Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

183 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

183 Comments
Login to comment

I see them more as a pain. They should be lucky that Japan bans guns for civilians. It is only a matter of time until the crew of the Sea Shepherd proves the whalers one to many times. These people(the sea Shepherd crew) are going to cause an international incident. Just back off.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

I would prefer the term eco activists - to call them terrorists puts them in bed with some really ugly characters. Whether I personally feel what they are doing is right or not is immaterial, I just don't think branding them as terrorists is helpful. Wouldn't this just make the whaling ships terrorists from the whale's perspective.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

I see them as Eco-Activists, not terrorists. They do what they need to do to stop whaling.

-2 ( +16 / -18 )

Julie, Geoff. That is what a terrorist does.

Remember whaling is lawful. These people are ugly characters.

2 ( +19 / -17 )

Putting lives at risk at sea is just that...nothing "eco" about it.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Activists. The eco-terorists are the thugs shooting the exploding harpoons and causing slow, agonising deaths. And the thugs expropriating the taxes I pay to keep pensions, hospitals, schools and the like ticking over, and using them instead to spread egg on Japan's face.

-10 ( +14 / -24 )

Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorists. So is ALF. So is SHAC. Greenpeace, WWF et al are eco-activists. They won't go near Sea Sheherd with a 10 ft pole.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and/

The Federal Bureau of Investigation calls Sea Shepherd Eco-terrorists. "Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

Sea Shepherd has links to other eco-terrorist groups. "Rodney Coronado has long been involved with criminal groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which the FBI has identified as the country’s most dangerous domestic terrorist threat, and the special-interest ALF subset known as SHAC. He was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for the 1992 arson of a Michigan State University research laboratory. He admitted to at least six other arsons in a November 30, 2002 speech. In January 2003, he demonstrated to a group gathered at American University the “correct” way to build a firebomb out of household materials. And Paul Watson gave him his start.

Coronado joined SSCS immediately after graduating from high school in 1984. Two years later, he proposed a plan to covertly attack Iceland’s whaling industry. He and David Howitt, a British bicycle mechanic, destroyed a whale-processing facility there, and sank two of the Icelandic whaling fleet’s four ships. Watson supported the plan and SSCS took responsibility for the destruction.

In the mid-’90s, Coronado again wanted to join a SSCS expedition. But he was wanted for questioning by the FBI and Watson said no. Watson was regretful, however, calling him “an excellent crew member and the best damn activist I ever had.” These words give the lie to Watson’s claim that “we have absolutely no links with the so-called Animal Liberation Front.”

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/347-sea-shepherd-conservation-society

When law enforcement agencies call an organization eco-terrporists, it isn't just a matter of opinion.

14 ( +24 / -10 )

The Federal Bureau of Investigation calls Sea Shepherd Eco-terrorists.

They chased around after John Lennon for singing anti-war songs, too. What the FBI says means nothing, or less than nothing.

-4 ( +13 / -17 )

Saving any wild animal from being killed is also?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I would define a terrorist as an organisation or activist who deploys acts of terrorism in order to achieve their goal, inducing fear and harm upon their chosen targets.Such persons avail of methods that cause death destruction and grief. I cannot find the members of Sea Shepherd guilty of any of these attrocities. Activists yes, terrorists, no.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Pirates - nothing more.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

They are eco-terrorists tarnishing the reputation of decent, law abiding Australian people abroad. Brandishing a pirate flag, they resort to extreme, unjust measures in their quest to protect the ocean equivalent of a large herd of cows. They are also culturally insensitive of Japan and its traditions regarding whaling, which has spanned hundreds of years. They also draw their main support (not all) from racist, uneducated "believe everything in the media" cowboy Australians mostly from the Byron bay area and use the people power primarily consisting of bogan, beer swindling, pirates to achieve beyond childish stunts such as boarding of vessels in protest and hurling rancid butter at the whaling fleet. I am not for whaling, or against it for that matter, but they have suicide bombed the public perception of Australians who live abroad as a raving pack of lawless lowlife louts.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

They are activists. And by the way, Ossan's link to the definition of 'eco-terrorist' shows that said definition can equally applied to the Japanese whalers, who fire acoustic weapons at helicopters IN THE AIR among other things. Take that into account, as well as what Cleo pointed out that the FBI (ie. one nation's investigators) is not exactly reliable when it comes to labeling who is what, and it just goes to show that any use of the word is completely subjective and often full of bias.

Luke: "Remember whaling is lawful."

It is an it isn't; 'scientific research' here is lawful, the Japanese just exploit the loophole to carry out whaling for food, then publish papers on how soy-sauce makes it taste better and call that science to justify its expeditions.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

Terry: "I am not for whaling, or against it for that matter, but they have suicide bombed the public perception of Australians who live abroad as a raving pack of lawless lowlife louts."

I've never heard anyone say this, ever, about Australians (and isn't Greenpeace and SS made up of a number of nationalities?). This just sounds like an insecure Aussie's opinion, but I could be wrong.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

they are terrorists interfering with other peoples legal activities. They should be locked up

2 ( +11 / -9 )

smithinjapan - And by the way, Ossan's link to the definition of 'eco-terrorist' shows that said definition can equally applied to the Japanese whalers, who fire acoustic weapons at helicopters IN THE AIR among other things.

Everyone has right to DEFEND themselves from attack. The whalers and fishermen are only DEFENDING themselves from "eco-terrorist" attacks.

The Sea Sheperd organization has used violence for decades to force their views on others. They've rammed ships, sunk ships, and disabled ships. They BRAG about these actions. They have a history of launching glass bottles of acid and throwing red phosphorus flares at whalers. They've repeatedly tried to entangle whaling vessels propellors with towed lines leaving them helpless against the dangerous condidtions of the Antarctic.

Greenpeace kicked Watson out of its organization and currently REFUSES to have anything to do with the pro-violence SS because of their repeated acts of violence.

The IWC kicked the SS out as a NGO observer because of its continued use of violence.

Many nations have recinded or refused to register SS vessels because of the continuous violence.

Watson and other SS members have been arrested, fined, and jailed because of their continuous violence.

"Eco-terrorist" is a perfect description of who and what the Sea Sheperd organization is.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

@OssanAmerica

The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

Haha. The whalers are definitely not innocent.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

@arrestpaul

Everyone has right to DEFEND themselves from attack. The whalers and fishermen are only DEFENDING themselves from "eco-terrorist" attacks.

The whales cannot defend themselves so Sea Shepherd is the only one defending them.

They've rammed ships, sunk ships, and disabled ships.

Umm, didn't the SM2 ram and sink the Ady Gil. Oh wait, you deny they did that even though they clearly did.

The IWC kicked the SS out as a NGO observer because of its continued use of violence.

About half of the IWC is bribed and therefore, controlled by Japan. That argument holds no weight.

"Eco-terrorist" is a perfect description of who and what the Sea Sheperd organization is.

Refer to my previous post about the definition of "eco-terrorist."

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

The question should also be asked if the Whalers Criminals - Trespassing in Australian waters for Whale Hunting/Poaching AND using Stun Grenades and similar weapons of the Sea Shepherd Protesters - Meet Fire with Fire I say - I also agree with SSCSforever's definition and comment.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

genji17 - how naive and / or uneducated is your comment - the whalers are NOT conducting "legal activities" They are actually trespassing in registered legal Australian waters - hence the court challenge. If Japan was such a big customer, the Australian Gov't would of stopped the whalers years ago**

Know the facts before making any accusations and / or comments people!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

OnlyAGaijin.

Where is the proof?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It"S ME - Realistic Logic and Common Sense!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

As for the court challenge did Australia actually ever file it? Seen no report of it being filed so far, all I hear we are considering it is on the files, etc.

But than upsetting your biggest customer might not be a good political move. ;)

0 ( +4 / -4 )

OnlyAGaijin get my facts straight? look up "international waters" and get back to me...the Japanese are doing LEGAL activity, the SS is not.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

genji17 < The whaling is actually conducted in Australian waters, not in International waters,therefore they are technically trespassing and breaking Australia's Fishery Laws. But as a I stated before - Aust is too scared to do anything because of Japan's clout. If whalers were ONLY conducting their fishing in International waters, the Sea Shepherd activists could be then charged and prosecuted under the Piracy act .

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What australian waters? I.e. their legal territory, I posted the EU definition above. Don't go all that far.

The EEZ is another another matter legally as are their claimed waters which are recognised by only 6 nations globally .

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It"s Me< For your information: #The Australian Government instigated legal action against the Government of Japan in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in May 2010 in an attempt to end Japan's 'scientific' whaling. Incredibly, Japan has ignored the action and continued whaling regardless. Furthermore, it is likely to be 3-4 years before the ICJ decides this case. The Australian Government must now demand Japan recall its whaling fleet immediately and keep it in port until the ICJ has made its ruling."

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

EU = UN. Sorry.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Here's actual footage of the boarding - Should these Goons be called Terrorists - No . Bloody Idiots - Yes<>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-09/whaling-activists-board-ship/3764292

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Idiots that boarded the Japanese Spy Whaling ship are now on a hunger strike - Is that Normal Sea Shepherd Terrorist tactic?

Hmmm!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-09/activists-on-hunger-strike-aboard-japanese-ship/3764234

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Idiots that boarded the Japanese Spy Whaling ship are now on a hunger strike - Is that Normal Sea Shepherd Terrorist tactic?

Hmmm!

Who cares let them starve, or better yet make sure they do, These HEROES ..............hahaha ZEROES more like it.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

As for the poll question are ss terrorists, no, do ey go to far yes sometimes. But in the interest of fairness, should Japan be ignoring world opinion and whaling in this region? Definitely not

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The whales cannot defend themselves so Sea Shepherd is the only one defending them.

