Latest news about eco-terrorists

[kame]

And I wonder why no one here comments on the backlash in Japan triggered by the most recent Sea Shepherd's activity. Just curious.

1) You think I'm exaggerating the Japanese reactions. (Did you read/watch Japanese domestic media, like major newspaper editorials?)
2) You think that SS's tactics is somehow going to work and stop whaling. (I would love to hear how)
3) You don't care if SS's tactics antagonize Japanese as long as the "rest of the world" gets a kick out of it.
4) None of the above (care to elaborate?)

 

[Sarapva]

Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace do that already, don't they? They can use the internet, organize civil protests, or whatever they want to appeal their points to the Japanese public. But resorting to violence throws them into the same league as Al-Qaeda.

PETA fiercely protests against animal slaughter but I have never seen cows or chickens being slaughtered in ABC evening news. Why is that?

Moreover, while such a media stunt may actually garner some sympathy in Western cultures (as evident from Sara and others here surely seem to have no problem with a little violence), it does more to antagonize Japanese people. You will understand that if you observe the reactions by the Japanese officials this incident triggered. So another question is, why do you support a tactic that obviously hasn't worked and isn't going to work?

The tactics the Sea Shepherd is using is to try to halt the immediate whaling, which does work. There are even Japanese protestors aboard the Steve Irwin. You probably do have a point though about how this looks to the Japanese people, though I'm sure they're only seeing the side that the whalers want them to see.

This is also the case with not seeing animal slaughter on our major news networks. The meat industry is powerful and uses its power to keep most people from seeing how animals are treated in slaughterhouses. But now with the internet and also independent networks, these videos are getting out.

The comparison with Al Quada is ridiculous. The whalers are more like Al Quada than the protestors. I don't want to get people angry and start another argument about this all over again, though. Let's at least try to argue civilly.

I think what Chi was saying in her post was that most of the world will side with people protesting violence against another being, even if in the protesting a little violence is done, because the protest violence isn't anywhere near the violence being protested. (I'm sure I explained that very clearly! - joke) (Is this right, Chi?)

 

[Sarapva]

And I wonder why no one here comments on the backlash in Japan triggered by the most recent Sea Shepherd's activity. Just curious.

1) You think I'm exaggerating the Japanese reactions. (Did you read/watch Japanese domestic media, like major newspaper editorials?)
2) You think that SS's tactics is somehow going to work and stop whaling. (I would love to hear how)
3) You don't care if SS's tactics antagonize Japanese as long as the "rest of the world" gets a kick out of it.
4) None of the above (care to elaborate?)

Could you post a link on an article about the Japanese reaction? I'd be interested to see it.

I don't know about the long-term effects these things will have on whaling. You should try to get the job of mediating between the Japanese and the protestors, Kame. It would probably actually be very helpful.

I don't think people are "getting a kick" out of what the Sea Shepherd is doing. I think most people are hoping that somehow, some way the whalers will finally stop the killing, and are probably grateful that there are people who are brave enough and willing to "get in the whaler's faces". I'd be afraid to confront a whaler with a harpoon myself.

 

[Astroboy]

Japanese Coast Guard has started establishing a crime case against Seashepard (SS) deliberate act of harrasment against Japanese whaling boat (Nisshin Maru) in international waters.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/crime/080303/crm0803032330047-n1.htm


Enough proof

 

[kame]

This is also the case with not seeing animal slaughter on our major news networks. The meat industry is powerful and uses its power to keep most people from seeing how animals are treated in slaughterhouses. But now with the internet and also independent networks, these videos are getting out.

I don't think the meat industry has to exercize its power to pressure the major TV stations. Major networks both in the US and Japan would put almost anything that their viewers desire. The truth is that majority of the public (say, in the US or Japan) doesn't want to watch any animal slaughtered in evening news. Those who desire to watch such footages can go to youtube, like you. You can't expect TV station or any major media in any country to be completely unbiased in the eyes of everybody. The media in anti-whaling countries appear outrageously biased to Japanese people.

The comparison with Al Quada is ridiculous. The whalers are more like Al Quada than the protestors. I don't want to get people angry and start another argument about this all over again, though. Let's at least try to argue civilly.

