importantly, law enforcement officials are hired and trained to enforce the law. Some yobbo appointing himself a “shepherd of the sea” is not.

The bottom line here is that these "activists" are acting as judge, jury and executioner at sea. They claim to act because governments are not.

Another word for that is "outlaw". Whatever.

I remain skeptical of propaganda glorifying what amounts to thuggery.

The Sin Of Self-Righteousness

This is the same reasoning "anarchists" use to burn fast food restaurants, "environmentalists" use to spike trees, "pro-lifers" use to bomb abortion clinics, "animal rights activists" use to vandalize laboratories, "anti-nuclear protesters" use to enter radioactive facilities, "fundamentalists" use to abuse children and "terrorists" use to kill civilians.

They say they do it because they are right, but they are wrong.

If these whalers are acting unlawfully, then the right way to resolve it is through legal means, and through the governments that represent us.

Going beyond that means rejecting civilization in favor of barbarism.

No thanks.
:shk:



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
People can claim that Paul Watson can act as an "NGO" under UN treaties or whatnot, but that sort of self-deputization from a non-sovereign body is questionable. A jury in Canada may recognize that, but others may not.

majic

A jury maybe, but certainly not the Canadian government. They have prosecuted him to, likely beyond, the limit of the law. If you read the accounts of the seal hunt protests, and what they faced for saving baby seals... I was not a happy Canadian. The time that the Sea Shepherd guys scuttled the two illegal whaling ships while they sat in an Icelandic harbour, and then deconstructed the meat processing plant, before hightailing it out of Iceland... I loved it. Ha Ha on the lawbreakers who felt they were invulnerable. I don't even call that true vigilantism. the international ruling was being blatantly flaunted, and no one was enforcing it. I feel lucky that someone stepped up, very honourable in my books. The number of times Paul Watson has been arrested, fined, injured, had property seized, etc. is considerable. He knowingly went in the cage with the tiger anyway. Bravo. And shame on all the nations who passed that law and then ignored it.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Isn't "vigilantism" as you call it one of the fundamental rights of the American democracy. The reason people justify having guns, to protect themselves from a government that goes corrupt?

If you think your government is corrupt or not doing what is right, isn't it a foundational cornerstone of American Democracy that you have the right to protest and do something about it? You might not like it, but you defend to the death their right to protest?

If this is the case how can you argue against a private party using the same justification to right a wrong where a government is shown to be corrupt and other governments are seen to be weak or incompetent?

To argue against Greenpeaces actions and work, is to deny citizens the right to protest and stand against unjust government. ... Isn't it?

majic saidith..

The Sin Of Self-Righteousness

This is the same reasoning "anarchists" use to burn fast food restaurants, "environmentalists" use to spike trees, "pro-lifers" use to bomb abortion clinics, "animal rights activists" use to vandalize laboratories, "anti-nuclear protesters" use to enter radioactive facilities, "fundamentalists" use to abuse children and "terrorists" use to kill civilians.

They say they do it because they are right, but they are wrong.


Who are you to say they are wrong? You are merely judging them by your own values, and your own beliefs. If the people feel they are righting wrongs, or standing up to corrupt governmnet, then they have a RIGHT to protest.

In the quote above you have tried to lump environmentalists togehter with terrorists and murderers, tarring them all with the same brush and setting their actions (spiking trees and killing innocents) at the same level.

This argument is wrong, this generalisation is fallacious. Its misleading. This is not one body but many disparate and diverse groups for which each needs to stand and fall alone.

Greenpeace is not killing innocnets, they are putting their own lives on the line to prevent the killing of whales, against a nation engaged in a criminal and illegal activity. Such a broad generalization is not worthy of Greenpeace.



[edit on 12-1-2006 by Netchicken]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
It is a fine principle that is presented there. It is an inherent right of a free individual to go against what the government says to do. Rosa Parks did it. Martin Luther King Jr. did it. Many people criticized them at the time, those rebels, breaking the law and all. Not many feel that way now. It is a fine line between freedom fighters and terrorists, a very fine line.
The battles Greenpeace has fought have resulted in at least one death. That of a Greenpeace photographer in New Zealand, unluckily onboard their ship when a bomb sank it.... I think the French ended up being the demolitions experts who covertly placed it. If your going to use bombs, please be sure no one is onboard.
I liked the Malcolm X quote when asked what lengths he would go to to protect his family. It was scandalous at the time. " By whatever means necessary."
Alot of people felt threatened by that, but if he is only protecting his family, why should they have? Only those who were trying to harm his family (and some were) need be concerned. Assassins got him too.
One hazard of doing things like Paul Watson, the Sea Shepherd society, Greenpeace, etc. is that one day you might get snuffed out for it. It is not uncommon. Ken Saro-Wiwa, Steven Biko, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, etc. Killed for standing up to injustice. What heroism. I hold those who assassinated these people in a little lower regard, since they were fighting to preserve injustice. that just rubs me the wrong way.
One last additional note. I have heard others say that it is not only our right, but it is our duty. For injustice to exist, all that is required is for the people who see the injustice to do nothing. I think that sometimes it is closer to our duty, let alone our right, to stand up, and to risk death, for what we believe is right. Those dead heroes I named all knew that they were likely to be killed for doing what they were doing, but that didn't stop them.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Bravo! A fine post, and a list of fine fighters of injustice.