Not true. The whalers aren't using submarines, only ships.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sure, but they are effective in showing the world the continued pointless slaughter of whales by the Japanese.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Terrorist or Activists?

Certainly not activists doubtful if they are terrorists since they don't have the balls to challenge the authorities after being caught and wimps like a child wetting their bed. In fact I think it is insult to real terrorists that risk their own life for their cause however misled they might be.

The best word in describing them for me would be vandals or maybe hoodlums.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

When I think of terrorists I think of kidnapped people, hidden bombs and hijacked planes. Does SS do anything like that? NO! They might be criminals, if they go too far and break significant laws. But they are not terrorists. Only because some people consider everything that goes against their interests as terrorism doesn't turn it into that thing. If they actually kidnapped Japanese whalers or started to kill people, matters would be different. But I don't see this happening in the next decades...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No better than the pirates of Somalia except with better funding from the liberal sops of Hollywood. They should be handled the same way as the pirates. Incarceration or sent to the bottom.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

YES. Textbook.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"Terrorism + the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

Were they violent?

Did they, do they intimidate?

Do they have political aims?

Doesn't look as if they are "eco-terrorists," does it?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

SSCSforever - Haha. The whalers are definitely not innocent.

But the question is -

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

In other words, do the SS use violence in an attempt to force others to do their bidding regardless of the fact that their intended victims are operating within internationally recognized rules, regulations, and laws?

The answer is YES, the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd ARE eco-terrorists.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yup,they think they are above the law,validating their lives by their"Saving the Whales"! if it weren't this it would be something else-Shogunai,shogunai !

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

No, absolutely not. I believe that they are doing only good for the environment. They are not eco-terrorists according to the FBI definition.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I was relatively sympathetic to the Sea Shepherd activists, until I saw the video's of them ramming the Japanese vessels in mid-sea. Extremely dangerous and reckless behavior.

Japan also hunts for Minke-whales, which are not endangered, so (unless you object to killing animals in any form) I don't think that is a problem.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Sea Shepherd terrorist group gets away without even a slap on the wrist. These eco-terrorists should be treated like the terrorists they are. Their home registration country, Netherlands? have warned them repeatedly about throwing or launching anything or they would revoke their license to fly under their flag. But that nation doesn't have a backbone and still hasn't enforced this threat. Regardless of one's beliefs regarding whales (I'm not real comfortable with the whale hunting), the Japanese fleet is operating within International law. In that regard, the Sea Shepherd organization is clearly violating international laws against terrorism.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It seems that a majority are quite happy to water down a word like "terrorist".

To put Paul Watson in the same league as Osama bin Laden seems like the brain-child of the village idiot to me. But it does enforce the point I often make that most people are pretty stupid.

Besides, it would make a lot more sense to term those who degrade the ecology as eco-terrorists rather than those who act against such people.

SS are more like eco-vigilantees. The day they blow up a whaling related ship is the day I accept the term eco-terrorist.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

We have posters here who feel that the FBI, a Federal law enforcement agency's definition of eco-terrorists, a group of activists that resort to violent and criminal behavior, and who the FBI itself is tasked to investigate and prosecute is not as good as their own. What can anyone say to such qualifications?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Ishiwara

I was relatively sympathetic to the Sea Shepherd activists, until I saw the video's of them ramming the Japanese vessels in mid-sea.

I would just like to point out that the Japanese whaling fleet (Shonan Maru 2) have rammed and sunk a Sea Shepherd boat in the Antarctic. Here is the link for video of the collision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c

Japan also hunts for Minke-whales, which are not endangered

Although the Minke is not endangered, the Japanese also hunt Fin and Humpback whales each season and they are endangered. If whaling continues, the Minkes will become endangered.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@sfjp330

Sea Shepherd terrorist group gets away without even a slap on the wrist. These eco-terrorists should be treated like the terrorists they are.

Do you not remember when the Shonan Maru 2 sliced the Ady Gil in 2. They could have killed people. They had ZERO consequences. Sea Shepherd has never injured anybody.

How can you say that a conservation group is equal to a terrorist group? A real terrorist group is Al-Quada. It makes me sick to think that so many people are led to believe that Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a terrorist organization when all they really care about is saving the world's dying oceans.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The SS are eco-terrorists.

Japan is conducting limited whaling in accordance with their right to do so, whether it is through a loophole or not, they can do it.

Of course it is not for scientific research. And it is not to supply more than a bit of food in supermarkets and izakaya to those interested each year. It is done to allow the Japanese to keep something they feel is important to them, even if only a small number are involved.

The minke are plentiful in the oceans.

A moratorium does not mean a permanent ban.

Leave the Japanese alone-the world has a lot more pressing problems to deal with.

-3 ( +2 / -4 )

Really 49% say yes?!?

Come on, didn't you learn anything from reading Orwell? If you read Orwell...? First of all do you even know what the word terrorist means? Here are several definitions from mainstream dictionaries.

"someone who uses violence in order to achieve political aims." "According to the dictionary, terrorist (noun) means a radical who employs terror as a political weapon."

Now, I know since the Bush years this word has been co-opted to refer to anyone who engages in any political behavior outside the conservative mainstream, precisely the kind of corruption of language that Orwell warned us about.

These people are "Activists", now agree with them or not, that is what they are. They do not employ terror, or what would typically qualify as violence. They carry out acts of "direct political action" which hardly qualifies as terror and barely qualifies as illegal in most cases.

Now you 49% need to understand that diminishing the word "terrorist" to apply to anything we don't like renders that word impotent for when we really need it. Such as when people are brutalized, killed and actual terror used to achieve political aims.

Please, for the love of whatever you believe in, buy a dictionary and have a sense of perspective.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

2ch will setup a script to auto vote this, the poll wont be balanced.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

NO! They are not terrorists...law breakers and trespassers yes. Anyone who says so has NEVER been a victim of terrorism and minimizes people and who have been making the parallel comparison.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Did any of you bother to look up eco-terrorism? According to Merriam-Webster and the FBI it's defined as follows:

Merriam-Webster: sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment

FBI: the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

You can't describe Sea Shepherd better than that.

5 ( +6 / -3 )

Can you remember me the right definition of "eco-terrorism"? Isn't it for those who deliberately hijack natural resources in an irreversible manner, such as Texaco-Chevron In Amazonia, or whaling elsewhere?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Mimi Mato

No. See the definitions I listed above. Of course you'll probably prefer your own definition of eco-terrorism to the ones prescribed by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the FBI. I mean, what do they know, right?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

USninjapan2. " FBI it's defined as follows:"

Thanks for making my point. Orwell indicated that the state would be the primary force undermining language to create doublespeak.

You may also want to post things like the Atlanta police department calling a 14 year old playing with a toy gun in the park a "terrorist" or any of the of Fox News examples of people being labled terrorist when they disagree with right wing thinking.

Bottom line, using the word terrorist for anything other than legitimate terristic acts undermines the value of the word and become frankly meaningless.

To people who have experienced terror, lost people to terror or are truly concerned about real terrorism, this misuse of the word is insulting and wrong. To anyone intellactual, use of the word terrorist in this context is laughable as well as illustrative of Orwell's concern for the corruption of language.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@SSCSforever

they are doing only good for the environment

I see, so throwing acid and other harmful materials towards ships (and eventually into the oceans) is a good thing?

Using ropes and wires to jam rudders, cutting off nets, sinking boats is good for the environment?

For me, a "terrorist" is on who takes the law into their own hands and do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and do it all for their perverted ideals.

Yes, I am stating that SSCS has perverted ideals and even barbaric using criminals in their staff. Even though I would applaud them in saving endangered species of animals, in this case, they are obstructing hunting of a whale species which is far from being endangered.

If SSCS is really serious about saving endangered species, why are they not active in the Amazon -- where the river and forests are vanishing in a very fast pace due to logging and encroaching by human settlements. Lots of undocumented flora and fauna species are dying out there.

Oh wait, SSCS will get more sponsorship, money and coverage if they keep tagging the Japanese, Irish and other whaling fleets -- I totally forgot.

Also, even though SSCS and the Australian governments are similar in their anti-whaling activities, remember that Australia is against SSCS' methods.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

tkoind2

Bottom line, using the word terrorist for anything other than legitimate terristic acts undermines the value of the word and become frankly meaningless.

Classic. Yes, I guess the FBI wouldn't know anything about terrorism or when that term should be applied. But of course your definition is legitimate (TM) because you've read Animal Farm. Congrats.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Elvensilvan: "For me, a "terrorist" is on who takes the law into their own hands and do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and do it all for their perverted ideals."

So anyone who has an idea contrary to your's is a terrorist? Or as you stated, their ideas are "perverted?" How are either of these things rational conclusions?

People differ on this issue. It does not make one or the other side "evil", "terrists" or "perverts." It is a conflict of ideas and values. And it is a long accepted standard for political activism on a wide range of issues to practice obstruction. If you are looking for rational and reasonable words for what is happening, and you should be, the words you can use "Activism", "Political Direct Action" or even "Political Obstruction". These are fair and reasonable terms to use.

Terrorists? Perverts? Come on. You should know better. Be fair when contemplating conflicting ideas. This kind of extreme polarity serves no one at all.

"

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

tkoind2Jan. 10, 2012 - 12:51PM JST

Elvensilvan: "For me, a "terrorist" is one who takes the law into their own hands and do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and do it all for their perverted ideals."

So anyone who has an idea contrary to your's is a terrorist? Or as you stated, their ideas are "perverted?" How are either of these things rational conclusions?

No, not anyone who has a contrary idea but anyone who "takes the law into their own hands". Big difference.

