Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yamato

SSS Bob Barker Battles Japanese Fleet

65 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Cherry picked. Spelling is important.

I do not feel you have proven this. You have protested it, but not proven this is the case at all. I can say the same about Watson's very liberal interpretation of it.

Where are you from btw?

I am an Aussie, born and bred. It says so on my profile. From SE QLD.

Of course they stopped whaling. For many days and weeks of the whaling season. They haven't been able to stop the Japanese 100% on any year but that's the goal. Zero tolerance and zero kills. It's pretty obtuse not to be able to understand that when the Japanese fleet is running, they're not whaling.

Is that right is it?

The Japanese quota plummeted. From 900,000 tonnes in 1985, it halved in 1986, then fell to 104,000 tonnes the following year. In 1988, the quota was zero; an estimated 130 Japanese fishing boats had nothing to catch.

So you are wrong. It has been stopped, 100%. Japan withdrew it's objections to the bans, and we were set for a whale free future, so what happened?

Shigeko Misaki, who worked with Japanese IWC delegations first as an interpreter and later as an advisor, recalls great anger within the Japanese government and fishing industry at the time.

"(The US) said 'we didn't promise - we just have to give more fish to our fishermen'," she says.

"Anger is the only word that can describe it - why did America have to cheat us like that?"

Within months, Japan had announced it would begin hunting whales for scientific research, a programme that continues to this day.

Historically, the US took many more whales than Japan. That does not see to bother anyone for some reason. They stopped, Japan stopped, then they said Japan, a small country surrounded by water who traditionally relies heavily on seafood, to restrict japanese catches.

Eventually, in June 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the administration. The deal, apparently, was sealed; in return for keeping its fishing nets full, Japan would hang up its harpoons for good.

Have a look through that article. No significant action with regards to whaling are attributed to the Sea Shepherd.

LINK - Did Greens Help Kill the Whales?

You didn't find one thing that Sea Shepherd contravenes, you found two cherries out of that whole document that further justify Sea Shepherd's actions.

I feel those two conditions are being contravened, no matter if Watson tells you otherwise.

Why is Japanese people putting whale meat into their mouths so important to you? Why do you want to run another species of Great Whale into the ground for that? You have no compassion and apparently you care a great deal about this issue. A private organization that hasn't seriously injured anyone in its entire history and you want to run your mouth about it in the face of all of these governments and all of this death and all of the BS flying around between countries, to support a government subsidized illegal whaling operation.

I do not feel we have the right to tell Japanese people what to do. We can negotiate with them about the planet, prove they are doing damage, and just like in 1986, negotiate a peaceful solution. Are you going to tell Aussies to stop eating Kangaroo and Emu, our national symbols? I have much more compassion than you do, you are mistaking passion for compassion. Watson has fired up your passions, that is not compassionate. You do not care what is best for the environment, you only care that the Japanese get their behinds kicked. That seems to be the only thing you are really worried about.

You keep calling it an illegal operation, but have been unable to prove that it is. No territory is breached, no INternational Agreement has been signed ny all parties to make it legal have been breached. To be frank, your full of it. What about Norway and Iceland? They observe no rules and take whales free for all, no quotas, no boundaries nothing. Direct violation of all that you seem to hols sacred. But Watson does no feature them in his show, so hardly anyone except for real conservationists know they are out there.

Yeah trust the whaling bureaucracy that lets the Japanese get away with whaling on a technicality. That's pretty smart. Why didn't I think of that. You think I'm going to get my clues from them? That's your clues, not mine.

What do you think the role of the IWC is? And who do you think it is?

I condemn the Japanese whalers as terrorists. Do you care? I don't care what people call Paul Watson. Get that clue already. But I'm not the government, so I can't arrest them. Might makes right, in your world. You get your meaning and vocabulary from the establishment. I get mine from one of the only organizations smart enough to understand that the oceans are dying in our time, so they actually take a stand and do something about it. So the poor Japanese people that you care so terribly much about can't put heavy metal laden whale meat into their mouths. Oh the horror of it all.

You do not even seem to undertand what terrorism is. I know that you do not care what people call Watson, your head is stuck in that same bucket mine was in a few years ago. I know your argument, I used to tout it, and because I did what yu are doing a few years ago, and was corrected by real environmentalists I know you are just spewing the passion that Watson gave you. You arfe not even making any sense. I have proven beyond doubt that no law is broken, not territory is breached, there is no legal grounds that make what the Japanese are doing illegal. The only way to prove such is happening is with things like the Greenpeace restaurant infiltration.

Your organisation, The Sea Shepherd, lets be straight up hey? Has been afloat for 35+ Years and whaling is bigger and badder than ever. All Watson has done is ensure the Japanese fleet grows at each opportunity. Your talk of sending Japan broke is pure nonsense, if you think Watson has more money than Japan, you are kidding yourself. With Watsons idiocy, the Japanese take more than they need no matter what. Whale meat was given out in schools and thrown away in bulk because they had too much.

Whale Meat Turns Up In Japanese School Lunches LINK

And this will continue to happen. As long as the Sea Shepherd terrorises the Japanese Whalers, they will take more than they need to spite Sea Shepherd, and try to make them look like a failure, which after 35 years, only the most obtuse do not understand is. Whilst some in the West submit to Watsons propaganda, the Japanese do not, and they can paint 35 years of terrorism as a victory to their people. Watson will only make matters worse as long as he continues his petty selfish money grubbing ways that continue to accomplish little more than putting him in te limelight. I canot believe you cannot see his game. and play along for him.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Provide a link to where you copy pasted this information from please. This is a copyright violation as its written above.

That's all you have to say about that long list is it?

Sure, no need to be snarky, a Google of any one line would have got you the link. They are all oer the net, but there is a consolidated item with the charges. I did write the dam post 3 times, and lost it 3 times. I was not going to bother so late on a Firday, but felt I would offer you the courtesy, probably should have just waited considering your reply.

LINK 1

LINK 2

Japan already volunteered itself away from every legal construct there is with its illegal whale poaching operation. It doesn't matter if its a member of the whaling commission or not. The entirety of your problem here is a matter of policy and how the law is enforced. I think Sea Shepherd's history is endearing. You highlight their record albeit with extremely biased language.

Endearing? Hurting people, intimidation, threats, damaging property, ending livelihoods, that is endearing to you? The entirety of your problem is you cannot see pasts Watsons propaganda Why on earth do you think an entire nation is going to bow to some violent little upstart that had to create his own organisation because everyone else would not have him?

I highlight the record of success, which has nothing to do with Watson. Japan was out of the game. The US who took more whales than they did messed the deal. Why isn't Watson protesting the US action that reversed the moratorium decision? Why isnlt he insisting they go back on their hands an knees and ask Japan to forgive them, and stop whaling, as agreed? Why? Because then America, not Japan would lose face, Good God Man, you cannot see this???????? You are talking about Bias????

Apparently the only way you will ever be capable of respecting something is when the government does it. That's a horrible life to live when you're an individual and I'll know that you will never challenge the status quo and never impose your will for the greater good of the world, to undo pain and suffering, to right the many wrongs out there. Lying down and flopping over for government is a fast way to lose legitimacy because the main purpose of government is to kill people and animals. I'll stick with the organization that never killed anyone, thanks.

OK, Mr respect. I see you had nothing to say about Australia's Shark population, the Turtles being killed in Shark nets, the captivity of Dolphins and the exploitation of them at tourism sites like Monkey Mia. Lets face it, your full of it. These animals all need protection. Watson outright said he uses a baby harp seal image to target the heartstrings of Americans!!

You do not care about all that pain and suffering, you do not give it a second thought. Has Watson gone and pulled Shark Nets on Aussie Coasts? Let the Dolphins go from Sea World? Get a grip man. As long as you one sided support Watson, and Watson alone, your a victim, not a conservationist. Thing is even you do not know it yet.

Watson manipulates the media masterfully. He understands how to handle those clowns, and the growth rate of his organization has gone exponential while the Japanese poaching fleet is only growing more and more desperate with greater losses to account for every year. You can side with the losers if you like. I'm happy Sea Shepherd is winning this war and I'm extremely pleased to know that Japan's illegal operations are coming to an end.

Yes he does manipulate the media, I have been saying that all along, the one thing you have said that is true. What you do not seem to understand that he is manipulating people like you through it. If you think Watson has the Resources to expand his fleet larger than Japans, you are in Lala land. That is not going to happen in anyone's lifetime I canot believe you truly feel this is the case, I really do not think anyone who can think would. The clowns he knows how to "handle" are the Television crews and their viewers. He knows public opinion sways political opinion because the votes have to come from someplace.

You do not seem to understand, and honestly, I am not sure how I can make it any clearer to you, ass you see to be deliberately obtuse in this regard. I do not want to whalers whaling, that is why I want Watson of the Seas, so we have a chance to begin the type of negotiation that had Japan agree to stop whaling - altogether. As long as Watson terrorises the Whalers, these negotiations cannot begin, and as long as negotiations do not begin, we cannot move forward. Watson is keeping the stalemate, and making a packet from it. How you can not realise that with all of the information I have given you is nothing short of bewildering.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change your life forever in 52 minutes, psyche101:

You do not need that long to know Watson is very dishonest.

[media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think whaling is wrong because it's cruel. I hope it does stop someday

I agree, we do not need it in this day and age, and if tradition is to be continued, I'd like to see an argument that restricts Japan to traditional whaling, that is in rowboats. Like this:

800px-Traditional_Whaling_in_Taiji.jpg

I wonder how many whalers might sign up if this was the case.

If Watson can be removed from the Seas, we might be able to get Japan back to a negotiating table. As long as Watson is on the seas, the Japanese will be too. Someone has to give, and if Watson truly had any integrity, he would publicly challenge Japan. He could get on TV and say JAPAN, you can have all of Sea Shepherd assets if you promise to stop whaling forever on paper internationally signed. He will not do that as as long as he is making a packet from his Whale Whores show.

The International Whaling Commission calls the Sea Shepherd terrorists. They are in charge of it all, and have been trying to stop all countries from whaling. If the people who know more about this than anyone else on the planet - heck we would not even know what species are endangered without them, then who do we trust? Watson with his media crew? I really do not feel this is the correct choice. Violence wont solve this. Watson knows that, he enjoys a good fight and getting his face in the TV. The sort of thug that goes out on a Saturday night for a fight, not a good time. I never understod that mentality.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Without getting into any of the obvious differences between whales and chickens and looking strictly at the logistics problem of feeding ourselves, we cannot produce whale meat on a farm. And even if we could, these creatures take decades to mature into adults. Who's going to feed their food for decades before eating it? Conversely, I think about how many Americans eat meat and then I realize how many animals must be killed every day to keep up with our appetites. 300 million people and assuming 20% of us eat chicken for dinner, that's 60 million people eating chicken every day. Now assuming we only eat it once, and assuming we eat a quarter of a chicken, that's approximately 15 million chickens killed every day to feed the US population. Obviously we can maintain gigantic human populations on the planet by utilizing extremely efficient massive-scale slaughter factories and distribution systems.

That is why the fishing grounds that the US refused Japan started whaling again. You cannot just keep taking and expect on reprisals, people have to eat, and you cannot tell Japan they are not allowed to anymore. Look at the size of Japan. Not quite the same resources the US has as far as farming land goes is it.

The 1986 moratorium is the one successful measure across all time. It needs to be looked at properly and attempted genuinely.

While human beings number in the billions worldwide, whale species, at best, only number in the hundreds of thousands. Every whale is an individual. Looking at their ecosystem, their environment is incalculably vast compared to ours. We live on land, a two dimensional ecosystem that only takes up 30% of the planet's surface. The whales live in a three dimensional ecosystem making up the other 70%. Granted all of these facts, and we're still this selfish? For what? We're still going to allow Japan or anyone else to drive the last species with any reasonable number of individuals left alive into endangerment or extinction, all the while we're doing nothing to stop them, we're just going to spend all our time lambasting those who do just because we disagree with their tactics? This greed blows my mind. I wish I had a blowhole. Maybe my head wouldn't hurt so much just thinking about how insensitive people can be over the political correctness towards an obsolete and barbaric practice that serves no purpose in the 21st century.

You only have a problem with Japan, but none with Iceland or Norway, who do not so much as recognise the IWC. That's being a hypocrite. Same as not giving a rodents rectum about the other sea life that nobody seems to notice is also endangered. You need to burst a gasket if need be, because you need to think harder. It is not policial correctness at all, the US violated Japans fishing rights, and Japan struck back. Watson has been terrorising them for 35 years and without any sings at all of Japan stopping whaling. In 1987 Japan took NO whales. That was the result of negotiation, The US ruined that negotiation just as Watson is continually ruining any chance at an end to whaling. The greed is Watsons alone. That you cannot see that truly blows my mind. You have more than enough information now to see his is damaging, not helping, yet yo still blow his horn. He is an individual. If 8 Muslims showed up on your doorstep and insisted you top eating pork because it offends them, would you?

Pardon me, but if someone doesn't like how someone else is doing something, and they have such great ideas that nobody else does, they should really put their money where their mouths are instead of doing nothing else but whining about the accomplishments of others. And if they don't have any better ideas than what others are already doing then they probably shouldn't protest so much. If people really cared about the environment, they wouldn't watch Al Gore's filmstrips and then lambast people for driving Hummers. They'd refuse to reproduce instead. If sexual pleasure is too impossible to avoid, condoms are Green and sodomy is environmentally friendly. What sacrifice, I ask too much, right? Everyone's a playboy with Superman's libido on the internet after all. They'd take up one of the many critical environmental causes out there with decisive enough action to be labeled an "eco-terrorist" in some self-centered government official's mind. Someone who takes action instead of sit around and whine about his trite differences with other people who do.

I cannot believe how much I have shown you that you seem to have missed. Whaling has been stopped. Watson has been unsuccessful for over 35 years. How much of a picture do you need drawn? The best way forward is to remove that which keeps the situation alive, and in an angry state. That is the Sea Shepherd, who are classed as terrorists by legal people, not bleeding hearts who got too engrossed with the TV show. You have given false laws, made false terror claims, and seem to think if we make fools of ourselves and arrest the Japanese on non-existent laws, that the problem will go away. You need to look a bit deeper than newspapers.

As I suggested earlier, I dare you to talk to a bonafide Marine Biologist. Don't believe me, I am telling you to go out an double check that which I have offers and seek your own professional advice. You have shown and admitted you are relying on newspaper, Politicians and the Whale Wars show. Do you really think that gives you a well rounded outlook do you? Put your money where your mouth is. I dare you. I do not know where you are, but I know all countries have managed environmental programs, and that you can go to them and ask questions.

I do not know where you are going with sodomy, but really, I do not think I want to know.

Watson is not an eco-terrorist. He is a terrorist. TV is making the distinction for you, guided by none other than Watson.

In closing, I'll let Migaloo voice his concerns:

Very Paul Watson of you. Nothing to do with the topic, nothing to do with the situation, just a distraction to make people ohh and ahhh , and keep the knee jerk reactions coming. It's not an honest way to get your point across, the honest, and rather boring way is the count endless statistics and take them to a council with the Japanese at the tabel, and force Japan to realise the brevity of the situation.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS1YexdmDqc

Change your life in 2 minutes?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with South Park's episode and just like you should have watched the entire 52 minutes of Watson's speech you should watch the entire South Park episode. The part of humanity that would rather sit on its hands and think that by doing nothing they'll change the world doesn't change the issue one way or the other so those useless voices are impotent to change my mind.

