Latest news about eco-terrorists

[MadamePapillon]

The fact that Japan has put up with the politically-manipulated IWC for so long proves how strongly Japan is committed to keep whaling.

Strongly enough to shoot a man, apparently.

 

[kame]

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.

That's a very shallow and single-sided view of the whaling debate. Why would Japan, known and often criticized for their lack of integrity to stand up against foreing pressures, resist the intense though emotionally-charged pressures to quit whaling if it were just for rebellion? If you are even remotely familiar with Japanese culture and its politics, you wouldn't even think of such an uninformed reasoning. Japanese government is fully aware of the environmental aspects of the issue (among other things) and IWC is supposed to be the place where it is addressed.

 

[MadamePapillon]

That's a very shallow and single-sided view of the whaling debate. Why would Japan, known and often criticized for their lack of integrity to stand up against foreing pressures, resist the intense though emotionally-charged pressures to quit whaling if it were just for rebellion? If you are even remotely familiar with Japanese culture and its politics, you wouldn't even think of such an uninformed reasoning. Japanese government is fully aware of the environmental aspects of the issue (among other things) and IWC is supposed to be the place where it is addressed.

If this is so then I would love to know why, if they are so intent on peaceful whaling and non-confrontation, do they choose to go into disputed waters that many consider to be a whale sanctuary and conduct their whaling there? If they simply wanted to be left alone to whale in peace they would stick to Japanese waters.
This is a rebellion, just a subtle one. Conducting whaling under the guise of 'scientific research' (purposely twisting the law to suit them) , choosing to move their operation to disputed waters despite the protests of the Australian Government, carrying with them armed weapons.
All the attention is always focused on our aggression but few people mention the aggressive moves Japan has made in all this. One does not go into disputed waters, armed, unless they want to start something. While Sea Shepard is rather immature and not my favorite environmental group, they throw stink bombs, the Japanese throw flash grenades and fire 'warning shots' with loaded guns.

 

[Mars Man]

I wish to point out here, that we do have parameters on the topic at hand, and I can see that some of the argument clauses in a number of above posts are pushing beyond the scope of this present theme--and hardly as embedding. Therefore let's be careful not to do that, please.

Please do keep in mind, that the Sea Shepherd group has sunk some ships, and has acted very immature in the past--it's a common stigma with the extremeist animal protection groups; the PETA being another. (although this doesn't mean that all members of the group, or affiliates with those groups are such)

Why the Japanese vessels are where they are, I am not certain. NEVERTHELESS, the actions of those members who are in a most juvenile manner attacking the whaling vessels, is very much worthy of being blamed, and condemned. On this point, really, there can hardly be any further need of discussion.

 

[otoko]

If this is so then I would love to know why, if they are so intent on peaceful whaling and non-confrontation, do they choose to go into disputed waters that many consider to be a whale sanctuary and conduct their whaling there? If they simply wanted to be left alone to whale in peace they would stick to Japanese waters.
This is a rebellion, just a subtle one. Conducting whaling under the guise of 'scientific research' (purposely twisting the law to suit them) , choosing to move their operation to disputed waters despite the protests of the Australian Government, carrying with them armed weapons.
All the attention is always focused on our aggression but few people mention the aggressive moves Japan has made in all this. One does not go into disputed waters, armed, unless they want to start something. While Sea Shepard is rather immature and not my favorite environmental group, they throw stink bombs, the Japanese throw flash grenades and fire 'warning shots' with loaded guns.

"Scientific research" is something any nation in the IWC can do. There is no need to twist the law to suit Japan as you say. It is clear you can do this. Also it is clear that under scientific research it is encouraged that the whale not go to waste.

Pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention, any country that wishes to conduct scientific research on whales may invoke the scientific research provision as an exception to an IWC regulation.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that nation to kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit and the kill, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of the Convention.

Sure many say that it is simply a guise to hunt whales commercially. It is also said that anti-whaling advocates are using "conservation" as a cover for being against any and all whaling period irregardless of whether it is truly sustainable. Anyway Norway and Iceland already do commmercial whaling. Japan is actually trying to work within the IWC.

I am neither pro-whaling or anti-whaling. What I find interesting is the situation itself. I think that most anti-whaling advocates don't really care about what the IWC is actually for. The IWC has been trying to research a way to make hunting whale sustainable with the revised management scheme(RMS). The whole point of the RMS is to regulate commmerical whaling.

Initially there were only 15 nations in the IWC. All whale-hunting. Lobbying by anti-whaling groups increased the membership of the IWC. Countries with no whaling industries were joining the IWC in order to influence voting on key issues. So these countries are in a organization meant for the management of whale stocks and research but their only reason is an ideological one against hunting whales in the first place. So it is really just become politicized. What happens is that any scientific research that shows that whaling is sutainable is just IGNORED. Canada withrew from the IWC because of this.

What I also find interesting is why I have to explain this. I would think if a topic is important to you you would research all aspects of it, including the parts you don't agree with ideologically. That includes the history of whaling, the International Whaling Commision. How the moratorium came to be. I am not an expert on this matter, but I feel it is important to research because I should at least know all aspects. Though reading from biased sites and sources(on both sides) really just is there to reinforce your belief, not to look at the situation objectively.

Looking at the situation from a third party(me) it really looks like the Japanese are doing a better job explaining their situation that the anti-whalers. The anti-whalers shout more loudly and they can say they have popular opinion behind them.

I think if you are against absolutely all whaling and think the whale deserves special status and should not be killed, that is totally fine. One should be able to argue that point alone. But that is a belief. That is separate from the issue of conservation and resource management. I don't see how one could be totally committed to this belief and be able to look at the IWC and sustainable whaling, commmercial whaling, scientific research whaling objectively and think that it backs up your assertion that whaling is wrong. It does not back it up all the time on all topics. It really actually puts you in a weaker position. It gives the impression that you are using conservation as a cover for your belief. Your belief by itself is the strongest position you can have. There is no problem with this.

Like people who are pro-choice or pro-life. Their belief in itself is the strongest argument. If they started to resort to science then they would find that science isn't biased, and that science would not back up their belief absolutely. They would risk weakening the position by accepting ideas to the contrary or have to ignore all science that doesn't support their position and end up looking like they have little credibility.

 

[caster51]

SEA SHEPHERD ESCALATING VIOLENT ATTACKS
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

that is laughable..
poor man

It bruised my shoulder but it would have hit my heart if I didn't have the vest," he said.

The device was not designed to hurt people, and the ministry said it was not aware of any injuries

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/080307SS2high.wmv
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20080308-00000005-maip-soci

 

[Mars Man]

PLEASE stay on topic with the present matter of the acts of the Sea Shepherd. For discussing the whaling issue in general, there are other threads. PLEASE take this as a warning.

 

[Astroboy]

IWC has condemned Sea Shepherd

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has condemned the "dangerous actions" of campaigners trying to stop whalers in the Antarctic Ocean.

The Commission, which has just concluded a three-day meeting at Heathrow, released a statement criticising US-based anti-whaling group the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for "jeopardising safety at sea".....

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jaEdgC-HLszpkp1eoei7bPjcd00Q

 

[reddog]

Enough proof

I wanted to read your link but was unable to as it was in Japanese. (which makes sense as this is Japan reference) Do you have a link to an English version?

 

[Astroboy]

The most reliable information source about Japanese Whaling is available at
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm

 

[axman]

Off the record the Japanese have zero video proof that someone was hit.
Unfortunately word of mouth means nothing unless you have an unbiased witness.

And yes. I've seen the 'video' inwhich someone was hit. It doesn't really show anything except the camera falling.