And how did you twist "perverted ideals" into "perverts"? What kind of "extreme polarity" are you serving up?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They are terrorists, plain and simple. When you have abandoned using the courts to achive your aims or rejected the political process the respective nations in this dispute have developed and resort to intimidation, violence and guerilla tactics you are a terrorist. Like Mohammedan terrorists the anti-whaling 'warriors' and animal liberation kooks are hypocrites of the worst kind - they avail themselves of the advances and luxuries of the modern industrial world they so often rail against and in cases seek to destroy. One of America's most prominent PETA 'activists' - and I am sure there is more than one - is a diabetic (PETA director Mary Beth Sweetland) . She has no qualms though about her doctor utilising medical advances like insulin that involved animal testing, not when foregoing the same - if her 'principles' really mattered - would obviously mean less time and ability to parade her conscience and her supposely superior worldview .

1 ( +6 / -4 )

All the banter still does not define them as terrorists. I might be convinced they are vigilantes worst case but again that is not terrorism. All the nature haters here ever had a family member vaporized by IUD??? Ever have your child's school flattened by a suicide bomber??? Get a grip and put the word in right context. Just because you don't agree with their actions (and I don't really condone these actions neither) does not escalate them to the level of El Qaeda or the IRA. Rightly so the term should and does refer terrorism against ecology and the earth not the other way around.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

madmel

Rightly so the term should and does refer terrorism against ecology and the earth not the other way around.

You can argue that it SHOULD refer to that until the cows come home but the fact is it DOES not. Contrary to what you claim, the standard/accepted/common-use definition of eco-terrorism is sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment. Acts that harm the environment, nature, etc. are the opposite of eco-terrorism according to the definition definition. You have it backwards.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

That should obviously read, "according to the dictionary defintion."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I might be convinced they are vigilantes worst case but again that is not terrorism.

Dictionary definition: sabotage intended to hinder activities that are considered damaging to the environment

FBI definition: the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against people or property by an environmentally oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

By either standard, the vigilante activists are ecoterrorists.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

For all of you who believe that eco-terrorism is too severe a label for Sea Shepherd, then who/what is an example in your minds of eco-terrorism. And please don't say that the word terrorism itself shouldn't be used in regards to acts committed in support ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes because the FBI, as does most other law enforcement organizations and goverments, does indeed categorize such acts as eco-terrorism. If SSCS doesn't qualify as eco-terrorists, then who rightly does? Who out there is or has caused or attempted to cause more sabotage, damage and (potential) violence in the name of ecological conservation than Sea Shepherd? If the actions of Green Peace, the ALF, and the ELF have all been categorized as eco-terrorism in the past, then in my opinion the more extreme actions of Sea Shepherd should more than qualify as eco-terrorism. Purposefully ramming ships into ships on the open ocean alone should move them up to the head of that class...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What has this got to do with the FBI?

The FBI is the U.S.A.

The issue here is between Japan and Australia.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

SSCSforeverJan. 09, 2012 - 03:51PM JST @OssanAmerica The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims >or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an >audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." "Haha. The whalers are definitely not innocent."

Really? What people are the Whalers threatening, harassing or harming?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

They are anti-whaling activists.

They don't terrorize ANYBODY.

Possibly the Japanese whalers might be considered terrorists from the whale's point of view.

I don't see where this question is going.

Would putting them into the same bag as the Taliban and Al Quaeda make it OK to shoot them up and waterboard them?

Is that what this question is about?

Someone looking for an excuse?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

johninnaha - What has this got to do with the FBI?

The FBI is the U.S.A.

The issue here is between Japan and Australia.

I don't know what your issue is but THIS thread is asking a "polling" question -

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

After investigating many terrorist and eco-terrorist organizations, the FBI considers the Sea Shepherd zealots to be an eco-terrorist organization who continually use violence to force "others" to do their bidding.

The eco-terrorist SS have no government authority to attack vessels of ANY nation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

madmel - All the banter still does not define them as terrorists. I might be convinced they are vigilantes worst case but again that is not terrorism. All the nature haters here ever had a family member vaporized by IUD??? Ever have your child's school flattened by a suicide bomber??? Get a grip and put the word in right context. Just because you don't agree with their actions (and I don't really condone these actions neither) does not escalate them to the level of El Qaeda or the IRA.

Are you suggesting that "El Qaeda" or the "IRA" are ECO-TERRORIST groups?

I was under the impression that those groups were considered TERRORIST groups.

What do you consider the right context for the word "eco-terrorist"?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

madmelJan. 10, 2012 - 10:46AM JST NO! They are not terrorists...law breakers and trespassers yes. Anyone who says so has NEVER been a victim of >terrorism and minimizes people and who have been making the parallel comparison.

Nice try madmel.As one who was in lower Manhattan on Sep 11th 2001 I can tell you unequivocably that Sea Shepherd are eco-terrorsts.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ SSCSforeverJ

would just like to point out that the Japanese whaling fleet (Shonan Maru 2) have rammed and sunk a Sea Shepherd boat in the Antarctic. Here is the link for video of the collision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c

I am not convinced. I just saw the video, and it is clear that the SS people positioned their ship in front of the Japanese ship, getting hit in consequence.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

arrestpaul. Your corrupted definition of "terrorist" is indicative of just how much propaganda you have digested over the past decade. Pick up a dictionary of some global repute and you will find that "activists" and not "terrorists" applies here.

And do pick up a copy of Orwell and learn about doublespeak. As you are already subject to its effects.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

One more note.

Shockingly enough, there is a world outside the United States where the FBI's opinions and defintions hold far less weight and frequently come under suspicion of having political motivations.

Thus their definition of "terrorist" or who they arbitrarily decide to define as terrorists, may well be motivated by political or even practical considerations. Afterall, it is in their best interests to define anyone who disagrees with their political policies as an "enemy", "terrorist", "potential threat" or otherwise so as to maintain a climate of fear in the population. Thus enabling them to continue policies that violate privacy and civil liberties.

So while the FBI's definition of terrorist may work for some, it hardly applies world wide beyond the agreed to global definition of terrorist which hardly includes a few activists chasing an illegal whaling fleet.

Do gain a sense of perspective here.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

OssanAmerican. How does 9/11 and Sea Shepherd have anything to do with each other beyond unfounded hystrionics?

We were all present on the planet the day that 911 happened. As an American living abroad it was particularly horrifying not to be at home with loved ones in our country when it was under attack.

What I do not understand is how you can equate the murder and tragedy of 9/11 to a few ships getting in each other's way in the the Antactic seas. I do not see innocent loss of life here. I do not see a policy designed to make an entire nation and culture afraid. I do not see a radical political agenda driven by hatred and fueled by fear. I do not see children without parents, wives and husbands without their partners or families robbed of their loved ones.

Get a sense of perspective!!! And come down off your high horse. We all experienced 911 and were all touched by it, which makes your comments all the more disgusting. How dare you compare 911 to this situation. Wake up!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

tkoind2 - Your corrupted definition of "terrorist" is indicative of just how much propaganda you have digested over the past decade. Pick up a dictionary of some global repute and you will find that "activists" and not "terrorists" applies here.

Eco-terrorists - The word you're looking for is "eco-terrorists". Perhaps if I used the word in a sentence?

Do you consider the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to be eco-terrorists?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Allow me to educate you about the word "eco-terrorist".

It was coined during the 1980's to describe a very tiny group of people who resorted to actual violence to promote aims related to conservation and ecology. But even in this example the primary motivations of actions are to result in violent harm or fear.

Now, if we apply your rather liberal definition of eco-terrorist to these anti-whaling activities, then we must apply the term "terrorist" to any act of obstruction for political or ideological objective. Thus the civil rights marches and protests of our US history must be called Race-Terrorism. The protests against Vietnam must also be called terrorism. Here in Japan the protests blocking access to bases must be terrorism too.

Once you liberally apply the word terrorism to any random concept and dillute the term by diminishing the violence and murder that should define terror, then you can apply the term to anything you like. And that is simply wrong.

Look, anyone can coin a new trendy word and apply it to whatever they like. But in the end it only diminishes the quality of our language and our ability to accurately describe the world around us.

Obstruction and disobedience are not terrorism. Just in case you were sleeping through the past decade, flying jets into office towers is terrorism. Blowing oneself up in a market is terrorism. Kidnapping and beheading people is terrorism.

Blocking a whaling boat rather pales by comparision don't you think? Have some perspective.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

tkoind2 - Allow me to educate you about the word "eco-terrorist".

It was coined during the 1980's to describe a very tiny group of people who resorted to actual violence to promote aims related to conservation and ecology. But even in this example the primary motivations of actions are to result in violent harm or fear.

That describes the actions of the eco-terrorist SS perfectly. A tiny group of people who ram, sink, throw glass bottles of acid, throw red phosphorus flares, use green lazers to blind crew members, drop lightbulbs from a helicopter, and try to disable vessels with dragged lines in an attempt to cause harm or fear in their intended victims.

Eco-terrorist = Sea Sheperd

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian and Namibian seal hunts, shining laser light into the eyes of whalers, throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. The American, Canadian, and Japanese governments, as well as the Institute of Cetacean Research of Japan, have referred to them as terrorists.

Sounds like Eco-Terrorism to me.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

tkoind2Jan. 11, 2012 - 09:27AM JST OssanAmerican. How does 9/11 and Sea Shepherd have anything to do with each other beyond unfounded >hystrionics?

Ask the original poster that question.

madmelJan. 10, 2012 - 10:46AM JST NO! They are not terrorists...law breakers and trespassers yes. Anyone who says so has NEVER been a victim of >terrorism and minimizes people and who have been making the parallel comparison.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@tkoind2

I applaud you for your seemingly hardcore belief in SSCS, but I would like to point out your argument flaws:

So anyone who has an idea contrary to your's is a terrorist? Or as you stated, their ideas are "perverted?" How are either of these things rational conclusions?