I made my argument comparing SS with Al-Qaeda on the basis of their use of violence against those who act against their "basic values".

If you argue that the whalers are more like Al-Qaeda, please elaborate the basis of your argument.

 

[kame]

Could you post a link on an article about the Japanese reaction? I'd be interested to see it.

Here are the editorials written about the latest Sea Shepherd's stunt.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/editorial/news/20080304-OYT1T00728.htm
http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/column/editorial/CK2008030402092410.html
http://mainichi.jp/select/opinion/editorial/news/20080305ddm005070058000c.html
http://www.hokkaido-np.co.jp/news/editorial/79709.html
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/column/editorial/CK2008030402092475.html

I don't know about the long-term effects these things will have on whaling.

I don't understand why you don't care or think hard about the long-term effects. Isn't it more important to save 10,000 whales in the next 10 years than to temporarily stall the operation and save maybe a few hundred?

I don't think people are "getting a kick" out of what the Sea Shepherd is doing. I think most people are hoping that somehow, some way the whalers will finally stop the killing, and are probably grateful that there are people who are brave enough and willing to "get in the whaler's faces". I'd be afraid to confront a whaler with a harpoon myself.

Actually, that line of thoughts is exactly what I would describe "getting the kick out of" someone like Sea Shepherd doing what you want to do instinctively (physically harm whalers) but too rational, too smart too civilized, too lazy, or too cowardly to do it yourselves. But not rational or civilized enough to denounce such uncivilized and immature form of protest.

 

[kame]

I would also add that the editorials of practically all mainstream Japanese newspapers strongly denounced the violent tactics against the whaling ships, and urge the government to take decisive actions. Such an agreement within the media and the government is not so common, which illustrates the magnitute of the reaction induced by the protesters.

 

[otoko]

The tactics the Sea Shepherd is using is to try to halt the immediate whaling, which does work. There are even Japanese protestors aboard the Steve Irwin. You probably do have a point though about how this looks to the Japanese people, though I'm sure they're only seeing the side that the whalers want them to see.
This is also the case with not seeing animal slaughter on our major news networks. The meat industry is powerful and uses its power to keep most people from seeing how animals are treated in slaughterhouses. But now with the internet and also independent networks, these videos are getting out.
The comparison with Al Quada is ridiculous. The whalers are more like Al Quada than the protestors. I don't want to get people angry and start another argument about this all over again, though. Let's at least try to argue civilly.
I think what Chi was saying in her post was that most of the world will side with people protesting violence against another being, even if in the protesting a little violence is done, because the protest violence isn't anywhere near the violence being protested. (I'm sure I explained that very clearly! - joke) (Is this right, Chi?)

I don't know why you are such an apologist for Sea Shepard's behavior. The behavior is criminal at best and could be defined as terrorism at worst.

People do seem to have a problem having Sea Shepard's actions being defined as terrorism. This is fine because that is a very complicated topic. Still it could be argued. There are many definitions of terrorism:

There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. Jason Burke, expert in radical Islamic activity.

David Rodin (Oxford Philosopher): "Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process."

USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

 

[otoko]

I also do not understand why anti-whalers insist that whalers are whaling illegally.

What they are doing is legal. They went through legitimate channels to hunt whales for scientific research.

I can understand that anti-whalers do not like this. I can also understand that they like to claim it is a "loophole". Still that does not change the legality of the whaling.

Why isn't Sea Shepard going after the IWC? The IWC enables the whaling.

Using illegitimate methods such as ramming boats and throwing acid filled glass containers at whaling ships does what for the long term? Does it change the legality of the whaling? No. Does it stop whaling for scientific research? No. They will have to do this every year for who knows how long and that won't bring a guarantee of results.

I also don't understand why Sea Shepard isn't going after Tuna boats. I also don't understand why they don't go after submarines and other Navy operations that use sonar.

