Aust' charter aircraft spying on Sea Shepherd
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK,
My apologies for making my posts somewhat personal!
This whole argument is purely political, there is no formula for working out the correct answer. I'm aware of all the counter argument, I just don't find any substance behind it, and while always willing to look at another view point I doubt very much I'll be swayed to change my mind.
My apologies for making my posts somewhat personal!
This whole argument is purely political, there is no formula for working out the correct answer. I'm aware of all the counter argument, I just don't find any substance behind it, and while always willing to look at another view point I doubt very much I'll be swayed to change my mind.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terrorist
noun:
a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
terrorism
noun:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
One would hardly classify the Oxford & Webster dictionaries as `kid’s dictionaries’
In a court of law there have to be some definitions where to begin and I suggest these would be a reasonable start.
Neither did I suggest I give a hoot about a world court though it and the UN is where Laborites, the ACTU and Fluffies continuously claim protection, where we should go and as the overall protector of the world.
What I did stress is the reason Garrett, KRudd and Co have not instigated proceedings is there is strong advice they will have a very slim chance of success.
Not caring about what the IWC says defeats your total argument or point of view as on the one hand you argue for the point of law of an Australian court, argue for lawful jurisdiction by a world court re the Russians, Iceland, Canadians, etc, but do not appear to accept that 88 countries comprise the membership of the IWC which was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2nd December 1946 The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
As I previously pointed out how this body manages to make decisions about managing the whale population or establishing whaling quotas may be questionable but the final rulings are basically established in a democratic manner.
The Japanese in this instance were acting in accordance with the current quotas and what happened in previous years is now historical the use of which is a diversionary tactic to the current discussion.
Oh yes it does! Start by referring again to the definitions of terrorist/terrorism and the reported actions of Sea Shepherd, etc. That is precisely what they are attempting to do; they are using violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims; they are using systematic means of coercion; and by your own admission are attempting `disable a vessel’ and there are no guarantees there will not be loss of vessels or of life. (`That ramming had real potential to cost lives’).
We are either in favour of a democratic system, one which has laws with a judicial system to support this democracy and laws to which we must all be beholden. I am not making an argument for or against whaling or for the whales; my argument is the Japanese have been acting in accordance with decisions made by IWC and have been harassed repeatedly in a manner which have reached a level where the manner of these acts can be considered as acts of terrorism.
How then do you describe the actions of Sea Shepherd and the other boats??
DK
noun:
a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
terrorism
noun:
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
One would hardly classify the Oxford & Webster dictionaries as `kid’s dictionaries’
In a court of law there have to be some definitions where to begin and I suggest these would be a reasonable start.
Neither did I suggest I give a hoot about a world court though it and the UN is where Laborites, the ACTU and Fluffies continuously claim protection, where we should go and as the overall protector of the world.
What I did stress is the reason Garrett, KRudd and Co have not instigated proceedings is there is strong advice they will have a very slim chance of success.
Not caring about what the IWC says defeats your total argument or point of view as on the one hand you argue for the point of law of an Australian court, argue for lawful jurisdiction by a world court re the Russians, Iceland, Canadians, etc, but do not appear to accept that 88 countries comprise the membership of the IWC which was set up under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was signed in Washington DC on 2nd December 1946 The purpose of the Convention is to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.
As I previously pointed out how this body manages to make decisions about managing the whale population or establishing whaling quotas may be questionable but the final rulings are basically established in a democratic manner.
The Japanese in this instance were acting in accordance with the current quotas and what happened in previous years is now historical the use of which is a diversionary tactic to the current discussion.
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.
We are either in favour of a democratic system, one which has laws with a judicial system to support this democracy and laws to which we must all be beholden. I am not making an argument for or against whaling or for the whales; my argument is the Japanese have been acting in accordance with decisions made by IWC and have been harassed repeatedly in a manner which have reached a level where the manner of these acts can be considered as acts of terrorism.