Please re-read my post: "anyone who takes the law into their own hands" is a terrorist. SSCS in their basic theologies, is a good group, but their methods are what defines them as terrorists.

Also, please stop skipping to points that you can argue, and ignore the rest of the posts who have strong valid points.

SSCS is a band of criminals, who have in the past, show their pro-animal activities to extreme levels, and most of them have even spent time in jail for their "pro-nature activities".

I tagged SSCS as a perverted group due to the following facts:

Use of acid and other enviornmentally dangerous materials Use of equipment to sabotage naval ships Sinking ships Deliberate theft, disabling, sinking and sabotage of whaling or hunting equipment Use of equipment to physically disable hunters Using their propaganda to do criminally illegal acts against fellow men

In many countries, these are classified under criminal activities. Not only under the FBI, but internationally.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

tkoind2Jan. 11, 2012 - 09:50AM JST Allow me to educate you about the word "eco-terrorist

tkoind, allow ME to educate you. The terms "terrorist" and "eco-terrorist" are not the same. Furthermore they are both terms used in law enforcement and have specific legal meanings bearing pertinenace on criminal charges that can brought against an individual or group. These are not terms subject to your long winded personal interpretations or definitions.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

tkoind2Jan. 11, 2012 - 09:27AM JST Get a sense of perspective!!! And come down off your high horse. We all experienced 911 and were all touched by it, >which makes your comments all the more disgusting. How dare you compare 911 to this situation. Wake up!

I was in Manhattan and you were abroad. No doubt gasping at the TV. I suggest you get off YOUR high horse.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Elvensilvan. I do not have hard core belief in SSCS. But I do have strong belief in the rights, and sometimes responsibility for direct political action. Whether that is for the environment or for civil liberties. I strongly support direct political action when it is required.

Now, let me be equally clear that disobedience, obstruction and other direct political actions can be defined, by written law, as illegal or not, criminal or not. So I grant you that some political activities are not legal and could be called criminal by the governing laws. So let's set that aside as a given.

Yet looking at history, direct political action has often had to cross the line of legality to gain effect. Again I call upon the examples of the American Civil Rights movement, Ghandi and his political movement and even many Japanese political movements aimed at worker's rights or land disputes in the 60's and 70's. Most crossed the line of legality in pursuing their objectives. Often rightly so.

Now to call people terrorists because the break the law is an extreme abuse of language. To call them perverted is, well to be direct, silly.

So we agree that some of their actions are illegal and thus potentially criminal. When and if they are convicted as such you can call them criminals all you like. But "terrorists" Please, this is extreme, hystrionic and frankly lacking in credibility.

If you want to call a cow a cow in this case, you need to call these people what they really are, and that is "Political Activists" whether you agree with their policies or not, this is what they are.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

OssanAmerican. Just because the right wing thinking of the US dreams up new words including "terrorist" does not in reality make people terrorists. If we conform to recent US definitions under the strident guise of the Patriot Act we can define nearly anyone as a terrorist. Maybe we will soon have Japan Times Blog terrorists. Or Facebook Terrorists. You can start to see how easily we can dream up new terms.

Now the term from the 80's clearly defined eco-terrorists as people who carried out acts intended to harm people physically. I see no strong intent or evidence to suggest that SSCS intends to actually harm anyone. Stop them yes, delay them yes, obstruct them, yes. But harm? No. Nothing employed so far exceeds the kind of actions we have seen from groups like Greenpeace in the past, and they are hardly a terrorist organization.

Let me ask you this, why do you so stridently support Japan's illegal whaling activities? Or is it that you just don't like activists of any kind?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

One more note. I am troubled by my fellow American's recent tendency to try to polarize everything into Good and Evil. Whaler's good, Protesters Evil.

Reality is never so black and white when it comes to political topics. Most often when dealing with human beings both sides have issues that could be lumped into good or bad piles. But doing so is a waste of intellectual energy.

Rather it is beneficial to see that both sides in this conflict have justifiable motivations, in their own minds. It is far more rational to look at this with eyes open to the full spectrum of reality instead of trying to demonize either side.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@tkoind2

Now the term from the 80's clearly defined eco-terrorists as people who carried out acts intended to harm people physically.

So if a group blew up a polluting factory without hurting anyone, that would not be ecotorrism?

And if Al Qaeda bombed the Golden Gate Bridge without hurting anoyone, that would not be terrorism?

You may find the FBI definition too expansive, but your definition is certainly too restrictive.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nessie. I did not say anything about approving of blowing things up. If you remember your history, the Weathermen blew up a building not intending to harm anyone but actually killed someone. I think it is pretty clear that blowing something up constitues violence, does it not?

Still I don't see how interfering with the whaling fleet equates to blowing something up. It doesn't. Don't you understand the concept of direct political action? Should we define all direct political action as terroristic?

And again, I still don't see why you all are such supporters of Japanese illegal whaling. What is it about whaling that makes you so passionate to condemn these activists? Or is it that you just don't like activists?

Should we call the Occupy movement terrorists? Afterall they obstructed buildings and streets. Or WTO activists as terrorists for chaining themselves to something in protest?

The FBI definition is too expansive on purpose. It is intended to frighten people away from political activism of any kind.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

tkoind2

It is not illegal whaling. Please read the law before posting about it as obviously you do not get it.

3 ( +6 / -4 )

Look at the voting stats too.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It is commercial whaling wish is illegal in the region where they are fishing. What they have is a mandate to do research whaling, which is the cover story they use to mask commercial whaling.

So why don't you read the law before you post.

And second. I am not much for following crowds. Especially when they are wrong. So voting or not, I stand my ground friend.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It is legal. It is research whaling. They are in international waters. Look at their GPS stats.

2 ( +5 / -4 )

tkoind2 - And again, I still don't see why you all are such supporters of Japanese illegal whaling. What is it about whaling that makes you so passionate to condemn these activists? Or is it that you just don't like activists?

First off, you have not made a convincing case that this is illegal whaling. If you want to change peoples minds, then you need to actually "convince" them. Demanding that everyone believe as you do simply doesn't work.

Second, it's the repeated and continous use of violence by the eco-terrorists that many people object to. The whalers are defending themselves from eco-terrorist attack and everyone has a right to defend themselves. The Whale Wars show and YouTubes have shown people how the eco-terrorist SS actually operates. People can see for themselves and make up their own minds about who is lying and who is attacking who.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

tkoind2 - Rather it is beneficial to see that both sides in this conflict have justifiable motivations, in their own minds.

It's beneficial to observe both sides and look at their motivations. At some point in time, rational people come to a conclusion based on what they've observed.

I've concluded that the continued violence of the eco-terrorists SS is NOT justifiable.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

tkoind2 - Now the term from the 80's clearly defined eco-terrorists as people who carried out acts intended to harm people physically. I see no strong intent or evidence to suggest that SSCS intends to actually harm anyone. Stop them yes, delay them yes, obstruct them, yes. But harm? No. Nothing employed so far exceeds the kind of actions we have seen from groups like Greenpeace in the past, and they are hardly a terrorist organization.

FYI - Greenpeace does NOT want to be associated with the eco-terrorist SS in any way, shape, or form. Greenpeace refuses to have anything to do with the eco-terrorist SS. You are making Greenpeace sad when you compare them to the eco-terrorist SS.

You don't see the eco-terrorist SS trying to HARM anyone? You don't see the eco-terrorist SS ramming ships? Sinking ships? Throwing glass bottles of acid and red phosphorus flares?

If that's not "trying to harm someone", what do you consider ACTUALLY TRYING TO HARM SOMEONE?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

tkoind2 - Now to call people terrorists because the break the law is an extreme abuse of language.

Eco-terrorists. The word you're looking for is eco-terrorists.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I will respect any ones right to their opinion regarding whaling and anti-whaling groups. But by dictionary definition they are not terrorists. Activists does seem to match better.

An activist is not always right, but he does not automatically become a terrorist when you don't agree with his goals.

Definition of TERRORISM : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion — ter·ror·ist adjective or noun — ter·ror·is·tic adjective

Definition of ACTIVISM : a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue — ac·tiv·ist noun or adjective — ac·tiv·is·tic adjective

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

SquidBert - I will respect any ones right to their opinion regarding whaling and anti-whaling groups. But by dictionary definition they are not terrorists. Activists does seem to match better.

What is your definition of ECO-TERRORISM?

Eco-terrorism is a perfect description of the violent actions of the SS.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@arrestpaul

What is your definition of ECO-TERRORISM? That would be (just as an example) to fly a 747 into Tokyo tower, while later airing a message that if if the whales are not respected for their authority and hailed as the new leaders then millions more will die.

That would be terrorism, if it were sponsored by Eco-environmentalists, that would make it Eco-Terrorism.

The actions of SS is not (and does not have as purpose to) instill fear(Terror) in the general population, so I would not call it Terrorism.

They are however sponsored by Eco-environmentalists, so if you do not agree with Activism, then perhaps Eco Hooliganism?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That quote was supposed to end after the question mark.

What is your definition of ECO-TERRORISM?

That would be (just as an example) to fly a 747 into Tokyo tower, while later airing a message that if if the whales are not respected for their authority and hailed as the new leaders then millions more will die.

That would be terrorism, if it were sponsored by Eco-environmentalists, that would make it Eco-Terrorism.

The actions of SS is not (and does not have as purpose to) instill fear(Terror) in the general population, so I would not call it Terrorism.

They are however sponsored by Eco-environmentalists, so if you do not agree with Activism, then perhaps Eco Hooliganism?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No.

