Latest news about eco-terrorists

[Astroboy]

Two Japanese research crew and two Japanese coastguard officers were injured today after a planned attack by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Group in the Antarctic.

The four people were injured after being hit in separate incidents where butyric acid was thrown at them by activists from the Sea Shepherd vessel, the Steve Irwin.

ﾂ"Sea Shepherd terrorists threw more than one hundred bottles from their vessel the Steve Irwin onto the Nisshin Maru deck. As a result butyric acid hit two of the Nisshin Maru crew members and two Japanese coast guard officers,ﾂ" the director general of the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), Mr Minoru Morimoto said today.

Evidence of the attack by the group is document on the ICR website:
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/080303Release.pdf

 

[Astroboy]

March 3, 2008
Terrorist group Sea Shepherd vessel "Steve Irwin" attacks the Nisshin Maru. The "Steve Irwin" abnormally approaches the Nisshin Maru, carrying "Pirate Flag"

Video is also available at: http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/080303SS2.wmv

 

[Chi65]

Well, first lets hear the other side too:

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

also plus video

Although I do not support too much violence, it should be sorted out, what was really done and what was blown up (an Al Quaeda resemblance surely is at this point), for example the contents of the bottles. . .

The truth is surely more in the middle

a) "The butyric acid powder hit two crew members and two Japanese coast guard officers, who complained of pain," Mr Onodera said.

b) Members (SH) said they bombarded the deck of the Nisshin Maru with bottles and packets containing foul-smelling and slippery substances that would make it difficult to process whales.

If I would be on the side of the SH, also is another story, I am too unsure, if thats the way. . .but so am I about the whaler's ways (who honestly disgust me even more after all the informations so far).

Question stays, who blows up more. . .and is less reliable

 

[Chi65]

Aha, and here is the answer:

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan whalers in 'butter attack'

also with video and
including, that also Australia is not happy about this

plus:

Activists from the Sea Shepherd group threw containers filled with a mild form of acid made from rotten butter at a Japanese ship.
.
.
.
But the Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson, aboard their vessel in the Antarctic, denied anyone had been hurt.

He said bottles of butyric acid and envelopes containing "slippery powder" had been thrown at the Nisshin Maru vessel.
.
.
.
"We filmed and photographed the entire thing. Not a single thing landed anywhere near their crew," he told Australia's AAP news agency.

anyhow:

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, although a vocal opponent of Japan's whale hunt, strongly criticised the Sea Shepherd's butter attack.

"I absolutely condemn actions by crew members of any vessel that cause injury - or have the potential to cause injury - to anyone on the high seas," he said in a statement.

. . .to stick to the so far known reports

 

[otoko]

I have read the reports from both sides.

This is hat Captain Watson said:

"Nice try, but a total fabrication," said Captain Watson. "The butyric acid is contained in one-liter glass bottles, all of which broke upon contact with the flensing deck of the Nisshin Maru. These bottles are sealed and the acid released after being broke, so it is impossible to be hit by an empty bottle. Secondly, no one squirted butyric acid into anyone's eye, and even if they did, this is a simple non-toxic butter acid, basically rancid butter. It will not cause eye injury. If we had tossed marshmallows on the deck of the Nisshin Maru, I'm sure the whalers would try to claim they were injured by them"

And here is the over-view of the safety of butyric acid from the Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Lab Safety website:

Harmful if swallowed or inhaled. Corrosive. Extremely unpleasant smell may cause nausea. Liquid may burn skin and eyes. Readily absorbed through the skin. Severe skin, eye and respiratory irritant.

So Sea Shepard is full of crap.

Whether they hit someone it seems it is their words against each other. Though arguing about it really misses the point that they shouldn't be throwing glass bottles. They shouldn't be throwing glass bottles filled with butyric acid.

Sure butyric is just rancid butter. And crack is just ground up coca leaves.

This is just ridiculous.

 

[orochi]

So they threw bottles of acid at a manned ship. Some people on the ship got hit by acid. The rest fell in the water. Yeah, these guys really love nature.



bwahahaha

 

[MadamePapillon]

Rather than calling it 'eco-terrorism' I think the term 'eco-pirates' should be used instead.

The more I read about this the more it seems like something out of the pages of an action/adventure pirate story. Ship bugging, high seas confrontations, booty or loot (this being the whales), ship to ship battles, overseas chases.

And we call real life 'boring'. You have to wonder if both sides don't enjoy this even a little. Seeing each others ships across the ocean and knowing some sh*ts about to go down...I'll bet deep down they look forward to it.