Psyche 101, the topic of this thread is the SSS Bob Barker battling the Japanese whaling fleet. This doesn't mean that I don't care about Norway or Iceland. Since I've never given any sign that's the case, that's wishful thinking on your part. Calling me hypocritical was baselessly insulting. Why don't you ask before putting thoughts in my head. You are talking out of turn about things you don't know. I donate to Sea Shepherd so my money is where my mouth is. Where's your money? Where your mouth is? Donate to the Japanese whalers? Please.

Whales have everything to do with the topic of discussion at hand. Migaloo is a Humpback whale, one of the whales on Japan's illegal menu.

What "bonafide biologist" am I to talk to? I don't compare whales with pigs, when there are billions of pigs in the world hardly suffering from the threat of extinction, and whale species that number in the thousands at terrible risk.

I don't know what a Biologist has to tell me not to care about that, but it would be a biologist working for the whaling industry I'm sure. Politicized science is best to be avoided anywhere it may be found. The estimates of whale populations are what they are and you will accept the figures as well as the rest of us. The whales have enough factors in the oceans right now putting their survival at risk, they don't need nor can they withstand the kind of slaughter that bankrupt Japanese poachers and their government enablers are too proud to stop

Japan has no right to whale in Australian waters, to whale in a whale sanctuary, to countermand the global moratorium or sell whale meat commercially in a commercial whaling operation they deny is commercial. When you meet the definition of something it's ridiculous to try to deny it. It's even more ridiculous when people actually believe it. You have no command of the relevant facts that formulate my position, such as Japan's hauls in the period after the moratorium but before Sea Shepherd ever met them in the Southern Ocean. Worse than that, you offer no alternatives. Baseless claims like "whaling has been stopped" is as ridiculous as "water isn't wet". The proof is self evident. The Japanese never stopped whaling. They snuck in after the moratorium and their kill numbers rose exponentially until they were killing over 1000 whales a year until Sea Shepherd stepped in and put them down. The evidence that you're looking for is the proof right before your eyes. Either the Japanese whalers are extremely incompetent at meeting their quotas or else Sea Shepherd is capable of stopping them. When they're running and shadowing Sea Shepherd vessels, they're not whaling. Put a frigate-sized vessel on every Japanese ship in the fleet and this illegal charade can be shut down 100%. We hope that Sea Shepherd's growth continues along with its success, and we will have them returning to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary with as many vessels as is necessary to stop the Japanese in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have no problem with South Park's episode and just like you should have watched the entire 52 minutes of Watson's speech you should watch the entire South Park episode. The part of humanity that would rather sit on its hands and think that by doing nothing they'll change the world doesn't change the issue one way or the other so those useless voices are impotent to change my mind.

I did watch it, how else do you figure I knew it was at the very end where the show Watson as a liar and cheat?

Nobody said do nothing, I said the Sea Shepherd aggravates the current situation, and to be frank, I think one has to be pretty blind not to see that.

Psyche 101, the topic of this thread is the SSS Bob Barker battling the Japanese whaling fleet. This doesn't mean that I don't care about Norway or Iceland. Since I've never given any sign that's the case, that's wishful thinking on your part. Calling me hypocritical was baselessly insulting. Why don't you ask before putting thoughts in my head. You are talking out of turn about things you don't know. I donate to Sea Shepherd so my money is where my mouth is. Where's your money? Where your mouth is? Donate to the Japanese whalers? Please.

You told me that Watson was probably the greatest conservationist that ever lived, yet he does not worry about conservation when he might upset a supporter like Australia, so he leaves us alone. These issues are every bit as important as the whaling situation and require exposure too, but you do not even know these issues exist because your hero Watson does not speak about them. He is a hypocrite, not a conservationist, he is not fit to wipe the bottom of a real conservationist.

Yes I do know, I used to bang the same drum, but learned it was wrong. Watson does not cover these issues so most people do not relise they exist, - be honest, did you know that Australia keeps Dolphins captive while New Zealand does not?

My money? Being wisely spent on things like Greenseas Tuna (which another poster informed me of) that use lines to catch Tuna, not damaging nets. You know, research and supporting those who follow the rules and try to keep resources sustainable and the environment intact. Clever investment all year round, not dumping a bankroll to terrorists to feel good about myself.

Whales have everything to do with the topic of discussion at hand. Migaloo is a Humpback whale, one of the whales on Japan's illegal menu.

Please show me the menu with Migaloo on it. This is pure rhetoric, as is the entire reference, very Paul Watson of you.

What "bonafide biologist" am I to talk to? I don't compare whales with pigs, when there are billions of pigs in the world hardly suffering from the threat of extinction, and whale species that number in the thousands at terrible risk.

I don't know what a Biologist has to tell me not to care about that, but it would be a biologist working for the whaling industry I'm sure. Politicized science is best to be avoided anywhere it may be found. The estimates of whale populations are what they are and you will accept the figures as well as the rest of us. The whales have enough factors in the oceans right now putting their survival at risk, they don't need nor can they withstand the kind of slaughter that bankrupt Japanese poachers and their government enablers are too proud to stop

Any local University, or even most High Schools would have someone more than willing to talk to you. I can even ask the people who were kind enough to help me fully understand the situation if you like. They are not politically geared, the people I spoke to are English, they have no dog in this race.

What are the species you insist are endangered? Do you know or are you about to consult Mr Google? What has Watson actually taught you about these creatures? Only that Japanese are bad?

No, the Whales do not need the poachers, they need them gone, but you do not seem to understand that after 35+ years, Watsons terrorist actions are not helping. Whales still get taken every year.

Japan has no right to whale in Australian waters, to whale in a whale sanctuary,

They do not. You keep saying they whale in Australian waters, but that is a lie. I even gave you a map. And no Sanctuary legally exists. It's a voluntary commitment.

to countermand the global moratorium

The moratorium too is voluntary, and no country has to sign nor recognise it. It;s more of a goodwill gesture, and when the US took the Goodwill ut of the moratorium, Japan refused to recognise it.

or sell whale meat commercially in a commercial whaling operation they deny is commercial.

Yes, thank you GREENPEACE.

When you meet the definition of something it's ridiculous to try to deny it. It's even more ridiculous when people actually believe it. You have no command of the relevant facts that formulate my position, such as Japan's hauls in the period after the moratorium but before Sea Shepherd ever met them in the Southern Ocean.

I seem to have a far greater command of the actual facts than you do. You keep saying Japanese whale in Australian waters, they do not, you keep insisting on some global sanctuary, it does not exist, it is a proposal to be adopted, I do nnot know why you keep repeating these items, repetition will not make them law.

Japans haul after the moratorium, but before they met the Sea Shepherd? What? The moratorium was penned in 1986 to take effect in 1988. Watson put the Sea Shepherd Society together in 1977. That is 9 years before the moratorium was even penned, and 11 years before it was to take effect!

Worse than that, you offer no alternatives. Baseless claims like "whaling has been stopped" is as ridiculous as "water isn't wet". The proof is self evident. The Japanese never stopped whaling.

No alternatives? Yes I did, ground the Sea Shepherd and ask Japan back to the negotiating tabel. Whaling was stopped, you tell me how many whales were taken in 1987. And then tell me why, because you answer will not have the Sea Shepherd in it.

I also suggested Watson put his money where his mouth is and Challenge the Japanese to go back to traditional whaling from long boats only if he disables his fleet. But you can bet your bottom dollar Watson would never agree to something like that.

They snuck in after the moratorium and their kill numbers rose exponentially until they were killing over 1000 whales a year until Sea Shepherd stepped in and put them down. The evidence that you're looking for is the proof right before your eyes. Either the Japanese whalers are extremely incompetent at meeting their quotas or else Sea Shepherd is capable of stopping them. When they're running and shadowing Sea Shepherd vessels, they're not whaling. Put a frigate-sized vessel on every Japanese ship in the fleet and this illegal charade can be shut down 100%. We hope that Sea Shepherd's growth continues along with its success, and we will have them returning to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary with as many vessels as is necessary to stop the Japanese in the future.

They did not sneak into any place. They officially objected to the Moratorium and brazenly touted the law with some ridiculous loophole.

You know why they keep taking whales? Because they can - legally. If they can take whales legally, we need to stop them legally. Watsons terrorist tactics only allow them further excuses to continue whaling.

Metting quotas? I suppose you did not hear about them having so much whale meat the years before last that they threw a lot away, and were giving it away in school lunches? Does not sound like the Sea Shepherd stopped much to me.

A frigate sized vessel has to be funded by a Government, so that means war. And that's the bottom line, if you want to stop them with violence, then stop nanyshagging around with the p***y little sea shepherd. Get a mercenary group onside and start a full blown war, because that is the alternative to legally removing illegal activity isn't it?

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did watch it, how else do you figure I knew it was at the very end where the show Watson as a liar and cheat?

Nobody said do nothing, I said the Sea Shepherd aggravates the current situation, and to be frank, I think one has to be pretty blind not to see that.

You told me that Watson was probably the greatest conservationist that ever lived, yet he does not worry about conservation when he might upset a supporter like Australia, so he leaves us alone. These issues are every bit as important as the whaling situation and require exposure too, but you do not even know these issues exist because your hero Watson does not speak about them. He is a hypocrite, not a conservationist, he is not fit to wipe the bottom of a real conservationist.

Yes I do know, I used to bang the same drum, but learned it was wrong. Watson does not cover these issues so most people do not relise they exist, - be honest, did you know that Australia keeps Dolphins captive while New Zealand does not?

My money? Being wisely spent on things like Greenseas Tuna (which another poster informed me of) that use lines to catch Tuna, not damaging nets. You know, research and supporting those who follow the rules and try to keep resources sustainable and the environment intact. Clever investment all year round, not dumping a bankroll to terrorists to feel good about myself.

Please show me the menu with Migaloo on it. This is pure rhetoric, as is the entire reference, very Paul Watson of you.

Any local University, or even most High Schools would have someone more than willing to talk to you. I can even ask the people who were kind enough to help me fully understand the situation if you like. They are not politically geared, the people I spoke to are English, they have no dog in this race.

What are the species you insist are endangered? Do you know or are you about to consult Mr Google? What has Watson actually taught you about these creatures? Only that Japanese are bad?

No, the Whales do not need the poachers, they need them gone, but you do not seem to understand that after 35+ years, Watsons terrorist actions are not helping. Whales still get taken every year.

They do not. You keep saying they whale in Australian waters, but that is a lie. I even gave you a map. And no Sanctuary legally exists. It's a voluntary commitment.

The moratorium too is voluntary, and no country has to sign nor recognise it. It;s more of a goodwill gesture, and when the US took the Goodwill ut of the moratorium, Japan refused to recognise it.

Yes, thank you GREENPEACE.

I seem to have a far greater command of the actual facts than you do. You keep saying Japanese whale in Australian waters, they do not, you keep insisting on some global sanctuary, it does not exist, it is a proposal to be adopted, I do nnot know why you keep repeating these items, repetition will not make them law.

Japans haul after the moratorium, but before they met the Sea Shepherd? What? The moratorium was penned in 1986 to take effect in 1988. Watson put the Sea Shepherd Society together in 1977. That is 9 years before the moratorium was even penned, and 11 years before it was to take effect!

No alternatives? Yes I did, ground the Sea Shepherd and ask Japan back to the negotiating tabel. Whaling was stopped, you tell me how many whales were taken in 1987. And then tell me why, because you answer will not have the Sea Shepherd in it.

I also suggested Watson put his money where his mouth is and Challenge the Japanese to go back to traditional whaling from long boats only if he disables his fleet. But you can bet your bottom dollar Watson would never agree to something like that.

They did not sneak into any place. They officially objected to the Moratorium and brazenly touted the law with some ridiculous loophole.

You know why they keep taking whales? Because they can - legally. If they can take whales legally, we need to stop them legally. Watsons terrorist tactics only allow them further excuses to continue whaling.

Metting quotas? I suppose you did not hear about them having so much whale meat the years before last that they threw a lot away, and were giving it away in school lunches? Does not sound like the Sea Shepherd stopped much to me.

A frigate sized vessel has to be funded by a Government, so that means war. And that's the bottom line, if you want to stop them with violence, then stop nanyshagging around with the p***y little sea shepherd. Get a mercenary group onside and start a full blown war, because that is the alternative to legally removing illegal activity isn't it?

I did watch it, how else do you figure I knew it was at the very end where the show Watson as a liar and cheat?

Because it's not at the end, and now I know for sure you didn't watch it.

What are the species you insist are endangered? Do you know or are you about to consult Mr Google? What has Watson actually taught you about these creatures? Only that Japanese are bad?

It's not about me and what I "insist". Do your homework. I don't need to consult Google. Why does Watson have to teach me? Whalers are illegal poachers. If they were poor black Africans, they might end up with bullets in their heads and nobody like you would show up to cry about it. You are more than capable to can carry your own water and do your own homework and learn the facts, and find out what species are 'endangered'.

Nobody said do nothing, I said the Sea Shepherd aggravates the current situation, and to be frank, I think one has to be pretty blind not to see that.

I don't care what nobody said. I care what nobody did: Nothing. You said they "aggravate the current situation" whatever the hell that means. You're blind to reality and the explosive growth of Sea Shepherd vs. the financial and moral bankruptcy of the illegal Japanese whalers.

You told me that Watson was probably the greatest conservationist that ever lived, yet he does not worry about conservation when he might upset a supporter like Australia, so he leaves us alone. These issues are every bit as important as the whaling situation and require exposure too, but you do not even know these issues exist because your hero Watson does not speak about them. He is a hypocrite, not a conservationist, he is not fit to wipe the bottom of a real conservationist.

He is arguably one of the greatest who ever lived and in my opinion the greatest alive today. He's going to go down in history as actually doing something, not sitting on his hands and feeling good about himself. He will die happy, knowing that he did all he could. You seem to be blind to the explosive growth of support Sea Shepherd has enjoyed thanks to the exposure. They're not just stopping Japanese in the Southern Ocean. They're protecting sharks in the Galapagos, Bluefin in the Mediterranean, dolphins in Taiji, pilot whales in the Faroes, they're cleaning up beaches after man-made disasters, they're cutting long lines all over the world, turtles, seals. Your disagreements are ignorant of ecology and purely political. Maybe your real special interest is the Japanese government because you're highly motivated to make a stink.

Yes I do know, I used to bang the same drum, but learned it was wrong. Watson does not cover these issues so most people do not relise they exist, - be honest, did you know that Australia keeps Dolphins captive while New Zealand does not?

Why don't you go find another drum to bang and actually do something then instead of wasting all your energy blathering about someone else's tactics? Differences between Australia and New Zealand are irrelevant to me because I don't need perfection in the help we get. Sea Shepherd doesn't need to be the 2nd coming of Christ for us to support them. What standards for perfection to you reserve for the things you care about, for the things that you support? This pre-requisite that someone's farts mustn't stink before we can support them is reserved solely for Sea Shepherd in your wasteful diatribes To restore your own credibility here, start a comprehensive discussion critical of the illegal Japanese whale poachers and outline a plan that you think can shut them down, put your money where your mouth is, and hold yourself to the same standards you're flippantly applying to others.