What they do doesn't classify for terrorism. They are not terrorists.

Dictionary definition for terrorism:

the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Their ships are regularly searched by the Australian law enforcement at the request of the Japanese government and their activity is continuously monitored by the law enforcement. If they were terrorists they had already been taken out of circulation.

But if SSCS activities should seem to terrorism, then even the Japanese whaling fleet can be considered terrorist, as they carry military personnel, military class weapons, sound grenades, LRAD, firearms, and SWAT tactical weapons to use against unarmed civilians, (remember they meade it sure by searching their vessels) delivering threat, in the name of the law, while they themselves are evading the law and regulations for whaling by exploiting loopholes. They are even approaching Australian waters with a military class security vessel. These are intimidation and threat as well.

Now they attached the word "eco". What difference does this fragile association make? If we consider the "use of threats to intimidate", now for "eco" i.e. economic purposes then most of the multinational companies are eco terrorists.

I personally always found that eco-terrorist slogan a pretentious, claptrap brainwashing mantra. Just makes no sense at all.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Semantics!

Anyone chucking bottles of acid at anyone in my opinion is to instill fear.

SS is savage and cruel.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Eco-terrorists? I think that term is better suited to those that drill the likes of Alaska and Antarctica for oil and gas, overfish the oceans, and push GM foods on us whilst taking away the progating seeds that ensure biodiversity and the ability to be self sufficient.Weather changing technology etc..these are known as big business, but SHELL, Monsanto aqnd some Australian mining companies I can think of...they are real eco-terrorists.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It seems when you go against the corrupt establishment you are some kind of terrorist. Gimme a break. Such a sneaky way to apprehend people and lock them up.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Some of the stuff that SS has pulled would rank them with terrorists and Waton's philosophy of having a "reduced" human population to allow for a "proper" environment smacks of cultism. I think they keep their noses a bit more clean when going after the Japanese because a) the Japanese are going to push back and b) there is a lot of publicity involved and using terrorists tactics against the whalers would undermine their cause.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Thank goodness some new faces to contest the silly use of the word "terrorist" in this case. I am happy to see that not everyone bought into the culture of fear that has managed to tag everything non-mainstream as dangerous.

Wonderful to see you here!!!!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Lobbying peacefully = activism. Scuttling ships/destroying property/placing lives at risk = terrorism

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tkoind2 - I am happy to see that not everyone bought into the culture of fear that has managed to tag everything non-mainstream as dangerous.

Interesting twist of reality. The issue is not "everything non-mainstream" is dangerous but the fact that the anti-whaling group has continually used violence to force it's views on others. It's the throwing of glass bottles of acid and ramming and sinking ships that makes the SS eco-terrorists.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yes they are terrorist its not like acts of violence are sudenly not terrorism just because you agree with their cause. I can understand perfectly why people would want to attack the US after all the horible things it doesdo others but its still terrorism. And its still imperialism on the other side. As for the granolas on the sea shaepard, I wouldn't care if they were left to swim with the whales. They do for real environmentalist what Christian fanatics do for Christianity. They're worse than PETA and that's hard to top. they turn more people of than on to their cause and they are acting violently over an issue they don't know much about, for example they have attacked scientific vessles because they thought they were whaling. Here is the deal, Whaling is legal, so deal with it. Sea Shapard shuold be treated as pirates with a mark of reprisal and tosed ina japanese Jail to eat fish heads and whale meat.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I voted YES but support their goals, Ghandi would be labelled a terrorist these days.

They're worse than PETA and that's hard to top

Dont believe SS has killed anyone, less hyperbole please.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't think SSCS care what any of us call them as long as they continue to get donations and they continue to have an impact on the whales poached in a sanctuary. And as long as they get press they will get donations. There are a lot of people who believe all sea mammals should be protected.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Elvinsilvan

I see, so throwing acid and other harmful materials towards ships (and eventually into the oceans) is a good thing?

Have you ever heard of composting? Butyric acid is a fancy name for rotten butter. It's less acidic than citric acid. What other harmful materials?

Using ropes and wires to jam rudders, cutting off nets, sinking boats is good for the environment?

In the long run, yes. If you use these tactics to stop whaling, it is better for the environment. Whaling is going to kill our oceans, as well as overfishing and shark finning, etc.

For me, a "terrorist" is one who takes the law into their own hands and do what they want to do, when they want to do it, and do it all for their perverted ideals.

Yesterday, the Yushin Maru 3 (one of the kill ships) came within about 5 nautical miles of the beach at MacQuaire Island. It is a world heritage site and part of Tasmania. Japanese whaling boats cannot enter these waters according Australian law. The Aussie gov't has told them repeatedly to leave the waters and they refuse. The whalers completely ignore all Australian laws and think that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Why don't you ask the children who don't have a mother or father because Osama Bin Laden decided to crash planes into office towers and kill them who the real terrorists are. Why don't you ask the mothers and fathers who lost their children in the Virginia Tech Massacre who the real terrorists are. How dare you say that a conservation organization, who has never injured a single person, is a terrorist organization.

Yes, I am stating that SSCS has perverted ideals and even barbaric using criminals in their staff. Even though I would applaud them in saving endangered species of animals, in this case, they are obstructing hunting of a whale species which is far from being endangered.

You should really research SSCS a little more. Minkes are not far from endangered. Their population is around 50% of their numbers in the 80's. If this continues, they will soon be endangered.

If SSCS is really serious about saving endangered species, why are they not active in the Amazon -- where the river and forests are vanishing in a very fast pace due to logging and encroaching by human settlements. Lots of undocumented flora and fauna species are dying out there.

Why don't you do something about it? SSCS can't do everything. Their mission is to "end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species." The have been recruited by the Ecuadorian gov't to govern the Galapagos Islands.

Oh wait, SSCS will get more sponsorship, money and coverage if they keep tagging the Japanese, Irish and other whaling fleets -- I totally forgot.

Irish? Since when do they have a whaling fleet? Good. I hope they get a ton of money, sponsorships, and coverage in order to end whaling, shark finning, etc. all over the world. That would be the best thing to ever happen.

Also, even though SSCS and the Australian governments are similar in their anti-whaling activities, remember that Australia is against SSCS' methods.

I don't see the Aussie gov't doing anything other than saying they disagree with whaling and taking them to court, which will take many years. In the meantime, the whalers will continue to illegally murder whales. SSCS is the ONLY organization in the world with enough guts to stand up to these animal murderers.

SSCS has the support of a lot of A-list celebrities, as well as very famous influential people. I don't see the whaling fleet getting any support. Maybe there's a reason they don't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

It's beneficial to observe both sides and look at their motivations. At some point in time, rational people come to a conclusion based on what they've observed. I've concluded that the continued violence of the eco-terrorists SS is NOT justifiable.

So you're irrational then.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I see, so throwing acid and other harmful materials towards ships (and eventually into the oceans) is a good thing?

A bucketful of rotten butter splashing eventually into the sea places much less of a burden on the environment than the tons of organic waste deliberately dumped overboard from every whale carcass (You don't imagine they take back the bits they can't eat, do you?)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If SSCS are "eco-terrorists", then why haven't they been charged and arrested with any crimes?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@cleo

You don't imagine they take back the bits they can't eat, do you?

Just to elaborate on that point, on Whale Wars, they have filmed the whale guts floating in the ocean after it has been killed. That is how SSCS has tracked them on a few occasions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yesterday, the Yushin Maru 3 (one of the kill ships) came within about 5 nautical miles of the beach at MacQuaire Island. It is a world heritage site and part of Tasmania. Japanese whaling boats cannot enter these waters according Australian law. The Aussie gov't has told them repeatedly to leave the waters and they refuse.

It is true the Japanese tend to go too far. The way I didn't approve the protesters' boarding on a J vessel I disapprove the above action of the J fleet.

The difference is, that the action, the negligence of the J whalers are more serious than the SSCS action (as they represent a country by being out on a state approved mission) and the consequences can be harsher. In this case the J fleet should be happy to walk away with jammed rudders by SSCS, if I were the Australian PM I would send the coastguard ship to intercept the J vessel.

I always have a feeling that the Australian government just leave the SSCS with the dirty work and secretly hope they can keep quiet and save their lucrative market with the Japanese.

I also think that this issue could have been solved legally between Australia and Japan long ago if both side really wanted to solve it. Instead both opted for a skirmish and welcomes the black sheep out there.

SSCS is a hunting, hunted kind.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If SSCS are "eco-terrorists", then why haven't they been charged and arrested with any crimes?

I thought that Sea Shepard members have been arrested, charged or considered persona non grata in Canada, Japan (remember Pete Bethune?), Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands and other countries...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The JCG are using stun grenades.

http://www.majiroxnews.com/2012/01/12/japanese-whalers-hurl-stun-grenades-at-sea-shepherd/

Crewmen aboard the Japanese Fisheries Protection vessel Shonan Maru 2 on Jan. 11, raised the ante of violence by hurling stun grenades at Sea Shepherd crew members

The Japanese Coast Guard claims that though this was the first time on this particular research voyage that stun grenades had been thrown at Sea Shepherd boats, they have used them a number of times before.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Sea Shepard members have been arrested, charged or considered persona non grata in Canada

Just filming the Canadian seal slaughter without joining in is considered a crime. Being arrested or charged of seal cull obstruction in Canada doesn't make anyone any kind of terrorist.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@kwaabish

I thought that Sea Shepard members have been arrested, charged or considered persona non grata in Canada, Japan (remember Pete Bethune?), Norway, Iceland, Faroe Islands and other countries...