 

[Chi65]

Sure, so does the press. . . . .which lives on that. . .;-)

 

[Sarapva]

Here is the Sea Shepherd's story about it:

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080302_1.html

Sea Shepherd Ship Steve Irwin Engages Japanese Factory Ship Nisshin Maru In Whale Sanctuary


Aboard the M/Y Steve Irwin Southern Oceans ---The crew on the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin engaged in a confrontation with the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru this morning between 0800 and 1000 Hours.

The Nisshin Maru cannot outrun the Steve Irwin. After a 12 hour chase the Sea Shepherd ship closed the gap and passed alongside the Nisshin Maru.

The crew deployed over two dozen bottles of rotten butter sending a stench throughout the whale killing ship that will remain for days. The crew also threw packets of a slippery chemical onto the deck of the Nisshin Maru. This will make it very difficult to cut up whales. The substance becomes even more slippery with water so it will be difficult to wash it off the decks.

"I guess we can call this non-violent chemical warfare," said Captain Paul Watson. "We only use organic, non-toxic materials designed to harass and obstruct illegal whaling operations."

And just for balance, here is a story from Reuters:

Japanese whalers hurt in sea battle with activists

The whaling ship "Nisshinmaru" and the Sea Shepherd vessel came within 10 meters (33 ft) of each other during the exchange, which lasted over an hour until the activists had run out of missiles, he said. "This is an act that tries to unfairly harm the safety of a ship and crew that is acting within the law at sea," Japan's top government spokesman Nobutaka Machimura told a news conference.

"It's an unforgivable act and we protest strongly."

 

[Chi65]

Anyhow, this goes to the Dutch, not Australia, as I read somewhere.

But our information level here is great, btw ;-)

Far better than any TV etc.

 

[Elizabeth]

So they threw bottles of acid at a manned ship. Some people on the ship got hit by acid. The rest fell in the water. Yeah, these guys really love nature.



bwahahaha

More respect for whale than human life that's for certain. Listening to an interview with NHK and the swaggering, full of himself SS Captain these are his first words, my translation, "You know in Africa, they shoot poachers...compared to that, acid is baby treatment"

 

[otoko]

I am pretty sure they are eco-terrorists. The use of violence or threat of the use of violence to instill fear. Backed by a ideological view that they are in the moral right, and that their actions are justified.

That is just about what every terrorist gruop thinks and does.

If someone was throwing glass bottles at me I would have to beat them down.

 

[orochi]

More respect for whale than human life that's for certain. Listening to an interview with NHK and the swaggering, full of himself SS Captain these are his first words, my translation, "You know in Africa, they shoot poachers...compared to that, acid is baby treatment"

Poaching is illegal.
Whaling isn't.
Huge difference.

 

[Mars Man]

I would tend to reason that not too much can ascertained until more of the exact details come to light some time later, and I would argue that modifiers such as terrorist or even pirates would not be so correct.

That said, regardless of any reported incidents of injury (which could be possible in some way), the activities are clearly immature, and lack a certain broadminded level of altruistic meditation.

Any activist group which prints out T-shirts advertising how many sea-going vessels they have sunk or rammed, is a very immature group, and somewhat careless.

 

[Elizabeth]

Poaching is illegal.
Whaling isn't.
Huge difference.

Yes, that was what makes it terrorism, or something too indistinguishable to matter. Even if these were not completely random victims, they were not living under the law. It was he making the equivalence as a justification, not me.

 

[Sarapva]

I believe that the Sea Shepherd's basic values are good. They are doing whatever they can to stall the whaling.

The objective in tossing a foul smelling substance onto the deck of the largest floating slaughterhouse in the world is simple - to discourage the grisly work of mutilating the bodies of some of the largest and gentlest creatures on Earth.

There is no industry on earth as horrifically violent as whaling. Whales die in prolonged unimaginable agony as blunt tipped harpoons smash into their backsides and shred internal organs. They may take up to forty minutes to die as they drown in a mixture of salt water and their own blood. They thrash and roll on the surface of the sea and scream piteously as they look up to see arrogant men gloating over their suffering.

Yet, some people get upset because these same people now have smelly decks and can't continue their foul sadistic work.

For the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, our clients are the whales and we are defending them by intervening to enforce international conservation law in accordance to the principles established by the United Nations World Charter for Nature.

We have not committed any crime. Despite the fabrications of Japanese public relations spin doctors, we have not injured anyone. In fact in over thirty years of high seas interventions the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never caused an injury nor have we been convicted of a felony.