Ken Saro-Wiwa is a perfect example of the same issue.

Fighting against a corrupt government getting rich from exploiting the native lands of Saro-wiwa's tribe for oil. An American company (Shell?) being the developers. I like they way he described his own country - Nigeria - as a "lootocracy" very similar to Japan and whaling. Strip out as much as you can for financial gain.

Although Saro-wiwa didn't promote violence (despite being accused of by the government looking for an excuse to kill him) he certinaly fits the same mold as the activists on greenpeace. (BTW I think it took 5 goes at hanging him before they managed to kill him) Yet another case where weak governments stood around vacillating, Mandella in particular, while an activist paid with his life.


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
One hazard of doing things like Paul Watson, the Sea Shepherd society, Greenpeace, etc. is that one day you might get snuffed out for it. It is not uncommon. Ken Saro-Wiwa, Steven Biko, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, etc. Killed for standing up to injustice. What heroism. I hold those who assassinated these people in a little lower regard, since they were fighting to preserve injustice. that just rubs me the wrong way.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
I think they were Dutch to begin with, but may now be American, anyway, Shell didn't do anything worse than all the other oil companies have done at one time or another. If I recall, a Shell helicopter was used to transport Saro-Wiwa at one point..... that is pretty bad. Mining companies, Canadian ones too, have been guilty of crimes just as bad. And we can't forget the Opium Wars, in China, which were fought to protect the rights of the Europeans to sell their cheap opium in China, (free trade). A great deal of wealth was acquired by the European backers from the lucrative trade. China had fought to stop them importing the less expensive opium, and felt they had the right as a sovereign nation, to refuse it... Not so said the importers.
There is certainly no shortage of stories of injustice in our history books. And to think this is after they have been editted as much as possible to present things in the most favourable light. The victors write the history books.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Language Gap


Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I don't even call that true vigilantism. the international ruling was being blatantly flaunted, and no one was enforcing it.

I call it vigilantism, because that's what it is.


From Dictionary.com:
vig·i·lan·te
n.

1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.

As for all the other fine poetic rationalizations, go where thou wilt, but I shall not follow.

What all the rationalizations I listed above have in common is that they are all examples of violence justified by self-righteous beliefs, and the list is far from exhaustive.

And it's not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Ergo Sum

Just to make sure I'm clear on where I stand on this:

1. I support a total worldwide ban on whaling.

2. I only support doing so legally, and that means through our respective governments.

3. I oppose the use of violence to stop whaling, particularly on the high seas.

4. I am skeptical of claims that NGOs are legitimate law-enforcement agencies.

5. I respect the right of anyone and everyone to have a differing opinion from mine. In particular, to those of my fellow ATSers who want to cheer this kind of thing on, go nuts.

6. However, I reserve the right to point out what I consider to be fallacies and hypocrisy.

7. As always, I could be wrong about any and/or all of this.

Yes, this story bugs me. Yes, it bugs me that whaling is still taking place. Yes, if bugs me that some people see fit to use violence to oppose it. Yes, it bothers me to see violence falsely labeled “nonviolent”.

But let's face it: a lot of things bother me, and there are much, much, MUCH worse things going on in the world these days.

Meanwhile, the nature of this discussion boils down to differing principles and differing “faiths”. When that happens, it's not much different from arguing about the One True Religion or the Best Beer In The World, nor is there ultimately any more of a point to it.

Opinions differ, and I've offered mine.

Just sayin'.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
In that case, there would be no United States of America were it not for the vigilantism of George Washington, and the rest of his lawless rebels.
I don't put that much importance on the actual definitions of the words, so much as the details of what happened. If revolting against your monarch George the Third, and declaring yourselves independent of British rule, which was backed up by force, was technically vigilantism, then hurray for vigilantism. It is a necessary evil. Of course, Gandhi was far more civilized when he broke away from the UK. Passive, non-violent resistance is in my opinion the most courageous way to do it. I feel it is also the first thing to try. To use military force may be sometimes rationalized, but it would have to be the last resort. Oh, I forgot those tea party vigilantes, wasting all that fine British tea in Boston harbour.