First, Paul Watson will never be persona non grata as he is a Canadian citizen and you cannot be denied entry into your own country. Second, even though Paul has been declared persona non grata in Iceland, he was never charged with crimes because Iceland didn't want to bring attention to their illegal slaughter of whales and he wasn't directly invovled with the sinking of the whaling fleet or destruction of the whaling station. He was charged in Norway and served his sentence. Third, Pete Bethune was not charged with any violent crimes and he received a 2-year suspended sentence. One of his charges was interference with business. This hows that Japanese whaling is NOT research and is an illegal commercial whaling operation. The other claims you mentioned are not true.

You misunderstood my question. I was asking why Sea Shepherd doesn't have any current charges or arrest warrants. Why haven't they been arrested by the Aussie, Tahitian, British, Dutch, Canadian, American, or Japanese gov'ts if they are "eco-terrorists"?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I never singled out Paul Watson. Thus, "Sea Shepard members"...

I believe Paul Watson has an outstanding arrest warrant in Japan. Also, he's been sentenced in Norway for destruction of property.

I also believe that members of the Sea Shepard (other than Paul Watson) have been arrested and charged in Norway, Canada and Japan. If I also recall, it was a guilty ruling against Sea Shepard that resulted in the Canadian government forfeiture of the Farley Mowat?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Either way, to answer the question of

If SSCS are "eco-terrorists", then why haven't they been charged and arrested with any crimes?,

The fact is that they have been arrested (yes), charged (yes) and sentenced (yes) with crimes.

Thus endeth that story....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SSCSforever - Have you ever heard of composting? Butyric acid is a fancy name for rotten butter.

HAHAHAHA. No it isn't. Even the eco-terrorist Watson doesn't make THAT claim. Butyric acid is also found in your intertines.

The eco-terrorist SS are thowing glass bottles of "butyric acid" at the whalers because the eco-terrorist SS believe that violence and the threat of violence is the way to accomplish their goal. And their goal is to increase donations to the eco-terrorist SS.

Keep filling up those glass bottles and promoting violence as a means to your end.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cleo - Just filming the Canadian seal slaughter without joining in is considered a crime. Being arrested or charged of seal cull obstruction in Canada doesn't make anyone any kind of terrorist.

The ramming and sinking of vessels does.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cleo - The JCG are using stun grenades.

Everyone has a right to DEFEND themselves from attack. Especially attacks by eco-terrorists.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforever - So you're irrational then.

Tsk, tsk. Does this personal attack mean that you have run out of legitimate argument?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Shrkb8 - I don't think SSCS care what any of us call them as long as they continue to get donations.......

I can agree with that. If the SSCS doesn't care what "we" call them then why should anyone get upset about it?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

tkoind2Jan. 11, 2012 - 01:11PM JST OssanAmerican. Just because the right wing thinking of the US dreams up new words including "terrorist" does not >in reality make people terrorists. If we conform to recent US definitions under the strident guise of the Patriot Act we >can define nearly anyone as a terrorist. Maybe we will soon have Japan Times Blog terrorists. Or Facebook >Terrorists. You can start to see how easily we can dream up new terms.

I repeat again, the term "terrorist" is not the same as "eco-terrorist".

Now the term from the 80's clearly defined eco-terrorists as people who carried out acts intended to harm people >physically. I see no strong intent or evidence to suggest that SSCS intends to actually harm anyone. Stop them yes, >delay them yes, obstruct them, yes. But harm? No.

You are in denial. Fouling a ships pro with ropes in Antarctic waters is an act which can easily harm people. Throwing bottles of Butryic Acid can and has harmed people. Pointing lasers at peoples eyes can harm people. Rammig a ship can harm people. Sibking a ship can harm people. Do people habe to actually incur serious injury or die before you recognize that these are acts that can harm people?

Nothing employed so far exceeds the kind of actions we have seen from groups like Greenpeace in the past, and >they are hardly a terrorist organization.

Like I said, you need someone to needlessly die before you accept reality.

Let me ask you this, why do you so stridently support Japan's illegal whaling activities? Or is it that you just don't like >activists of any kind?

Japan's research Whaling isn't illegal. It would be illegal if (1) the IWC didn't authorize it under Article VIII, and/or (2) Australia had jurisdictional rights (ie; Australian law applied) in the Antarctic waters where the research whaling takes place. Since neither of these two requiremrents are met, Japan's research whaling is LEGAL. Since it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is legal, and sanctioned by the IWC, I have no reason to oppose it. As for liking or disliking activists, I have no problem with real conservationist groups like Greenpeace and WWF. Nor do I have any objection to peaceful lawful protest and have no problem with Australia trying to resolve the issue through civilized means by taking the matter to the ICJ. I have a strong dislike for ECO-TERRORISTS like Sea Shepherd who flaunt law and order, disregard common sense, and violate every interbnationally accepted maritime law pertaining to safety of life at sea. I have a partiucular dislike for Paul Watson who has manupulated Australian territorial nationalism and racism to his advantage to conduct what mainers call piracy with a free hand. Hope this answers your question.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cleoJan. 12, 2012 - 11:20PM JST The JCG are using stun grenades. http://www.majiroxnews.com/2012/01/12/japanese-whalers-hurl-stun-grenades-at-sea-shepherd/

Yes cleo, they are, And they have in past seasons as well. As your article states they are used to keep the SSCSI boats away because they ignore the verbal warnings to back off. Purely defensive.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Kwaabish

The fact is that they have been arrested (yes), charged (yes) and sentenced (yes) with crimes.

I am well aware of the above. But you still are not understanding my question. Why, for example, were they not arrested in port recently if the are "eco-terrorists"? Why has Japan not charged them with any crimes (besides Pete Bethune as that was an individual case).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SSCSforever -

@Kwaabish - The fact is that they have been arrested (yes), charged (yes) and sentenced (yes) with crimes.

I am well aware of the above. But you still are not understanding my question. Why, for example, were they not arrested in port recently if the are "eco-terrorists"? Why has Japan not charged them with any crimes (besides Pete Bethune as that was an individual case).

Ask the eco-terrorist Watson to step on board a Japanese flagged vessel or to set foot on Japanese soil. That should prove if Watson can be arrested again.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The JCG are using stun grenades.

" Supposedly, victims of stun grenades are both blinded and deafened for five seconds, but the magazine says that some people report hearing and vision loss for days afterwards."

Yes, a militant group at action again. Oh no, my wrong. They call themselves whalers. Please understand this is our culture and tradition. We ere peaceful whalers alloying tradition with scientific research, and such as we carry military class weapons routinely together with our harpoons mounted with explosives heads to explode whales.

Whales and conservation activists are the same eco-terrorist and such as they have to be treated equally. The whales are eco-terrorist for they devour all the fishes from us and the other eco-terrorists the SSCS tries to prevent us from scientifically exploding them whales alive, while we even give them the Australians the courtesy of a friendly visit at their seacoast.

"All truth is simple... is that not doubly a lie?" Friedrich Nietzsche

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Anyone from Manhattan should be ashamed to put whaler inconvenience on the same level as thousands of people killed with grave intent. Terrorists main purpose it to impose terror and hurting/killing people is the goal. Aggressive environmentalists are trying to wake up the world to our ignorance. There purpose to to educate the world of the ecological tragedies we ignore and some have the balls to get in harms way to save said bear/whale. I don't always agree with their methods but they are in no way insiting terror....they are hoping to save the world we don't give a damn about. Misguided at times but noble intent all the same.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

Ask the eco-terrorist Watson to step on board a Japanese flagged vessel or to set foot on Japanese soil. That should prove if Watson can be arrested again.

The reason he doesn't do that is because people would kill him.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

His days of boarding vessels are over. He would be shot if he were to step within 100 ft of the whalers or whaling supporters.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nah, he would get arrested nor killed or harmed unless he initiates a conflict action.

Don't project your feelings and possible actions onto others, pls.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The reason he doesn't do that is because people would kill him.

How sure can you be that he would be indeed shot? There are many high-profile criminals who have been caught, but are still in prison instead of being killed on the spot, as you claim.

His days of boarding vessels are over.

Why is this, has he developed rheumatism or something?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SSCSforever - His days of boarding vessels are over. He would be shot if he were to step within 100 ft of the whalers or whaling supporters.

Are you sure it's not because there is an arrest warrant waiting to be served on him?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

SSCSforever - The reason he doesn't do that is because people would kill him.

I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

depends what eco stands for; ecological terrorist, well yeah anything terrorizing the ecological movement is good-economical terrorist, well they seemed to have wasted a lot of money on whales, but i guess what you compare to determines how terrorizing

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@illsayit

depends what eco stands for

Do you live in Japan?

For the past several years, Japan has made a whole lot of words, including "eco-points", "eco-car", "eco-drive" and many more. We are using the word "eco" for "ecology" in this context.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@It"S ME

Nah, he would get arrested nor killed or harmed unless he initiates a conflict action.

So many people hate Paul in Japan because the gov't and IRC has portrayed SSCS as terrorists. I don't think he would lat long if he were to go there. Canadian fisherman (Paul is also Cdn.) tried to kill him when he opposed the seal hunt in eastern Canada (which I am ashamed of).

Don't project your feelings and possible actions onto others, pls.

If you don't remember any of my previous comments, just to sum my stance up, I am backing SSCS and their tactics 110%. I hope they finally ending whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary for good this year.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Elvinsilvan

How sure can you be that he would be indeed shot?

From my previous comment: "So many people hate Paul in Japan because the gov't and IRC has portrayed SSCS as terrorists. I don't think he would lat long if he were to go there. Canadian fisherman (Paul is also Cdn.) tried to kill him when he opposed the seal hunt in eastern Canada (which I am ashamed of).:

There are many high-profile criminals who have been caught, but are still in prison instead of being killed on the spot, as you claim.