I also don't understand how people have totally bought into Sea Shepard's propaganda, that they have been able to dehumanize the whalers themselves. It is surreal. That some on this forum can say with conviction that everybody on those whaling ships is some cold-hearted murderer, commiting atrocious crimes. Once one starts doing that then it becomes easy to look past violence committed aginst them. That is truly sad. This doesn't make one really any better that the Japanese who were brainwashed during WW2 to believe that Americans were devils. The Koreans during the Vietnam war to believe communist Vietnamese were evil and had to be eliminated, men, women and children. Bottom line is that this is a common tactic by certain groups who use violence as a way to influence people and nations and organization that do not have the same ideology.

 

[MadamePapillon]

What they are doing is legal. They went through legitimate channels to hunt whales for scientific research.

I can understand that anti-whalers do not like this. I can also understand that they like to claim it is a "loophole". Still that does not change the legality of the whaling.

Not so legal, since when does "scientific research" have to result in the killing of the species you're studying? It's not like the Japanese don't know anything about whales that couldn't be discovered through non-lethal methods. Even a child could see through that. And since when does "scientific research" end up in stores and on lunch menus?

I also don't understand how people have totally bought into Sea Shepard's propaganda, that they have been able to dehumanize the whalers themselves. It is surreal. That some on this forum can say with conviction that everybody on those whaling ships is some cold-hearted murderer, commiting atrocious crimes. Once one starts doing that then it becomes easy to look past violence committed aginst them. That is truly sad. This doesn't make one really any better that the Japanese who were brainwashed during WW2 to believe that Americans were devils. The Koreans during the Vietnam war to believe communist Vietnamese were evil and had to be eliminated, men, women and children. Bottom line is that this is a common tactic by certain groups who use violence as a way to influence people and nations and organization that do not have the same ideology.

This statement lacks any sort of credibility. Is there nothing you pro-whalers wont compare Sea Shepard to? You accuse them of being no better than Al-Quaeda, liken their methods to military propaganda that serves to fuel the mass killings of innocent people. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep making such claims and try to demonize a group of people that are trying to save the whales. You seem to forget it isn't Sea Shepard doing the killing here, they are trying to stop the killing.

The fact is, many people agree with them through no encouragement of Sea Shepard themselves. They believe whales are creatures that are important and intelligent enough that they should not be put in the same 'food' category as tuna and shrimp.

 

[Chi65]

We have a german word:

Quäle nie ein Tier zum Scherz, denn es fühlt wie Du den Schmerz

The meaning is about: Never hurt an animal for fun (or whatever), because it feels the pain like you. . . .

Well, thats not always right, but basically, we all think.
(despite eating meat, confessed)

But to make a fuss out of some eyes that burn a bit for short, while the pains of being killed for such a rhubarb as "Scientific" reason there are much worse, honestly, thats simply overdriven.
I still am not for the method alltogether, because it could in fact have hurt some (but didn't, the amount of is laughable), be it by the bottles itself, but if it has saved a few more whale lives, I would not talk too much about it.
To me, its quite hysterical and unproportioned, the way its blown up, in general.

 

[kame]

Not so legal, since when does "scientific research" have to result in the killing of the species you're studying? It's not like the Japanese don't know anything about whales that couldn't be discovered through non-lethal methods.

Scientists kill and dissect all kinds of species since the dawn of civilization. But that has nothing to do with the legality of the scientific whaling. Even if what you are saying were true (non-lethal studies can provide the same information), that is not relevant to the argument whether the operation is legal or not.

Let's say that "scientific whaling" is a legal loophole, albeit still legal. Do the anti-whaling nations really want to remove it? Japan has put up with the dysfunctional IWC for more than a decade because they could keep a small operation alive in the name of scientific whaling. Do the anti-whaling nations want to risk Japan abandoning IWC? I am sure there are more than few countries who would be happy to follow and establish a new organization.

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep making such claims and try to demonize a group of people that are trying to save the whales. You seem to forget it isn't Sea Shepard doing the killing here, they are trying to stop the killing.

For the Japanese public, it is hard to take the hysterical protesters who resort to juvenile physical violence, as well as their sympathetic supporters like you seriously. Let's say you were having a loud party at your place without breaking a law. If someone came to your house and threw a stink bomb at your door, would you look at them as someone capable of rational negotiations?

