Japanese Whaling Ship Catches Fire

[tedtim]

Whoa there ReefGuy...way too much misinformation and political spin.

Sea Shepherd is not a terrorist organization. It is a non-profit conservation society that conducts missions of research, education, and policing according the United Nations World Charter for Nature and international laws that protect marine life and ecosystems.

From their Mission Statement:



They are bold and very confrontational, using aggressive tactics to halt activities that threaten marine life and violate international laws, but they absolutely do not seek to harm human beings nor use fear tactics to accomplish their goals. In fact, their tactics are usually obstructionist, much like Greenpeace, except Sea Shepherd will usually gun the throttle to get in the way of a whaler/poacher/ne'er-do-well whereas Greenpeace will typically take a more passive role.

Sea Shepherd's methods of policing may be distasteful to some, but they are no more a terrorist organization than the Girl Scouts of America. I may not like the incessant door knocking of those cookie pushers, but at least they mean well and accomplish their benevolent goals without hurting anyone (well, the cookies aren't too good for you, but It's not like I suspect them of a conspiracy...er, wait a minute...nah, forget it).

Sadamune

I doubt that the Girl Scouts would resort to using nail guns or butyric acid [http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/71624/index.php]. Sea Shepard also operates at least one ship that is no longer registered (Farley Mowat). The term "terrorist" is certainly inappropriate, and IMO overused, but then again so is a comparison to the Girl Scouts.

I also object to the use of the term "policing" to legitimize Sea Shepard's activities because that would imply that they have the legal authority to take the actions that they do. That reference is insulting to police officers everywhere.

 

[Kim]

IMO they ARE a terrorist organization. They employ tactics that by their own admission are "aggressive" and "confrontational". They look for the fight. They seek to intimidate to get the other side to back down to achieve their goals. They use physical actions to achieve this. What's not terrorist about this? People who blow themselves to pieces for what they believe are also only doing what they think is right! Whether it's right or wrong becomes a matter of personal conviction. To be clear....I am for non-violent ways to get stuff done.... (hoping this isn't too political)...Mahatma Gandhi & Martin Luther King are personal heroes of mine among others who have stressed non-violent ways to achieve change. Sea Shepherd doesn't see it that way. They believe their violence is justified. They believe they can scare people into submission if they can raise the stakes high enough.

I have no time for them whatsoever. Neither does the mainstream "Green" movement. People like this make progress even harder to achieve.

It has nothing to do with this thread though.....they had nothing to do with the fire. As for who caused the ramming? I don't think any rammings would have occcured unless they were trying to stop people doing something legal in the first instance!

To make this illegal takes changes of laws and international agreements........not illegal manoevers regarding shipping etc on the high seas that endangers human life.

 

[diver 85]

Just guessing but i'm believing there are some self-righteous & pompous people around here.........hmmmmm, who could that be......

 

[H2Andy]

IMO they ARE a terrorist organization. They employ tactics that by their own admission are "aggressive" and "confrontational". They look for the fight. They seek to intimidate to get the other side to back down to achieve their goals. They use physical actions to achieve this. What's not terrorist about this?

i don't like their methods, but i'll call them terrorists when they load up a boat with explosives and use it to blow a whaling ship up

or when they fly a plane full of people into the whaling company's headquarters

or when they take over a whaling ship and hold the crew hostages at gun point

then i'll call them a terrorist organization

:14:

 

[Sadamune]

Many (including myself) will tell you that in those two paragraphs you have contradicted yourself.

Gangre441, where, specifically, do you see a contradiction? My analogy highlighted tactics many people consider odious but ultimately motivated by benevolent goals. Perhaps you see Girl Scouts as an entirely benign and therefore inappropriate in a comparison. I, however, do not consider Girl Scouts as entirely benign.

I doubt that the Girl Scouts would resort to using nail guns or butyric acid

I also object to the use of the term "policing" to legitimize Sea Shepard's activities because that would imply that they have the legal authority to take the actions that they do.

tedtim, I also doubt that Girl Scouts would resort to using nail guns to deliver nontoxic, obnoxious smelling substances. The Girl Scouts use entirely different methods of distributing obnoxious substances.
As for the use of the term 'policing', Sea Shepherd derives their authority to interdict what they perceive as illegal activities from the World Charter for Nature, which actually does appear to give them that authority, though I am no expert on international law.

They use physical actions to achieve this. What's not terrorist about this?

Kim, the definition of 'terrorism' is important to any constructive debate that seeks ways of dealing with it. I do not consider damage inflicted against property involved in internationally condemned and (this is debatable -->) illegal activities to be 'terrorism'. To quote from Wikipedia, terrorism refers to, "violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals." When Sea Shepherd sends a zodiac boat out to a ship, they do not detonate explosives that kill and maim people like Al-Qaeda has done. Instead, they lob over stink bombs and generally get in the way. Such methods are certainly contrary to the precepts of 'passive resistance' as so famously demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but they are very far removed from efforts to injure or kill human beings to achieve political reform. Thus, I do not think it is conscionable to group Sea Shepherd together with organizations that genuinely seek to harm people.

If anyone is interested in what Sea Shepherd has to say regarding all this, go to:
http://seashepherd.org/news/media_070217_1.html

Sadamune

 

[Kim]

If anyone is interested in what Sea Shepherd has to say regarding all this, go to:
http://seashepherd.org/news/media_070217_1.html

Actually...I've already stated twice in this thread that they had nothing to do with the Nisshin Maru fire.

Why not try this link instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd
They claim to have sunk 10 boats.

Several countries have tried to prosecute them. In fact Norway has found Paul Watson guilty of sinking one Norwegian vessel......something he'd be imprisoned for if he ever went to Norway. Boats have people on them usually; people who Sea Shepherd doesn't seem to worry too much about.

I don't really care what you want to call them. To me they are terrorists who quite genuinely fall within your own definition:
"violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."

What's not violent or harmful about sinking boats with people on them? What's not ideological about the reason they do it?

I wonder what the US would do if they entered a US harbor and sank a US fishing boat that practiced long-lining or something else they disagreed with? I suspect the reticence to stick them on the list of terrorist groups would evaporate like water in the desert.

 

[Kim]

Just guessing but i'm believing there are some self-righteous & pompous people around here.........hmmmmm, who could that be......

I'm not quite sure how this helps the debate at all. There are people involved in it that I disagree with, but I fully appreciate that they are also only stating their own beliefs and opinions. I don't have to agree with someone to respect where they're coming from - although I'll argue like hell to get my point across!

Of course if you're talking about me.........well........who's perfect? :mooner:

 

[tedtim]

i don't like their methods, but i'll call them terrorists when they load up a boat with explosives and use it to blow a whaling ship up

or when they fly a plane full of people into the whaling company's headquarters

or when they take over a whaling ship and hold the crew hostages at gun point

then i'll call them a terrorist organization

:14:

I agree completely with H2Andy. As for Sadamune and the concept of policing, Sea Shepard has no authority, real or perceived, that flows from any law or any recognized government on the planet. They are anarchists.

I don't believe that the Japanese whaling ships are doing the research that they state they are, but rather supplying the demand created by the people for whale meat.

The bigger problem here seems to be the potential evironmental damage that may be caused by the fire on the ship which would last longer and have a much wider impact than the act of whaling.

 

[letterboy]

I wonder what the US would do if they entered a US harbor and sank a US fishing boat that practiced long-lining or something else they disagreed with? I suspect the reticence to stick them on the list of terrorist groups would evaporate like water in the desert.

I am pretty sure they would get sunk PDQ to. . . I hear we actually do have missiles and submarines that can track useless vessels

 

[Kim]

I am pretty sure they would get sunk PDQ to. . . I hear we actually do have missiles and submarines that can track useless vessels

I'm sure you do!
My point was that you'd probably describe them as terrorists as well!