Yet in that time whalers, sealers, shark finners, turtle poachers and illegal fishermen have assaulted us, beaten us, bloodied us, rammed us, shot at us and threatened our lives but that never seems to be a story of interest because according to our critics we are exposing ourselves voluntarily to the violence of the ocean rapists. In fact, after being assaulted by sealers who struck my crew with clubs and injured them the Canadian police refused to press charges against our attackers because we "had provoked the violence by opposing the killing of seals."

We have had a very successful campaign this year in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. We have saved hundreds of whales. We have chased this Japanese killing fleet for thousands of miles and they will not fill their death quota and they are not very happy about it.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080304_1.html

Their next project (after the whaling season) is to go up to Canada and try to disrupt the seal hunting.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080228_1.html

 

[kame]

I believe that the Sea Shepherd's basic values are good. They are doing whatever they can to stall the whaling.

Whether what someone does to prove his/her point is justified or not has nothing to do with whether his/her values are good or bad (values are subjective to begin with).

I don't disagree with everything that ELF, PETA, or even Sea Shepherd say, but where do you draw the line between terror and legitimate protest? There are mullions of people who truly believe that Al-Qaeda's "values are good", so how can you blame them for "doing whatever they can" to achieve their values?

Do you allow anything short of murder? Do you allow blowing up farms and abortion clinics? Do you allow torching suburban houses? Do you allow the possibility of permanently blinding a whaling crew?

If you start condoning violence, however trivial, just because the act is based on a value that you agree, it will eventually come back and bite you in the ***. Americans of all people should know better.

 

[kame]

The most recent Sea Shepherd attack was covered quite widely by Japanese media, especially due to the fact that three crew members (including two Coast Guards) were injured. There was a nice video footage showing SS people shooting bottles into the whaling ship as well.

This incident did nothing to the Japanese people to reconsider whalling. It just serves to antagonize Japanese viewers who dislike such confrontational tactics and solidifies the image that the anti-whaling campaign is irrational and violent in Japanese people's mind. For Japanese whalers and whaling industry, it is actually a blessing in disguise, because they can use this footage to appeal to the Japanese public that anti-whaling advocates are nutty.

I am not saying that all anti-whaling advocates are nutty, but SS sure helps labeling them that way.

 

[Sarapva]

The whalers should also videotape capturing a whale and show this to the Japanese people, along with the Sea Shepherd's antics. That would create a balance, but I don't think they want that. It would show that the whalers are much more violent than the protestors.

 

[kame]

The whalers should also videotape capturing a whale and show this to the Japanese people, along with the Sea Shepherd's antics. That would create a balance, but I don't think they want that. It would show that the whalers are much more violent than the protestors.

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?

 

[kame]

Even though Sea Shepherd would want to downplay it, three people actually getting hurt is a huge consequence for the Japanese. What little support anti-whaling advocacy had in Japan, is going to face a huge pressure from the general Japanese public. It's one thing to annoy ships at the port with rubber boats (although still dispicable), but physically hurting people brings the negative impression on anti-whaling campaign to a whole new level. It's just beyond me why anyone who are seriously concerned about saving whales wouldn't be furious for damaging the reputation for the cause.

 

[Chi65]

Don't worry, the rest of the world gets furious about ignorance and onesidedness anyhow and has eventually more sympathy for those, who express this, even if they may not sign the way of them. But as long, as no human is seriously hurt after all, its only fun to watch it and keeps the memory alive, also about these other former mentioned videos. . .

 

[kame]

Don't worry...the rest of the world gets furious about ignorance and onesidedness anyhow and has eventually more sympathy for those, who express this, even if they may not sign the way of them. But as long, as no human is seriously hurt after all, its only fun to watch it and keeps the memory alive, also about these other former mentioned videos. . .

Sorry, but as always, I have trouble interpreting your writing. "who express this (what?)", "even if they (who?) may not sign the way (sign? what way?) of them (again who?)". You should try to use less pronouns.

Anyway, if I speculate what you are trying to say correctly, I am not talking about what the rest of the world is going to think about Japan, but the consequences of SS's terror acts on how Japanese think about whaling and anti-whaling campaigns. You having fun watching SS shooting toxic chemicals into the whaling ship hurting few people was probably not worth the backlash the incident triggered in Japan, or was it?

 

[Chi65]

No one was really hurt, so what. . .just pace down a bit, please. No need to become personal.

 

[kame]

No one was really hurt, so what. . .just pace down a bit, please. No need to become personal.

Well, people were really hurt, and it could have been very worse. SS didn't throw water balloons.

And I have no intension to personally attack you by my last post. I really do have trouble interpreting your writing and I just realized that one reason was that you have a tendency to use pronouns excessively.