ddpalmer comments

Posted in: Australia to monitor Japanese whalers as conflict looms See in context

@HelloKitty123

then sailed on without picking up the crew

Except the SSCS's own video shows the Japanese ship standing by to assist and the SSCS refusing their help.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

you seem to think that the rest of the world's countries are nothing but scoundrels

No that would be you. I believe they don't hunt whales because they don't want to, while you believe they don't hunt whales because they are afraid to upset other countries.

Bottom line is this.... the Decision will come from the World Court in a few months.

No actually that decison, no matter which way it goes, will have no effect on whaling. Zero, zip, nada. Because Japan can always quit the IWC and start legal commercial whaling.

Australia, with the backing of many other countries

One country isn't many.

Iceland & Norway left the IWC and thus are not bound by their rules

No, Norway has been an IWC member from the beginning and continues to be a member, while Iceland did leave the IWC for a short while but then rejoined and continues to be a member. They both can whale because they objected to the moratorium and thus by the IWC regulations the moratorium does not apply to them.

Russia is actively whaling

The only whaling that I know of for Russia is abotiginal whaling, which is permitted by the IWC. The USA and Greenland also have IWC permitted aboriginal whaling. While Canada, who quit the IWC, allows whaling.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court rejects plea by Sea Shepherd See in context

I didn't tell you what you think. But nice attempt at a strawman and diverting attention from your false claims.

No you did not point out that both sides make claims about the numbers killed. You pointed out what each side claims is the reason for the number killed. And you say you see no direct mention of reason?

The biggest and most important thing is that they claim to be reducing

That would be you pointing out the direct reason SSCS claims the numbers are down.

The icr also complain that SS prevent them from

And that would be you pointing out the direct reason the ICR claims the numbers re down.

And I already gave my opinion of what the answer to your question is.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court rejects plea by Sea Shepherd See in context

Cute, but not what I asked. Are both sides lying about the number of whales killed? That's the only really important fact.

Sorry cleo but that is not what you asked. Maybe it is what you meant to ask but since I am not psychic i had to rely on what you wrote.

You made two statements. Basically that the SSCS claims to reduce the number killed and that the ICR claims the SSCS causes them to get less than their quota. Then asked are they both lying. Neither statement is about the number killed but about the reason the number is low.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court rejects plea by Sea Shepherd See in context

The biggest and most important thing is that they claim to be reducing the number of whales that the whalers kill. The icr also complain that SS prevent them from making their quota.

....so they're both lying?

Yes, they are both lying.

The ICR lies to stir up sentiment against the Sea Shepherds and make themselves look like the victims. Thus ensuring they will be funded the next year.

The SSCS lies to boost their own ego and encourage their sheeple. Thus ensuring they will keep getting donations.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: U.S. Supreme Court rejects plea by Sea Shepherd See in context

Japan uses a loophole in a 1986 global moratorium on commercial whaling that allows “lethal research” on whales and sets out to kill hundreds each year.

And in addition the permits Japan uses where an original part of the IWC charter in 1946, long before the moratorium was even considered.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Anti-whaling group takes battle to U.S. Supreme Court See in context

The flights weren't illegal. Unlike the SSCS's actions. Well with the effective range of the LRAD unless the helicopter was illegally close to the Japanese vessel they were in no danger (and ignoring the fact thatthe pilots headphones would negate any affect of the LRAD). It isn't in defiance of any agreement to have weapons in the Antarctic. The Japanese have a right to defend their vessels against pirates. Try reading the UN CLOS, the SSCS meets the definition of pirates. And sorry but the neutral (if not anti-Japanese) investigation put equal blame on both sides of the collision, even with the SSCS trying to destroy some of the evidence.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Anti-whaling group takes battle to U.S. Supreme Court See in context

Andre Hut

The Japanese are operating in Australian Territorial Waters, in a whale sanctuary established by Australia, in defiance of a court order from the Australian Federal Court. Does that sound "legal" to you?

Sorry Andre but Australia makes those claims in defiance of the Antarctic Treaty. And the Australia court even said in their decision that Australia can't enforce the claims.

The Japanese took money intended for tsunami victims, and used it for supporting their whaling fleet. Do you think people are going to donate and help, the next time there is a disaster in Japan?

The money used wasn't donated money. It was Japanese tax revenue.

The meat they take, loaded with Mercury, ends up in freezers by the ton, because very few Japanese even like it, then they use it to feed school children.

Actually the whales from the Southern Ocean have lower mercury levels than most other seafoods.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Anti-whaling group takes battle to U.S. Supreme Court See in context

The whale sanctuary was established in violation of the IWC's own regulations and a study by the IWC's Scientific Committee found the sanctuary was of no value. Then there is the fact that, as allowed by teh IWC's regulations, Japan objected to the sanctuary and thus are not bound by it.

Then the moratorium doesn't have a loophole. The regulation under which Japan whales is an original part of the IWC's charter since 1946.

2 ( +16 / -14 )

Posted in: Activists claim Japanese whalers were hurt by their own pepper spray See in context

But OssanAmerica you just don't get it.

Whales are super special. Didn't you see Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home? If we don't save the whales an alien probe will destroy the Earth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Activists claim Japanese whalers were hurt by their own pepper spray See in context

Sorry that should have been QWMBB12.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Activists claim Japanese whalers were hurt by their own pepper spray See in context

ca1ic0cat

Thanks for the straight facts. I thought that was the way the regs worked. And you are spot on with the butyric acid. There are many more hazardous chemicals but it can and will cause at least temporary pain and discomfort.

From another site I was directed to google QWBMM12. It is a backpack fire extinguisher that looks amazingly like what we see the Japanese crew wearing. And since the SSCS has fired flares at the whalers a number of times I could see having a few guys ready to respond to any fire that may be started.

Also if you listen to the video (which really should start about a minute earlier and run a minute longer, I wonder why it doesn't) the SSCS crew acts surprised at the sprayers like they are something brand new. But weeks ago Paul Watson mentioned the whalers wearing silver tanks. So why the surprise, unless this is a weeks old video from when they first encountered the tanks and not video from recently? Also it appears that the pictures that the SSCS released from the event have had their exif data removed so you can't tell when they were taken. Again why would this be done when other SSCS pictures have the data intact?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Activists claim Japanese whalers were hurt by their own pepper spray See in context

Heda Madness, you may not be an expert but you are exactly correct. Especially when you remember the fact that Mr. Bethune was returned to Australia by the ship that rescued him, well OK the Bob Barker rescued him but he voluntarily transferred from the Bob Barker to the Steve Irwin which then returned him to Australia. So the fact that he decided to return to sea was his choice, any rescue obligation was taken care of when his feet hit dry ground.

The trespassing issue is very thorny and convoluted. Let’s just say that with all the different nations involved and the International laws it would be hard to figure out who has jurisdiction and what charges are actually appropriate. That all assumes he doesn't do anything to damage the Japanese vessel.

A more interesting question is whether as an uninvited 'guest', do the Japanese have a duty to feed him? Could they just ignore him, let him sleep on the deck and scrounge for food?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.