You are just getting a kick out of the SS's juvinille behavior out of your frustration against Japanese, but fail to see the obvious negative repercussions that make it increasingly difficult to negotiate scaling down of whaling.

They believe whales are creatures that are important and intelligent enough that they should not be put in the same 'food' category as tuna and shrimp.

It's your business to categorize which animals you eat or not. But imposing that subjective categorization to someone else is simply intolerance. Using violence to do so shows that they are indeed less intelligent than the animals they say they want to protect.

 

[Sarapva]

I made my argument comparing SS with Al-Qaeda on the basis of their use of violence against those who act against their "basic values".

If you argue that the whalers are more like Al-Qaeda, please elaborate the basis of your argument.

We've had this argument before, and it doesn't seem to get anywhere. The whalers are like Al-Quaeda in that they're killing - whether it's whales or people. The Sea Shepherd is trying to stop the killing. They're not trying to harm the whalers.

Thanks for those links - I found one in English, but it didn't explain how the Japanese people felt about all this. It was basically the same as the other English articles.

As for whether the whaling is legal - the Japanese are whaling in an established whale sanctuary because they don't recognize it as a sanctuary. But Australia and other countries do recognize it as such. This argument keeps going around to the same points.

 

[Mars Man]

If I may here, folks. . . just to prevent relapses, you see. I cannot say for sure, because I have not done the research necessary to make any full scale arguments, but it would seem that we should all look into as much of the legal aspects that bear on this case, to the exhaustive degree, before we start trying to give too much absoluteness to our individual claims.

I can see good points mentioned on both sides of the issue about whaling, however here, in the immediate, we would have to admit that we are focusing in on a single event--namely an act by members of the Sea Shepherd. This is a human against human act, and we should leave it at that for the purpose of this thread.

That said, we would logically have to admit that a degree of embedding would ensue as well. For that reason, we should strive to do deeper research into the matter, take our time, and make every effort to hold emotions on the side, and be as secure in our siting of sources as possible.

 

[kame]

We've had this argument before, and it doesn't seem to get anywhere. The whalers are like Al-Quaeda in that they're killing - whether it's whales or people. The Sea Shepherd is trying to stop the killing. They're not trying to harm the whalers.

So you are grouping whalers and Al-Qaeda because they both kill people or whales? That's not even a comparison, more like a child's word play. I can add few more to your list: bona-fide murderers, US soldiers in Iraq, wildlife hunters all around the world, workers at slaughter houses, medical researchers in animal testing labs...

Thanks for those links - I found one in English, but it didn't explain how the Japanese people felt about all this. It was basically the same as the other English articles.

If you could read Japanese, you would see the anger induced by Sea Shepherd much clearer. Newspaper editorials, TV news shows, Japanese blogs, etc. the reaction to the latest attack is more intense than in the past, for which I suspect the injuries sustained by the crew had a lot to do with.

It seems like shipmates getting physically hurt was enough to tip even those Japanese people who were rather indifferent about whaling to have questions and negative impression about the anti-whaling campaign and its rationale. If I were purely interested in pushing the interest of whaling industry (believe it or not, I am not) I would actually welcome Sea Shepherd because they provide such an easy excuse to criticize the anti-whaling campaign.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Let's say that "scientific whaling" is a legal loophole, albeit still legal. Do the anti-whaling nations really want to remove it? Japan has put up with the dysfunctional IWC for more than a decade because they could keep a small operation alive in the name of scientific whaling. Do the anti-whaling nations want to risk Japan abandoning IWC? I am sure there are more than few countries who would be happy to follow and establish a new organization.

The fact is that Japan is exploiting a legitimate yet minimal practice to kill for scientific research and using it underhandedly to continue with the frowned upon practice of whaling. Isn't that just as bad as what Sea Shepard is doing? Sea Shepard uses aggressive methods to get what they want and yet Japan is just as bad, using deception to get what they want.

Let's say you were having a loud party at your place without breaking a law. If someone came to your house and threw a stink bomb at your door, would you look at them as someone capable of rational negotiations?

Let's say I kept having this same party over and over and despite all talk and negotiation I refused to back down and kept on partying...wouldn't you feel the need to take physical action after a certain point?

It's your business to categorize which animals you eat or not. But imposing that subjective categorization to someone else is simply intolerance. Using violence to do so shows that they are indeed less intelligent than the animals they say they want to protect.

You know in some civilizations ritualized cannibalism is practiced. Now, if the person being eaten is already dead (through natural causes) and nobody is being hurt why should I have the right to impose my non-cannibalism views on them?
Using the same argument you are using if I told a cannibal not to eat people I am being intolerant of their ways and imposing my views on them. Do you see where the argument is flawed. You may say that eating a person is not the same as eating a whale but if it is an accepted practice for them...who am I to say they shouldn't?

 

[kame]

The fact is that Japan is exploiting a legitimate yet minimal practice to kill for scientific research and using it underhandedly to continue with the frowned upon practice of whaling. Isn't that just as bad as what Sea Shepard is doing? Sea Shepard uses aggressive methods to get what they want and yet Japan is just as bad, using deception to get what they want.

There is a huge wall between legal operation even if it is perceived as a loophole by some, and illegal criminal actions that result in injury and property damage.

Forthermore, you haven't answered my question, which is do you really want to drive Japan out of IWC which will inevitably result in full-fledged commercial whaling potentially killing much more whales than the current research operation? Nations don't give up legitimate practices just because some uninformed people "frown upon".

Let's say I kept having this same party over and over and despite all talk and negotiation I refused to back down and kept on partying...wouldn't you feel the need to take physical action after a certain point?

Absolutely not. You haven't broken the law, and what I should do is to try to change the law or to persuade you. It's amazing how people living in law-governed countries blatantly ignore law-breaking terrorism as long as they like the cause. I used to believe that the "end justifies the means" logic is natural to people living under religious governments but I am amazed at the fact that I have yet to see a single anti-whaling advocate here criticizing Sea Shepherd.

You know in some civilizations ritualized cannibalism is practiced. Now, if the person being eaten is already dead (through natural causes) and nobody is being hurt why should I have the right to impose my non-cannibalism views on them?

If that act is not illegal in your country, you have no right to impose your views on them. I don't see your point.

Using the same argument you are using if I told a cannibal not to eat people I am being intolerant of their ways and imposing my views on them. Do you see where the argument is flawed. You may say that eating a person is not the same as eating a whale but if it is an accepted practice for them...who am I to say they shouldn't?

If that society allows such a cultural practice and it is not violating any international law or treaties, it is none of your business to impose your cultural values on them. Who are you to say they shouldn't?

It's one thing for a country to kidnap foreign nationals and detain them for 30 years, that's terrorism. But if China wants to execute tens of thousands of people per year by capital punishment, or Australia kills 3 million kangaroos a year for pet food, it's their domestic and cultural affairs from which the other countries should stay out of and let their people decide for themselves.

 

[Mars Man]

Let's say I kept having this same party over and over and despite all talk and negotiation I refused to back down and kept on partying...

It would surely be more logically accepted over all, that if the partying were within the bounds of law--be that loophole or whatever--a party opposed to that partying will not have the legal right (considering the general setup of legal systems in the post industrial nations) to spray paint the partier's garage door, or throw paint ballons at the house, without being free from charge of illegal retaliation.

I believe this is the point that is being made--excessive retaliation. This is seemingly the most valid point as regards laws on the open sea...as far as I know of. Arguments against that would have to be purely legal arguments, actually.

This is where their actions are immature. Those of us who would like to see less, or no whaling activity at all, regardless of which group of people are doing it, will have to act more maturely, for sure.

 

[MadamePapillon]

Forthermore, you haven't answered my question, which is do you really want to drive Japan out of IWC which will inevitably result in full-fledged commercial whaling potentially killing much more whales than the current research operation? Nations don't give up legitimate practices just because some uninformed people "frown upon".

If they truly wanted whale meat that much their would have already done it. They are staying because they don't want to risk alienating the majority of the international community that is against whaling. Japan is a minority in this and they know it, to leave and go on with full fledged commercial whaling would be like giving the finger to international community which is not what they want. Japan has more to lose and I don't honestly think whale meat is that important to them.

It's one thing for a country to kidnap foreign nationals and detain them for 30 years, that's terrorism. But if China wants to execute tens of thousands of people per year by capital punishment, or Australia kills 3 million kangaroos a year for pet food, it's their domestic and cultural affairs from which the other countries should stay out of and let their people decide for themselves.

If this is your honest view than there is really not much more I can say to you. That 'don't get involved' attitude never did anyone any good. If the world had taken that attitude Hitler would have stayed in power and Saddam would still be running loose.
When you see something that you know to be wrong it is your responsibility to get involved or nothing changes. Domestic abuse is an example of this, it's not your family, not your problem, but you know it is wrong. Do you look the other way and hope they will sort it out themselves? No, you get involved.
That is a very weak attitude to have on global issues.

I believe this is the point that is being made--excessive retaliation. This is seemingly the most valid point as regards laws on the open sea...as far as I know of. Arguments against that would have to be purely legal arguments, actually.

This is where their actions are immature. Those of us who would like to see less, or no whaling activity at all, regardless of which group of people are doing it, will have to act more maturely, for sure.

I agree with you here, violence usually doesn't solve anything but before all this started there was a lot of polite asking and requesting. I guess Sea Shepard is one of those groups that decided talk wasn't getting them anywhere. I don't agree with their methods but it's all that seems to be halting the whale hunts at the moment. If it comes down to it, putting all legalities aside, I'd still say Japan is committing worse acts.

 

[david@tokyo]

They are staying because they don't want to risk alienating the majority of the international community that is against whaling.

I think it's fantasy to suggest that Japan's western friends would be so upset if Japan start to plan to conduct sustainable whaling in cooperation with other likeminded nations.

The exact avenue through which they will do this remains to be seen - quitting the IWC is one option although known to not be favoured by the public officials (although many politicians support this approach). Officials have said they are interested in creating an alternative organization to pick up the resource management mandate that the IWC has failed to fulfil.

You should be informed that whaling is going to continue, and most certainly increase somewhat in scale from where we are now. I guarantee that whatever number of whales are caught though will not be outrageously high and obvious to cause over-depletion. The issue is only sustainable whaling.

to leave and go on with full fledged commercial whaling would be like giving the finger to international community

Japan basically has the support of Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, China, South Korea and a host of smaller nations. It would be giving the finger only to nations which have sold out their whaling policies to the anti-whaling fund-raising NGOs, which are pretty much anglo-saxon European nations and their former colonies. These nations will continue to complain and whinge about it, but they aren't going to let it spoil their relationships with these nations that have not sold out their whaling policies. The issue is simply not of that much significance.

Japan has more to lose and I don't honestly think whale meat is that important to them.

This is more a matter of important principles than simply Whale meat. I think this is something that lots of anti-whaling people fail to recognise. Just as whales are symbolic of the environment and it's protection to some westerners, whaling has become symbolic of other things for other people. Respect and tolerance for other cultures, respect for international agreements, and so on.

 

[Astroboy]

SEA SHEPHERD ESCALATING VIOLENT ATTACKS

7 March 2008
The Institute of Cetacean Research today said it was disappointed that more serious means were required today for defending its research vessels in the Antarctic against more violent attacks by the terrorist group, Sea Shepherd.
During the afternoon, the Steve Irwin approached the Nisshin Maru four times. Several butyric acid bottles were thrown by the activists and landed and smashed on the Nisshin Maru bridge wing and others landed in the Antarctic.
The ICR today rejected all claims by Sea Shepherd that a rifle was fired at Sea Shepherd cult leader Paul Watson.
ﾂ"No-one shot at Paul Watson. His claim that we shot at him and he has the bullet that was stopped by his bullet-proof vest is more fiction for articles for the Australian media,ﾂ" Mr Minoru Morimoto, the Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research, said.
ﾂ"It was, however, necessary to increase our measure of defence against Sea Shepherd, which has continually attacked today throwing bottles containing not-so-harmless acid.
..................
http://www.icrwhale.org/080307Release.htm

AND with support of BBC, Head of Terrorists fabricates the story as usual.
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Protester says whalers shot him

BBC + Sea Shepard (eco-terrorists group, consisting of British, Australian, NZ, Canada and American anti-whaling cults) = Anglo-American alliance to bash Japanese whaling.
Probably the same mentality as history fabriction.

However, video proof: Defense aganst Terrorists
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/080307SS2high.wmv

 

[Tasui]

it's obvious that japanese whalers do not hunt whales for scientific research. Why do they keep lying?

 

[Chi65]

Exactly, thats also why the EU will not accept it, apart from the damage in the whale's environment, not to mention long term damages.

Its like some strangers suddenly run around in your bedroom, trying to kill you and even doing so to parts of your family. What would you do?
Lets face it, if you could, you would throw them out at least, or call for help and be happy, if that comes, or look for another safer place.

Now, the whales in the end can only move, where to? And what would that cause?. . .ever thought about that part, whalers?

But thats how nature works after all!

All animals go to safer places, if disturbed too much!
I don't think, the Japanese have spent even one thought about this. . .
I tell you, the EU has!
And probably not only the EU.

And if some get really mad about the ignorance of the intruders into the whale environment. . .you have an according Echo from them speaking for those, that can't.

As for legal, once more, even if not liked:
Hitler was also legal in Germany. . .does that mean, he had the right to kill?? And none of those who tried to end this?

 

[MadamePapillon]

My reasoning to this issue is simply, I believe whales do more good alive than dead and on a dinner plate. Some have said that whales are a natural resource that should be utilized to benefit humans...I disagree, not every living creature should be viewed on the basis of how we can use them.
Whales play an important role in the environment and it doesn't take much to push them to the brink of extinction. Commercial hunting has been shown time and time again to be detrimental to the environment because profit trumps all else. Despite all the talk of sustainable hunting even if Japan does follow strict guidelines and harvesting quotas it would be as good as opening a door for other countries to begin commercial hunting. It looks good on paper but I don't think whales are the responsible choice to test this 'wave of the future' method of sustainable harvesting on.

This issue, as david@tokyo pointed out and I have mentioned before, is not so much about whale meat...it is about proving a point. It's politics. This is one of the reasons why I feel so strongly about this. An important marine resource should not be put at risk just so Japan can 'prove' it's independence from the west. In doing so they are trying to create a market for whale meat that wasn't there only a few years before, with little thought for the consequences. This issue, despite all talk, is nothing more than a rebellion fueled by Japan's perception that we are trying to 'tell them what to do' when all it has ever been for us is an environmental issue. I just wish they could see that.

 

[kame]

If they truly wanted whale meat that much their would have already done it. They are staying because they don't want to risk alienating the majority of the international community that is against whaling. Japan is a minority in this and they know it, to leave and go on with full fledged commercial whaling would be like giving the finger to international community which is not what they want. Japan has more to lose and I don't honestly think whale meat is that important to them.

The fact that Japan has put up with the politically-manipulated IWC for so long proves how strongly Japan is committed to keep whaling. It would have been much easier for Japan to simply give it up if they were so concerned about "international reputation". I agree with David that there is a larger, priciple issue that the anti-whaling advocates fail to see in Japan's and other whaling nations' commitments. Conversely, most anti-whaling nations have little economic consequences whether Japan hunts whales or not, which (economy) is a far more (perhaps single) important factor that drives the international politics (think about what countries do for oil and why).

Emotionally-charged arguments without legal and scientific basis will not fare well with the emerging nations such as China and India either, because they all have their own national interests in marine and other natural resources, not to mention cultural values dissimilar to the traditional Euro/American values that defined the world standard in the past.

When you see something that you know to be wrong it is your responsibility to get involved or nothing changes. Domestic abuse is an example of this, it's not your family, not your problem, but you know it is wrong. Do you look the other way and hope they will sort it out themselves? No, you get involved.

If the form of domestic abuse that you recognize in other family is illegal in your country, yes you do get involved by contacting appropriate authorities. If the specific form of abuse you observe is not strictly illegal, say some form of verbal abuse, you do not knock on their door and invade their lives. If you still believe that such an abuse should be illegal, you can try to change the law yourself. Again, you have a very naive view of what is legal or not, and what you are legally and objectively allowed to do to change the world.