Anti-whaling nations urge activists not to put lives in danger

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 2

    taj

    Sounds reasonable.

  • 3

    cleo

    SS has always claimed they are not endangering human lives - so nothing changes? The whaling fleet on the other hand might need to be reminded not to shoot water cannon onto inflatables and not to steam full-speed into other vessels so that they get cut in half.

  • -5

    basroil

    cleoDec. 21, 2012 - 11:15AM JST

    SS has always claimed they are not endangering human lives

    Whether or not they claimed it is irrelevant, they put their own lives in danger, and bringing knives aboard the Japanese vessels they put any person on that ship in danger of getting shanked (not to mention being highly illegal to even board the ship)

    As long as they stay 500 yards (bit under 500 meters) away from the ships as the injunction states, they won't be "in danger from the whalers" and the whalers won't be in danger from them.

    With all three countries where Sea Shepard has ships registered agreeing with the US, it'll be very difficult for them to do anything stupid without getting the door slammed in their faces. Perhaps now they can focus on things that actually do make a difference, rather than just making indifferent people support whaling on human rights grounds.

  • 0

    Probie

    SS has always claimed they are not endangering human lives - so nothing changes? The whaling fleet on the other hand might need to be reminded not to shoot water cannon onto inflatables and not to steam full-speed into other vessels so that they get cut in half.

    The watercannons wouldn't be needed it the SS weren't trying to throw glass bottles full of acid at the crew, or trying to damage the whaling ships.

    Also, the SS got their own boat cut in half on purpose, because they're stupid.

  • 9

    wtfjapan

    ah the publicity is priceless, if Australia was really concerned about the protest they wouldnt allow SS to refuel/resupply at there ports. this year 4 boats in the coming years even more. whaling is a loss making dying business, why hunt something that will never be eaten in large amounts by Japanese since there is much more healthy and cheaper meats available. its all about PRIDE, J Gov would prefer to waste millions on this lost cause just to save face very sad indeed.

  • 5

    letsberealistic

    Was it necessary for the Japanese to say "the whaling and research mission" can now "be conducted safely and smoothly"? when that was clearly not the intention of this anti-whaling announcement. As the British might say, "What a cheek!"

  • 2

    Redcliff

    @ wtfjapan

    "ah the publicity is priceless, if Australia was really concerned about the protest they wouldnt allow SS to refuel/supply at there port"

    This is call democracy. Any ship can be refuel in Australian port provided they pay.

  • 8

    BurakuminDes

    I just love how the Sea Shepherd have painted "RESEARCH" on that boat - priceless!

  • 4

    wtfjapan

    @redcliff, exactly SS dont break any Australian laws so theyre allowed to enter Australian ports, a democracy also allows the freedom to protest. Australia USA Netherlands NZ have no legal jurisdiction in international waters, so the best they can do is a "joint statement". going to donate some more cash to SS, hopefully theyll have 5 or more boats next year. LOL

  • 0

    wtfjapan

    BRING ON THE PAIN SS LOL

  • 6

    Tamarama

    It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    I don't particularly like Watson, and from what I've seen, he has a pretty rag tag bunch of idealists who aren't great seamen and don't look that well equipped for what they are trying to do, BUT, I love what they are trying to do and I hope they harrass the hell out of the Japanese commercial whaling fleet so that they catch nothing and spend a fortune trying.

    It's more than a worthy cause.

  • -5

    House Atreides

    Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States said in a joint statement that they respected the right to peaceful protests but would use the force of the law against any "unlawful activity."

    Appealing to a fugitive from justice to respect "the right to peaceful protests" is an exercise in futility.

  • 2

    wtfjapan

    @BurakuminDes yes the word "RESEARCH" is justified. they research, how much money they cost, how little whales caught, how peed off they can make the whalers. all the while using a boat that many of the whalers probably worked on before. man this makes me really laugh. cant wait for this season of "whale wars" http://www.tv-links.eu/tv-shows/Whale-Wars_23830/

  • 3

    Disillusioned

    Probie - The watercannons wouldn't be needed it the SS weren't trying to throw glass bottles full of acid at the crew, or trying to damage the whaling ships.

    Why not go one step further? The water cannons would not be needed if the Japanese whalers were not plundering the southern oceans and wasting truck loads of tax payers' money.

    Oh, and, by the way, this 'acid' you are talking about is non-toxic rotten butter.

  • -1

    Probie

    Why not go one step further? The water cannons would not be needed if the Japanese whalers were not plundering the southern oceans and wasting truck loads of tax payers' money.

    The whalers are doing what they do legally.

    Oh, and, by the way, this 'acid' you are talking about is non-toxic rotten butter.

    Yeah. Right. That's why that whaler got chemical burns from it a while back?

    Get some of it and drop some of it in your eye, then tell me your opinion.

  • -5

    Probie

    It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    No, it didn't. The only people who think it does are the brainwashed SS fans.

  • -6

    basroil

    DisillusionedDec. 21, 2012 - 01:37PM JST

    The water cannons would not be needed

    They could go the pepper round paintballs and acid route...

    Oh, and, by the way, this 'acid' you are talking about is non-toxic rotten butter.

    According to 67/548/EEC, it's a harmful and corrosive material. And of course, these guys don't buy the acid in it's pure form, so it's likely laced with pathogens that ARE harmful.

  • 5

    cleo

    Any ship can be refuel in Australian port provided they pay.

    "whaling vessels are not welcome in Australian territorial waters," - a spokesman for Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon

    Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd fumed that the Japanese whaling security ship the Shonan Maru No. 2 had entered Australia's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, even suggesting the crew of the ship could be charged if they attempted to enter an Australian port.

    Whaling ships would have a hard time refuelling in an Aussie port.

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/12551319/whaler-escalates-tensions-by-ignoring-law/

  • 3

    Jaymann

    will those nations also use force of law against unlawful actions by the whalers though?

  • -4

    basroil

    TamaramaDec. 21, 2012 - 01:12PM JST

    It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    How about when the Sea Shepard guys deliberately performed dangerous maneuvers that could have easily sunk the Yushin Maru and their own ship? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeW1uFDDVO4

    Maybe the time they clearly violated every high seas law they could? http://media.smh.com.au/news/environment-news/sea-shepherd-attacks-yushin-maru-no3-2876876.html

    Oh, perhaps the time they were trying to kill Yushin Maru's crew by launching projectiles from a potato gun? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFjGnYdK4 And yes, potatoes can be deadly when shot at 50mph if they hit you in the head or chest.