My money? Being wisely spent on things like Greenseas Tuna (which another poster informed me of) that use lines to catch Tuna, not damaging nets. You know, research and supporting those who follow the rules and try to keep resources sustainable and the environment intact. Clever investment all year round, not dumping a bankroll to terrorists to feel good about myself.

That's not getting rid of the nets. That's not going to bring back the tuna from the brink of extinction. We're talking about a million dollar fish, and in Japan a few years ago, one already fetched close to a half a million dollars. Eating a tuna that isn't caught in a net doesn't make the world go away. That's the ostrich defense. Sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring the greater abuses in the world. So long as you sever yourself from it, and keep your own little habitat clean, you rationalize that's all it takes to solve the problem and you can live at peace with yourself. Well sorry, that's not good enough for some people, like Paul Watson.

Please show me the menu with Migaloo on it. This is pure rhetoric, as is the entire reference, very Paul Watson of you.

BS. You don't need everything spoon fed to you. "Mr. Google" can show you that the Japanese kill Humpbacks.

Any local University, or even most High Schools would have someone more than willing to talk to you. I can even ask the people who were kind enough to help me fully understand the situation if you like. They are not politically geared, the people I spoke to are English, they have no dog in this race.

Okay then, here's the internet. Find someone. Find whatever you think is relevant to tell me that history doesn't matter, populations of Great Whale species being run into the ground one after the other until their populations number in the tens of thousands or even less is somehow not a concern or endangerment to their future survival. Find these brilliant high school teachers who can assure me it's not an issue. Find these objective voices who aren't deluded by politics.

No, the Whales do not need the poachers, they need them gone, but you do not seem to understand that after 35+ years, Watsons terrorist actions are not helping. Whales still get taken every year.

No, you're just blind to reality. After 35+ years, a global moratorium has been enacted, many nations that were whaling stopped completely, whale sanctuaries have been created, whalers have had their equipment destroyed, whalers have been taken to court, whalers have gone bankrupt, whales have been saved, whale populations have rebounded when they're not being slaughtered unsustainably, and Sea Shepherd is larger, more popular and more powerful than ever. Instead of sinking half a whaling fleet, the entire fleet should be sunk and sunk again if its rebuilt. The only regrettable thing about Sea Shepherd is their uniqueness. That's what's so remarkable about them, but it shouldn't be. There should be many organizations of free civil society, made up of the finest and bravest citizens from around the globe, coming together in solidarity and compassion like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

They do not. You keep saying they whale in Australian waters, but that is a lie. I even gave you a map. And no Sanctuary legally exists. It's a voluntary commitment.

BS, you didn't give me a map of where Japanese don't whale. And here we also find out that you don't even respect the sanctuary! You offer nothing to protect whales, you're a whale meater. From a political standpoint, you might even be worse than the people who actually eat it. You don't respect any of the laws that have been enacted to protect whales, you just make asinine statements that they "don't legally exist". That is denial of reality, and it's become your trademark.

The moratorium too is voluntary, and no country has to sign nor recognise it. It;s more of a goodwill gesture, and when the US took the Goodwill ut of the moratorium, Japan refused to recognise it.

All laws are voluntary by virtue of whether we respect their authority to obey them, which is a function of how enthusiastically they're enforced and the chances of getting caught. I voluntarily drive the speed limit every day, except on Sundays. Japan refused to recognize it and now they're facing someone who is not failing to do so. If we can't enforce the rules and regulations we already have on the books, they're impotent. That makes Sea Shepherd even more important for you and I to support financially.

Yes, thank you GREENPEACE.

Greenpeace's tactics of documenting and begging fails to save lives. The Japanese whale right under their noses anyway. Japanese hauls have been impacted severely by direct confrontation and physical force, not hippie rainbows and drum circles.

I seem to have a far greater command of the actual facts than you do. You keep saying Japanese whale in Australian waters, they do not, you keep insisting on some global sanctuary, it does not exist, it is a proposal to be adopted, I do nnot know why you keep repeating these items, repetition will not make them law.

You have a greater command of your own opinion than I do perhaps. You don't have any command of the relevant facts to my position, you deny those facts and then prune yourself. Again, it's not what I insist. It's the facts that I accept that you cannot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Whale_Sanctuary

Japans haul after the moratorium, but before they met the Sea Shepherd? What? The moratorium was penned in 1986 to take effect in 1988. Watson put the Sea Shepherd Society together in 1977. That is 9 years before the moratorium was even penned, and 11 years before it was to take effect!

Yes, Japan's haul after the moratorium but before they ever met Sea Shepherd. How is that statement hard to understand? Sea Shepherd has been meeting the Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean for the past nine seasons. If you're good at math you will calculate correctly that it didn't start until the 21st century. When he founded Sea Shepherd is irrelevant.

No alternatives? Yes I did, ground the Sea Shepherd and ask Japan back to the negotiating tabel. Whaling was stopped, you tell me how many whales were taken in 1987. And then tell me why, because you answer will not have the Sea Shepherd in it.

They've already been asked back to the negotiating table. They were outvoted unanimously at the table when the moratorium was created. Japan crawled back into whaling after the moratorium as I said. building up their whaling operation more and more every year, and was up to hauling in 1000 whales per year until Sea Shepherd came in and ruined their killing machine. You offer no alternatives. "Ask them back to the table" wow like that's going to work. Poachers need to be shut down. Cannon fire across their bows and an escort half way home would be more appropriate than sitting down and talking which they already do every year. If sitting down and talking were effective it would already have been so. You don't offer anything there at all, just imagination, rhetoric, and more denial of reality.

I also suggested Watson put his money where his mouth is and Challenge the Japanese to go back to traditional whaling from long boats only if he disables his fleet. But you can bet your bottom dollar Watson would never agree to something like that.

Why don't you do that? They might listen to you, not Paul Watson. Paul Watson's mission is to run the Japanese whaling fleet into the ground and it that means that Japan is going to bilk their taxpayers to keep a morally and financially bankrupt poaching operation above water then so be it. Paul Watson might be somewhere near Japan instead, directing dolphins away from the Japanese home islands before they're caught up in another Japanese slaughter trap. Paul Watson might be near Iceland, or the Faroes, or Ecuador, or the Pacific islands or the Mediterranean. Whoever the biggest poachers are should receive a proportional amount of fist in their face to shut them down. As whaling is concerned, the vast majority of Sea Shepherd's small budget should be allocated to stopping them.

They did not sneak into any place. They officially objected to the Moratorium and brazenly touted the law with some ridiculous loophole.

And the numbers increased exponentially from 1988 til they were hitting their self-imposed quota (it was not the IWC's quota as you claimed) until Sea Shepherd met them in the Southern Ocean to the point we're at today where their kill numbers have declined significantly.

You know why they keep taking whales? Because they can - legally. If they can take whales legally, we need to stop them legally. Watsons terrorist tactics only allow them further excuses to continue whaling.

Paul Watson is stopping them legally. Why don't you arrest Peter Bethune if he's such a terrorist? He's home with his wife and kids right now. If he was a terrorist he'd be rotting in a prison cell somewhere. Obviously the laws you spend your time petting and pruning, whatever they are, are voluntary too. Whatever excuse Watson "allows" for them to continue whaling is just an excuse. Japan is whaling for a reason. They're proud of their poaching, they're industrious resourceful people and they don't like being told what not to do. Historical precedence has shown, only by confrontation and force can the Japanese be made to heel.

Metting quotas? I suppose you did not hear about them having so much whale meat the years before last that they threw a lot away, and were giving it away in school lunches? Does not sound like the Sea Shepherd stopped much to me.

Meeting quotas. And if demand is so low, then why do they have such a ridiculously high self-imposed quota? Why don't you ever put the burden on the illegal Japanese whalers or their government enablers?

A frigate sized vessel has to be funded by a Government, so that means war.

What are you talking about? No, a frigate sized vessel doesn't have to be funded by a government. Absurd.

And that's the bottom line, if you want to stop them with violence, then stop nanyshagging around with the p***y little sea shepherd. Get a mercenary group onside and start a full blown war, because that is the alternative to legally removing illegal activity isn't it?

Sea Shepherd is not a violent organization in the least. They haven't killed one person in over 35 years of operation. The violent organization is the illegal Japanese whaling fleet when they fire a spear through the back of the head of a whale and then tow it on a line, shooting it repeatedly with rifles, while it slowly drowns in its own blood for 20 minutes in a torturous and horrifying death. That's the only "violence" in this whole issue, and you're blind to that reality too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I did watch it, how else do you figure I knew it was at the very end where the show Watson as a liar and cheat?

Because it's not at the end, and now I know for sure you didn't watch it.

Well I am pleased to say for once I have to say your right about something :D It is about half way through, thanks for prompting me to watch again, even though my wife had a whine about me watching it again.

What are the species you insist are endangered? Do you know or are you about to consult Mr Google? What has Watson actually taught you about these creatures? Only that Japanese are bad?

It's not about me and what I "insist". Do your homework. I don't need to consult Google. Why does Watson have to teach me? Whalers are illegal poachers. If they were poor black Africans, they might end up with bullets in their heads and nobody like you would show up to cry about it. You are more than capable to can carry your own water and do your own homework and learn the facts, and find out what species are 'endangered'.

So you do not even know if the species being whaled is endangered? I do my homework, I have left you a mountain of information which you simply dismiss.

I would not cry about it if the Japanese were legally dealt with. That way the problem would be resolved once and for all. Humpbacks and Grey's are the lergest components, what is their status? I already know, I just want you to show us how close the the brink of extinction we are talking.

No I wont be upset about African Poachers, they are removed legally by official sources, not vigilantes.

Nobody said do nothing, I said the Sea Shepherd aggravates the current situation, and to be frank, I think one has to be pretty blind not to see that.

I don't care what nobody said. I care what nobody did: Nothing. You said they "aggravate the current situation" whatever the hell that means. You're blind to reality and the explosive growth of Sea Shepherd vs. the financial and moral bankruptcy of the illegal Japanese whalers.

What do you mean Whatever the hell that means? Ot means the Japanese are p***ed and are not going to be rolling back operations based on the silly illegal antics of a vigilante group.

Your blind to Japans commercial might and the amount of International trade. If you think a bunch of vigilantes are capable of keeping up with them, your only kidding yourself.

You told me that Watson was probably the greatest conservationist that ever lived, yet he does not worry about conservation when he might upset a supporter like Australia, so he leaves us alone. These issues are every bit as important as the whaling situation and require exposure too, but you do not even know these issues exist because your hero Watson does not speak about them. He is a hypocrite, not a conservationist, he is not fit to wipe the bottom of a real conservationist.

He is arguably one of the greatest who ever lived and in my opinion the greatest alive today. He's going to go down in history as actually doing something, not sitting on his hands and feeling good about himself. He will die happy, knowing that he did all he could. You seem to be blind to the explosive growth of support Sea Shepherd has enjoyed thanks to the exposure. They're not just stopping Japanese in the Southern Ocean. They're protecting sharks in the Galapagos, Bluefin in the Mediterranean, dolphins in Taiji, pilot whales in the Faroes, they're cleaning up beaches after man-made disasters, they're cutting long lines all over the world, turtles, seals. Your disagreements are ignorant of ecology and purely political. Maybe your real special interest is the Japanese government because you're highly motivated to make a stink.

All I agree with is "arguably" It most certainly is arguable as he is not even a conservationist. He is going to go down in history as the pirate who kept whaling alive in it's death throes. And he will die happy on a big pile of money knowing he fleeced all he could.

You do not seem to get it. Look at the countries he is attacking, i many cases he is even attacking indigenous rites, which is nothing short of ridiculous. He will not tackle major countries who keep Dolphins and Whales in captivity, which makes Watson the political tool.

I already told you about his "work" in the Faroes:

1986: Sea Shepherd attempts to stop Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. Using rifles, Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7 October 1986 states: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a “Speed Line” line rifle. The attack … endangered the lives of the police crew members ... and signal flares containing phosphorous was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used “toads” (rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies … petrol was poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in an attempt to set the petrol on fire.”

Is that what you call noble is it?

LOL, my arguments are the only ones that actually adress the current environmental situation! All you have done is lie about territory, make up laws, sympathise with Watson and post Migaloo clips. I bet you did not even know New Zealand has better environmental Cetacean policies than Australia does did you?

Yes I do know, I used to bang the same drum, but learned it was wrong. Watson does not cover these issues so most people do not relise they exist, - be honest, did you know that Australia keeps Dolphins captive while New Zealand does not?

Why don't you go find another drum to bang and actually do something then instead of wasting all your energy blathering about someone else's tactics?

Differences between Australia and New Zealand are irrelevant to me because I don't need perfection in the help we get. Sea Shepherd doesn't need to be the 2nd coming of Christ for us to support them. What standards for perfection to you reserve for the things you care about, for the things that you support? This pre-requisite that someone's farts mustn't stink before we can support them is reserved solely for Sea Shepherd in your wasteful diatribes To restore your own credibility here, start a comprehensive discussion critical of the illegal Japanese whale poachers and outline a plan that you think can shut them down, put your money where your mouth is, and hold yourself to the same standards you're flippantly applying to others.

You mean why don't I stop proving the Sea Shepherd Society is just a terrorist group of pirates? I have given you no other reason for the animosity you show.

Actually being serious about conservation does not mean one has to be a second messiah. It's what real conservationists do. They take the entire problem on, not just the bits that look good on TV and make the papers. As Mentioned, people like David Fleay are actual conservationists, and there is a world of difference between what he did and what Watson does. Watson is a media whore. Not a conservationist.

My own credibility? With regards to what? I have given you links and proven your claims 100% wrong, you just seem to think if you keep repeating them, they will be accepted. Not the case. You are the one making up stuff about territory and INternational law, and everything you have said on those subjects has been wrong. As such, it seems to be your credibility that is in question, all you can do is say give money to Watson and things will ber better. It actually is starting to sound a bit like a cult.

I have already said, nothing can be done with the Japanese with the Sea Shepherd in the way. I have shown you Japan was stopped in 1987. We need to go back there, and fix the huge mistake the US made and get the Japanese back on the moratorium, voluntarily. Japan is a proud country, remember the Kamikaze? Hell will freeze over, and whales will evolve back onto land before such a proud nation bows to a small group of pirate terrosists. The US is having a whole war over terrorism. Japan is not going to just say OK, Paul Watson you win. Think about it, do you honestly think that is going to ever happen?

My money? Being wisely spent on things like Greenseas Tuna (which another poster informed me of) that use lines to catch Tuna, not damaging nets. You know, research and supporting those who follow the rules and try to keep resources sustainable and the environment intact. Clever investment all year round, not dumping a bankroll to terrorists to feel good about myself.

That's not getting rid of the nets. That's not going to bring back the tuna from the brink of extinction. We're talking about a million dollar fish, and in Japan a few years ago, one already fetched close to a half a million dollars. Eating a tuna that isn't caught in a net doesn't make the world go away. That's the ostrich defense. Sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring the greater abuses in the world. So long as you sever yourself from it, and keep your own little habitat clean, you rationalize that's all it takes to solve the problem and you can live at peace with yourself. Well sorry, that's not good enough for some people, like Paul Watson.

I believe it is helping. If we all took the advice of real conservationists, the people in the market would have no choice but to conform would they? Do you buy line caught Tuna? Or do you just give money to Watson and hope the problem will go away?

Bluefin and Bigeye Tuna are a concern, that is true, not other species is. What goes into cans Yamato? Don't tell, me you will ask me to answer that one for you too. You do not seem to know much about the Ocean for one so concerned about it, and you think I am the Ostrich? I seem to understand the entire situation a great deal better than yourself, and have shown this from the start of the thread. All of your claims have been wrong, your support of Watson has been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions, and you refuse to accept that legally, they are terrorists. And you are trying to tell me you do not have your head in the sand but I do? Pull the other one, it plays another tune.

You have no facts, you have no laws, you have much passion and that is about it. Maybe you could do another Migaloo clip to further your non-existent "point".

No, it would not be good enough for Paul Watson, no TV cameras to be seen.

Please show me the menu with Migaloo on it. This is pure rhetoric, as is the entire reference, very Paul Watson of you.

BS. You don't need everything spoon fed to you. "Mr. Google" can show you that the Japanese kill Humpbacks.

And Japanese tradition will tell you they hold reverence to unusual instances like this. White Crows in particular hold considerable significance. Mr Google also tells me that Humpbacks are not endangered.

Any local University, or even most High Schools would have someone more than willing to talk to you. I can even ask the people who were kind enough to help me fully understand the situation if you like. They are not politically geared, the people I spoke to are English, they have no dog in this race.

Okay then, here's the internet. Find someone. Find whatever you think is relevant to tell me that history doesn't matter, populations of Great Whale species being run into the ground one after the other until their populations number in the tens of thousands or even less is somehow not a concern or endangerment to their future survival. Find these brilliant high school teachers who can assure me it's not an issue. Find these objective voices who aren't deluded by politics.

So you want me to do this for you as well? OK, I'll send out two invitations, with some luck, we might get some good people in here to confirm that what Watson calls conservation, and what is conservation are two different things.

I cannot find these High School biologists for you, I do not even know where you live. Globally, there are quite a few schools. Unlike yourself, I do not hide the origin of my country. Marine Biologists do not care about polotics, they are marine biologists not politicians. But if you are too lazy to make the effort, I will do it for you.

No, the Whales do not need the poachers, they need them gone, but you do not seem to understand that after 35+ years, Watsons terrorist actions are not helping. Whales still get taken every year.

No, you're just blind to reality. After 35+ years, a global moratorium has been enacted, many nations that were whaling stopped completely, whale sanctuaries have been created, whalers have had their equipment destroyed, whalers have been taken to court, whalers have gone bankrupt, whales have been saved, whale populations have rebounded when they're not being slaughtered unsustainably, and Sea Shepherd is larger, more popular and more powerful than ever. Instead of sinking half a whaling fleet, the entire fleet should be sunk and sunk again if its rebuilt. The only regrettable thing about Sea Shepherd is their uniqueness. That's what's so remarkable about them, but it shouldn't be. There should be many organizations of free civil society, made up of the finest and bravest citizens from around the globe, coming together in solidarity and compassion like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

There is nothing fine nor brave about being an eco-terrorist. The Sea Shepherd had absolutely nothing to do with the IWC's 1986 moratorium. You are again just making lies up to support you position to justify personally funding pirates.

Sanctuaries have been proposed, they are not globally recognised. You seem to keep missing this point. Neither you, nor Paul Watson have the right to tell the rest of the world what they can do and where they can go, no matter how passionate you become about your personal causes.

The Sea Shepherd has more television coverage than normal. Whale Wars is a TV reality show, like Big Brother, that is the mentality you are stooping to, and thinking it is actually helping.

No, there should ne be vigilante groups all over the place doing what they want. Lawlessness is not going to help anyone. Stupid to suggest the entire world go backwards to the mentality of the Wild Wild West. Brabaric useless and ineffective. I do not know why you think fighting barbarism with barbarism is a good idea.

They do not. You keep saying they whale in Australian waters, but that is a lie. I even gave you a map. And no Sanctuary legally exists. It's a voluntary commitment.

BS, you didn't give me a map of where Japanese don't whale. And here we also find out that you don't even respect the sanctuary! You offer nothing to protect whales, you're a whale meater. From a political standpoint, you might even be worse than the people who actually eat it. You don't respect any of the laws that have been enacted to protect whales, you just make asinine statements that they "don't legally exist". That is denial of reality, and it's become your trademark.

I never said that, look up and read again, I gave you a map if Australian territorial waters, show me where a whale has been caught in those boundaries. It seems you did not even look closely enough at the map to even realise that basic.

And it proves the fictional boundaries you keep blathering on about from your soapbox only exist in yours' and Watson's heads. If my trademark is pointing out lies people say, then I am OK with that.

Whale meater? LOL, Now your really off the deep end. I seem to want whaling to end more than you do, because I am trying to have a think about the actual situation, and not throwing a knee jerk reaction at it. When you start resorting to childish antics like this, and obtusely not recognising actual territorial boundaries, I can only assume you are desperate with such antics, which is good, because I am getting tired of refuting your lies. And lies are all your territorial claims have been proven to be. I thought it was just ignorance to begin with, but your repetition insists that you are deliberately lying now.

Japanese whaling within Australian waters in Antarctica is illegal and should be stopped, a court ruled on Tuesday.

It is now up to the Australian government to decide whether to enforce the injunction. And even then it is unclear whether the ruling could be enforced as unless the whaling vessels enter Australia,
"there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced" conceded Federal Court judge
Jim Allsop.

The moratorium too is voluntary, and no country has to sign nor recognise it. It;s more of a goodwill gesture, and when the US took the Goodwill ut of the moratorium, Japan refused to recognise it.

All laws are voluntary by virtue of whether we respect their authority to obey them, which is a function of how enthusiastically they're enforced and the chances of getting caught. I voluntarily drive the speed limit every day, except on Sundays. Japan refused to recognize it and now they're facing someone who is not failing to do so. If we can't enforce the rules and regulations we already have on the books, they're impotent. That makes Sea Shepherd even more important for you and I to support financially.

That is the biggest load of Horse Hockey I have heard so far in this thread. All laws are voluntary are they? Right, I just might go kick Mr Packer out if his mansion, and claim it my own.

I drive the speed limit all the time. On long stretches when it is hard to maintain a low speed, I use cruise control. If you want to put your foot down, at least do it where you can only hurt yourself would you? I sure hope wherever it is that you live, that they invest heavily in speed cameras. I like to drive fast, most boys do, but I do not put other lives at risk. I used to go to a drag strip here called Willowbank, and get it out of my system there. My wife got a ticket for being 12K over the limit, that is the law, and it is enforced and now I have to pay her way. But you might suggest I just tell them no way huh? I'll just let them know I do not choose to obey this one?

No, a moratorium is not law, not in any way shape or fashion. It's an authorisation. Do you understand this difference? Yes, the moratorium is impotent, that is why it is Voluntary!! Crikey Moses! But at least on this front I hope we made some progress!

Yes, thank you GREENPEACE.

Greenpeace's tactics of documenting and begging fails to save lives. The Japanese whale right under their noses anyway. Japanese hauls have been impacted severely by direct confrontation and physical force, not hippie rainbows and drum circles.

Japanese have been whaling right under everyone's noses, because they are not breaking the law.

This impact that you thin is so effective makes people angry, and those people are going to come back next year, even angrier. The people form Greenpeace will have the actual information to prove Japan lies about whaling, and remember we are talking national pride. Japan does not want to be seen as a nation of liars, again, pride can be used effectively, not stupidly.

The Sea Shepherd tactics ensure whaling will be here next year, and the years after that and as many as the insist in staying on the water for their TV show 0 by the way, in it's 8th season now! Watson must be raking it in.

All that money, and just how much is going toward conservation? Do you know what Whale Wars contributes to conservation each year? I think it's about $0.00. What were you saying earlier?

Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so. That's why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all. A majority of those who are aware of the whaling program, oppose it. Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the program to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the program have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan. All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash. By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.

LINK

And according to the Japanese, this is indeed exactly what ishappening. The Sea Shepherd are uniting Japan.

In February 2010, pro-whaling demonstrators gathered outside the Australian Embassy in Tokyo to protest the group. A political activist said that Sea Shepherd's actions were "absolutely racial discrimination against Japanese people.

In his 2009 book, Whaling in Japan, Jun Morikawa states that Sea Shepherd's confrontational tactics have actually strengthened Japan's resolve to continue with its whaling program. According to Morikawa, Sea Shepherd's activities against Japan's whaling ships have allowed the Japanese government to rally domestic support for the program from Japanese who were otherwise ambivalent about the practice of hunting and eating whales

Before you have a link spit, it's all from Wiki.

I seem to have a far greater command of the actual facts than you do. You keep saying Japanese whale in Australian waters, they do not, you keep insisting on some global sanctuary, it does not exist, it is a proposal to be adopted, I do not know why you keep repeating these items, repetition will not make them law.

You have a greater command of your own opinion than I do perhaps. You don't have any command of the relevant facts to my position, you deny those facts and then prune yourself. Again, it's not what I insist. It's the facts that I accept that you cannot.

http://en.wikipedia....Whale_Sanctuary

Prune myself? did you mean preen? If you are going to try to insult, at least do it right would you?

I keep trying to explain these "Sanctuaries" and "territories" to you. Perhaps you can explain something to me, why does your link call it an alleged sanctuary?

The Sanctuary is the scene of an ongoing controversy between Australia and Japan over whaling. In 2008 the Australian Federal Court ruled it was illegal under Australian law for the Japanese whaling fleet to kill whales in the Sanctuary.[3]Yet the Japanese continue to kill Whales in the alleged sanctuary every year.

See.

You quoted the Australian Ocean Sanctuary, ever heard of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, or the Indian Ocean Sanctuary? WIki has this to say:

Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.

This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2) of the ICRW, which states that the creation of any sanctuary must "be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry"

Japans haul after the moratorium, but before they met the Sea Shepherd? What? The moratorium was penned in 1986 to take effect in 1988. Watson put the Sea Shepherd Society together in 1977. That is 9 years before the moratorium was even penned, and 11 years before it was to take effect!

Yes, Japan's haul after the moratorium but before they ever met Sea Shepherd. How is that statement hard to understand? Sea Shepherd has been meeting the Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean for the past nine seasons. If you're good at math you will calculate correctly that it didn't start until the 21st century. When he founded Sea Shepherd is irrelevant.

I see, so you are saying the Japan was taking a great deal more before the Sea Shepherd showed up, is that is? How was the haul in 1987? Do you think that is why stocks are recovering? You really do not think it has anything to do with the US and Australia ending whaling operations at the same time??

It is funny that you recognise the specific Japanese harassment based on how long a TV Show has been on!

What exactly are you trying to say? That the Sea Shepherd ensures that a catch will be small? They also ensure the Japanese will return? How is that helping?

No alternatives? Yes I did, ground the Sea Shepherd and ask Japan back to the negotiating tabel. Whaling was stopped, you tell me how many whales were taken in 1987. And then tell me why, because you answer will not have the Sea Shepherd in it.

They've already been asked back to the negotiating table. They were outvoted unanimously at the table when the moratorium was created. Japan crawled back into whaling after the moratorium as I said. building up their whaling operation more and more every year, and was up to hauling in 1000 whales per year until Sea Shepherd came in and ruined their killing machine. You offer no alternatives. "Ask them back to the table" wow like that's going to work. Poachers need to be shut down. Cannon fire across their bows and an escort half way home would be more appropriate than sitting down and talking which they already do every year. If sitting down and talking were effective it would already have been so. You don't offer anything there at all, just imagination, rhetoric, and more denial of reality.

Yes it is going to work. No doubt about it, your kidding yourself if you think a band of pirates is going to work. You do not seem to understand that the US went back on the moratorium, and that is why Japan went back to whaling, because they were not allowed to fish! The Sea Shepherd had not ruined any industry. All it has done is put it in the spotlight, and made money from it.

It has been done! How you keep missing that is amazing. What year has the Sea Shepherd equalled the success of talks resulting in NO Japanese whalers taking to the Oceans in 1987? When has the Sea Shepherd reduced one year to a zero quota?

That you refuse to talk at the table just shows your a thug at heart, and think you can bash your way through life. Good luck with that philosophy.

Yamato said:

I also suggested Watson put his money where his mouth is and Challenge the Japanese to go back to traditional whaling from long boats only if he disables his fleet. But you can bet your bottom dollar Watson would never agree to something like that.

Why don't you do that? They might listen to you, not Paul Watson. Paul Watson's mission is to run the Japanese whaling fleet into the ground and it that means that Japan is going to bilk their taxpayers to keep a morally and financially bankrupt poaching operation above water then so be it. Paul Watson might be somewhere near Japan instead, directing dolphins away from the Japanese home islands before they're caught up in another Japanese slaughter trap. Paul Watson might be near Iceland, or the Faroes, or Ecuador, or the Pacific islands or the Mediterranean. Whoever the biggest poachers are should receive a proportional amount of fist in their face to shut them down. As whaling is concerned, the vast majority of Sea Shepherd's small budget should be allocated to stopping them.

I'd love to offer to scuttle Watsons fleet. But I could only do that with violence and what would happen then? Watson would be determined to get two more boats, wouldnt he? Sinking in yet? This is what he does to the Japanese. He has as much right to harras them, as I do to sink any Sea Shepherd boat.

You do not seem to understand that the people of Japan see Watson as racist, and they will support their country, not some jumped up upstart.

Paul Watsons mission is to keep the audience glued to their screens, TV cameras back each year to gain further support from the ignorant and Whalers on the water to keep the show running. Once the law catches up with him, Paul Watson will be in jail, not out harassing indigenous peoples trying to feed tribes, where he belongs.

Yamato said:

They did not sneak into any place. They officially objected to the Moratorium and brazenly touted the law with some ridiculous loophole.

And the numbers increased exponentially from 1988 til they were hitting their self-imposed quota (it was not the IWC's quota as you claimed) until Sea Shepherd met them in the Southern Ocean to the point we're at today where their kill numbers have declined significantly.

Some numbers have been reduced, but you do not seem to realise, what they do not kill in the south, they just take from the north eventually. Watson didn't tell you that on the telly did he. All this does is ensure it will continue every year. These numbers would pale next to a zero quota that could be achieved through negotiation.

Yamato said:

You know why they keep taking whales? Because they can - legally. If they can take whales legally, we need to stop them legally. Watsons terrorist tactics only allow them further excuses to continue whaling.

Paul Watson is stopping them legally. Why don't you arrest Peter Bethune if he's such a terrorist? He's home with his wife and kids right now. If he was a terrorist he'd be rotting in a prison cell somewhere. Obviously the laws you spend your time petting and pruning, whatever they are, are voluntary too. Whatever excuse Watson "allows" for them to continue whaling is just an excuse. Japan is whaling for a reason. They're proud of their poaching, they're industrious resourceful people and they don't like being told what not to do. Historical precedence has shown, only by confrontation and force can the Japanese be made to heel.

Well, now your just out and out lying again.

Watson's actions are not legal, nor are his self imposed laws. That is why there is currently a warrant for his arrest. All the terrorist actions Listed for you the page previous are direct violations of the law.

LOL, Peter Bethune? Why would I bother the poor fellow? He has been charged for his stupid actions already, I do not think he will be setting foot on Japanese soi;d for a while, and the Sea Shepherd abandoned him for boarding the Japanese vessel. Are you serious about this guy? He hates the Sea Shepherd.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has cut its links with anti-whaling activist Peter Bethune after he carried a bow and arrows during confrontations with Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.

"Therefore, although Sea Shepherd will continue to support Captain Bethune through his legal battle in Japan, Sea Shepherd will not select him to participate in future campaigns.

LINK

Watson can carry guns though. As I have proven to you.

But what does Peter have to say?

Pete Bethune has blasted Sea Shepherd and its leader Paul Watson, describing them as ‘dishonest’ and ‘morally bankrupt’.

Pete Bethune resigned from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in an open letter on his Facebook page today; he says he can no longer represent a group that deliberately misleads and lies.

“It's gradually dawned on me how bad they are, every month there's another big lie floating around,” he wrote.

Bethune was captain of the anti-whaling vessel Ady Gil that was rammed by Japanese whaling ship the Shonan Maru 2 earlier this year.

Bethune now says he was directed by Sea Shepherd admiral Paul Watson to deliberately sink the Ady Gil after it was hit by the Japanese ship.

“It was done for PR purposes and after the sinking I wasn't allowed to talk to anyone about it and I wasn't even allowed to visit Ady Gil,” he says.

“This is Ady Gil's boat and I've got to keep it a secret from him.”

Sea Shepherd expelled Bethune during his trial in Japan but later retracted their comments saying they had done so to help his case. Bethune says that too is lies.

“And it didn't assist my trial at all; the lawyer said it portrayed me as dishonest,” he says.

Bethune says senior Sea Shepherd personnel routinely lie and conspire over serious matters and his resignation letter points out many of these.

LINK

Poor bugger had to learn about Watson the hard way.

Yamato said:

Metting quotas? I suppose you did not hear about them having so much whale meat the years before last that they threw a lot away, and were giving it away in school lunches? Does not sound like the Sea Shepherd stopped much to me.

Meeting quotas.

And if demand is so low, then why do they have such a ridiculously high self-imposed quota? Why don't you ever put the burden on the illegal Japanese whalers or their government enablers?

Duhh!!! Because of the Sea Shepherd!

I canot put the burden on the Japanese because whilst both parties are dirty low down dogs, the Japanese are following the letter of the law. The law must be upheld, and the law is how the Japanese will be stopped. Legally. I cannot fathom how stupid it is to actually believe that a small group of vigilantes would stop an entire nation. I mean really, think about it!

Yamato said:

A frigate sized vessel has to be funded by a Government, so that means war.

What are you talking about? No, a frigate sized vessel doesn't have to be funded by a government. Absurd.

Do you know what it costs to not only buy, but run and maintain something like that? I suppose Whale Wars might come to the party, if the rating stay up for people like you, but Japans electronic Industry alone is about a million times the size of the Sea Shepherd Society.

Yamato'said:

And that's the bottom line, if you want to stop them with violence, then stop nanyshagging around with the p***y little sea shepherd. Get a mercenary group onside and start a full blown war, because that is the alternative to legally removing illegal activity isn't it?

Sea Shepherd is not a violent organization in the least. They haven't killed one person in over 35 years of operation. The violent organization is the illegal Japanese whaling fleet when they fire a spear through the back of the head of a whale and then tow it on a line, shooting it repeatedly with rifles, while it slowly drowns in its own blood for 20 minutes in a torturous and horrifying death. That's the only "violence" in this whole issue, and you're blind to that reality too.

Again, you are out and out lying, I really do not think it helps you position when you just outright lie. They are indeed very violent, and that is why they get the attention they do. The Japanese Whalers have not killed one person either, and for longer than 35 years. I suppose that means the atrocities in WWII did not happen?

The one thing I am in front of you on is the issue of whaling, I do not have to keep lying to continue my debate, I have offered links to varying sources, and corrected your misinformation regarding territories and sanctuaries. I hope you learned at least something out of all this. I think I want whaling to end more than you do because I have got over the anger that allows shock value to let one think that violence is a good idea. Now I want to actually try something that works, but as long as people like you keep people like Watson on the water, I might as well consider whales extinct now. That is all Watson will eventually accomplish, a slow but sure demise of the species.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am pleased to say for once I have to say your right about something :D It is about half way through, thanks for prompting me to watch again, even though my wife had a whine about me watching it again.

So you do not even know if the species being whaled is endangered? I do my homework, I have left you a mountain of information which you simply dismiss.

I would not cry about it if the Japanese were legally dealt with. That way the problem would be resolved once and for all. Humpbacks and Grey's are the lergest components, what is their status? I already know, I just want you to show us how close the the brink of extinction we are talking.

No I wont be upset about African Poachers, they are removed legally by official sources, not vigilantes.

What do you mean Whatever the hell that means? Ot means the Japanese are p***ed and are not going to be rolling back operations based on the silly illegal antics of a vigilante group.

Your blind to Japans commercial might and the amount of International trade. If you think a bunch of vigilantes are capable of keeping up with them, your only kidding yourself.

All I agree with is "arguably" It most certainly is arguable as he is not even a conservationist. He is going to go down in history as the pirate who kept whaling alive in it's death throes. And he will die happy on a big pile of money knowing he fleeced all he could.

You do not seem to get it. Look at the countries he is attacking, i many cases he is even attacking indigenous rites, which is nothing short of ridiculous. He will not tackle major countries who keep Dolphins and Whales in captivity, which makes Watson the political tool.

I already told you about his "work" in the Faroes:

1986: Sea Shepherd attempts to stop Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. Using rifles, Sea Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7 October 1986 states: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a “Speed Line” line rifle. The attack … endangered the lives of the police crew members ... and signal flares containing phosphorous was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used “toads” (rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies … petrol was poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in an attempt to set the petrol on fire.”

Is that what you call noble is it?

LOL, my arguments are the only ones that actually adress the current environmental situation! All you have done is lie about territory, make up laws, sympathise with Watson and post Migaloo clips. I bet you did not even know New Zealand has better environmental Cetacean policies than Australia does did you?

You mean why don't I stop proving the Sea Shepherd Society is just a terrorist group of pirates? I have given you no other reason for the animosity you show.

Actually being serious about conservation does not mean one has to be a second messiah. It's what real conservationists do. They take the entire problem on, not just the bits that look good on TV and make the papers. As Mentioned, people like David Fleay are actual conservationists, and there is a world of difference between what he did and what Watson does. Watson is a media whore. Not a conservationist.

My own credibility? With regards to what? I have given you links and proven your claims 100% wrong, you just seem to think if you keep repeating them, they will be accepted. Not the case. You are the one making up stuff about territory and INternational law, and everything you have said on those subjects has been wrong. As such, it seems to be your credibility that is in question, all you can do is say give money to Watson and things will ber better. It actually is starting to sound a bit like a cult.

I have already said, nothing can be done with the Japanese with the Sea Shepherd in the way. I have shown you Japan was stopped in 1987. We need to go back there, and fix the huge mistake the US made and get the Japanese back on the moratorium, voluntarily. Japan is a proud country, remember the Kamikaze? Hell will freeze over, and whales will evolve back onto land before such a proud nation bows to a small group of pirate terrosists. The US is having a whole war over terrorism. Japan is not going to just say OK, Paul Watson you win. Think about it, do you honestly think that is going to ever happen?

I believe it is helping. If we all took the advice of real conservationists, the people in the market would have no choice but to conform would they? Do you buy line caught Tuna? Or do you just give money to Watson and hope the problem will go away?

Bluefin and Bigeye Tuna are a concern, that is true, not other species is. What goes into cans Yamato? Don't tell, me you will ask me to answer that one for you too. You do not seem to know much about the Ocean for one so concerned about it, and you think I am the Ostrich? I seem to understand the entire situation a great deal better than yourself, and have shown this from the start of the thread. All of your claims have been wrong, your support of Watson has been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions, and you refuse to accept that legally, they are terrorists. And you are trying to tell me you do not have your head in the sand but I do? Pull the other one, it plays another tune.

You have no facts, you have no laws, you have much passion and that is about it. Maybe you could do another Migaloo clip to further your non-existent "point".

No, it would not be good enough for Paul Watson, no TV cameras to be seen.

And Japanese tradition will tell you they hold reverence to unusual instances like this. White Crows in particular hold considerable significance. Mr Google also tells me that Humpbacks are not endangered.

So you want me to do this for you as well? OK, I'll send out two invitations, with some luck, we might get some good people in here to confirm that what Watson calls conservation, and what is conservation are two different things.

I cannot find these High School biologists for you, I do not even know where you live. Globally, there are quite a few schools. Unlike yourself, I do not hide the origin of my country. Marine Biologists do not care about polotics, they are marine biologists not politicians. But if you are too lazy to make the effort, I will do it for you.

There is nothing fine nor brave about being an eco-terrorist. The Sea Shepherd had absolutely nothing to do with the IWC's 1986 moratorium. You are again just making lies up to support you position to justify personally funding pirates.

Sanctuaries have been proposed, they are not globally recognised. You seem to keep missing this point. Neither you, nor Paul Watson have the right to tell the rest of the world what they can do and where they can go, no matter how passionate you become about your personal causes.

The Sea Shepherd has more television coverage than normal. Whale Wars is a TV reality show, like Big Brother, that is the mentality you are stooping to, and thinking it is actually helping.

No, there should ne be vigilante groups all over the place doing what they want. Lawlessness is not going to help anyone. Stupid to suggest the entire world go backwards to the mentality of the Wild Wild West. Brabaric useless and ineffective. I do not know why you think fighting barbarism with barbarism is a good idea.

I never said that, look up and read again, I gave you a map if Australian territorial waters, show me where a whale has been caught in those boundaries. It seems you did not even look closely enough at the map to even realise that basic.

And it proves the fictional boundaries you keep blathering on about from your soapbox only exist in yours' and Watson's heads. If my trademark is pointing out lies people say, then I am OK with that.

Whale meater? LOL, Now your really off the deep end. I seem to want whaling to end more than you do, because I am trying to have a think about the actual situation, and not throwing a knee jerk reaction at it. When you start resorting to childish antics like this, and obtusely not recognising actual territorial boundaries, I can only assume you are desperate with such antics, which is good, because I am getting tired of refuting your lies. And lies are all your territorial claims have been proven to be. I thought it was just ignorance to begin with, but your repetition insists that you are deliberately lying now.

Japanese whaling within Australian waters in Antarctica is illegal and should be stopped, a court ruled on Tuesday.

It is now up to the Australian government to decide whether to enforce the injunction. And even then it is unclear whether the ruling could be enforced as unless the whaling vessels enter Australia,
"there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced" conceded Federal Court judge
Jim Allsop.

That is the biggest load of Horse Hockey I have heard so far in this thread. All laws are voluntary are they? Right, I just might go kick Mr Packer out if his mansion, and claim it my own.

I drive the speed limit all the time. On long stretches when it is hard to maintain a low speed, I use cruise control. If you want to put your foot down, at least do it where you can only hurt yourself would you? I sure hope wherever it is that you live, that they invest heavily in speed cameras. I like to drive fast, most boys do, but I do not put other lives at risk. I used to go to a drag strip here called Willowbank, and get it out of my system there. My wife got a ticket for being 12K over the limit, that is the law, and it is enforced and now I have to pay her way. But you might suggest I just tell them no way huh? I'll just let them know I do not choose to obey this one?

No, a moratorium is not law, not in any way shape or fashion. It's an authorisation. Do you understand this difference? Yes, the moratorium is impotent, that is why it is Voluntary!! Crikey Moses! But at least on this front I hope we made some progress!

Japanese have been whaling right under everyone's noses, because they are not breaking the law.

This impact that you thin is so effective makes people angry, and those people are going to come back next year, even angrier. The people form Greenpeace will have the actual information to prove Japan lies about whaling, and remember we are talking national pride. Japan does not want to be seen as a nation of liars, again, pride can be used effectively, not stupidly.

The Sea Shepherd tactics ensure whaling will be here next year, and the years after that and as many as the insist in staying on the water for their TV show 0 by the way, in it's 8th season now! Watson must be raking it in.

All that money, and just how much is going toward conservation? Do you know what Whale Wars contributes to conservation each year? I think it's about $0.00. What were you saying earlier?

Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so. That's why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all. A majority of those who are aware of the whaling program, oppose it. Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the program to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the program have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan. All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash. By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.

LINK

And according to the Japanese, this is indeed exactly what ishappening. The Sea Shepherd are uniting Japan.

In February 2010, pro-whaling demonstrators gathered outside the Australian Embassy in Tokyo to protest the group. A political activist said that Sea Shepherd's actions were "absolutely racial discrimination against Japanese people.

In his 2009 book, Whaling in Japan, Jun Morikawa states that Sea Shepherd's confrontational tactics have actually strengthened Japan's resolve to continue with its whaling program. According to Morikawa, Sea Shepherd's activities against Japan's whaling ships have allowed the Japanese government to rally domestic support for the program from Japanese who were otherwise ambivalent about the practice of hunting and eating whales

Before you have a link spit, it's all from Wiki.

Prune myself? did you mean preen? If you are going to try to insult, at least do it right would you?

I keep trying to explain these "Sanctuaries" and "territories" to you. Perhaps you can explain something to me, why does your link call it an alleged sanctuary?

The Sanctuary is the scene of an ongoing controversy between Australia and Japan over whaling. In 2008 the Australian Federal Court ruled it was illegal under Australian law for the Japanese whaling fleet to kill whales in the Sanctuary.[3]Yet the Japanese continue to kill Whales in the alleged sanctuary every year.

See.

You quoted the Australian Ocean Sanctuary, ever heard of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, or the Indian Ocean Sanctuary? WIki has this to say:

Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.

This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2) of the ICRW, which states that the creation of any sanctuary must "be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry"

I see, so you are saying the Japan was taking a great deal more before the Sea Shepherd showed up, is that is? How was the haul in 1987? Do you think that is why stocks are recovering? You really do not think it has anything to do with the US and Australia ending whaling operations at the same time??

It is funny that you recognise the specific Japanese harassment based on how long a TV Show has been on!

What exactly are you trying to say? That the Sea Shepherd ensures that a catch will be small? They also ensure the Japanese will return? How is that helping?

Yes it is going to work. No doubt about it, your kidding yourself if you think a band of pirates is going to work. You do not seem to understand that the US went back on the moratorium, and that is why Japan went back to whaling, because they were not allowed to fish! The Sea Shepherd had not ruined any industry. All it has done is put it in the spotlight, and made money from it.

It has been done! How you keep missing that is amazing. What year has the Sea Shepherd equalled the success of talks resulting in NO Japanese whalers taking to the Oceans in 1987? When has the Sea Shepherd reduced one year to a zero quota?

That you refuse to talk at the table just shows your a thug at heart, and think you can bash your way through life. Good luck with that philosophy.

Yamato said:

I also suggested Watson put his money where his mouth is and Challenge the Japanese to go back to traditional whaling from long boats only if he disables his fleet. But you can bet your bottom dollar Watson would never agree to something like that.

Why don't you do that? They might listen to you, not Paul Watson. Paul Watson's mission is to run the Japanese whaling fleet into the ground and it that means that Japan is going to bilk their taxpayers to keep a morally and financially bankrupt poaching operation above water then so be it. Paul Watson might be somewhere near Japan instead, directing dolphins away from the Japanese home islands before they're caught up in another Japanese slaughter trap. Paul Watson might be near Iceland, or the Faroes, or Ecuador, or the Pacific islands or the Mediterranean. Whoever the biggest poachers are should receive a proportional amount of fist in their face to shut them down. As whaling is concerned, the vast majority of Sea Shepherd's small budget should be allocated to stopping them.

I'd love to offer to scuttle Watsons fleet. But I could only do that with violence and what would happen then? Watson would be determined to get two more boats, wouldnt he? Sinking in yet? This is what he does to the Japanese. He has as much right to harras them, as I do to sink any Sea Shepherd boat.

You do not seem to understand that the people of Japan see Watson as racist, and they will support their country, not some jumped up upstart.

Paul Watsons mission is to keep the audience glued to their screens, TV cameras back each year to gain further support from the ignorant and Whalers on the water to keep the show running. Once the law catches up with him, Paul Watson will be in jail, not out harassing indigenous peoples trying to feed tribes, where he belongs.

Yamato said:

They did not sneak into any place. They officially objected to the Moratorium and brazenly touted the law with some ridiculous loophole.

And the numbers increased exponentially from 1988 til they were hitting their self-imposed quota (it was not the IWC's quota as you claimed) until Sea Shepherd met them in the Southern Ocean to the point we're at today where their kill numbers have declined significantly.

Some numbers have been reduced, but you do not seem to realise, what they do not kill in the south, they just take from the north eventually. Watson didn't tell you that on the telly did he. All this does is ensure it will continue every year. These numbers would pale next to a zero quota that could be achieved through negotiation.

Yamato said:

You know why they keep taking whales? Because they can - legally. If they can take whales legally, we need to stop them legally. Watsons terrorist tactics only allow them further excuses to continue whaling.

Paul Watson is stopping them legally. Why don't you arrest Peter Bethune if he's such a terrorist? He's home with his wife and kids right now. If he was a terrorist he'd be rotting in a prison cell somewhere. Obviously the laws you spend your time petting and pruning, whatever they are, are voluntary too. Whatever excuse Watson "allows" for them to continue whaling is just an excuse. Japan is whaling for a reason. They're proud of their poaching, they're industrious resourceful people and they don't like being told what not to do. Historical precedence has shown, only by confrontation and force can the Japanese be made to heel.

Well, now your just out and out lying again.

Watson's actions are not legal, nor are his self imposed laws. That is why there is currently a warrant for his arrest. All the terrorist actions Listed for you the page previous are direct violations of the law.

LOL, Peter Bethune? Why would I bother the poor fellow? He has been charged for his stupid actions already, I do not think he will be setting foot on Japanese soi;d for a while, and the Sea Shepherd abandoned him for boarding the Japanese vessel. Are you serious about this guy? He hates the Sea Shepherd.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has cut its links with anti-whaling activist Peter Bethune after he carried a bow and arrows during confrontations with Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean.

"Therefore, although Sea Shepherd will continue to support Captain Bethune through his legal battle in Japan, Sea Shepherd will not select him to participate in future campaigns.

LINK

Watson can carry guns though. As I have proven to you.

But what does Peter have to say?

Pete Bethune has blasted Sea Shepherd and its leader Paul Watson, describing them as ‘dishonest’ and ‘morally bankrupt’.

Pete Bethune resigned from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in an open letter on his Facebook page today; he says he can no longer represent a group that deliberately misleads and lies.

“It's gradually dawned on me how bad they are, every month there's another big lie floating around,” he wrote.

Bethune was captain of the anti-whaling vessel Ady Gil that was rammed by Japanese whaling ship the Shonan Maru 2 earlier this year.

Bethune now says he was directed by Sea Shepherd admiral Paul Watson to deliberately sink the Ady Gil after it was hit by the Japanese ship.

“It was done for PR purposes and after the sinking I wasn't allowed to talk to anyone about it and I wasn't even allowed to visit Ady Gil,” he says.

“This is Ady Gil's boat and I've got to keep it a secret from him.”

Sea Shepherd expelled Bethune during his trial in Japan but later retracted their comments saying they had done so to help his case. Bethune says that too is lies.

“And it didn't assist my trial at all; the lawyer said it portrayed me as dishonest,” he says.

Bethune says senior Sea Shepherd personnel routinely lie and conspire over serious matters and his resignation letter points out many of these.

LINK

Poor bugger had to learn about Watson the hard way.

Yamato said:

Metting quotas? I suppose you did not hear about them having so much whale meat the years before last that they threw a lot away, and were giving it away in school lunches? Does not sound like the Sea Shepherd stopped much to me.

Meeting quotas.

And if demand is so low, then why do they have such a ridiculously high self-imposed quota? Why don't you ever put the burden on the illegal Japanese whalers or their government enablers?

Duhh!!! Because of the Sea Shepherd!

I canot put the burden on the Japanese because whilst both parties are dirty low down dogs, the Japanese are following the letter of the law. The law must be upheld, and the law is how the Japanese will be stopped. Legally. I cannot fathom how stupid it is to actually believe that a small group of vigilantes would stop an entire nation. I mean really, think about it!

Yamato said:

A frigate sized vessel has to be funded by a Government, so that means war.

What are you talking about? No, a frigate sized vessel doesn't have to be funded by a government. Absurd.

Do you know what it costs to not only buy, but run and maintain something like that? I suppose Whale Wars might come to the party, if the rating stay up for people like you, but Japans electronic Industry alone is about a million times the size of the Sea Shepherd Society.

Yamato'said:

And that's the bottom line, if you want to stop them with violence, then stop nanyshagging around with the p***y little sea shepherd. Get a mercenary group onside and start a full blown war, because that is the alternative to legally removing illegal activity isn't it?

Sea Shepherd is not a violent organization in the least. They haven't killed one person in over 35 years of operation. The violent organization is the illegal Japanese whaling fleet when they fire a spear through the back of the head of a whale and then tow it on a line, shooting it repeatedly with rifles, while it slowly drowns in its own blood for 20 minutes in a torturous and horrifying death. That's the only "violence" in this whole issue, and you're blind to that reality too.

Again, you are out and out lying, I really do not think it helps you position when you just outright lie. They are indeed very violent, and that is why they get the attention they do. The Japanese Whalers have not killed one person either, and for longer than 35 years. I suppose that means the atrocities in WWII did not happen?

The one thing I am in front of you on is the issue of whaling, I do not have to keep lying to continue my debate, I have offered links to varying sources, and corrected your misinformation regarding territories and sanctuaries. I hope you learned at least something out of all this. I think I want whaling to end more than you do because I have got over the anger that allows shock value to let one think that violence is a good idea. Now I want to actually try something that works, but as long as people like you keep people like Watson on the water, I might as well consider whales extinct now. That is all Watson will eventually accomplish, a slow but sure demise of the species.

Well I am pleased to say for once I have to say your right about something :D It is about half way through, thanks for prompting me to watch again, even though my wife had a whine about me watching it again.

That's not the only thing immediately identifiable that you're wrong about. That's just the first thing you're willing to admit, the first sign of honesty in this entire discourse.

So you do not even know if the species being whaled is endangered? I do my homework, I have left you a mountain of information which you simply dismiss.

It takes about five seconds to look up online. And it's irrelevant to the discussion. Don't profess to me what I do or don't know. Getting personal is your own failure to keep it on the subject at hand. What "mountain of information" are you talking about?

I would not cry about it if the Japanese were legally dealt with. That way the problem would be resolved once and for all. Humpbacks and Grey's are the lergest components, what is their status? I already know, I just want you to show us how close the the brink of extinction we are talking.

They're legally dealt with. The World Charter for Nature authorizes Paul Watson do stop their illegal whaling operation. How does it get more legal than that? Just whose authority do you even respect here, other than the Japanese whalers? Lergest components of what? They're not the largest components of anything. You can quickly find the Japanese self-imposed quotas on the internet as you can also find information about each species. I'm not talking about individual species or the differences between them. It doesn't help the Japanese that they're poaching 0 Blue Whales, or 0 Right Whales. It doesn't matter to me that some bureaucracy is less concerned with extinction about one species than another. It's the principle and the rule of law that matters to me. Don't dictate to me what hasn't been adjudicated in court. Japan is being taken to the shed in more ways than one. Have a seat and stay tuned.

No I wont be upset about African Poachers, they are removed legally by official sources, not vigilantes.

That confers with what I've already said. If it's big, shiny, grey and bankrolled from the government, it's here to help. God forbid that civil society do anything without the gubmint doing it for them "officially".

What do you mean Whatever the hell that means? Ot means the Japanese are p***ed and are not going to be rolling back operations based on the silly illegal antics of a vigilante group.

Their antics aren't illegal. Vigilante justice isn't inherently wrong. I can make a citizen's arrest in my own country and it's too bad if you can't do the same in yours. These encounters would have been broken up, with one side prosecuted, jailed, and put down if the law was clear either way. Both sides claim to have the law on their side. The gravitas of the law being on Sea Shepherd's side is the survival of our oceans, the gravity on the other is some self entitled welfare program to eat mercury-laden whale meat. I wonder which one is more important to the most people.

Your blind to Japans commercial might and the amount of International trade. If you think a bunch of vigilantes are capable of keeping up with them, your only kidding yourself.

Well just look at the numbers that the Japanese report and then grab a mirror. I'm not blind, I'm accepting their own statements. They haven't brought in half of their quota in the last three whaling seasons. That's not me kidding myself about anything, that's you ignoring the fact.

All I agree with is "arguably" It most certainly is arguable as he is not even a conservationist. He is going to go down in history as the pirate who kept whaling alive in it's death throes. And he will die happy on a big pile of money knowing he fleeced all he could.

Going down in history for what? Based on what? What Statist rag are you getting this nonsense from? You're not keeping up with reality, proven by the growth of Sea Shepherd. Proven by the growing failure and bankruptcy of these whalers. You're not keeping up with the legal developments. You're not seeing the trend; you're dreaming this fantasy rhetoric based on God knows what.

You do not seem to get it. Look at the countries he is attacking, i many cases he is even attacking indigenous rites, which is nothing short of ridiculous. He will not tackle major countries who keep Dolphins and Whales in captivity, which makes Watson the political tool.

He's not "attacking" and he's not attacking "countries". Everything that Sea Shepherd isn't doing is not a valid reason to oppose everything they do. Nobody does everything. The dolphins that are taken away to capitivity are captured in Taiji Japan and Sea Shepherd is there. Give credit where it's due, if that's really what you care about. I suppose they're "illegal" in Japan too because they once cut a net and hurt the net's feelings.

I already told you about his "work" in the Faroes:

Yeah you already told me and you didn't cite your source that you copy-pasted from. So everything you read in opposition to Sea Shepherd is true because you want it to be? Or is it documented, proven in court, backed up by independent sources, or is it just a politically motivated smear job that it sounds like?

Is that what you call noble is it?

I call Sea Shepherd one of the most noble organizations in existence today, yes.

LOL, my arguments are the only ones that actually adress the current environmental situation! All you have done is lie about territory, make up laws, sympathise with Watson and post Migaloo clips. I bet you did not even know New Zealand has better environmental Cetacean policies than Australia does did you?

You're calling me a liar again and again. Just what lie do you think you're talking about? Comparing Australia and New Zealand, just like comparing different species of whales, does not correct or even serve to oppose anything I've discussed with you so far. These differences are irrelevant to the point.

You mean why don't I stop proving the Sea Shepherd Society is just a terrorist group of pirates? I have given you no other reason for the animosity you show.

What proof of this do you think you have? Peter Bethune and every other Sea Shepherd employee living free lives with their families in their respective home countries? That's not proof of what you think, that's proof of what I claim.

Actually being serious about conservation does not mean one has to be a second messiah. It's what real conservationists do. They take the entire problem on, not just the bits that look good on TV and make the papers. As Mentioned, people like David Fleay are actual conservationists, and there is a world of difference between what he did and what Watson does. Watson is a media whore. Not a conservationist.

And when there are alternatives that are taking this problem on, and you can answer how to do that beyond "asking to sit down and talk" after kissing up and letting the poachers poach to their fill, that's just rhetoric. There is no such thing as bad press. If you avoid the press, you're not a good conservationist, you're a bashful one in the shadows.

My own credibility? With regards to what? I have given you links and proven your claims 100% wrong, you just seem to think if you keep repeating them, they will be accepted. Not the case. You are the one making up stuff about territory and INternational law, and everything you have said on those subjects has been wrong. As such, it seems to be your credibility that is in question, all you can do is say give money to Watson and things will ber better. It actually is starting to sound a bit like a cult.

You haven't proven anything. You haven't cited one law Sea Shepherd breaks in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. You haven't identified one authority with the jurisdiction to prosecute them. I haven't made anything up, I've shown you the encyclopedia, which for our purposes here, will be the authority over both of us. You can call me names, call me a liar, talk your rhetoric about 'cults' and 'messiah' and it really doesn't mean much but desperation to me.

I have already said, nothing can be done with the Japanese with the Sea Shepherd in the way.

You can keep saying that, but I have no reason to agree with that. Japan could have stopped in 1986. They did not. They began whaling immediately with the loophole and it's been all up from there until SSCS took them down.

I have shown you Japan was stopped in 1987.

You don't know what you're talking about. You have no credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan_whaling_since_1985.svg

We need to go back there, and fix the huge mistake the US made and get the Japanese back on the moratorium, voluntarily.

Don't blame the US on Japan's whaling now. It's just one excuse after another and really, it's getting old.

Japan is a proud country, remember the Kamikaze? Hell will freeze over, and whales will evolve back onto land before such a proud nation bows to a small group of pirate terrosists. The US is having a whole war over terrorism. Japan is not going to just say OK, Paul Watson you win. Think about it, do you honestly think that is going to ever happen?

Japanese pride is defeatable. Only quitters and losers can't compete with Japanese pride.

I believe it is helping. If we all took the advice of real conservationists, the people in the market would have no choice but to conform would they?

Watson controls the world and nobody can do anything with Watson in it, and even the "real" conservationists are impotent to do anything so long as Watson breathes oxygen. Got it.

Do you buy line caught Tuna? Or do you just give money to Watson and hope the problem will go away?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I don't eat tuna. I do give money to Watson and hope the problem will go away. Your opinion on who's "real" doesn't matter to me.

Bluefin and Bigeye Tuna are a concern, that is true, not other species is.

Okay? So Sea Shepherd is correct to fight Bluefin fishermen fishing outside of their season and quotas.

What goes into cans Yamato?

Sometimes food. like Bluefin tuna.

You do not seem to know much about the Ocean for one so concerned about it, and you think I am the Ostrich?

You don't know anything about me, and yes I think it's the ostrich defense to think that problems will go away because you put your head in the sand and eat tuna.

I seem to understand the entire situation a great deal better than yourself, and have shown this from the start of the thread.

You seem to misunderstand, whatever the "entire situation" is.

All of your claims have been wrong, your support of Watson has been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions, and you refuse to accept that legally, they are terrorists. And you are trying to tell me you do not have your head in the sand but I do? Pull the other one, it plays another tune.

Name one claim that's "been wrong". Looks airtight to me. Good luck.

You have no facts, you have no laws, you have much passion and that is about it. Maybe you could do another Migaloo clip to further your non-existent "point".

Okay so the World Charter for Nature, Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, Australian EEZ, Australian Whale Sanctuary, Global Moratorium on commercial whaling are all figments of my imagination, good point. Your Japanese heroes would have put a harpoon through Migaloo's head; that video clip should idenfity what your highly motivated word count is defending. What part of the word "law" do you not understand? Your own country is taking Japan to court. If this wasn't a legal matter (look up the word legal) then the law wouldn't be relevant and your flatulence would carry some water.

Read, and learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

No, it would not be good enough for Paul Watson, no TV cameras to be seen.

I think this is why you're so motivated to spit venom at me about this issue. Because Paul Watson has personally offended you somehow and you're quick to get insulting and personal about it. What's your problem with Paul Watson?

And Japanese tradition will tell you they hold reverence to unusual instances like this. White Crows in particular hold considerable significance. Mr Google also tells me that Humpbacks are not endangered.

Japanese tradition is the problem, not the excuse. It's a silly tradition that has no place in the 21st century knowing the appaling state our oceans are in and the dwindling numbers of whales it contains. It would be the end of a species if it was suddenly okay to whale them again because they're not "endangered". If you had any facts about this issue you'd understand that they've been hunted into the ground and it takes centuries for their numbers to recover and even that is granted that hunting has ceased.

So you want me to do this for you as well? OK, I'll send out two invitations, with some luck, we might get some good people in here to confirm that what Watson calls conservation, and what is conservation are two different things.

Conservation is living in harmony with your environment, not driving any more whale species into extinction. And don't cluelessly deny that has happened. Do your homework.

I cannot find these High School biologists for you, I do not even know where you live. Globally, there are quite a few schools. Unlike yourself, I do not hide the origin of my country. Marine Biologists do not care about polotics, they are marine biologists not politicians. But if you are too lazy to make the effort, I will do it for you.

Can't find them huh, well that's too bad, don't bring them up if they can't speak for you. How about using the internet instead? Concerning "myself", this isn't about me and it isn't about you.

There is nothing fine nor brave about being an eco-terrorist. The Sea Shepherd had absolutely nothing to do with the IWC's 1986 moratorium. You are again just making lies up to support you position to justify personally funding pirates.

There's nothing true about being an "eco-terrorist" either. Again, you can't call people terrorists that are going home to their families from all over the world without legal repercussion. That's not an eco-terrorist, that's proof that your accusation is politicized BS.

Sanctuaries have been proposed, they are not globally recognised. You seem to keep missing this point. Neither you, nor Paul Watson have the right to tell the rest of the world what they can do and where they can go, no matter how passionate you become about your personal causes.

They're not even regionally recognized according to your opinion. If I nor Paul Watson has the right to tell the rest of the world what they can do, then who does? What authority and jurisdiction is relevant to this "entire situation"?

The Sea Shepherd has more television coverage than normal. Whale Wars is a TV reality show, like Big Brother, that is the mentality you are stooping to, and thinking it is actually helping.

It's put millions of fans in the wheelhouse of Sea Shepherd's flagship from around the world, whatever "mentality" you're talking about.

No, there should ne be vigilante groups all over the place doing what they want. Lawlessness is not going to help anyone. Stupid to suggest the entire world go backwards to the mentality of the Wild Wild West. Brabaric useless and ineffective. I do not know why you think fighting barbarism with barbarism is a good idea.

Vigilante groups all over the place aren't lawlessness. You don't know the definition of the word you're using I'm afraid.

I never said that, look up and read again, I gave you a map if Australian territorial waters, show me where a whale has been caught in those boundaries. It seems you did not even look closely enough at the map to even realise that basic.

The Australian EEZ and the Australian Whale Sanctuary is not a map of Australian territorial waters. Showing me that map in response to what I said was not relevant. You're at odds with your own country. Maybe you should find a place in New Zealand to live?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/01/australia-japanese-whalers-stay-away

And it proves the fictional boundaries you keep blathering on about from your soapbox only exist in yours' and Watson's heads. If my trademark is pointing out lies people say, then I am OK with that.

Again you're calling me a liar when the information is a mouseclick away. Why don't you try using the internet to learn the difference between fiction and fact. Because you're desperate and you have to attack me personally.

I am getting tired of refuting your lies. And lies are all your territorial claims have been proven to be. I thought it was just ignorance to begin with, but your repetition insists that you are deliberately lying now.

You don't have a prayer of finding a single lie I've said to save your credibility at this point. This is the fifth, sixth and seventh times in one reply you've accused me of lying and you're just desperate.

Japanese whaling within Australian waters in Antarctica is illegal and should be stopped, a court ruled on Tuesday.

It is now up to the Australian government to decide whether to enforce the injunction. And even then it is unclear whether the ruling could be enforced as unless the whaling vessels enter Australia,
"there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this court can be enforced" conceded Federal Court judge
Jim Allsop.

Then Jim Allsop remonstrates Sea Shepherd's tactics more important than ever, because obviously, there is no legal mechanism in place to stop Sea Shepherd either. Nine years running in the Southern Ocean.

When I speed on Sundays and commit my weekly crime, I'm not punished for it because I get away with it. This is just a matter of enforcement. That's the only rub. Australia chose to confront Japan in court, and good for them. Is that the only thing to do? Is that even the right thing to do? Time will tell. But in the meantime, Japan is still getting away with a small percentage of their poaching quota. Laws change in time due to the Color of Right changing in time but government is not reliable. Never was, never will be. Government is just around to cause all the problems and only take credit for solving them. If I relied on government to make the world a better place, we'd all burn. You need to have some faith in civil society to make the world a better place instead of thinking the world goes around on government force and welfare subsidies. It's all just a matter of what laws you care about and which laws you don't.

Watson can carry guns though. As I have proven to you.

Proven? You don't have any proof of that. You didn't even cite your sources where you copy pasted from. On most message boards I participate in, they take stuff like that very seriously and they wouldn't even let you post it in the first place. Don't post entire pages full of information when you're either incapable or unwilling to link to the source.

Well, now your just out and out lying again.

Sea Shepherd isn't in jail. They go home to their families and friends every year. If they were all in jail, then they'd all be the "criminals" and "terrorists" and all these insults you claim they are after nine straight years of physical confrontation, and then YOU wouldn't be lying. For all the whalers' loudmouths who can't stop hurling names and insults at them I have some advice: Arrest them or shut up. Until then, I don't care what names you call me or them.

Watson's actions are not legal, nor are his self imposed laws. That is why there is currently a warrant for his arrest. All the terrorist actions Listed for you the page previous are direct violations of the law.

That has nothing to do with what the Bob Barker is doing in the Southern Ocean right now battling the illegal Japanese fleet. Tangents about Sharkwater from 2002 are interesting but the laws I'm discussing with you here, that you can't believe are laws, are what's relevant. All the "terrorist" actions you listed need a link. Don't post information from somewhere that isn't your own and then hide the source. I should report you to the original source of that information should the authorities here not care about what you've done because that is a violation of copyright.

Duhh!!! Because of the Sea Shepherd!

You keep repeating that over and over again but you can't cite where that opinion comes from. You can't explain with evidence why you believe it. If you can deny reality as easily as you do I'm not surprised you actually believe that. You think that the whalers are going to keep whaling only because they're p***ed off at Paul Watson? Wow he's a much more titanic figure than I thought if you're right. And if that's really what you think, then you don't appreciate nor understand the commercial marine operations Japan is engaged in.

Do you know what it costs to not only buy, but run and maintain something like that? I suppose Whale Wars might come to the party, if the rating stay up for people like you, but Japans electronic Industry alone is about a million times the size of the Sea Shepherd Society.

David and Goliath would be an understatement, and that's what makes Sea Shepherd incredibly efficient and successful granted what they're up against. They don't even spend their entire budget on the Japanese and nowhere close. That's just one arm of what they do, on the limited resources they have.

Again, you are out and out lying, I really do not think it helps you position when you just outright lie. They are indeed very violent, and that is why they get the attention they do. The Japanese Whalers have not killed one person either, and for longer than 35 years. I suppose that means the atrocities in WWII did not happen?

Okay you're calling me a liar for at least the 8th time in one reply. WHAT LIE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Sea Shepherd has never killed anyone. Grovel with it. Whaling is barbaric and torturously violent. Grovel with that. When I refute one thing you say, you change the litmus test and now you're breaking even with me that the Japanese whalers haven't killed anyone. Actually the "professionals" have gotten themselves killed (a fire on the Nisshin Maru in 2007) doing their bloody business which is a sign of incompetence if not malice.

The one thing I am in front of you on is the issue of whaling, I do not have to keep lying to continue my debate, I have offered links to varying sources, and corrected your misinformation regarding territories and sanctuaries. I hope you learned at least something out of all this.

That's the 9th time you've accused me of lying on one reply. What lie are you talking about? You can't find one statement of misinformation regarding territories or sanctuaries.

I think I want whaling to end more than you do because I have got over the anger that allows shock value to let one think that violence is a good idea. Now I want to actually try something that works, but as long as people like you keep people like Watson on the water, I might as well consider whales extinct now. That is all Watson will eventually accomplish, a slow but sure demise of the species.

There is no violence with Sea Shepherd. They haven't seriously injured anyone in 35 years. You'd be lying to say otherwise. Do your homework. Learn some facts and understand that different opinions are to be welcomed on a message board, not insulted away with abusive tirades. You've accused me of lying at least nine times on this reply, that's nine lies of your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody talks, everybody walks.

The SSS Bob Barker's Captain Peter Hammarstedt demonstrates how to handle a police interrogation effectively.

[media=]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yamato

I am not ging to continue writing this novel, you are a rude person, and I am really not enjoying the conversation. I will not be asking Marine Biologists to attend the thread after you PM'd me and called me a deranged Kiwi. Totally unnecessary but I guess you have a need to feel validated for supporting pirates.

I take offence to that, I am an Aussie, I told you that already. I also gave you a link to the post you said I did not link to here. 2 actually, but this does show how you digest information. I do find passion drives your posting, not knowledge, not logic.

That above long winded rant comes down to only a couple of real items, which I keep asking you to adress, but that which you refuse to, mostly because I know you have no answer because you are 100% wrong.

1 - You keep saying the the Japanese fish in Australian Territorial Waters. That is alie, please prove your statement.

2 - You say that the Sea Shepherd is not a terrorist organisation. The IWC has the Sea Shepherd listed as terrorists, and they are facing terrorist charges in several countries. The law says they are terrorists, what says they are not? Misguided passion?

3 - You say some Sanctuary is being illegally accessed and whaled. Under the regulations set forth by the IWC this is not the case, please prove why it is.

Yes, all that crap comes down to only this. The Sea Shepherd afre terrorists who will keep whaling alive, and your funding will ensure whaling will be back next year. Can you show me one example whereby the Sea Shepherd enjoyed the level of success that that the 1986 moratorium did in 1987.

Other than that, I really am not interested in entertaining you. You need to get some manners into you.

Edited by psyche101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Greenpeace does not like Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd only do it for the money, they are pirates and pirates are scum

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Even Greenpeace does not like Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd only do it for the money, they are pirates and pirates are scum

Indeed, they do, they even threw Paul Watson out as he was a member early in the piece. He is about exposure, not conservation.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yamato

I am not ging to continue writing this novel, you are a rude person, and I am really not enjoying the conversation. I will not be asking Marine Biologists to attend the thread after you PM'd me and called me a deranged Kiwi. Totally unnecessary but I guess you have a need to feel validated for supporting pirates.

I take offence to that, I am an Aussie, I told you that already. I also gave you a link to the post you said I did not link to here. 2 actually, but this does show how you digest information. I do find passion drives your posting, not knowledge, not logic.

That above long winded rant comes down to only a couple of real items, which I keep asking you to adress, but that which you refuse to, mostly because I know you have no answer because you are 100% wrong.

1 - You keep saying the the Japanese fish in Australian Territorial Waters. That is alie, please prove your statement.

2 - You say that the Sea Shepherd is not a terrorist organisation. The IWC has the Sea Shepherd listed as terrorists, and they are facing terrorist charges in several countries. The law says they are terrorists, what says they are not? Misguided passion?

3 - You say some Sanctuary is being illegally accessed and whaled. Under the regulations set forth by the IWC this is not the case, please prove why it is.

Yes, all that crap comes down to only this. The Sea Shepherd afre terrorists who will keep whaling alive, and your funding will ensure whaling will be back next year. Can you show me one example whereby the Sea Shepherd enjoyed the level of success that that the 1986 moratorium did in 1987.

Other than that, I really am not interested in entertaining you. You need to get some manners into you.

You accuse me of lying 10 times in one post and then call me rude and claim I lack manners? Really. I think I've been more polite than you deserve after witnessing that, you hardly deserved my tolerating your accusations you can't answer for when asked. You can't even post the link to your "information" after I ask you three times? Why not? Are you scared to show me where you get your alleged history of Sea Shepherd from? You just believe everything you hear critical of Sea Shepherd without worrying about where that information comes from. It's automatically filed away as "knowledge" and "logic" to you. Claims made in that "history" you posted are sourceless and absurd. I'm not going to ask you four times. Getting your information from whaling websites doesn't grant you a monopoly of legal expertise.

1. Again, you keep asking and I already answered. I don't keep saying that Japan is whaling in Australian waters. Australia is saying that. Can you understand English? Can you use a search engine on the internet? Can you do some homework about what Australia is taking Japan to court for? You haven't "proven" anything but your own opinion and you're asking me for "proof"? I already provided a link from an Australian source citing Australian authorities who I got my "knowledge" from. The standard you're playing with is either met or exceeded.

2. "Facing terrorist charges in several countries"? Name those countries and name those charges. I expect to see links and a list of "several" countries hoping you know what the definition of several is. I think your "knowledge" and your "logic" is extremely fragile so let's find out. Again, why is a "terrorist" living with his family in New Zealand after spending time in a Japanese prison? You're telling me that Japan released a "terrorist"? Why would they do such a thing if your "logic" is correct?

3. "Some sanctuary"? The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. 50 million square kilometers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean_Whale_Sanctuary

Stop acting like all of this has been legally resolved and whatever the IWC says goes. This issue is under a perpetual legal dispute between countries and Japan sure as hell isn't the monopoly on righteousness you're making it out to be. Australia has taken the position that Japan is in violation of the global ban and is illegally whaling in the Southern Ocean. Do your homework. You shouldn't be disputing these facts if you had relevant knowledge to debate me on this issue. You just take the side of the bureaucracy you prefer to and think the case is closed. That is factually incorrect, and the legal dispute isn't hanging up in court because of Sea Shepherd. Their tactics are saving whales while the courts run on geological time and plod through the bureaucratic mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Watson is about exposure, not conservation.

In Sea Shepherd's case, exposure is about conservation, they're not mutually exclusive, exposure is a correlative factor in the success of their mission. It's not difficult to see that the more exposure they get the more success they have. Excusing your favorite bureaucracy, that's the far better determinant of the color of right than some welfare-laden whale poacher hiding behind his government's skirts. You can't seem to accept the success that Sea Shepherd has achieved, proven by its growth rate these past several years as a result of that exposure. I believe your unwillingness to accept facts and your desperate antics to attack me personally in your replies are politically motivated. I don't care what party or what politic you subscribe to, but you echo the opinions of Japanese government bureaucrats and the most apologetic pro-whaling individuals out there.

I suppose Bob Brown is a "terrorist" now too. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are Australian authorities that are correcting what Paul Watson's claiming on this video - about where the Japanese are whaling in particular - then let's identify who they are and let's see them do it already, otherwise all you're proving is that you're completely out of touch with your own country, psyche101.

Japanese whalers are constantly breaking laws by their actions, but some people don't care about any of those laws. It's too politically incorrect to oppose a trading partner that wealthy or a foreign economy that enormous.

The bottom line is that both sides claim to have the law on their side, and this issue remains to be adjudicated. When the issue boils down to choosing between one side's claims or the other, I'll side with the whales not the whalers. The Japanese whalers have an absolute monopoly on violence, empty rhetoric about who the "terrorists" are notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Greenpeace does not like Sea Shepherd. Sea Shepherd only do it for the money, they are pirates and pirates are scum

I don't know where you get your information from but it's a bit obtuse to claim that Sea Shepherd "does it for the money" in a reply that mentions Greenpeace by name when Sea Shepherd maintains the highest rating on Charity Navigator for getting their donations to where the action is and Greenpeace does not. Leaving an inferior organization like Greenpeace and founding a superior organization like Sea Shepherd is an honor not a shame. Do some homework on what Sea Shepherd's annual budget is and how many campaigns they organize around the world. It's extraordinary how much work they do on the meager budget that they have. And even more impressive, they pay their bills. They're not relying on exponentially increasing debt or financing a gigantic ponzi scheme like the governments of Japan and the United States. Though maybe the new Richard Nixon isn't as interested in balancing a budget as the old (real) Richard Nixon.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Greenpeace&Submit2=GO&bay=search.results

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=sea+shepherd&Submit2=GO&bay=search.results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sea Shepherd's case, exposure is about conservation, they're not mutually exclusive, exposure is a correlative factor in the success of their mission. It's not difficult to see that the more exposure they get the more success they have. Excusing your favorite bureaucracy, that's the far better determinant of the color of right than some welfare-laden whale poacher hiding behind his government's skirts. You can't seem to accept the success that Sea Shepherd has achieved, proven by its growth rate these past several years as a result of that exposure. I believe your unwillingness to accept facts and your desperate antics to attack me personally in your replies are politically motivated. I don't care what party or what politic you subscribe to, but you echo the opinions of Japanese government bureaucrats and the most apologetic pro-whaling individuals out there.

I suppose Bob Brown is a "terrorist" now too. :wacko:

[media=]

[/media]

Favourite Bureaucracy? Who might that be pray tell? You mean my description of the delicate balance the Australian economy sits in, and how you want to put millions of Aussies out of work so you can keep your TV show by sanctioning

Japan? Get your own country to sanction Japan over Whaling!

I do not see a continuation of whaling as a success and the Sea Shepherd will ensure that the Whaling continues each year, as does the TV show. The Sea Shepherd only seem to guarantee continued whaling.

Did you know Bob Brown quit? He is a known zealot, and is always mouthing off, did you not see that I said this is the worst Government we have ever had?

I have not attacked you, but your information you big girl. There you go, not you have something to at least complain about.

LINK - Crazed zealot … Bob Brown … the real Prime Minister of Australia

Bob Brown is an over-moneyed zealot with more 'causes' than brains.

Don-Greenfield-Aug.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If there are Australian authorities that are correcting what Paul Watson's claiming on this video - about where the Japanese are whaling in particular - then let's identify who they are and let's see them do it already, otherwise all you're proving is that you're completely out of touch with your own country, psyche101.

I do not partake in Youtube if at all possible, I have said this before, so does my signature. Words please, written record.

And I do not know what the hell you are talking abut, I said that Australian Government is most likely in Watsons back pocket.

Japanese whalers are constantly breaking laws by their actions, but some people don't care about any of those laws. It's too politically incorrect to oppose a trading partner that wealthy or a foreign economy that enormous.

It's not that people do not care, it is that people are ignorant, and like Watsons manipulation with Baby Harp Seals, he makes stuff up, and because the situation is graphic, peoples heartstrings are played. No laws are being broken, and listening to Waston's BS does not change that. If laws were broken, the UN could act. None are. I am guessing that is why you cannot cite a law that has been broken, or mark a boundary that has been breached on the provided map.

The bottom line is that both sides claim to have the law on their side, and this issue remains to be adjudicated. When the issue boils down to choosing between one side's claims or the other, I'll side with the whales not the whalers. The Japanese whalers have an absolute monopoly on violence, empty rhetoric about who the "terrorists" are notwithstanding.

Sides? 4 out of 194 countries only recognise even the Antarctic claim!

The law only covers one, and that is the legal option. Just because Watson makes up laws does not mean they apply, but that is why the Japanese Whalers turn up year after year. They have found a loophole to access the Sanctuaries, and therefore break no laws. This is what I am saying, is to stop whaling, one needs to be as smart as the Japanese who figured out how to continue whaling in a loophole and beat them at their own game, yelling at them and making them stinky only makes the current situation worse, and that is all it ever has done. That way the UN can act, Watson makes sure they do not by taunting the Japanese, and making a mockery of the situation every year on air.

If the Anti Whaling groups were as smart as the Japanese, we would have ended Whaling a long time ago, and if the US did not do what Watson is doing right now, the situation would not even exist.

Are you a US citizen Yam? Is that why you are trying to hard to shift the blame? Here, downunder the rule is you **** it you fix it.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know where you get your information from but it's a bit obtuse to claim that Sea Shepherd "does it for the money" in a reply that mentions Greenpeace by name when Sea Shepherd maintains the highest rating on Charity Navigator for getting their donations to where the action is and Greenpeace does not. Leaving an inferior organization like Greenpeace and founding a superior organization like Sea Shepherd is an honor not a shame. Do some homework on what Sea Shepherd's annual budget is and how many campaigns they organize around the world. It's extraordinary how much work they do on the meager budget that they have. And even more impressive, they pay their bills. They're not relying on exponentially increasing debt or financing a gigantic ponzi scheme like the governments of Japan and the United States. Though maybe the new Richard Nixon isn't as interested in balancing a budget as the old (real) Richard Nixon.

http://www.charityna...=search.results

http://www.charityna...=search.results

No?

look closer

SS

Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website? Donor Privacy Policychecked.gif Board Members Listedchecked.gif Audited FinancialscheckboxX.gif Form 990checkboxX.gif Key staff listedchecked.gif

GP

Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website? Donor Privacy PolicycheckboxOptOut.png Board Members Listedchecked.gif Audited Financialschecked.gif Form 990checked.gif Key staff listedchecked.gif

Who shows transparency with funding? I wonder why that is, but I bet some Aussie politicians know.

Watson did not leave Greenpeace, not at all, he was unanimously voted out. Another lie you have posted.

Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals. He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder.

He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).

LINK

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No?

look closer

SS

Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website? Donor Privacy Policychecked.gif Board Members Listedchecked.gif Audited FinancialscheckboxX.gif Form 990checkboxX.gif Key staff listedchecked.gif

GP

Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website? Donor Privacy PolicycheckboxOptOut.png Board Members Listedchecked.gif Audited Financialschecked.gif Form 990checked.gif Key staff listedchecked.gif

Who shows transparency with funding? I wonder why that is, but I bet some Aussie politicians know.

Watson did not leave Greenpeace, not at all, he was unanimously voted out. Another lie you have posted.

Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals. He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder.

He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).

LINK

I didn't say he wasn't unanimously voted out. I have neither confirmed nor denied that statement so stop with the personal attacks already. You're abusive, abrasive, immature, and limp to be calling me a liar when I've never rubbed two words dishonestly together.

Kudos to Paul Watson for making a stand against an organization he had profound and irreconcilable differences with. He didn't sit in a chair and rabble rouse about his disagreements with another organization. He immediately formed his own and went to work.

Sea Shepherd maintains the highest rating on what you're looking closely at and Greenpeace doesn't. So you can't even acknowledge that. You want to find any trace of negativity or criticism you can find to tarnish Sea Shepherd with. You aren't interested in anything positive, you just want to take the dump. I don't need an updated Form 990 to support Sea Shepherd, so sorry.

The more negative and bitter people are against Sea Shepherd, the more favors they do for them. I like nothing more than trolls to post comments on SSCS videos because the more comments that get posted, the more the videos get viewed; the more views the videos get, the more support Sea Shepherd has. You're a gift to the organization; far greater than my pittance worth of donations can afford.

I haven't even said two words about Paul Watson founding Greenpeace, so you're just throwing mud around hoping that it sticks to me.

From your own link: "There's a joke that in any bar in Vancouver, Canada, you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder: name, idea, spirit and tactics can all be said to have separate lineages. Yet, some people clearly stand out. Here are four of them."

Interesting that the #1 name on the list is Bob Hunter. You should educate yourself a little bit about what you're linking to while you're trying to defile Sea Shepherd's name so desperately.

In 1975 Robert Hunter led the Greenpeace expedition against the Soviet Whaling fleet, along with lifelong friend and activist, Paul Watson and Patrick Moore. He [bob Hunter] participated on many Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd campaigns, and was on the advisory board for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for several years. A Sea Shepherd vessel was named for him after his death.

http://en.wikipedia....er_(journalist)

It's pretty clueless to be attempting to defile Paul Watson and bringing up one of his best lifelong friends to demean him with. If he was good enough for Bob Hunter, what do I care about your opinion for?

And whatever. Paul Watson's history in Greenpeace as some kind of an issue I should care about? Whoop dee woo. None of that makes any difference to anything. It's just rabble rousing, playing politics between two organizations, starting trouble about nothing.

You keep pretending that a few "idiot" Australian politicians are the only ones who recognize these waters as Australian but that would be a lie that even as an Aussie you're not even aware of? Excuse me, but the nation of Australia is who recognizes it. Find me who the "genius" Australian politicians are who are actually claiming like you that the Australian Antarctic Territory actually isn't the territorial sovereignty of Australia! That's the 2nd time I'm asking you this. I'm not asking you a 3rd time. Your failure to prove your own anti-Australia claims will be noted if you come again with nothing to show. You're in contempt of your own country and you don't even know it.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not condone what the Japanese whalers are doing, and agree they need to stop killing whales. But these sea shepard people are nothing more than attention seeking, self aggrandizing, wannabe heroes that in reality are nothing more than common terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Bob Barker Battles Happy Gilmore:

[media=]

[/media] Edited by WoIverine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't say he wasn't unanimously voted out. I have neither confirmed nor denied that statement so stop with the personal attacks already. You're abusive, abrasive, immature, and limp to be calling me a liar when I've never rubbed two words dishonestly together.

Personal attacks? It's Watson's claim at hand, are you Watson are you? You said, and I quote:

Leaving an inferior organization like Greenpeace and founding a superior organization like Sea Shepherd is an honor not a shame

to which I replied:

Watson did not leave Greenpeace, not at all, he was unanimously voted out.

Again, you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Kudos to Paul Watson for making a stand against an organization he had profound and irreconcilable differences with. He didn't sit in a chair and rabble rouse about his disagreements with another organization. He immediately formed his own and went to work.

He did not make a stand, he was voted out, the only vote "for" was by Watson. Hardly making a stand there. He did sit in a chair and rabble rouse, that is why he was ousted, and nobody wanted the violent show pony, so what could he do but make his own business? It's shock value, and shock value sells, not ethics involved but plenty of cash I am sure.

Sea Shepherd maintains the highest rating on what you're looking closely at and Greenpeace doesn't. So you can't even acknowledge that. You want to find any trace of negativity or criticism you can find to tarnish Sea Shepherd with. You aren't interested in anything positive, you just want to take the dump. I don't need an updated Form 990 to support Sea Shepherd, so sorry.

Highest rating? Yet the International Whaling Commission, the actual people who are the authorities want them to rack off. You do not seem to think there is anything wrong with them hiding the allocation of that funding which as we can see is not something Greenpeace does.

The more negative and bitter people are against Sea Shepherd, the more favors they do for them. I like nothing more than trolls to post comments on SSCS videos because the more comments that get posted, the more the videos get viewed; the more views the videos get, the more support Sea Shepherd has. You're a gift to the organization; far greater than my pittance worth of donations can afford.

I do not comment on Youtube, for like the third time, read my Signature, I avoid Youtube unless necessary. I do not care for Youtube one bit. If you got your head out of the telly for a few moments, and into the real world, you might realise a few things about the Sea Shepherd as well. Here you are calling me a couch potato, and that is you who describe yourself, trolling Youtube, otherwise, how else would you know about those comments?

I haven't even said two words about Paul Watson founding Greenpeace, so you're just throwing mud around hoping that it sticks to me.

No you said he left Greenpeace, I said that is not the case, and he was not even a founder as he claims.

From your own link: "There's a joke that in any bar in Vancouver, Canada, you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder: name, idea, spirit and tactics can all be said to have separate lineages. Yet, some people clearly stand out. Here are four of them."

Yes some people clearly stand out. Pray tell, where be Watsons name?

Interesting that the #1 name on the list is Bob Hunter. You should educate yourself a little bit about what you're linking to while you're trying to defile Sea Shepherd's name so desperately.

In 1975 Robert Hunter led the Greenpeace expedition against the Soviet Whaling fleet, along with lifelong friend and activist, Paul Watson and Patrick Moore. He [bob Hunter] participated on many Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd campaigns, and was on the advisory board for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for several years. A Sea Shepherd vessel was named for him after his death.

http://en.wikipedia....er_(journalist)

It's pretty clueless to be attempting to defile Paul Watson and bringing up one of his best lifelong friends to demean him with. If he was good enough for Bob Hunter, what do I care about your opinion for?

And whatever. Paul Watson's history in Greenpeace as some kind of an issue I should care about? Whoop dee woo. None of that makes any difference to anything. It's just rabble rousing, playing politics between two organizations, starting trouble about nothing.

Bob Hunter was one who voted Watson out!!!

He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).

Bob Hunter (one of Greenpeace's early leaders, after whom a Sea Shepherd vessel was named) described the event in his book, the Greenpeace Chronicles:

'No one doubted his [Watson's] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and centre, shouldering everyone else aside… He had consistently gone around to other offices, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness… We all felt we'd got trapped in a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother."

I already gave you this!! Watson showed his true color's, and Greenpeace, including Bob Hunter voted that he leave! His lifelong friend wielded the axe on his Greenpeace career, even his best friend could not put up with him any longer!

Far out, you bring a new definition to clueless!!!

You keep pretending that a few "idiot" Australian politicians are the only ones who recognize these waters as Australian but that would be a lie that even as an Aussie you're not even aware of? Excuse me, but the nation of Australia is who recognizes it. Find me who the "genius" Australian politicians are who are actually claiming like you that the Australian Antarctic Territory actually isn't the territorial sovereignty of Australia! That's the 2nd time I'm asking you this. I'm not asking you a 3rd time. Your failure to prove your own anti-Australia claims will be noted if you come again with nothing to show. You're in contempt of your own country and you don't even know it.

I am not pretending anything, the current Australian Government is the Labor Government, and yes, by large, they are idiots. They bought the first election by giving every Aussie a thousand dollars to just spend. A few months later we had terrible bushfires down south where that money wold have done a lot of good. Much of it went overseas to Ex Pats. Gee that helped.

This map is from the Australian Government Website.

LINK

Follow the link, it goes the the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trading. That is the Government, not the current party in power. If Labor or Liberal win, this department remains. It exceeds your qualification. It has a PDF outlining the territories I already gave you, this is what I mean about idiot politicians, do their claims reflect the information they have and provide to the public? Now how about showing me where our waters have been breached?

If you feel these territories are so rock solid, being not recognised by 190 out of 194 counties, perhaps you might want to invest in some land on the moon. Those claims are not recognised either. This is how boundaries are negotiated in the real world - LINK

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.