How then do you describe the actions of Sea Shepherd and the other boats??
DK
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK,
You seem to have missed the point. Those actions by Canada and Iceland at the time, no doubt, were against international law of the time, but didn't stop either country from responding at the time in an 'illegal manner' and resulted in the said changes. At no stage did I suggest any support, it just shows how international law changes. I haven't argue the case for it one way or the other. As to Australian law they have been found to have breached it. As to whether or not they are terrorist why have the Japs not taken any legal action against them in an Australian court which would see them not able to transit an Australian port or New Zealand for that matter where most of the ships are flagged. If they took legal action it would deny them a base to work from. Do you see any legal opinion that they are terrorist, no. Your interpretation of the dictionary definition is way to broad and your continued argument about it is just doesn't hold. Why don't you just say it's your opinion it's terrorism. No court and no government has listed them as a terrorist organisation.
Your politics are as I suspected, extreme right wing. NO climate change, left wing conspiracies (UN) to control the world no doubt and a host of others I'm sure.
You miss the point, they are breaking Australian law, whether or not it would make it in the World Court doesn't matter. If they step foot on Australian soil it can be enforced. World Court rulings can and have been ignored in the past.
We'll just have to agree that we will never agree!
You seem to have missed the point. Those actions by Canada and Iceland at the time, no doubt, were against international law of the time, but didn't stop either country from responding at the time in an 'illegal manner' and resulted in the said changes. At no stage did I suggest any support, it just shows how international law changes. I haven't argue the case for it one way or the other. As to Australian law they have been found to have breached it. As to whether or not they are terrorist why have the Japs not taken any legal action against them in an Australian court which would see them not able to transit an Australian port or New Zealand for that matter where most of the ships are flagged. If they took legal action it would deny them a base to work from. Do you see any legal opinion that they are terrorist, no. Your interpretation of the dictionary definition is way to broad and your continued argument about it is just doesn't hold. Why don't you just say it's your opinion it's terrorism. No court and no government has listed them as a terrorist organisation.
Your politics are as I suspected, extreme right wing. NO climate change, left wing conspiracies (UN) to control the world no doubt and a host of others I'm sure.
You miss the point, they are breaking Australian law, whether or not it would make it in the World Court doesn't matter. If they step foot on Australian soil it can be enforced. World Court rulings can and have been ignored in the past.
We'll just have to agree that we will never agree!
Your politics are as I suspected, extreme right wing. NO climate change, left wing conspiracies (UN) to control the world no doubt and a host of others I'm sure.
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.
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.
.
This whole issue is political. If the idiots from the Sea Shephard Society pulled their heads in, this issue would disappear. Sure, keep the IWC involved with direct monitoringing and recoding of the catch to ensure the directive is not exploited.
It would appear from research, the Japanese people consider the harvesting of whales is an activity purely done by ex-public servants of the fisheries industry. The people realise that whale meat is toxic yet is OK to eat on rare ocasions. However, those same people rail against external pressures against perceived traditions.
So, to stop an industry being created....remembering the eating of FUGU nets millions of dollars into the economy and processes upwards of 10,000t a year of deadly puffer fish...I want to eat FUGU but I do not want to die...Culinary russian roulette...get the protests off the air and the leave it to the Japanese people to dictate their own controls. If it is uneconomical to harvest for a very limited market...it will die out. Keep protesting and the Japanese as a community will dig their heals in.
It would appear from research, the Japanese people consider the harvesting of whales is an activity purely done by ex-public servants of the fisheries industry. The people realise that whale meat is toxic yet is OK to eat on rare ocasions. However, those same people rail against external pressures against perceived traditions.