    The Andy Gil got destroyed because the captain was stupid enough to run it into the path of an oncoming slow turning ship. It's no different than someone slowly running a red light and getting hit in the side by a truck with right of way. Sea Shepherd on the other hand, deliberately runs behind Japanese ships and tries to overtake them while being dangerously and illegally close. There is absolutely no excuse for their dangerous actions, regardless of what they are trying to accomplish.

  • -6

    basroil

    cleoDec. 21, 2012 - 02:50PM JST

    Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd fumed that the Japanese whaling security ship the Shonan Maru No. 2 had entered Australia's 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone

    He can fume all he wants, but unless the ships enter Australian territorial waters they have no legal authority to stop their transit. In fact, the whaling ships can just sit there for months as long as they are not in territorial waters, and as long as they aren't fishing there there's nothing they can do about it.

  • 6

    cleo

    If they're not welcome in Aussie territorial waters, they're not welcome in Aussie ports, hence no refuelling there for filthy whaling ships. Also a bit pointless refuelling if the ship then can't sail because the crew are slammed up on charges. And nothing to do with what happens to ships not in territorial waters. (Does Australia have any ports outside its territorial waters? Didn't think so.)

    Last season the whaling ship Yushin Maru 3 sailed within 5 miles of Macquarie Island, well within territorial waters.

    The whalers don't 'fish' anywhere. They hunt.

  • 0

    nandakandamanda

    The SSS San Simon???

    Has it gone Spanish/Christian now? Have SS changed the name yet again?

  • 0

    SumoBob

    A Japanese official praised the court order, saying it would help the whaling and research mission in the Antarctic Ocean to be conducted safely and smoothly.

    In other news, a Japanese official quoted during a recent press conference on the US court orders has been recalled to Tokyo to begin his newly-created work position, 'staring out the window until I kill myself from the shame of it all.'

  • 2

    Tamarama

    No, it didn't. The only people who think it does are the brainwashed SS fans.

    That's just denial. The footage shows what it shows. Spin it any way you like, but it's pretty clear when all is said and done.

    Basroil

    That's a lot of 'could haves' in your argument. If we all do that then this discussion is truly meaningless and stupid.

    For example, the Japanese government could have chosen to do the internationally responsible thing and chosen to observe the communal decision to implement a moratorium on whaling until they mutually agree it can be lifted. But they didn't.

    The SS could have sunk a whaling ship.....but they didn't.

    I'm sure you get my drift.

  • 1

    House Atreides

    Let's put this into perspective. According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society over 300,000 cetaceans die every year as a result of getting caught incidentally in fishing gear. So whether Sea Shepherd succeeds or fails will have very little impact on whether a given whale species survives or becomes extinct. The 3-11 tsunami that Paul Watson claimed was some sort of divine punishment very likely resulted in the deaths of more whales than these yearly whale hunts could ever achieve. At the end of the day, they're all just bit players in the theater of the absurd.

  • 3

    cramp

    the whaling and research...

    so now the jpnese admit its whaling huh?

  • -1

    basroil

    TamaramaDec. 21, 2012 - 05:46PM JST

    That's a lot of 'could haves' in your argument.

    No "could haves" at all. They DID attack a Japanese ship and endanger everyone on both ships. They DID attack a Japanese ship with a small ship and pass in front of the Japanese ship endangering their own lives. They DID intentionally place their boats in the way of Japanese ships in order to separate them and harass them.They DID attack a Japanese ship by shooting dangerous projectiles for private ends, making them pirates.

    They are a known danger to themselves and others, and the recent injunction is a sign that governments are starting to take their illegal actions more seriously than their past classification as "a few harmless hippies".

    As I have stated before, I'm all for the stopping of hunting whales, but not through violence like these idiots at Sea Shepherd are trying. It's counterproductive and simply dangerous.

  • -2

    basroil

    TamaramaDec. 21, 2012 - 05:46PM JST

    The SS could have sunk a whaling ship.....but they didn't.

    That is like saying that someone that fires a gun into a crowd but nobody gets killed, just grazed in the arm, is not completely illegal and dangerous.

  • -1

    Tamarama

    No "could haves" at all.

    None?! Not this?

    Sea Shepard guys deliberately performed dangerous maneuvers that could have easily sunk the Yushin Maru and their own ship?

    Or;

    Oh, perhaps the time they were trying to kill Yushin Maru's crew by launching projectiles from a potato gun?

    Really?! Trying to kill someone with a....potato gun?! You don't think you are clutching at straws a little?

    That is like saying that someone that fires a gun into a crowd but nobody gets killed, just grazed in the arm, is not completely illegal and dangerous.

    Ya missed the point. The point is; hyperbole is rediculous.

  • -3

    Probie

    No, it didn't. The only people who think it does are the brainwashed SS fans. That's just denial. The footage shows what it shows. Spin it any way you like, but it's pretty clear when all is said and done.

    No. It's perfectly clear that the whale-hugging hippies intentionally moved in front of the whaling ship.

    Which is the kind of thing they're being asked to stop doing.

  • -3

    basroil

    TamaramaDec. 21, 2012 - 07:25PM JST

    Really?! Trying to kill someone with a....potato gun?!

    As an engineer who's built plenty of air powered health hazards like that one, I can tell you that even a PVC potato gun has enough kinetic energy to kill a person. I've seen them blow holes in concrete, go through a few walls of a house, and launch 5kg metal rods half a kilometer. From the fairly large condensation cloud even in that cold and dry of air, it's got quite a bit more power than your normal highschool kid made gun. Pointing any spud gun at a person is no different than pointing a regular rifle or shotgun at them, you cannot wish that fact away. Replace the potatos with glass bottles filled with butric acid (could have been water for all intents and purposes, nearly the same kinetic energy will be imparted) and it becomes far more dangerous (Ady Gil used such projectiles to shoot butric acid straight AT the crew).

    Since you of course won't trust my experience, here's a few examples of why pointing a spud gun at someone is no different than trying to kill or seriously harm them. These examples aren't even cases of glass bottles, rather much softer materials.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-23/camper-shot-in-head-with-potato-gun/2606844

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-552978.html

    And you can always recall incidents with the FN 303, which is pretty much a professionally made spud gun.