I recall a quote that sums up my views metaphorically.
"A man has to shoot his own dog."
edit, found two more that are relevent and that I really like.
‘In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.’
-Martin Niemoller

‘Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.’ Frederick Douglas, August 4th, 1857

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
If we stop whaling worldwide, there will be no more fish in the ocean. The whales will starve to death instead. Unless we stop fishing too, are we prepared for that? It´s either them or us
But with some regulations, control and common sense there will be both whales, fish and humans. Develope better ways to kill the whales so they don´t suffer so much in the killing process. Keep the balance so there will be not too many whales. Whale is good and healthy meat. Whaling provides industry and work. As do fishing which we would have to sacrifice if we were not to kill any whales at all. The endangered species should of course not be killed.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 05:31 AM
link   
It sounds like that hunter on southpark explaining that we have to kill them so that they can live.
The same reason is given for the wolf kill, the seal hunt, and whaling.
Those ecosystems existed for a long time without the need for us to go in there and kill them all so they could live. If it is them or us... I don't give them much of a chance. It used to be them and us.....that sounds better.
It is a sad state of affairs. I believe you that it is good meat, the Inuit are the subject of the medical professions attention for the low rates of disease they have, whale meat is part of their diet, which is notable to the doctors for its near total absence of veggies. In the past, berries in the fall was it. Other than that, it was all meat.
I would not refuse whale meat if it was served to me if I was in the arctic. It is easier for me to accept their need to hunt whales. I cannot accept the claim that Japan needs to hunt whales. Some whale species are already gone. Will it be the case that we will be responsible for many more species disappearing.
I have eaten many different game meats, and it is all very good. Better than the styrofoam and stretchwrapped domestic meat from the grocer. The concern I have is that one day, that domestic meat will be all there is.

[edit on 03 22 2005 by BlackGuardXIII]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
If we stop whaling worldwide, there will be no more fish in the ocean. The whales will starve to death instead. Unless we stop fishing too, are we prepared for that? It´s either them or us
But with some regulations, control and common sense there will be both whales, fish and humans. The endangered species should of course not be killed.


You have said a mouthful my friend... and touched upon a even greater injustice...

Deep sea net trawlers...
they are like huge lawnmowers clear cutting the ocean bottoms... these ocean bottoms are perhaps the most crucial, and fragile environments on this earth...

Commercial fishing has removed the ability for family and small fisherman to exist, while at the same time, virtually wiping out the ability to harvest an area twice...

these deep sea nets leave an ocean floor devoid of significant life, which then removes the food source and protection plants/corals from fish, who then have a smaller and smaller area of sea floor to exist in... making it even easier for the fishing fleets to find the remaining pods/schools...

we have made fishing so easy it is like fishing in a bucket...
If we truly wanted to preserve the oceans bounty for our children/decendants, then we would outlaw these commercial fish reaping ventures, and go back to more natural methods, and pay the upcharge at the fish counter...

thus insuring a chance for independant fishermen to make a living, and preserving our "unlimited bounty" of the ocean...



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
It is 8:15 am here in Toronto and Live on Citypulse News is a Canadian crew of journalists on board the 'Sea Shepard'. They are with Paul Watson and his crew trailing commercial fishing ships.

They are trailing ships that are in waters that are sanctiond by the IWC.
They have given warnings to the ships in advice on this and are being disregarded.

They brought the Sea Shepard close enough to one ship and repeated the warnings and as they moved close to the whaling ship, the warning was finally heeded and the fishing ship moved on.

City Pulse is sailing with them for a bit but I have to go to work
, so I am going to see if later I can find the video of this and paste it, I missed most of the show as it was on when I got up .



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Good for the Japanese ship, those greenpeacers are really annoying.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

You have said a mouthful my friend... and touched upon a even greater injustice...

Deep sea net trawlers...
they are like huge lawnmowers clear cutting the ocean bottoms... these ocean bottoms are perhaps the most crucial, and fragile environments on this earth...

I repeat:

Originally posted by Hellmutt

with some regulations, control and common sense there will be both whales, fish and humans. The endangered species should of course not be killed.

The deep sea net trawlers is a different topic. This is about whales. And it´s about some activists causing dangerous situations and trouble for whalers who are trying to do their job. As long as we protect endangered species then everything is fine IMO. Forget their cuteness, if they are not an endangered species then they are a resource. Instead we should concentrate on protecting the endangered species and invent better, more painless ways to kill the whales which are not endangered. These activist should find something better to do.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
If I were the Japanese, I would declare those hippie fruit loop beatnik losers to be pirates and I would use deadly force against them next time they attack my boat. Why should I allow some jaggoff to screw my propeller up? The ship im on is the only thing stopping me from drowning or being some sharks lunch, they are trying to damage my safety. Next time they try getting close to my boat uninvited, I am not going to wait to see if they have a bomb or bouquet. Open fire.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Well if you count the bomb that the French attached to the hull of a Greenpeace ship, which killed a photographer onboard when they set it off, then you have got a point, they did have one bomb for a little while.
When they sign on to protect the helpless, the Greenpeace volunteers are well aware what the mentality of the people they are opposing, and that death is a possibility. Thats what makes them heroes.
‘I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.’
Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
These whalers are whaling in protected waters...

I am surprised the NZ navy haven't sunk them yet...
well, I guess that is a bit extreme punishment for poachers...
but harrasing them, and keeping them from harvesting the whales in these waters is approvable...

remember... they used to have whales travel in their own waters, and ate them all (or so many that it is hardly worth fishing there). So it is no wonder that NO ONE wants them in thier waters doing thier "scientific research"

Commerical Whaling is against the law, and only scientific research is a justifiable reason for whaling...
so then how does Japan explain that whale meat is offered in school lunch programs?

Today for lunch, we have rice, tempura vegetables, and a lovely prime cut of science experiment...







 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join