So, to stop an industry being created....remembering the eating of FUGU nets millions of dollars into the economy and processes upwards of 10,000t a year of deadly puffer fish...I want to eat FUGU but I do not want to die...Culinary russian roulette...get the protests off the air and the leave it to the Japanese people to dictate their own controls. If it is uneconomical to harvest for a very limited market...it will die out. Keep protesting and the Japanese as a community will dig their heals in.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dearest Flying Binghi,
Yes, I'm just hysterical, pathetic! Glad to see you learnt to colour in at pre-primary and the use of bold is just outstanding Binghi, are these the equivalent of shouting from the roof tops? I'm certainly glad you decided against becoming a investigative journalist! And here's a better use of smilies
The boat sank, that just about says it all.
I'd suggest you go to today's Australian On-line article about the incident and follow the link to video taken from the Ady Gil. It shows the crew relaxing and chatting about the days events while the SM2 is approaching, it certainly appears to be a deliberate ramming.
It also reassuring to see your critical thinking in action, using a carbon fibre boat to board a steel vessel weighing in at hundreds of tonnes, I don't think so.
By the way, have you heard of any the 'scientific reports' from this 'scientific research'. US researchers have stated that the very few reports published are seriously lacking in scientific rigour (WSJ, admittedly a couple of years ago).
Yes, I'm just hysterical, pathetic! Glad to see you learnt to colour in at pre-primary and the use of bold is just outstanding Binghi, are these the equivalent of shouting from the roof tops? I'm certainly glad you decided against becoming a investigative journalist! And here's a better use of smilies
The boat sank, that just about says it all.I'd suggest you go to today's Australian On-line article about the incident and follow the link to video taken from the Ady Gil. It shows the crew relaxing and chatting about the days events while the SM2 is approaching, it certainly appears to be a deliberate ramming.
It also reassuring to see your critical thinking in action, using a carbon fibre boat to board a steel vessel weighing in at hundreds of tonnes, I don't think so.
By the way, have you heard of any the 'scientific reports' from this 'scientific research'. US researchers have stated that the very few reports published are seriously lacking in scientific rigour (WSJ, admittedly a couple of years ago).
Sea Shephard Society...undertaking controlled acts of sabotage on the high seas...deliberate attempts to disable a ship at sea by the use of heavy ropes. Throwing of acid onto the decks of your target, boarding illegally, use of lasers.(...a thread here on use of same on pilots was considered a criminal act) These attempts are not passive in nature. Use of fast motorised boats to outflank their targets. Use of ship based helicopters to enable location and long distance trailing of said targets. Funded, equipped and highly organised command and control...sounds like a military operation to me.
And then to grumble about this company hiring Australian aircraft to protect themselves from these people...somewhat hypocritical
And then to grumble about this company hiring Australian aircraft to protect themselves from these people...somewhat hypocritical
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOCX; Firstly read this: Full story of the legal position here: http://ozelaw.b l o g s p o t.com/2006/07/japanese-whaling-in-australian.html (Remove spaces to access) (Thanks to Brian Abraham)
Accepting this argument and decision of this court that as a matter of Australian law, Japan’s whaling in Australian Antarctic waters is illegal one can see the dilemma the current Australian Government faces.
The government allows Japanese whaling ships (or at least it used to) which understand they are conducting whaling operations in accordance with IWC rulings and legally under International law, to make repairs, provision and fuel in Australian ports.
The government allows Sea Shepherd and ships of this organisation (registered and sailing under the flag of other countries) to make repairs, provision and fuel in Australian ports when the ships and masters of these vessels unequivocal stated aim is to disrupt, stop and destroy the operations of the Japanese whaling operation using tactics of intimidation, coercion, harassment, sabotage and/or terrorism. Not only is this their clearly stated aim they have actively and are visibly pursuing this.
The actions of Sea Shepherd vessels are clearly in contravention of International law and law of the sea.
Therefore, how then is this resolved?
The government pursuit of diplomacy is not working or will only work over many, many years.
Should the claim to the Australian waters be sustainable then it is up to an Australian government to police and protect these waters. How?
The government could refuse right of entry to Australian ports to both parties however, this does not remove the role of upholding the law over actions within Australian waters.