If Paul were a high-profile criminal, he would still be locked up.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

Are you sure it's not because there is an arrest warrant waiting to be served on him?

Even though Japan has issued an arrest warrant, their motives were purely political. He isn't stupid. Why would he board a whaling boat when Japan has a warrant for him. It's funny how Japan didn't arrest or even question the SM2's captain in regards to the sinking of the Ady Gil, but now they have an arrest warrant for obstruction of business? This also shows that their whaling operation is a commercial operation and NOT "research" like they say. Japan arrested Captain Peter Bethune for confronting the captain of the Shonan Maru 2 and now they have an arrest warrant for Paul but they don't even question the SM2's captain. Hmm. A bit of a one way street, I think.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@arrestpaul

I'm willing to bet that they wouldn't.

From my previous comment: "So many people hate Paul in Japan because the gov't and IRC has portrayed SSCS as terrorists. I don't think he would last long if he were to go there. Canadian fisherman (Paul is also Cdn.) tried to kill him when he opposed the seal hunt in eastern Canada (which I am incredibly ashamed of)."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SSCSforever - From my previous comment: "So many people hate Paul in Japan because the gov't and IRC has portrayed SSCS as terrorists. I don't think he would last long if he were to go there. Canadian fisherman (Paul is also Cdn.) tried to kill him when he opposed the seal hunt in eastern Canada (which I am incredibly ashamed of)."

Who is the IRC?

Canadians are fed up with the eco-terrorist violence of Watson and his brainwashed followers. Canadians ran Watson out of the country. Greenpeace kick Watson out of their organization and refuse to have anything to do with him because of his repeated acts of violence. Japan has an arrest warrant waiting for the Paulrus. Other nations have refused to register or have recinded their registration of eco-terrorist vessels. The list of countries, organizations, and individuals who object to the pro-violence and eco-terrorism of the SS keeps growing longer.

It's interesting that you're "incredibly ashamed" of Canadians but how do Canadians feel about your promoting and supporting the violence of the eco-terrorists?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SSCSforeverJan. 13, 2012 - 09:24PM JST

Just to correct two points;

It's funny how Japan didn't arrest or even question the SM2's captain in regards to the sinking of the Ady Gil,

The JCG did indeed question he master of the SM2 and investigateafter her return to Japan as well as inspect the vessel. They found nothing suggesting any reason to issue an arrerst warrant for the captain. Same thing with the Australian AMSA and maritio e New Zealand investigations. That which is blaringly obvious to those involved in the maritime fields, such as a propwash proving the Ady Gils forward motion crossing the SM2's path, is not to those who are not familar. Nop omne ay street here, just common sense and law enforcement authorities doing ehat they are trained to do.

but now they have an arrest warrant for obstruction of business? This also shows that their whaling operation is a commercial operation and NOT "research" like they say.

You obviously do not speak or understand Japanese. "Obstruction of Business" does not mean business as in commerce. It means business as in an activity, duty, task, function". The Japanese word is "gyoumu". Please feel free to look it up.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If they are terrorists, they certainly don't follow basic terrorist protocols of secrecy and surprise. I don't see any deaths to humans as a result of their activities. The volunteers are generally better educated and informed then the majority of people on this website (no offense intended). They attract millions of supporters who would then have to be similarly classified etc. etc.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Parmen - If they are terrorists, they certainly don't follow basic terrorist protocols of secrecy and surprise.

There's a "book"? "Basic Terrorist Protocols for Dummies"?

They attract millions of supporters who would then have to be similarly classified etc. etc.

The eco-terrorist Watson is counting a few supporters with millions. Ady "they let my boat sink" Gill, Bridget "they broke the boat they named after me" Bardot, Bob "I like showgirls" Barker.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

They are nothing but Eco-terrorists. In yesterdays article it said they attempted to jam up one of the whalers ships rudder/prop with rope. Now thats very dangerous and could potentially be fatal.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@KariHaruka

Now thats very dangerous and could potentially be fatal.

No, it can't be fatal. The worst that would happen is that they can't unhook the rope and have to be towed back to port. Icebergs are more dangerous.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

They could be as much annoying as radical environmental activists like Earth First! or the extremists like ELF. Terrorists? Dunno. Obsessed with fame? No doubt about it. They’ve got a name for the Wrecking Sea Crew.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforever - No, it can't be fatal. The worst that would happen is that they can't unhook the rope and have to be towed back to port.

Yes it can be. You keep trying to downplay the repeated violent actions of your eco-terrorist idols.

The Antarctic is a very dangerous place for any disabled vessel. Wind, waves, current conditions, and lunitcs who enjoy ramming Japanese vessels can cause the vessel to sink before help can arrive.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforeverJan. 15, 2012 - 05:42AM JST "Now thats very dangerous and could potentially be fatal." No, it can't be fatal. The worst that would happen is that they can't unhook the rope and have to be towed back to >port. Icebergs are more dangerous.

And please tell us how a ship, in Antarctic waters, potentially distant from any available help is suppose to avoid an iceberg when it's propellers have been tangled with rope and immobilized. From the viewpoint of the international maritime industry, as welkl as anyone with ay common sense, what SSCS are doing is putting people into dangerous and potentially life threatening situations.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Using the term 'eco-terrorist' doesn't make any sense here. This is not in any way a failing in translation nor about JT news here. This is a common English misnomer in the news that never gets called out. It is saying literally that they are against ecology, which doesn't make sense if you're trying to protect it.

If you wanted to define the whalers who are in fact hunting whales, that would be eco-hunting. (Or just hunting. The "Eco-" ness of words is annoying to say the least) It turns out neither group is an eco-terrorist. They are not against the biosphere of the planet. They both need it. One for something to hunt, the other for something to protect.

One group are hunters, the other protectors. Slap on the ubiquitous "eco-" prefix and you are done. Even the MSM can be happy since eco-protectors can be skewed into eco-protectionists. That conveniently conjures up anti capitalistic feelings and should fit right in with the right wing MSM hatred of do-gooders against corporations while still being a more accurate description.

So eco-protectors if you must. But drop the eco, it sounds silly to my English Canadian ears. Hunters vs Protectors. That's it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

usually in English written as "anti-whalers" which again is more accurate than the slanderous eco-terrorist moniker

2 ( +4 / -2 )

sf2k - usually in English written as "anti-whalers" which again is more accurate than the slanderous eco-terrorist moniker.

You should write a letter of protest to the FBI.

I wouldn't suggest that you throw glass bottles of acid at FBI field agents or attempt to disable their vehicles to force them to accept your demands.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They haven't killed anyone. Where's the terror?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Eric81 - They haven't killed anyone. Where's the terror?

Only in the minds of the eco-terrorists themselves. Just because the eco-terrorists have not managed to kill anyone doesn't mean they're not trying to injure or kill someone.

Continuous acts of violence and eco-terrorism doesn't mean that their intended victims are "terrified" of them. The whalers will continue to DEFEND themselves against acts of eco-terrorism.

The eco-terrorist rustbucket Steve Irwin was kicked out of the British Ship Register in 2007 and the eco-terrorist rustbucket Bob Barker was kicked out of the Togo registry in 2010 because of their repeated acts of violence and eco-terrorism. Only the Dutch maritime authority will register these eco-terrorist vessels and the Dutch Parliment is trying to change that situation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Only the Dutch maritime authority will register these eco-terrorist vessels and the Dutch Parliment is trying to change that situation.

One Dutch member of parliament has her knickers in a twist. Meanwhile SS receives funding from the Dutch Postcode Lottery.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@arrestpaul

Who is the IRC?

I meant ICR. The Institute of Cetacean Research.

Canadians are fed up with the eco-terrorist violence of Watson and his brainwashed followers. Canadians ran Watson out of the country.

I think i would know how Canadians feel about Paul Watson and SSCS seeing as I am from and live in Canada. From talking to my fellow Canadians, they too feel as though the whalers are very much in the wrong. You are saying the the small number of fishermen and sealers in Atlantic Canada have the same opinion as the rest of Canada. There are not many fisherman or sealers in Atlantic Canada compared to the rest of Canada. We have a total population of 33 million and the population of Atlantic Canada is about 2 million. A very small percentage of this is fisherman and sealers seeing as the majority of Atlantic Canada's population lives in large cities (a total of 1.5 million). The total amount of fishermen and sealers in Atlantic Canada is about 18,000 (from Fisheries and Ocean Canada). So you are really basing the opinion of less than 18,000 people on 33 million people.

Greenpeace kick Watson out of their organization and refuse to have anything to do with him because of his repeated acts of violence.

And what is Greenpeace doing to save the whales? NOTHING!

Japan has an arrest warrant waiting for the Paulrus.

And their motives for the warrant are purely political.

Other nations have refused to register or have recinded their registration of eco-terrorist vessels.

And other nations have asked Sea Shepherd for help in protecting their waters (ie. Ecuador for the Galapagos Islands, Tahiti, etc.).

The list of countries, organizations, and individuals who object to the pro-violence and eco-terrorism of the SS keeps growing longer.

You have it backwards. The list of countries, organizations, and individuals who support SSCS and oppose illegal whaling is growing rapidly.

It's interesting that you're "incredibly ashamed" of Canadians but how do Canadians feel about your promoting and supporting the violence of the eco-terrorists?

You misunderstood what I said. I am incredibly ashamed TO BE a Canadian when it comes to the seal hunt in Atlantic Canada. I never said that I was incredibly ashamed OF Canadians.My fellow Canadians are very supportive of Paul Watson and SSCS, except of course the illegal sealers for obvious reasons.

The Antarctic is a very dangerous place for any disabled vessel. Wind, waves, current conditions, and lunitcs who enjoy ramming Japanese vessels can cause the vessel to sink before help can arrive.

