I was watching one of the early season 2 episodes of WW and something clicked that didn't when I first watched the episode.
The SS atacked the Kaiko Maru. The Kaiko Maru is a "sighting vessel" used by the ICR for NON-lethal whale research. Even Greenpeace doesn't call it a whaling vessel.
"Both the Kaiko Maru and the Kyoshin Maru No2 are whale-counting ships although they also do some non-lethal research like photo-identification and biopsies. They work well away from the whale catchers to avoid whaling activities interfering with the validity of their whale counts."
Gee, I wonder why the producers left out THAT little tidbit of information. Maybe they had a hard time reconciling attacking a ship involved with WHALE COUNTING and NON-lethal research with "whaling stops today."
So how does Watson account for attacking this vessel? He is quoted as saying, after a previous incident with the same vessel, "...they're flying the flag of the Japanese whaling fleet." * http://www.theage.com.au/news/...3/1171128941016.html
The flag of the Japanese WHALING fleet?????? From what I've seen, they fly the JAPANESE flag! So I guess ANY ship flying the Japanese flag is fair game to this racist nutcase.
btw Before any SS supporters start in about news reports calling the Kaiko Maru a "whaling vessel" you might want to consider a Chicago Daily Tribune headline from 1948 ... or are you going to follow the SS tradition and claim that Thomas E. Dewey was the 34th President of the United States.
Originally posted by truthhunter: I was watching one of the early season 2 episodes of WW and something clicked that didn't when I first watched the episode.
The SS atacked the Kaiko Maru. The Kaiko Maru is a "sighting vessel" used by the ICR for NON-lethal whale research. Even Greenpeace doesn't call it a whaling vessel.
"Both the Kaiko Maru and the Kyoshin Maru No2 are whale-counting ships although they also do some non-lethal research like photo-identification and biopsies. They work well away from the whale catchers to avoid whaling activities interfering with the validity of their whale counts."
Gee, I wonder why the producers left out THAT little tidbit of information. Maybe they had a hard time reconciling attacking a ship involved with WHALE COUNTING and NON-lethal research with "whaling stops today."
So how does Watson account for attacking this vessel? He is quoted as saying, after a previous incident with the same vessel, "...they're flying the flag of the Japanese whaling fleet." * http://www.theage.com.au/news/...3/1171128941016.html
The flag of the Japanese WHALING fleet?????? From what I've seen, they fly the JAPANESE flag! So I guess ANY ship flying the Japanese flag is fair game to this racist nutcase.
btw Before any SS supporters start in about news reports calling the Kaiko Maru a "whaling vessel" you might want to consider a Chicago Daily Tribune headline from 1948 ... or are you going to follow the SS tradition and claim that Thomas E. Dewey was the 34th President of the United States.
Both these links call the ship a “whale spotting ship” and a “whaling ship”.
So your point isn’t exactly a clear case for your side.
Flying the whaling flag is a figure of speech, like me flying the SS flag and you flying the Japanese whaling flag, it doesn’t mean you’re literally flying a flag.
Both these links call the ship a “whale spotting ship” and a “whaling ship”.
So your point isn’t exactly a clear case for your side.
Flying the whaling flag is a figure of speech, like me flying the SS flag and you flying the Japanese whaling flag, it doesn’t mean you’re literally flying a flag.
It's about as clearcut as it gets. Why would Greenpeace have any reason to specify it as a non-lethal research ship if it wasn't? Maybe because, though I don't agree with them, Greenpeace actually attempt to get the facts right. We also know for a fact ICR does non-lethal research. Did you imagine they do it with satellites or something?
Your first source, if you read it, calls the Kaiko a "spotter"... like you say. But do you have any idea what a spotter is? And your second source is obviously a shill for SS ("picture courtesy of SS" plastered all over the page.)
Finally, your explanation of "flags" is laughable. In the context of sea-faring it's pretty obvious he means the flag of Japan is itself evil and enough cause to attack.
Both these links call the ship a “whale spotting ship” and a “whaling ship”.
So your point isn’t exactly a clear case for your side.
Flying the whaling flag is a figure of speech, like me flying the SS flag and you flying the Japanese whaling flag, it doesn’t mean you’re literally flying a flag.
It's about as clearcut as it gets. Why would Greenpeace have any reason to specify it as a non-lethal research ship if it wasn't? Maybe because, though I don't agree with them, Greenpeace actually attempt to get the facts right. We also know for a fact ICR does non-lethal research. Did you imagine they do it with satellites or something?
Your first source, if you read it, calls the Kaiko a "spotter"... like you say. But do you have any idea what a spotter is? And your second source is obviously a shill for SS ("picture courtesy of SS" plastered all over the page.)
Finally, your explanation of "flags" is laughable. In the context of sea-faring it's pretty obvious he means the flag of Japan is itself evil and enough cause to attack.
I think it’s funny with you lot, Greenpeace and SS are the biggest liars on the planet, that is until it suits you.
Greenpeace won’t put them in the same bucket as the whaling ships because it’s what the Japanese do with Greenpeace with SS just by being in the same area and pushing for the same outcome, just doing it in different ways.
A spotter is someone that goes “there it is”.
I have seen newspapers that have pictures supplied by SS, are they shill’s for SS also?
As for you jumping up and down racist spewing of YOUR opinion on the flag, I’m not even commenting any further on that rubbish.
I think it’s funny with you lot, Greenpeace and SS are the biggest liars on the planet, that is until it suits you.
Greenpeace won’t put them in the same bucket as the whaling ships because it’s what the Japanese do with Greenpeace with SS just by being in the same area and pushing for the same outcome, just doing it in different ways.
A spotter is someone that goes “there it is”.
I have seen newspapers that have pictures supplied by SS, are they shill’s for SS also?
As for you jumping up and down racist spewing of YOUR opinion on the flag, I’m not even commenting any further on that rubbish.
So all you've got in response is to attack me and lump me in with a group of people that you define as being irrational.
If you really doubt they're shills -- just look at their front page. http://www.ens-newswire.com/index.asp It's filled with nothing but environmental stories. Are you going to expect me to believe they're not biased? They even have a story titled Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for Climate, Nuclear Disarmament based on a quote from Nobel Prize Comittee "Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics." These are clearly spin peddlers.
Thanks for conceding defeat on the issue of flags. I'm glad you realize your straw-clutching explanation was very poor.
Both these links call the ship a “whale spotting ship” and a “whaling ship”.
So your point isn’t exactly a clear case for your side.
Flying the whaling flag is a figure of speech, like me flying the SS flag and you flying the Japanese whaling flag, it doesn’t mean you’re literally flying a flag.
It's about as clearcut as it gets. Why would Greenpeace have any reason to specify it as a non-lethal research ship if it wasn't? Maybe because, though I don't agree with them, Greenpeace actually attempt to get the facts right. We also know for a fact ICR does non-lethal research. Did you imagine they do it with satellites or something?
Your first source, if you read it, calls the Kaiko a "spotter"... like you say. But do you have any idea what a spotter is? And your second source is obviously a shill for SS ("picture courtesy of SS" plastered all over the page.)
Finally, your explanation of "flags" is laughable. In the context of sea-faring it's pretty obvious he means the flag of Japan is itself evil and enough cause to attack.
I think it’s funny with you lot, Greenpeace and SS are the biggest liars on the planet, that is until it suits you.
Greenpeace won’t put them in the same bucket as the whaling ships because it’s what the Japanese do with Greenpeace with SS just by being in the same area and pushing for the same outcome, just doing it in different ways.
A spotter is someone that goes “there it is”.
I have seen newspapers that have pictures supplied by SS, are they shill’s for SS also?
As for you jumping up and down racist spewing of YOUR opinion on the flag, I’m not even commenting any further on that rubbish.
Interesting... a spotter... kinda like the spotter helicopter the Japanese recklessly attacked with a military grade LRAD this season?? A weapon designed to incapacitate it's target, you know an immobilized pilot crashes in the ocean and dies? Someone who is part of the team, a non-lethal observer, but just a spotter right??
lol that's like saying "military grade rubber bullets"
Keep trying to sensationalize and use words and acronyms to make a mountain out of a molehill. They used perfectly legit non-lethal means. As opposed to SS that use primitive chemical warfare in glass bottles -- which also happens to hurt the ocean they're so desperately trying to save.
Originally posted by truthhunter: I was watching one of the early season 2 episodes of WW and something clicked that didn't when I first watched the episode.
The SS atacked the Kaiko Maru. The Kaiko Maru is a "sighting vessel" used by the ICR for NON-lethal whale research. Even Greenpeace doesn't call it a whaling vessel.
"Both the Kaiko Maru and the Kyoshin Maru No2 are whale-counting ships although they also do some non-lethal research like photo-identification and biopsies. They work well away from the whale catchers to avoid whaling activities interfering with the validity of their whale counts."
Gee, I wonder why the producers left out THAT little tidbit of information. Maybe they had a hard time reconciling attacking a ship involved with WHALE COUNTING and NON-lethal research with "whaling stops today."
So how does Watson account for attacking this vessel? He is quoted as saying, after a previous incident with the same vessel, "...they're flying the flag of the Japanese whaling fleet." * http://www.theage.com.au/news/...3/1171128941016.html
The flag of the Japanese WHALING fleet?????? From what I've seen, they fly the JAPANESE flag! So I guess ANY ship flying the Japanese flag is fair game to this racist nutcase.
btw Before any SS supporters start in about news reports calling the Kaiko Maru a "whaling vessel" you might want to consider a Chicago Daily Tribune headline from 1948 ... or are you going to follow the SS tradition and claim that Thomas E. Dewey was the 34th President of the United States.
Both these links call the ship a “whale spotting ship” and a “whaling ship”.
So your point isn’t exactly a clear case for your side.
Flying the whaling flag is a figure of speech, like me flying the SS flag and you flying the Japanese whaling flag, it doesn’t mean you’re literally flying a flag.
So you ARE saying that Dewey WAS the 34th President of the United States? If it's in a news article, it must be correct, right?
I guess you don't understand the meaning of "btw." I'll spell it out for you. It means "by the way." Even if the Dewey reference is a bit obscure for an Aussie, it only takes a tiny bit of reasoning to figure out from the rest of the sentence that I was referring to the fact that news articles don't always get it right. (HINT: Try a search for "Dewey defeats Truman")
Now, as to the first link you posted: It doesn't really matter if you want to call it a “whale spotting ship” (You DO have to spot them before you can count them, right?), a "sighting vessel," a "counting vessel," or even a "kangaroo boxing vessel," the fact remains that it is a NON-lethal research vessel, not involved in the killing of whales. Attacking it does NOT stop any whales from dying. Calling it a "Spotting" ship just IMPLIES that it is involved with the killing of whales by spotting them for the harpoon vessels to people who don't know any better.
I find it interesting that you chose THAT article to try to prove your point. If you are going to say that everything in that article is true, then you have to stop saying that the SS are not a pirates. From that very same article.
"The Sea Shepherd ships have both been deregistered, making them pirate ships under maritime law."
If you are saying, and you seem to be, that the article is correct and the Kaiko Maru is a "spotting vessel" then you are also saying that the SS are pirates.
As to the second link, the article also refers to it as "the non-lethal research dedicated sighting vessel Kaiko Maru."
Another interesting choice of articles. This one refutes PW's statement "This 'butter acid' is a nontoxic obnoxious smelling substance." in the very next paragraph.
From the body of the article: "Butyric acid is listed by several university chemical departments as a corrosive substance that is harmful if swallowed or inhaled. The extremely unpleasant smell may cause nausea and the liquid may burn skin and eyes. It is readily absorbed through the skin and is a severe skin, eye and respiratory irritant."
And this from a web page with an SS Visa ad at the very beginning.
Now, if THIS article is correct, then the SS is NOT throwing a "harmless" substance.
Now if you put these two articles together, you not only put the SS in a bad light, but your own Government as well. They entertained a complaint from the captain of a pirate vessel that a PROPERLY registered NON-LETHAL research vessel, in a effort to extricate itself from an illegal attack, after "[t]he [pirate] pair caught the Kaiko Maru in a pincer movement." damaged that same pirate vessel. That shows that not only the SS, but the Australian government as well, don't give a fiddler's f*** about International Law.
The "figure of speech" argument is pretty weak, especially considering that immediately preceeding that statement was "they're part of the Japanese whaling fleet." If he had said "I am a member of the SS and fly the flag of the SS." would you consider it a "figure of speech" or infer that he was talking about a piece of cloth.
I'm beginning to think that YOU may be an ICR plant in this forum. You're doing a pretty good job of presenting the ICR case.
Ugghhh I feel dirty just typing that fictional "quotation."
btw I do give you some credit. Both of these articles were reasonably unbiased considering their sources. It's just too bad for your side that all it takes is for an article to be "reasonably" unbiased to make the SS look really bad.
I think it’s funny with you lot, Greenpeace and SS are the biggest liars on the planet, that is until it suits you.
Greenpeace won’t put them in the same bucket as the whaling ships because it’s what the Japanese do with Greenpeace with SS just by being in the same area and pushing for the same outcome, just doing it in different ways.
A spotter is someone that goes “there it is”.
I have seen newspapers that have pictures supplied by SS, are they shill’s for SS also?
>snip<
Well, the SS ARE the biggest liars on the planet. Greenpeace will stretch the truth and flat out lie IF it suits their purpose. They WILL tell the truth if it doesn't hurt their cause. They don't want to lose ALL of their credibility like the SS has. That's why I included them with the "[e]ven Greenpeace" bit.
I'm not quite sure what that second paragraphs means. It's a bit convoluted, but it looks like you're saying that Greenpeace puts them in seperate buckets because they are both doing research but doing it in different ways. I agree completely. The ICR fleet consists of the processing ship, three harpoon vessels and two non-lethal research vessels. Even though I don't believe in their ultimate goal of stopping all whaling, I do believe that Greenpeace actually does care about the whales. That's why they leave the non-lethal research vessels alone to carry out their tasks. It's the best thing for the whales.
Too bad that same can't be said for the SS. All they care about is attacking anything to do with the ICR, whether they are harming whales or not. :-( I think that once more people realize that the SS atacks non-lethal research vessels with the same vehemence that they do with the lethal research vessels, their support will start to wane.
Yup. A spotter goes "there it is." Then the counter goes "one." When a spotter goes "there it is" again, the counter goes "two." Etc, etc, etc. You does gots ta spot em before ya can counts em.
As far as I'm concerned, they are only shills when they don't bother to check the facts. As I said in my other message, even though I thought the two websights that you posted were biased sources, the articles themselves seem fairly balanced. If anything, they SEEMED a little ANTI SS to me. But then again, I'm reading with biased eyes.
btw, I meant to put this in my other message, but I slipped. I wouldn't really say that I "fly the Japanese whaling flag." I'm pretty much ambivalent about whaling, as long as it is done in a responsible manner. If I thought for one minute that the ICR wasn't about sustainable whaling, I would be against them. I still wouldn't support the SS, though. I learned the hard way a long time ago not to disengage the brain when reacting with the heart.
Interesting... a spotter... kinda like the spotter helicopter the Japanese recklessly attacked with a military grade LRAD this season?? A weapon designed to incapacitate it's target, you know an immobilized pilot crashes in the ocean and dies? Someone who is part of the team, a non-lethal observer, but just a spotter right??
An immobilized pilot crashed into the ocean and died? Wow! I must have missed that episode. Better not tell Chris Aultman. He might be afraid to fly for the SS
Sarcasm aside, your analogy doesn't quite make it. The helipcopter is DIRECTING the attack. It's not off in a different part of the ocean counting ships. A better analogy would be Greenpeace (as they are presently operating in the Southern Ocean) and the SS.
And, the LRAD is not a weapon designed to immobilize it's target. It's basically a narrow beam directional speaker designed for clear long-range communication. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was what is used to issue the warnings that you hear from some of the whaling vessels.
Granted, there are military grade LRADS that have the capability to imobilize an enemy, but even with those, it is not their PRIMARY purpose. There is no evidence that the whalers had anything close to that, only SS SPECULATION.
The only evidence that anything like that was used against the helicopter is the pilot saying that he "felt it." I don't remember seeing any pictures of it. Don't you think the cameraman in the helicopter would have pointed his camera at the LRAD if it was aimed at them?
It's amazing what the mind can do. I just recently saw an experiment outside an organic market. People who believed organic food tastes better than non-organic food were told that the blue plates had half an organic banana and the red plates had half of a non-organic one. It was something like 80% of the people said the one on the blue plate tasted a lot better than the one on the red plate even the two plates each had one half of the SAME banana. They BELIEVED the organic one would taste better, so it did. You see the same thing in medicine with placeboes. All Chris Aultman had to do was BELIEVE that an LRAD was pointed at him and he could have felt it.
Anyway, the LRAD thing was beat to death in another thread. This thread is about the SS attacking ships carrying on NON-lethal research.
Originally posted by truthhunter: A better analogy would be Greenpeace (as they are presently operating in the Southern Ocean) and the SS.
When they're not attempting to run ships into ice fields then ram into them at least.
quote:
The only evidence that anything like that was used against the helicopter is the pilot saying that he "felt it." I don't remember seeing any pictures of it. Don't you think the cameraman in the helicopter would have pointed his camera at the LRAD if it was aimed at them?
Or, if it's really debilitating at all, lose control of the camera.
quote:
It's amazing what the mind can do. I just recently saw an experiment outside an organic market. People who believed organic food tastes better than non-organic food were told that the blue plates had half an organic banana and the red plates had half of a non-organic one. It was something like 80% of the people said the one on the blue plate tasted a lot better than the one on the red plate even the two plates each had one half of the SAME banana. They BELIEVED the organic one would taste better, so it did. You see the same thing in medicine with placeboes. All Chris Aultman had to do was BELIEVE that an LRAD was pointed at him and he could have felt it.
It's often referred to as "eating the menu" as well. And it's easy to see how this concept is often used in commercials. Our minds manifest the experience we believe in.
I have never seen so many passionate “ambivalent” people in my life than the ones on this site.
I’m ambivalent about many things but don’t spend so much time on websites fighting for any one side, if I did I wouldn’t consider myself ambivalent about the subject.
My meaning before was the Japanese put Greenpeace in the same twisted category as the SS just because they are fighting to stop whaling and were in the same area as SS.
You have a Japanese ship in Antarctica with a slipway at the rear and research on the side what do you expect to happen.
It may help if the Japanese take research off the whaling ships to help stop the confusion.
After all the Japanese get Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd mixed up all the time, and the names and ships are nothing alike.
Greenpeace will stretch the truth and flat out lie 