Send in the gunboats to remove who?
The Whalers?
The ships harassing, intimidating, sabotaging ships or operations of ships of another country who believe they are legally conducting whaling operations and are sailing in accordance with the law of the sea?
Removing or interfering with the Whalers could be seen as an act of aggression with serious (international) ramifications.
Removing or interfering with the Sea Shepherd operation could be seen as upholding the role of law.
There is no way this Australian government led by PM KRudd is going to take this matter to an International court or undertake any policing action. All we will see is a continuation of pith & whiffle, spin & procrastination with expensive inaction. This government has clearly demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to protect Australia, Australians or its Australian Territorial rights by its very inaction of preventing illegal entrants/Aliens entering.
I have not missed the point at all: Continuing with diplomacy and court action takes time however, you cannot claim for support and protection under law whether it is International or Australian law, whilst then allowing actions which are an anathema to common decency and role of law.
The question is what is your considered, constructive solution?
DK
Accepting this argument and decision of this court that as a matter of Australian law, Japan’s whaling in Australian Antarctic waters is illegal one can see the dilemma the current Australian Government faces.
The government allows Japanese whaling ships (or at least it used to) which understand they are conducting whaling operations in accordance with IWC rulings and legally under International law, to make repairs, provision and fuel in Australian ports.
The government allows Sea Shepherd and ships of this organisation (registered and sailing under the flag of other countries) to make repairs, provision and fuel in Australian ports when the ships and masters of these vessels unequivocal stated aim is to disrupt, stop and destroy the operations of the Japanese whaling operation using tactics of intimidation, coercion, harassment, sabotage and/or terrorism. Not only is this their clearly stated aim they have actively and are visibly pursuing this.
The actions of Sea Shepherd vessels are clearly in contravention of International law and law of the sea.
Therefore, how then is this resolved?
The government pursuit of diplomacy is not working or will only work over many, many years.
Should the claim to the Australian waters be sustainable then it is up to an Australian government to police and protect these waters. How?
The government could refuse right of entry to Australian ports to both parties however, this does not remove the role of upholding the law over actions within Australian waters.
Send in the gunboats to remove who?
The Whalers?
The ships harassing, intimidating, sabotaging ships or operations of ships of another country who believe they are legally conducting whaling operations and are sailing in accordance with the law of the sea?
Removing or interfering with the Whalers could be seen as an act of aggression with serious (international) ramifications.
Removing or interfering with the Sea Shepherd operation could be seen as upholding the role of law.
There is no way this Australian government led by PM KRudd is going to take this matter to an International court or undertake any policing action. All we will see is a continuation of pith & whiffle, spin & procrastination with expensive inaction. This government has clearly demonstrated its inability or unwillingness to protect Australia, Australians or its Australian Territorial rights by its very inaction of preventing illegal entrants/Aliens entering.
`You miss the point, they are breaking Australian law, whether or not it would make it in the World Court doesn't matter. If they step foot on Australian soil it can be enforced. World Court rulings can and have been ignored in the past.’
The question is what is your considered, constructive solution?
DK
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New footage on heraldsun.com.au today of the 5 mins before the Ady Gil was rammed.
Taken on-board the Ady Gil, Clearly shows the SS guys casually sitting there talking (engines not moving them) amongst themselves having a laugh. They start pointing their audio device at the Japs who are a reasonable distance away. Shortly after the Japs change course, head towards them and ram them.
Pretty simple and akin to attempted murder in anyone's book.
Taken on-board the Ady Gil, Clearly shows the SS guys casually sitting there talking (engines not moving them) amongst themselves having a laugh. They start pointing their audio device at the Japs who are a reasonable distance away. Shortly after the Japs change course, head towards them and ram them.
Pretty simple and akin to attempted murder in anyone's book.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly after the Japs change course, head towards them and ram them.
Pretty simple and akin to attempted murder in anyone's book.