Sea Shepherd is smart enough not to ram a disabled vessel, unlike the whalers. If Antarctica is so dangerous, why are the whalers down there?

You keep trying to downplay the repeated violent actions of your eco-terrorist idols.

And you keep trying to over exaggerate SSCS's effective tactics and downplay the illegality of the whalers.

Just because the eco-terrorists have not managed to kill anyone doesn't mean they're not trying to injure or kill someone.

They've had plenty of opportunities to injure or kill people. They would have sunk 2 more Icelandic whaling boats but they had people on them so they didn't because they don't want to injure or kill anyone.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@KariHaruka

A failed prop or rudder means they have no control of their ship and the Southern Oceans are one of the most dangerous places on earth even when you have control of the ship.

If the Southern Oceans are so dangerous, why would they be risking their lives to go down there?

What if there are no other ships around besides the eco terrorists?

So...what's your point. If SSCS ships were the only ones around, they would help. They have helped them in medical emergencies before.

Who would tow them back then?

They would have to hire somebody to tow them back to port.

What if conditions are too dangerous to tow a ship?

SSCS would help them by rescuing them, no doubt about it. They have in the past. Or one of the other illegal whaling vessel would help them by rescuing them, I'm sure (unless, of course, they were too occupied with murdering more whales illegally). They are well aware of the risks of having a disabled ship in the Southern Ocean.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No matter how you try and justify their actions it is still putting lives and property at risk. Doesn't matter where you are or who else is around, people can still die.

There is a difference between protesting and causing damage putting lives at risk.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No matter how you try and justify their actions it is still putting lives and property at risk.

I never said that it wasn't putting lives and property at risk. It very much is but in order to save and protect marine life, that's a risk they are willing to take.

There is a difference between protesting and causing damage putting lives at risk.

They are not protesting, they are intervening. Do you not remember when the SM2 rammed and sunk the Ady Gil. If anybody had been sleeping in the forward quarters, they would have been killed. Sea Shepherd has rammed but they have never even almost sunk a Japanese whaling ship. The boats that they have scuttled have never had anybody on them. Nobody has never been injured or killed because of Sea Shepherd.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In your first post to me you said ''No it can't be fatal'' starting to trip over your own words here.

Save and protect the marine life? So your saying marine life is more valuable than human life? No animal is worth risking the life of a human.

In the incident with the Ady Gil it was a collision with both parties blaming the other. Sea Shepherd shouldn't use boats which aren't suitable for the rough conditions of the Southern Ocean. They get all these flashy boats but they aren't suitable. Sorry but thats the truth.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

'Eco-terrorist' is a sensationalist neologism that serves a purpose for a certain group and I generally consider it to be a pretty gross misuse of laguage. Given the kinds of things that the SS currently do - like throw butyric acid at whaling ships, no rational person could really compare to the kinds of things a, say, religious terrorist (bombing a packed marketplace) might do. Eco - Activist is a far more accurate description.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

SSCSforever - They've had plenty of opportunities to injure or kill people. They would have sunk 2 more Icelandic whaling boats but they had people on them so they didn't because they don't want to injure or kill anyone.

THIS is your argument as to why the eco-terrorists shouldn't be called eco-terrorists? That it IS the intention of the eco-terrorist SS to sink boats?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SSCSforever - They are not protesting, they are intervening. Do you not remember when the SM2 rammed and sunk the Ady Gil.

I remember seeing the video of the AG accelerating into the path of the SM2 causing the collision that broke Pete the Pirate's toy boat. Isn't Bethune suing the eco-terrorist SS because they cut his boat adrift or sunk it?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

ArrestPaul... there you go again. Ignoring the official investigation findings.

The harpoon boat skipper was found at fault for altering course toward the Ady Gil, creating the hazardous situation in violation of the rules of navigation, and for maintaining too much speed in a close quarters situation. The Ady Gil skipper was merely found to have not kept a proper watch.

Quite different from your spin on the event.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

KariHaruka - you mut not have read the incident investigation of the New Zealand Coast Guard. Despite the fact that the Japanese government refused to cooperate with the official investigation of the incident (telling in and of itself, isn't it?) The New Zealand officials were able to put together position and time activities based on GPS and radar data. Their findings:

The Ady Gil was nearly dead in the water in the time before the collision. The Japanese vessel had radar and spotters active at the time, so there can be no claim of the Japanese skipper that he was unaware of the position of the Ady Gil. The Japanese vessel violated navigation rules when it steered toward the Ady Gil and closed on it with too much speed for the close quarters situation the Japanese skipper created. The Ady Gil skipper was found to have not kept an adequate watch. This is obviously not an aggressive action on the Sea Shepherd part.

So regardless of the conflicting claims of both parties, the New Zealand investigation reveals the Japanese whaling skipper created the situation that led to the collision in violation of the rules of navigation. I am betting he still has his Japanese Captain's license.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes: eco-terrorist.

Let's be grateful his 15 minutes of fame are ticking away.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Not merely ecoterrorists. They use lies, misinformation, slander, hate speech, and grandiose attention getting stunts to harass and exploit innocent workers for profit. In that, they are modern day robber barons, not to mention bigots. They pretend to be "protecting oceans around the world" yet they do little if anything to tackle the real issues damaging the environment, instead attacking people: the Faroese, Newfoundlanders, the Japanese whalers and dolphin fishermen, whose actions are doing no damage to the environment at all. As such, they are hypocrites.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sharkb8, you apparently haven't read the report for yourself either.

96 is where Jason Stewart, the man who was piloting the Ady Gil at the time, explains his thoughts and actions in the moments leading up to the collision.

My concern got to such a level that I jumped out of the helm seat and went across to the port side and had a look outside the port side window, and at that stage I could see a Japanese whaling vessel ... just simply, you know, big bot with water cannons spraying out the front and I had a pretty strong reaction that he was going to hit us. I was very, very concerned for my own safety and for the safety of the rest of the crew when I could see this vessel, because I thought he was going to hit us, so I made a decision then to try and take evasive action. Given that I was already engaged in forward gears, albeit only in idle, I pushed both throttles to about 50 percent forward position ... we did start moving forward but it became clear to me that I was too late to fulfil the manoeuvre I wanted to do. I basically wanted to steer a port to starboard and accelerate away from the Shonan Maru to get ahead of them and to starboard of them.

... I then tried to reverse, to back out, from that position, being in front of the bearing or the course that the Shonan Maru had, which was to hit us. It was a collision course. ... I reverse engaged and we started moving backwards but not enough. We were only, we really only just got moving backwards and the next thing I can recall is that I am seeing steel, steel hull of a, of the Japanese whaler, ... going through the hull...

There you have it. In the helmsman's own words, he miscalculated and threw the Ady Gil into the Shonan Maru No. 2.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Anybody who'd like to read the accident report for yourself can download a copy at http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/AdyGil/.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The facts are: SSCS is in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to protect that Sanctuary from the Japan Whalers. That is not eco-terrorists. If Japan would stop illegally killing whales in that sanctuary, SSCS would then leave the area as well. If you are so adamant about getting rid of SSCS, then go back to your own polluted ports. There is a lot of negative press going on with Japan these days. If Japan wants to 'save face' they better start doing it and soon. Just my point of view.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The facts are: SSCS is in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to protect that Sanctuary from the Japan Whalers. That is not eco-terrorists.

They ram, illegally board, and throw acid and flares at the whalers. That is eco-terrorism.

If Japan would stop illegally killing whales in that sanctuary, SSCS would then leave the area as well.

Japan is not killing whales illegally. There's no law against killing whales in the sanctuary. There are only IWC rules, which they are following.

If you are so adamant about getting rid of SSCS, then go back to your own polluted ports.

I know you're just being dramatic, but actually Japan is one of the cleanest, greenest countries in the world.

If Japan wants to 'save face' they better start doing it and soon.

Japan wouldn't have anything to "save face" from if Sea Shepherd wasn't libeling them.

Just my point of view.

You may want to have a little more information before you form your point of view next time....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If they were, they would be sinking those whalers. Call Capt. Nemo.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Terrorists ? no.. Just Activists with no balls. Just a bunch of Chaz Bonos.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

..terrorist?? ...a big NO NO...thay are just DEFENDING the creatures that can't defend themselves against harpoons...japanese are using harpoons to the whales while SS are only using non-toxic chemicals..japanese are the one who must be called TERRORist...japanese whalers are the one who are bringing TERROR to the WHALES...and they are using acoustic weapons in a helicopter...wew..that's a dangerous move...they are using the name research for money...you are doing RESEARCH but you are throwing all the INTERNAL ORGANS of the whales at sea??...is that a research??..

JAPANESE will pay more LIFE if they will not stop whaling..the first REVENGE of the nature has caused many innocent lives..more TSUNAMI will come to YOU...remember nothing can STOP the REVENGE of the NATURE..

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I see the sea shepherds as true heroes. Nothing less.

It's the jappy whalers who are the nasty little bullies with their uncontrollable tempers. Tut-tut, didnt mommy ever tell u not to ram a boat?

"scientific" whaling is such an original euphemism.

It reminds me of Hitler's "final solution"? that's what Adolph and his little mustache called the mass murder of Jews

Japanese whalers, time to watch out boys.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Many people do not understand the culture of Japanese whaling, because it has been stereotyped that Japanese slaughter millions of Whales. Well that is absolutely ridiculous, only couple are killed. Also they are not even nearly extinct.

The Sea Shepherdsa er extremists, or terrorists who threaten others by physical and mentaal violence. Personally I cannot believe the people who join it. They are also anti Japanese, and are racist. They must be wiped out from any sociëty so we can create a good environment Ina. Peaceful way; charities, fund raising..etc.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites