Aust' charter aircraft spying on Sea Shepherd
Some guys sell their a**e for money, some guys sell their soul.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Aerozep in post 41. How can they (the Japanese, a smart people in so many ways) justify the COST of the whaling fleet so far from their islands for so little protein,- unless there is another agenda. It beggars (my version of) commonsense. Let the whales that choose to live there alone. Other than oceangoing adventuring humans who can identify with the local wildlife,and the environment, for the good of all species, leave the creatures to their icy home. They take plenty of this countrys iron ore and coal, ..now then, increased beef imports would be more cost effective in these hard times....
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by blackhand
If you are referring to the Cheiftan flights, not sure that I would have declined the job, sounds like it paid well
LeadSled: precisely my point
I would like to know how many KNOWN unserviceablities were on those "AIRCRAFT " flying down there, that far from land?
PS And how many people were dumb enough to fly them?
PS And how many people were dumb enough to fly them?
before WW11, whale meat was not part of (and largely isn't now) the Japanese diet
"...historical evidence can be found among the objects excavated from shell mounds. Shell mounds have been found all over Japan and provide much information about ancient people's diets. They contain bones of deer, wild boars, whales, dolphins, sea lions, fur seals and so on. This indicates that the people of the Jomon period (3000 BC) ate whales..."
C. HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL DIET: JAPANESE AND THE WHALE
.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: High high above
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't sound much different to our indigenous hunting dugongs, turtles etc!
Same principle but different people. I bet someone else in the world is complaining about us hunting these creatures.
Same principle but different people. I bet someone else in the world is complaining about us hunting these creatures.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they can sail or paddle a "traditional" vessel to the southern ocean and back then let them have thier traditional fare..
but how hard can we really complain when we allow "traditional" hunting of dugung and the like with a evinrude, tinny and rifle.....
but how hard can we really complain when we allow "traditional" hunting of dugung and the like with a evinrude, tinny and rifle.....
Didn't the government use the A319 out of Hobart for some flights over the whaling fleet last year?
I heard a news item yesterday where somebody asked the PM, to put pressure on the operaters not to do any of these spy flights, she flatly rejected that idea.
I heard a news item yesterday where somebody asked the PM, to put pressure on the operaters not to do any of these spy flights, she flatly rejected that idea.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone wondered about the effectiveness of aircraft in finding the Sea Shepherd. You don't have to find the protesters. You know where the whaling ship is located. Once there, you need to clear an area where the whaling ship is heading. Much smaller and better defined area.
If I was the aircraft operator though, I'd be concerned for the serviceability of the planes. Anti-abortion, anti-logging, anti-development protesters have already shown to have a radical few that view the cause as being above the worth of a human life.
If I was the aircraft operator though, I'd be concerned for the serviceability of the planes. Anti-abortion, anti-logging, anti-development protesters have already shown to have a radical few that view the cause as being above the worth of a human life.
IMO the "spy flights" name is a furphy. The flights were legitimate confrontation avoidance surveillance. The legally operating whale farmers are entirely justified in hiring aircraft to find the sea shepherd terrorists so they can avoid them, i.e. so they can avoid the dangerous confrontations that the Ady Gil Captain Pete Behune forecast when he said "Once we engage them, every day we'll be looking to mess them over" .....what did the Oz government do when these words were uttered ? ....
By allowing sea shepherd to use Australian ports the Oz government is promoting and assisting known terrorists.
The aircraft company involved in these survalence flights were conducting anti terrorism operations, pure and simple.
.
By allowing sea shepherd to use Australian ports the Oz government is promoting and assisting known terrorists.
The aircraft company involved in these survalence flights were conducting anti terrorism operations, pure and simple.
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Bullsh@t
Flying Binghi, you should read a little bit further than the first line!
Archeological evidence in the form of whale remains discovered in burial mounds suggests that whales have been consumed in Japan since the Jōmon Period. Without the means to engage in active whaling, consumption primarily stemmed from stranded whales. The earliest records of hand thrown harpoons date only back to the 12th century.[8]
If providing links there is not much benefit if you can't see where the article is sourced from. It helps to know where the article originated from.
As to your accusation of the Sea Shepherd being 'known terrorists'
Whoever is operating the flights has every right to, but to call them anti-terrorist ops! Under who's authority would that be?
No one has claimed that the Japs have only just started whaling, the argument is over the commercial nature of it, and the need for it. Let them piss off to their own waters to do it, oh they have all ready, and fished them out!
I don't see how you can compare abs using tinnies and rifles for dugong etc in their OWN country for personal consumption, to factory ships, whale chasers, aircraft and explosive harpoons half way around the world for commercial sale.
Archeological evidence in the form of whale remains discovered in burial mounds suggests that whales have been consumed in Japan since the Jōmon Period. Without the means to engage in active whaling, consumption primarily stemmed from stranded whales. The earliest records of hand thrown harpoons date only back to the 12th century.[8]
If providing links there is not much benefit if you can't see where the article is sourced from. It helps to know where the article originated from.
As to your accusation of the Sea Shepherd being 'known terrorists'
Whoever is operating the flights has every right to, but to call them anti-terrorist ops! Under who's authority would that be?
No one has claimed that the Japs have only just started whaling, the argument is over the commercial nature of it, and the need for it. Let them piss off to their own waters to do it, oh they have all ready, and fished them out!
I don't see how you can compare abs using tinnies and rifles for dugong etc in their OWN country for personal consumption, to factory ships, whale chasers, aircraft and explosive harpoons half way around the world for commercial sale.
Last edited by FOCX; 9th Jan 2010 at 09:17.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. The Japs would probably be calling most of us terrorists now if they had succeeded in 1942 (well, with the exception of the Quislings, hey Binghi)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terrorism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
terrorist
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
************************************************************ *********
By definition it would appear this succinctly covers the actions of the Sea Shepherd and other anti whaling operatives.
DK
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
terrorist
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
************************************************************ *********
By definition it would appear this succinctly covers the actions of the Sea Shepherd and other anti whaling operatives.
DK
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK, I'd have to agree, the Japs were so terrified that they cut the Ady Gil in two and continued to spray the ship with water cannon for sometime after. I have yet to see anyone of note to claim they're terrorists and as far as I know they're not on any recognised terrorism list, and not proscribed as such by the UN either.
You shouldn't use a dictionary to do your thinking for you, just apply good old commonsense!
By the way, they're not whaling legally at all. The Federal Court has already made a determination that the whaling is in breach of Australian law, so if anything, the Australian government is allowing them to continue breaking the law.
Terrorists, what a load of puerile BS.
You shouldn't use a dictionary to do your thinking for you, just apply good old commonsense!
By the way, they're not whaling legally at all. The Federal Court has already made a determination that the whaling is in breach of Australian law, so if anything, the Australian government is allowing them to continue breaking the law.
Terrorists, what a load of puerile BS.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of commonsense, maybe you (FOCX) should check the IWC website where Japan & Australia are both signatories. Japan complies with IWC whaling quotas.
You may not like how the Japanese were able ot achieve this but should you believe in a democratic process that is how it was achieved there.
The Japanese are whaling legally in accordance with the IWC, the world body set up by the countries of the world to monitor, control whaling. Go and read the website.
Commonsense is also sadly lacking here with much of the comment heartstring comment.
Are you suggesting the actions of Sea Shepherd, etc complies with common law or law of the sea??
How would you describe the actions of Sea Shepherd and the other boats??
Are you also going to claim Australia does not partake or offer incentives to other countries to vote according to Australia' wishes??
Australia's courts may have made a determination some whaling may be in breach of Australian Law but World law or courts does not necessarily agree or apply and, regardless of the protestations of Garrett, KRudd, etc, the advice they have received both supports and does not support making an application to a world court.
The advice is heavily weighted in the negative to the effect any application will fail most likely being laughed out of court.
DK
You may not like how the Japanese were able ot achieve this but should you believe in a democratic process that is how it was achieved there.
The Japanese are whaling legally in accordance with the IWC, the world body set up by the countries of the world to monitor, control whaling. Go and read the website.
Commonsense is also sadly lacking here with much of the comment heartstring comment.
Are you suggesting the actions of Sea Shepherd, etc complies with common law or law of the sea??
How would you describe the actions of Sea Shepherd and the other boats??
Are you also going to claim Australia does not partake or offer incentives to other countries to vote according to Australia' wishes??
Australia's courts may have made a determination some whaling may be in breach of Australian Law but World law or courts does not necessarily agree or apply and, regardless of the protestations of Garrett, KRudd, etc, the advice they have received both supports and does not support making an application to a world court.
The advice is heavily weighted in the negative to the effect any application will fail most likely being laughed out of court.
DK
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Federal Court has already made a determination that the whaling is in breach of Australian law
Remove spaces to access
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm well aware that most countries do not recognise our claim to those waters, however as far as Australian law goes that doesn't matter one bit! An Australian court deemed the whaling as illegal. Enforcing that without going to the extremes of gun boat diplomacy is another thing. If you go back to the cod wars the Canadians, I believe, did exactly that. Also Iceland had a run-in with Britian over the same. This resulted in change to international law and the result was an increase to the economic exclusion zone out to the present 200nm (or is it 200kms). That is now being pushed to allow certain underwater land mass structures to extend that even further. See the Russian attempts at trying to prove their claim that they may have rights over large sections of the North Pole. Frankly I couldn't give a **** what the IWC say, it's been corrupted anyway. Let them ruin their own waters, oh, we've pointed out already that they've done that, haven't we.
As to quotas, I haven't claimed that the Japs have exceeded them for whaling, but they got caught out exceeding/cheating on their Southern Bluefin quotas for 5 yrs. I doubt that their is any real verification that can be done with the Jap whaling.
No. no heart bleeding here, just had enough of Northern Hemisphere countries destroying their environment then heading south to do the same. See what EU countries are doing in Africa with fishing rights etc, which is what the Japs/Taiwanese have done in the Pacific, north and south.
Whether or not the Sea Shepherd is acting in accordance with the law of the sea or not doesn't make them terrorists. Are they shooting/bombing anyone? They most harm they'll do is disable a vessel designed for those waters and requiring one of its sister ships to tow it back to port. Claims that they are terrorists is puerile, the best you can do is quote a kids dictionary definition while claiming your opponents are making heart-string comments.
I'm surprised you give a hoot about a World Court, or does it just suit your argument for today?
Maybe they were so scared of the terrorists, that after they sank them they refused to respond to their mayday call and offer assistance. That's Law of the Sea as well, isn't it? But, I'm sure you'll justify that. That ramming had real potential to cost lives.
As to quotas, I haven't claimed that the Japs have exceeded them for whaling, but they got caught out exceeding/cheating on their Southern Bluefin quotas for 5 yrs. I doubt that their is any real verification that can be done with the Jap whaling.
No. no heart bleeding here, just had enough of Northern Hemisphere countries destroying their environment then heading south to do the same. See what EU countries are doing in Africa with fishing rights etc, which is what the Japs/Taiwanese have done in the Pacific, north and south.
Whether or not the Sea Shepherd is acting in accordance with the law of the sea or not doesn't make them terrorists. Are they shooting/bombing anyone? They most harm they'll do is disable a vessel designed for those waters and requiring one of its sister ships to tow it back to port. Claims that they are terrorists is puerile, the best you can do is quote a kids dictionary definition while claiming your opponents are making heart-string comments.
I'm surprised you give a hoot about a World Court, or does it just suit your argument for today?
Maybe they were so scared of the terrorists, that after they sank them they refused to respond to their mayday call and offer assistance. That's Law of the Sea as well, isn't it? But, I'm sure you'll justify that. That ramming had real potential to cost lives.