Pretty simple and akin to attempted murder in anyone's book.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect you've drunk too many beers and or not watched the correct video.
This video goes for 5 minutes before the event and clearly shows the Japs heading towards them from quite a distance away. There's no trailing lines or any quick moves, they are just sitting there not moving which is what they said they were doing back on the day of the collision.
Never fear though boat lovers, there'll be a new Ady Gil replacement on the water by the end of the year. They have the moulds to make it, they just need to get it organised.
This video goes for 5 minutes before the event and clearly shows the Japs heading towards them from quite a distance away. There's no trailing lines or any quick moves, they are just sitting there not moving which is what they said they were doing back on the day of the collision.
Never fear though boat lovers, there'll be a new Ady Gil replacement on the water by the end of the year. They have the moulds to make it, they just need to get it organised.
This video goes for 5 minutes before the event and clearly shows the Japs heading towards them from quite a distance away. There's no trailing lines or any quick moves, they are just sitting there not moving which is what they said they were doing back on the day of the collision.
Note staged camera angles, crew constantly looking over shoulder to ensure SM2 is where they want it, and M.V. Bob Barker and film crew placed in position....
YouTube - Ady Gil rammed by Shonan Maru No. 2, view from Ady Gil
Many videos here of the days activities of the Ady Gil -
Note many uses by Ady Gil crew of lasers and trailing propellor jamming lines...
http://www.icrwhale.org/eng-index.htm
Sooo, the Ady Gil after a day of not achieving anything. i.e. NO dramatic footage for the reality TV crew. What to do.....Hmmm...
.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Film Crew in place? (try $100 USB handycam maybe)
It is BLATANTLY obvious from the footage that they are staging a non-violent protest, are sitting there idle, firing their noise cannon (big deal) when they are deliberately rammed by the Japanese.
I'll bet anything Mr Binghi that you also believe in conpiracy theories like the moon landing not really happening and 911 being a conspiracy thorough the US government to reduce the number of US citizens or some crap.
It is BLATANTLY obvious from the footage that they are staging a non-violent protest, are sitting there idle, firing their noise cannon (big deal) when they are deliberately rammed by the Japanese.
I'll bet anything Mr Binghi that you also believe in conpiracy theories like the moon landing not really happening and 911 being a conspiracy thorough the US government to reduce the number of US citizens or some crap.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is interesting watching videos from the above mentioned site is the wake & prop wake of the Ady Gill just prior to, during and following the collision.
My boating experience would lead me to believe the evidence shows the AG accelerating to ensure it either passed in front of the ship or to be deliberately in its path. (or maybe to slip past just in time hoping the ropes would foul the other vessels props and they misjudged?)
However, others with far more maritime experience than I will be employed to make qualified judgments as will video experts with sufficient expertise to expose time lines and editing of tapes.
Sea Shepherd run serious credibility risks should they be doctoring the evidence.
DK
My boating experience would lead me to believe the evidence shows the AG accelerating to ensure it either passed in front of the ship or to be deliberately in its path. (or maybe to slip past just in time hoping the ropes would foul the other vessels props and they misjudged?)
However, others with far more maritime experience than I will be employed to make qualified judgments as will video experts with sufficient expertise to expose time lines and editing of tapes.
Sea Shepherd run serious credibility risks should they be doctoring the evidence.
DK
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 53
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DK, I'm not even going to waste my time now responding to your request after reading your last post. You and Flying Binghi have to be twins, love children offspring of some low gene-pool trolls! Both of you need to head off and get your eyes checked 
or put your glasses on!
Getting towed in a sea biscuit doesn't count as maritime experience.
Last post as it's the same as doing this.
or put your glasses on!Getting towed in a sea biscuit doesn't count as maritime experience.
Last post as it's the same as doing this.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Sydney
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
binghi what is a ship at sea required to do when on a collision course with another vessel to starboard???
The Ady Gil had right of way and if anything the Japanese vessel should have altered course to port. Instead they altered course to starboard.