  • -3

    basroil

    And doing some quick math, a 200g glass bottle (quite small, just about the right size for 2" potato gun) with liquid launched from even a small potato gun can have over 800J of energy, about the same as a .357 magnum round. That is far too dangerous to say that pointing it at people is not the same as attempting to kill them.

  • -5

    basroil

    And doing some quick math, a 200g glass bottle (quite small, just about the right size for 2" potato gun) with liquid launched from even a small potato gun can have over 800J of energy, about the same as a .357 magnum round. That is far too dangerous to say that pointing it at people is not the same as attempting to kill them.

  • -2

    YuriOtani

    Probie what the whalers are doing is also illegal. They are killing the whales for the meat. They are doing no scientific research. What research are they doing that requires killing so many whales?

  • -1

    basroil

    YuriOtaniDec. 22, 2012 - 12:29AM JST

    Probie what the whalers are doing is also illegal.

    Immoral or unethical, you can decide for yourself. Illegal, not at all, which is why idiots in Sea Shepherd are attacking "innocent" people. The only ones doing illegal things are Sea Shepherd, the whalers are within IWC regulations, and not violating UN mandates (which surprisingly don't actually cover Antarctic whaling, only capture of krill and killing seals).

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    basroil they are hunting the seals under the mandate of scientific research and not for the production of meat. It is against the law to harvest whales for the purpose of food but the Japanese do it all of the time.

    In 1986 the International Whaling Commission introduced zero catch limits for commercial whaling. The Japanese are selling the whale meat caught for "research" for the purpose of profit as food. It is not a moral issue but a legal one. Do they have scientific data on every whale caught to justify the killing of that whale? Do they have justification, worthwhile for killing so many? It is clear to anyone they are misusing their scientific mandate to harvest whales for food which is illegal. Institute of Cetacean Research of nothing more than a whale hunting company whose only true purpose is to harvest whales for their meat. Any "scientific" data is a mere byproduct of their hunt and a smokescreen. Organized criminals often hide behind "front" business.

    The International trading of whale meat is illegal but Japan has broken that law as well. Japan has been importing Whale meat from Iceland in gross violation of international law.

    This brings us to why there is a Sea Sheppard and that is because no government body will take responsibility to enforce the law.

  • 3

    Heda_Madness

    It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    Yet neither the Australian nor New Zealand independent inquiries found that.

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    The Japanese are selling the whale meat caught for "research" for the purpose of profit as food.

    As part of the IWC regulations, all meat should be used. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing illegal in this. Nothing.

  • -2

    Tamarama

    Pointing any spud gun at a person is no different than pointing a regular rifle or shotgun at them, you cannot wish that fact away

    So, if they are trying to kill, why didn't they just use a gun?

    Heda Madness

    The Japanese are selling the whale meat caught for "research" for the purpose of profit as food.

    As part of the IWC regulations, all meat should be used. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing illegal in this. Nothing.

    No, technically it's not against the letter of the law - it's completely counter to the spirit of it. There are many, many countries world wide who have a long history of whaling and whaling culture - mine was partially founded on it. But when they put their heads together despite this and decide that for the good of everybody, whaling needs a moratorium and that the only fair way for this to happed is if EVERYBODY stops for the time being, then within the spirit of being a member of the international community, you stop.

    The Japanese are like selfish little infants throwing a tanty over whaling. Exploiting the 'research' loophole is selfish, embarrasing and unbecoming of a leading nation in the world. As is any support of it, in my opinion.

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    The IWC was set up to regulate the whaling industry. A number of nations have said that they are completely against the resuming of whaling.

    So tell me again who is against the spirit?

  • 2

    YuriOtani

    Heda, they are doing the hunting for the meat and the substandard research is the true byproduct. There is no valid scientific reason to kill the whales. On most of the whales they do not even pretend to do research. Thus the whaling is illegal.

  • -4

    OssanAmerica

    Yuri you are regurgitating just about every fallacy and dubious argument that Sea Shepherd followers constantly cite. The Japanese research whaling is sanctioned under Article VIII of the IWC regulations, therefore it is not illegal. It is not being conducted in other nation's territorial waters so there is no issue of "poaching". The IWC regulations require Japan to process the meat, ie; consume. The same IWC regulations exempt a country conducting research whaling from recognizing moratoriums and sanctuaries. All of this is publically available on the IWC website so you can read it for yourself. http://www.iwcoffice.org/permits As for the actual reasons for the research whaling, you are speculating. But in a sense you are correct as well because the IWC was created to regulate the Whaling Industry and the conservation measures it institutes as well as the authorization of research whaling is with a view to resume commercial whaling if possible. The data gained by research whaling is submitted to and used by the IWC scientific Committee and such submittal is a requirement. But whaling is really not the issue here, there are other anti-whaling conservation groups such as Greenpeace or WWF that are not conducting acts of violence at sea.

    The IWC's position on Sea Shepherd is;

    "REAFFIRMING the statement on safety at sea made at the Commission’s Intersessional Meeting held in Heathrow, UK, 6-8 March, 2008, which noted reports of dangerous actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean directed against Japanese vessels, called upon the SSCS to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea, and on vessels and crews concerned to exercise restraint, condemned any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and again urged Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders;"

    The above is from the IWC 2011 Resolution. http://www.iwcoffice.org/cache/downloads/50hf67s6urs444ks8840o0wgk/Resolution%202011.pdf

    Being anti-whaling is different from supporting lawless acts of violence at sea, a distinction that Sea Shepherd clouds as much as possible and hoards of the unthinking believe and follow. This is the leader of Sea Shepherd: http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons/(wanted_id)/2012-306798

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Ossan is absolutely spot on.

  • 0

    DJbooth

    Except Ossam failed to also mention the multiple motions passed by the IWC calling on Japan to cease it's JARPA & JARPA2 hunts, funny about that

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    The anti-whaling faction within the IWC have submitted and passed motions to attempt to stop Japan's Research Whaling. Yet the IWC has not rescinded Article VIII, and the IWC Scientific Committee has never rejected Japan's submitted data as false, invalid, or unnecessary. The IWC is not against the research whaling as many SSCS supporters seem to think, in fact it is under IWC authority that it is carried out. That the 2011 IWC resolution calls for Sea Shepherd to refrain from acts of violence against Japan's research whaling fleet is undeniable evidence that Sea Shepherd and it's supporters cannot use the motions submitted and passed by the anti-whaling faction to stop Japan's Research Whaling as an excuse to conduct acts of violence against them. The IWC is telling Sea Shepherd to stop. The Anti-whaling nations are telling Sea Shepherd to stop. Greenpeace has this to say about SSCS: "We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm. That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant" http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and/

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    The length some Japanese people go to defend this practice is amazing. Why not just... stop whaling.

  • -6

    basroil

    TamaramaDec. 22, 2012 - 07:52AM JST

    So, if they are trying to kill, why didn't they just use a gun?

    It is called a spud gun if you somehow didn't catch it. And just because the guys at Sea Shepherd are not using regular ammunition doesn't mean that they aren't fully aware of the consequences, and "accidentally" killing someone will be seen as flat out murder in most countries (flagrant disregard of human life).

    OssanAmericaDec. 22, 2012 - 08:58AM JST

    Being anti-whaling is different from supporting lawless acts of violence at sea, a distinction that Sea Shepherd clouds as much as possible

    Exactly true. I am against whaling, but I completely disagree with Sea Shepherd's actions as it's just piracy. Not only that, but they are completely destroying the possibility for real change because now everyone views anti-whaling groups as dangerous. They are in it all for the money, because they can't seriously believe they are helping in any way.

  • -2

    wtfjapan

    pirates by definition normally plunder after they attack someone/something, what has SS ever try to steal from the whalers, beside there quota of whales & PRIDE. LOL

  • -4

    basroil

    wtfjapanDec. 22, 2012 - 11:57AM JST

    pirates by definition normally plunder after they attack someone/something

    International definition of "pirate" is a ship or crew unaffiliated with any government that attacks ships for a personal end. It says nothing of plundering, though cutting fishing nets would count as plundering if you really care.

  • -1

    DJbooth

    Actually Ossam in those resolutions passed in the IWC calling for Japan to cease it's lethal "research" programs they did actually state that the hunt was UNNECESSARY & provided NO SCIENTIFIC informatiom that could not be done via non-lethal methods.

    Now back to the violence let's have a look at the reason GreenPeace ceased their Antarctic campaigns against the Japanese whalers, & I quote,"due to the increasingly VIOLENT TACTICS poohed by the Japanese whalers we are no longer willing risking the lives of our crew pursuing the whaling fleet". Now some of these VIOLENT TACTICS EMPLOYED BY THE JAPANESE include firing a exploding harpoon just over the head of GreenPeace activist, (within 4ft of his head), the line from said line then pulled the activist overboard just in front of the harpoon vessel, ramming GreenPeace vessels, & the list goes on. Now even though you are an avid supporter of GreenPeace you should also remember the ICR calls them" violent eco-terrorists", & also cried to the IWC to have them banned & pass resolutions against them too. Also maybe should to a quick search on GreenPeace & you will find they have illegally boarded far more vessels than SS, also the startiling number of arrests & criminal charges against their activists, including in Japan recently for criminal trespass & theft involving whale meat...LOL

  • -3

    DJbooth

    Doh! Silly auto-correct! I'll try that quote again-"due to the increasingly VIOLENT TACTICS employed by the Japanese whalers we are no longer willing to put the lives of our crew at risk."

    Now let's have a look at some of these VIOLENT TACTICS EMPLOYED BY JAPANESE WHALERS AGAINST SS, firing a LRAD at a helicopter in flight, using water cannon to try to destroy a helicopter & kill crew while helicopter is on landing pad, flash bang grenades thrown directly at crew, throwing nuts, bolts, spears at crew, deliberately ramming a 14t vessel with a vessel well over a 1,000t with crew on board in freezing Antarctic waters, & once again the list goes on & on.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    DJboot, whaling is not the issue. The issue is acts of violence at sea. When the Research Whalers brought suit against SSCS last year in Washington State they sought to stop Sea Shepherd from carrying out acts of violence. SSCS responded by going on and on about whaling as you are doing now. The result is the Court Order restraining SSCS from coming within 500 yards of the Research Whalers, As I said, this isn't about whaling, All the arguments in the world against whaling do not justify acts of violence. SSCS have gotten away with it for so long that supporters such as yourself actually believe SSCS is above the law. The significance of this article is that until now the anti-whaling nations addressed BOTH SIDES, whereas now they address Sea Shepherd as the offender.

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    Ossan please tell me the scientific value in killing these whales? That is what the hunt is suppose to be about. Also why do you defend these whalers? More who will stop the whalers from breaking the law? To the Japanese fishermen and whalers the whales are eating their fish. So if you kill them all there is more fish. The same goes with dolphins kill them for more fish. You are defending people with no conscious at all.

    The skinny is the scientific research is to see how much of the fisherman's fish are eaten. There are other ways to figure that out and there is no valid research being done. The entire institute is merely a front for the criminals to harvest whales which is illegal.

  • 1

    Farmboy

    Regardless of what you think about whaling, the Sea Shepherd has put crews at risk in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future. This is contrary to the responsibility of any sea captain, and against maritime law. It is dangerous enough out there without sea cowboys adding to the danger, no matter what glorious goal they think they are pursuing.

  • -3

    OssanAmerica

    YuriOtaniDec. 22, 2012 - 06:56PM JST Ossan please tell me the scientific value in killing these whales? That is what the hunt is suppose to be about.

    Neither you nor I are experts in Cetaceans, so it's rather silly to be arguing about it. What we know simply are the facts; that the IWC was created and exists to regulate the whaling industry, that the IWC implements conservation measures and scientific studies for the purpose of maintaining stocks for the benefit of the whaling industry, and that they authorize, sanction and utilize the data from research whaling.
    If the IWC declared that all research whaling be stopped as unnecessary to the extent that they did not sanction the issuance of scientific permits then that would suggest that there is no scientific value as you suggest. However that is not the case.

    Also why do you defend these whalers? More who will stop the whalers from breaking the law? To the Japanese >fishermen and whalers the whales are eating their fish. So if you kill them all there is more fish. The same goes with >dolphins kill them for more fish. You are defending people with no conscious at all.

    I am not defending the "whalers" as much I am speaking out against illegal acts of violence, the same thing that the IWC and the anti-whaling nations in the above article are against. And I do not on what qualifications you speak for all Japanese fishermen and whalers, as undoubtedly there are numerous individual opinions as well. But for the most part most maritime related workers are simply doping a job and making a living. Perhaps you need a crowd of people to harass you and put you at risk of harm simply because they disagree with what you legally do for a living to understand what is actually going on. Would you feel that they were justified? The real question is WHY ARE YOU defending eco-terrorists? Do you normally support those who unilaterally carry out acts of aggression and violence against other people? You should be supporting China on the Senkakus then.

    The skinny is the scientific research is to see how much of the fisherman's fish are eaten. There are other ways to >figure that out and there is no valid research being done. The entire institute is merely a front for the criminals to >harvest whales which is illegal.

    No you are wrong. No part of the Research whaling is illegal. And no one connected with the institute or with the research whaling fleets are "criminals". The only "criminals" are the Sea Shepherd activists who have crossed the line between "protesting" and carryiong out "acts of aggression". Did you read the Greeenpeace site I gave you? Greenpeace is a very active anti-whaling conservation group with a history longer than than the Sea Shepherd eco-terrorists. And "harvesting whales" is not illegal for Research Whaling under IWC Article VIII.I've given you the link to read it for yourself but obviously you didn't. Please read these links I gave you because I know you don't believe a word I say.

  • -2

    Crazedinjapan

    Lets see how effective the water cannons are on the new addition of this fleet . It's about time people started speaking out against this slaughter in the name ( ruined ) science . Watch how many thousands of pounds go to dog food after this scientific gathering of info (hunt/slaughter)

  • 0

    DJbooth

    Hahaha Ossam, that is so funny, you know as well as every other person on the planet that Japan bribes a group of nations to block any banning of "scientific research" clause in the IWC, without that block it would have been outlawed many times already, yet then you cry about "anti whaling nations" passing resolutions Against Japanese commercial whaling in a designated sanctuary, the same as hunting rhinos or elephants in a designated sanctuary, do you understand the word sanctuary, & what it means? & before you say they are hunting a species Japan says as abundant remember Fin whales are on the CITES red list as are Humpbacks, check out the ICR's self applied kill list, not approved by the IWC, but self administered from the ICR. Then have a look at the peer approved papers from this so called "research", & the fact the only peer support for it comes fromJapanese! THE HUNT IS NOT SACTIONED BY THE IWC, it is only approved by the ICR, the company that wants to profit from the hunts. & as you stated the IWC is there to regulate the whaling industry, invade you missed it they declared a WORLD WIDE MORITORIUM on whaling in 1986 Japan REFUSES to abide by it as the rest of the world does. The IWC has repeatedly asked Japan thru passed resolutions to cease & desist on it's so called "scientific whaling" due to no substantial accurate scientific data that could not be got through non-lethal methods, & Japan has repeatedly been invited by many nations to be involved in non-lethal research, the ICR has refused ALL invitations. Now back onto the VIOLENCE carried out by the Japanese whalers & how the used VIOLENCE to chase GreenPeace out of protesting in the Antarctic, & how the ICR also calls/claims GreenPeace is a Eco-terrorist organization, but then again they claim any group protesting are violent Eco-terrorists, an any country opposing the ILLEGAL hunt in Antarctica is racist, so I guess in your mind anyone who speaks out

  • 0

    DJbooth

    Is just racist or Eco-terrorists, yet when the Japanese whalers employ these same tactics it is ok. Just how many J-whaling boats has SS sunk? NONE! Yet the J whalers have deliberately sunk a SS vessel, gee I wonder who is more VIOLENT??? Just how many J crew members been hurt by SS? NONE! & before you say 1 was hurt by buteric acid review the video & film footage, as it shows the crew member spraying himself in the face with his own pepper spray blown upwind then straight back on him! & other footage prior shows the same crewman readying to ATTACK SS members, so self inflicted wounds do not count as victims... So the only injuries & deaths of J whalers has been from their own incompetence...

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    DJ booth , nothing that have written is funny. Acts of violence against people jkust because you disagree with what they are doing isn't very funny at all. Declaring that what the victims are doing is "illegal" is not only incorrect but it doesn't justify acts of violence anyway. The Research Whalers have acted only to defend themselves from Sea Shepherd. It is Sea Shepherd that has openly declared that they are looking for them to harass them. Not the other way around. The Research Whalers have never "deliberately sunk" any vessel. Sea Shepherd proudly lists the numbers of ships they have sunk on their T-shirts. The Ady Gil was sunk by putting itself in front of a moving slower vessel as the videos prove. The Australian and New Zealand Maritime Authorities found no evidence of the Whaler's being responsible. In fact Peter Bethune has stated that it was Paul Watson who ordered the Ady Gil scuttled rather than salvaged. Everything I have stated is verifiable by anyone willing to go read the sites I have posted. But of course to those brainwashed by the SSCS and especially supports such as yourself who flood forums all over he internet with SSCS propaganda this reality doesn't mean much. But read the article, reality does mean something to the rest of world, including the anti-whaling nations calling on Sea Shepherd to stop.

  • 1

    DJbooth

    Ossam, I agree with your first comment,"acts of VIOLENCE against another just because you do not agree with their beliefs", well why then is it justified for J whalers to fire exploding harpoons ft from GreenPeace activists,(endangering their lives), ramming a vessel that was out of fuel, iddiling, having no no steerage, when it was the "stand to vessel", refusing to co-operate with any out of Japanese investigation,(just as a murderer refuses to take stand at own trial), while the extremely maneuverable vessel that rammed SM2 deviated from a parallel course onto a diddling vessel on it's starboard,(without informing stand to vessel of it's change of course/intetions, basic rules of the sea).

    As for just SS try to interfere with J whalers need you be reminded that the ICR actively sought out SS a couple of yrs ago, using spy planes to spot SS vessel then actively pursue them, something which has bought about new LAWSin Aus making it ILLEGAL to assist the whaling fleet. As for being the victim then why would you actively pursue a group into waters that you know it is ILLEGAL to enter, once again VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR, much as you say China is doing in the Dayou's. But sorry I forgot Japan is ALWAYS the victim, just as Pearl Harbour!!!

    As for supposed unbiased inquiries into said collision your friend, davidattokyo, already mentioned wikileaks revealed papers between Aus, NZ, & Jp gov's prior to enquirery was Japan would not be found guilty, even before any enquirer that J officials refused to co-operate with have any weight to them. & also remember Japan never held any public enquiry into the incident, yet any collision between a j vessel & a Chinese fishing boat makes headline news!

    & as for brainwashing I would suggest either you believe all the lies of VIOLENCE & J whalers being the 'victim'( as it always is!), that the ICR always portrays, or you work for their PR firm, therefor you are more worried about your job than me of mine, as I do not work fork for SS, as I understand it they are volunteers, unlike ICR or subsequent PR firms...

  • 0

    DJbooth

    & that was meant to say, the extremely manouvable vessel, the SM2, rammed the issuing, stand to vessel,(AG)

  • 1

    DJbooth

    Sorry Ossam, I am only someone who holds a Masters 3 sea license,( therefor minimum 10,000 hrs at sea), so therefor understand "safe navigation", of which the j-whaling fleet DO NOT UNDERSTAND, from my own experiences from them in international waters,( NOT Antactica), they consider themselves above the law,& a law unto themselves, just as the ICR...

    & as someone with so much navigational experience as yourself you would understand how much steerage a power vessel has at idle, vs a vessel at full speed. & you would also understand the manourability of J-harpoon vessels, as they are are designed to "maneuver" & hunt a highly manourvable animal, & if not I suggest you look at a few YouTube videos prior to commenting,"a slow turning vessel"...

  • -1

    DJbooth

    Ossam, in case you did not know, Rule # 1 of the sea, ALWAYS give way to the starboard vessel, guess what the SM2 not only committed a VIOLENT act by not obeying this rule,( putting peoples lives endanger), they altered course towards them, so therefor broke every law of the sea committing an ILLEGAL, & VIOLENT ASSULT...

  • 1

    DJbooth

    "ENDARGEMEMT OF LIVES AT SEA" should have been the MINIMUM charge laid against the master of the SM2, ESP considering their are 7 people in the bridge deck & above "keeping 'safe' operational lookout" in a HIGHLY manourerable vessel. So please let's talk about breaking the law, putting live endanger, & VIOLENT actions/behavior...

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    Wow typical J-brainwashing, dirty behavior and double standards exposed by DJbooth. Good job.

  • 0

    avigator

    The Navy tested some sonar technology that allows them to scare the whales away. They should use it while they are side by side with the whaling fleet. See if that works, and stop the violence against the whales and the whalers.

    http://news.discovery.com/animals/navy-sonar-scares-whales-110323.html or http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/navy-sonar-may-mimic-killer-whal.html

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    DJboothDec. 23, 2012 - 04:23AM JST Sorry Ossam, I am only someone who holds a Masters 3 sea license,( therefor minimum 10,000 hrs at sea), so >therefor understand "safe navigation", of which the j-whaling fleet DO NOT UNDERSTAND,

    Sorry but credibility is seriously lacking which is in keeping with SSCS policies. There isn't a person with the slightest affinity to maritime employment globally, fishermen, merchant seaman alike who doesn't condemn Sea Shepherd's eco-terrorist actions because any job at sea entails natural risks and dangers. Anyone who adds deliberately goes and adds to it is universally considered a "psychotic". SSCS's days are numbered. Are they going to risk being charged with contempt of court and open the way to losing their US chartitable NPO status?

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    Thomas AndersonDec. 23, 2012 - 06:19AM JST Wow typical J-brainwashing, dirty behavior and double standards exposed by DJbooth. Good job.

    Yea, The U.S., Australia and Newland as well as the IWC were all brainwashed by Japan. Really good thinking there.

    "Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States said in a joint statement that they respected the right to peaceful protests but would use the force of the law against any “unlawful activity.”

    ""REAFFIRMING the statement on safety at sea made at the Commission’s Intersessional Meeting held in Heathrow, UK, 6-8 March, 2008, which noted reports of dangerous actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in the Southern Ocean directed against Japanese vessels, called upon the SSCS to refrain from dangerous actions that jeopardise safety at sea, and on vessels and crews concerned to exercise restraint, condemned any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to the activities of vessels at sea, and again urged Contracting Governments to take actions, in accordance with relevant rules of international law and respective national laws and regulations, to cooperate to prevent and suppress actions that risk human life and property at sea and with respect to alleged offenders;"

  • -6

    Thomas Anderson

    Yea, The U.S., Australia and Newland as well as the IWC were all brainwashed by Japan. Really good thinking there.

    I'm talking about people like you who constantly defend and justify their behavior.

  • -2

    basroil

    DJboothDec. 23, 2012 - 04:43AM JST

    in case you did not know, Rule # 1 of the sea, ALWAYS give way to the starboard vessel,

    Not true. BOTH vessels are required to do so, and if you check the video you can see the Japanese ship trying to do so in very choppy waters. The Ady Gil violated rules by not turning or speeding up despite being fully operational (and world record holder in speed, as well as very good maneuverability), even the official inquiry said as much. In addition to that, they broke other rules including shooting at another vessel and destroying fishing nets.

  • -2

    DJbooth

    The rules of the sea clearly state,"the starboard vessel has right of way,(the stand to boat), if a vessel approaches/passes from the starboard quarter the master MUST notify the stand to vessel of it's intentions, & contiue on a parallel course, &give way to the stand to vessel". The rule you are referring to is,"that all vessels must try to avoid collision, but if collision occurs the STAND TO VESSEL HAS RIGHT OF WAY", therefor the vessel approaching from the port quarter without giving proper notification of course change is at fault for the collision. As you stated yes an enquiry was held, Japan refused to give any evidence to the enquiry,(like a murder refusing to take the stand, the course plotter/GPS records of the vessel would have proved them guilty), also as Wikileaks has revealed in transcripts from gov communication prior to said investigation," the Japanese vessel will not be found at fault! Strictly political, & corrupting a so called "independent enquiry". By taking such action Japan has shown it is not only willing to VIOLATE international rules of the sea, but also COMMIT VIOLENT ACTS then protect the perpetrator of said acts from criminal prosecution, ENDANGERING PEOPLES LIVES,( a VIOLENT act), & perpetrated by the gov of Japan.

    Ossam, if you truely believe what you post then you steepened brainwashed by the ICR & it's publicity machine, or a part of it, then obviously you would be concerned of your job security as the VIOLENT act committed by the Jwhaling fleet come to light, & the ACTS OF VIOLENCE COMMITTED by them show them for what they TRUELY are, VIOLENT bullies willing to break the law, & using VIOLENCE to intimidate others to follow/give in to their beliefs in other words,(& using your own), TERRORISTS!!!

  • -2

    DJbooth

    Sorry should have been," a vessel approaching from the PORT QQUARTER, not starboard, & just as how the SM2approached the AG, from the PORT QUARTER, thus making the AG the vessel with right of way, & the act of the master of the SM2 guilty & culpable for committing a VIOLENT act against the lives of all onboard the AG...

  • -2

    DJbooth

    Therefor as Ossam states it is a TERRORIST using VIOLENT ACT to try to scare SS away, just as they did with Greenpeace, but an epic fail...

  • -6

    avigator

    Japan, please stop the ecological terrorism

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    DJbooty, I'm not brainwashed by anything. Neither are the anti-whaling nations, IWC and Greenpeace all brainwashed all of whom are telling Sea Shepherd to stop their acts of violence. Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists and they will have to face the consequences of their actions. It has nothing to do with being anti-whaling or protesting.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    Thomas AndersonDec. 23, 2012 - 09:35AM JST :"Yea, The U.S., Australia and Newland as well as the IWC were all brainwashed by Japan. Really good thinking there."

    I'm talking about people like you who constantly defend and justify their behavior.

    The US, Australia, New Zealand, IWC and Greenpeace are all telling Sea Shepherd to stop their acts of violence. So am I. Acts of violence by unsanctioned self appointed vigilantes is not justified under any circumstances.

  • -1

    DJbooth

    So what you re saying Ossam is it is quite alright for Japan to ignore warning given in the past about endangering lives in the Southern Ocean, act such as ramming, holing, & sinking vessels, acts such as firing exploding harpoons within ft from activists heads, & those responsible for these VIOLENT acts should be safe from any Dort of prosecution, even though in your own deffimition they are "ACTS OF TERRORISM". Japan can ignore all global moratoriums & passed motions from the IWC, which also warned Japan about acts that endanger life in the Southern Ocean, but SS has to abide by them!!! LOL

    PS. GreenPeace was not part of this article, so are you a spokesperson for GreenPeace now? A group the ICR label as Eco-terrorist? A group that has illegally boarded hundreds of ships & has thousands of criminal charges against it's activist!

  • 0

    DJbooth

    & for the record OssamThis warning was not just given to SS, the countries stated also included Japan in this, even though it was not covered in this article, funny about that quess that is Jmedia for you. You also forgot to mention in2010 the INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION passed a resolution DEMANDING the Jwhalers "ensure the safety of protesters during demonstrations, rallies, or confrontations on the high seas." we are all still waiting for Japan to abide by this ruling from the governing body,(IMO), of international waters. I guess Japan does not think it has to abide by any international authority including the IMO, or IWC, or any treaties/pacts it has signed...

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - Sorry should have been," a vessel approaching from the PORT QQUARTER, not starboard, & just as how the SM2approached the AG, from the PORT QUARTER, thus making the AG the vessel with right of way, & the act of the master of the SM2 guilty & culpable for committing a VIOLENT act against the lives of all onboard the AG

    There is video evidence that the toy boat AG accelerated INTO the path of the SM2. According to the "rules of the sea", the toy boat AG was supposed to maintain its course AND SPEED which it failed to do.

    Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States said in a joint statement that they respected the right to peaceful protests but would use the force of the law against any “unlawful activity......"

    .....The four nations also called on the vessels’ operators to ensure safety.

    The eco-terrorist SS has a very long history of attacking, sinking, ramming, and illegally boarding other vessels. They brag about it everyday. You only have to look at the superstructure of their scows to see where they proudly display the names of the vessels they deliberately sank. Most of the eco-terrorist supporters applaud the use of violence. That's what they're paying for with their donations..

    .....a recent injunction from a U.S. court, which, in response to Japan’s complaints, ordered the environmentalists to stay at least 500 yards from the ships.

    If the eco-terrorist SS ignores this injunction, it risks losing its funding in the U.S., which is being considered by the same court.

  • -1

    DJbooth

    The "acceleration" you speak of happened in the last split second at which time the collision was imminent whether such acceleration happened or not, & glad you bought up the maritime law of keeping a set parallel course because if the SM2 kept a straight & parallel course the collision would not have occured. & it this same video evidence you talk of that shows the SM2 altering course directly towards the vessel with right of way! Thank you for once again showing & proving the level of VIOLENCE & willingness to ENDANGER LIFE that the Jwhalers are willing to commit, & also how they believe they are above any law, including laws of the sea :)

  • 1

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - Sorry Ossam, I am only someone who holds a Masters 3 sea license,( therefor minimum 10,000 hrs at sea), so therefor understand "safe navigation", of which the j-whaling fleet DO NOT UNDERSTAND, from my own experiences from them in international waters,( NOT Antactica), they consider themselves above the law,& a law unto themselves, just as the ICR...

    10,000 hrs at sea and yet you seem confused as to what the starboard vessel, no, wait a minute, you meant the port qquarter vessel, or was it the right of way vessel? Was it the Stand On vessel? Wasn't the toy boat AG required to maintain its SPEED. Is that question on the Masters 3 sea license test?

    I thought the Rule # 1 of the sea was to avoid a collision, not rush into one as quickly as twin 500hp engines at full throttle will propel it.

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - Now let's have a look at some of these VIOLENT TACTICS EMPLOYED BY JAPANESE WHALERS AGAINST SS, firing a LRAD at a helicopter in flight, using water cannon to try to destroy a helicopter & kill crew while helicopter is on landing pad, flash bang grenades thrown directly at crew, throwing nuts, bolts, spears at crew, deliberately ramming a 14t vessel with a vessel well over a 1,000t with crew on board in freezing Antarctic waters, & once again the list goes on & on.

    The whalers are DEFENDING themselves from the repeated violent acts commited by the eco-terrorist SS.

    Anti-whaling nations on Friday urged environmental activists not to take any action endangering human life as Japan’s fleet prepared to set sail for its controversial annual hunt. Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States said in a joint statement that they respected the right to peaceful protests but would use the force of the law against any “unlawful activity.”

    Launching glass bottles of acid at the whalers would qualify as an "unlawful activity". Ramming fishing and whaling vessels would qualify as an "unlawful activity". Repeatedly attempting to disable the whaling vessels propellers would qualify as an "unlawful activity". Shooting red phosphorous flares at whalers would qualify as an "unlawful activity". SELF-DEFENSE when being attacked is everyones right. The eco-terrorist SS have no legal authority to commit the repeated acts of violence that they are infamous for.

  • -1

    DJbooth

    I know my port from starboard,(unlike certain others on here it seems), & the term "stand on" or "stand to", mean exactly the same thing. Just as the rule "a vessel approaching from the port quarter,(as the SM2 did), MUST GIVE WAY,notify the stand to,(stand on), vessel of their intentions, keep a SAFE DISTANCE, keep a parallel course, & make all attempts to avoid a collision", the SM2 broke all there's rules, did not notify stand on,(stand to), vessel of it's intentions, altered course towards the AG, & increased speed, so therefor broke EVERY RULE. Once again the acceleration you speak of happened a split second prior to impact, & had no result of the outcome, the SM2 delerately collided with the vessel with right of way & would have happened with or without acceleration of the AG in the last split second. This action in itself, apart from numerous other collisions caused by Jwhalers, & other deliberate acts of VIOLENCE against protectors, both GreenPeace & SS,(including firing of live exploding grenades ft over activests heads, shows exactly how VIOLENT & what a group of TERRORISTS protestors are faced with in theSouthern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, & exactly why the IMO passed a resolution demanding the Jwhalers "ensure the safety of protestors during demonstrations, rallies, or confrontations on the high seas."

    As for you comment of Jwhalers defending themselves how is using an LRAD on a helicopter in the air at a safe distance considered in your words defense? Or by trying to use a water cannon against said helicopter during landing on another vessel a "defense"? These are flagrant acts of VIOLENCE & TERRORISM designed to ENDANGER HUMAN LIFE & try to use VIOLENCE & FEAR to assert your own beliefs on others, a TERRORIST ACT. As for trailing line to ensnare another vessels propelor there are plenty of videos of Jwhalers doing just that.

  • -2

    DJbooth

    & the give way vessel must;" Take early & Substantial action to avoid collision by stopping, slowing down, or changing course away from the stand on,(stand to), vessel." the vessel that should have taken these actions was of course the SM2, it did NONE! it did the complete opposite, it increased speed, altered it's course towards the AG & bore down it at full speed, so an act of VIOLENCE on the high seas breaking EVERY RULE of safe navigation & ENDANGERING HUMAN LIVES...

  • -3

    DJbooth

    ForGot to mention wishing ALL a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, & a SAFE & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, except for the Jwhalers to whom I wish a SAFE 2013, just not prosperous :))

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - The "acceleration" you speak of happened in the last split second at which time the collision was imminent whether such acceleration happened or not, & glad you bought up the maritime law of keeping a set parallel course because if the SM2 kept a straight & parallel course the collision would not have occured. & it this same video evidence you talk of that shows the SM2 altering course directly towards the vessel with right of way! Thank you for once again showing & proving the level of VIOLENCE & willingness to ENDANGER LIFE that the Jwhalers are willing to commit, & also how they believe they are above any law, including laws of the sea

    Video clearly shows the toy boat AG accelerating INTO the path of the SM2 which resulted in a collision. The eco-terrorist SS members previously agreed to risk their lives for Watson and that is clearly what they did in this case. Stupidity makes for great television.

    The violent history of the eco-terrorist SS is clearly displayed on the superstructure of their scows where you would see the names of the 10 (ten) vessels they have sunk. If you looked.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - .....As for you comment of Jwhalers defending themselves how is using an LRAD on a helicopter in the air at a safe distance considered in your words defense? Or by trying to use a water cannon against said helicopter during landing on another vessel a "defense"? These are flagrant acts of VIOLENCE & TERRORISM designed to ENDANGER HUMAN LIFE & try to use VIOLENCE & FEAR to assert your own beliefs on others, a TERRORIST ACT. As for trailing line to ensnare another vessels propelor there are plenty of videos of Jwhalers doing just that.

    If the helicopter is at a safe distance then it wouldn't be danger. The whalers are entitled to defend themselves from the constant and repeated acts of violence commited by the eco-terrorist SS. Tell the eco-terrorist copter pilot not to fly over the whalers where he would be in range of the LRAD.

    Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States are aware that the eco-terrorist SS routinely launch glass bottles of acid at the whalers and fire red phosphorus flares at the whalers. The LRAD and water cannons are standard DEFENSIVE tools used to prevent attack by psychopathic personalities, pirates, and brain-dead eco-terrorists. Claiming that eco-terrorists are injured or in danger when it's the eco-terrorists who are attacking another vessel is ludicrous. Assuming that the whalers won't continue to DEFEND themselves from eco-terrorist attacks is equally absurd. Everyone is entitled to DEFEND themselves from attack and the eco-terrorist SS have no legal authority to be attacking, attempting to disable, or boarding any other vessel anywhere in the world.

    Even Greenpeace refuses to have any contact with the eco-terrorist SS because of Watson's commitment to violence and the eco-terrorist SS crew menbers willingness to carry out his violent orders.

  • -2

    basroil

    arrestpaulDec. 25, 2012 - 04:39PM JST

    Even Greenpeace refuses to have any contact with the eco-terrorist SS because of Watson's commitment to violence and the eco-terrorist SS crew menbers willingness to carry out his violent orders.

    Yup, if a known extremist group doesn't want anything to do with you because you're too extreme for even them, then you know the line has been crossed. Hell, one of their own boat owners went against them and testified Watson ordered him to scuttle a perfectly seaworthy ship for TV ratings (and possibly endanger his crew doing so). Nobody should ever side with them, even if you don't agree with whaling.

  • 1

    Chamkun

    Tamarama

    > It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    REALLY!!!???

  • -1

    OssanAmerica

    It's a ironic statement given that the Yushin Maru deliberately ran over that small SS boat a few years back.

    Not what the Australian and New Zealand Maritime Authorities' investigations found. Not what you see in the videos either unless you're completely brainwashed. Why keep repeating a complete fallacy?

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Reservations and Operations Executive

    Reservations and Operations Executive
    Destination Asia Japan、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.0M ~ ¥3.0M / Year
  • Marketing & Communications

    Marketing & Communications
    East West Consulting (イーストウエストコンサルティング株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Country Manager

    Country Manager
    Gallo Japan KK、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Business Development Leader

    Business Development Leader
    GPlus Media K.K. / 株式会社ジープラス・メディア、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Commission Based Depending on Experience
  • IT Operations Manager

    IT Operations Manager
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in National

View all

View all