Good News For Japanese Whale Lovers !!!
Mark Thorson
causing major damage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1237983
Predictably, Sea Shepard is claiming they were delibrately rammed.
But this boat of theirs was capable of 50 knots. It's way
faster than a ship. It's so fast that they can put themselves
in a position for a collision, take a still picture, and a ship
has too much momentum to prevent it. The Japanese say the
video exonerates them of delibrately ramming the speedboat.
Mark Thorson
I just saw the video, and it looks to me
that the Japanese are correct. The speedboat
moves quickly into the path of the ship, then
comes to a complete stop just before the
collision. It looks totally staged by the
people on the speedboat.
Dave Smith
> I just saw the video, and it looks to me
> that the Japanese are correct. The speedboat
> moves quickly into the path of the ship, then
> comes to a complete stop just before the
> collision. It looks totally staged by the
> people on the speedboat.
I previously saw the video taken by the save the whale people and in
both videos it looks very clearly as if the whaler turned toward the
other board. It was surprisingly manouverable because it is apparent in
both that after the collision it quickly turned int he opposite direction.
Doug Freyburger
I saw it on the news this morning. I noticed that the small boat is on
the right tack - On the open seas the starboard tack boat is supposed to
have the right of way. In reality the boat with ten times the
manueverability is the one that does the hitting no matter what side
they are on.
It's clear the Sea Shepard speedboat worked to carefully stage the
collision.
So what's the recipe for whale meat marinated in prite blood? A lot of
times I am sympathetic to the folks trying to get whalers to stop
whaling. This video shows me that now is not one of those times.
Pete C.
Too bad none of the criminals in the offending speadboat were killed.
sf
wrote:
Then the sympathy would have been with them. As it is that's a fast,
very maneuverable boat and they seem to have done it to themselves.
--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Stu
The video shot from the whaler clearly shows the speedboat revved up it's
engines and move into the path of the whaler causing the collision
intentionally. They did not attempt to back up to avoid the collision as their
propaganda officer states but is clearly refuted by the video.
Mark Thorson
>
> The video shot from the whaler clearly shows the speedboat revved up it's
> engines and move into the path of the whaler causing the collision
> intentionally. They did not attempt to back up to avoid the collision as their
> propaganda officer states but is clearly refuted by the video.
It looked to me like he reversed his engines once he was
in the path of the ship. The speedboat was moving quickly,
then suddenly came to a stop just before the collision.
Dave Smith
Take a look at the other video taken by the whale whackos. The whaler
certainly looks like it turned toward them, and from the way it turned
back to port after the collision it could obviously manouvre quite
easily. I think the whaler hit them on purpose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU
I think these guys are hell bent on killing themselves or each other.
While trying to find this video again I cam across another one of them
ramming a whaler with a larger ship, the Farley Mowat.
Dave Smith
Did you see the same one I did? The one that was linked. The speed boat
was barely moving. It was barely moving, but then sped up a little just
before impact, but if you are driving a boat and want to get out of the
way of something you need some speed in order to turn.
Not that I feel sorry for the anti whaling guys. They are always looking
for a confrontation and they got what they wanted.
dsi1
Aye! Tis the law of the sea, the small boat has to get out of the way of
the big boat. I've spent some time on the briny blue* and anybody that
has their sea legs will tell you that this is true.
*nearly 20 minutes!
--Bryan
It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
killing all of those on board.
I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
--Bryan
sf
wrote:
>It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
>killing all of those on board.
Unbelievable thinking.
>
>I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
>with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
>Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
There has to be a better way to reach the goal.
Pete C.
sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:44:34 -0800 (PST), --Bryan <clas...@brick.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
> >killing all of those on board.
>
> Unbelievable thinking.
> >
> >I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
> >with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
> >Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
>
> There has to be a better way to reach the goal.
There has to be a way for the anti whaling terrorists to join the
civilized world and not try to force their views on others through
terrorist attacks. Otherwise they should be rotting in prison or at the
bottom of the ocean.
Stu
wrote:
This shows both camera angles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vVRcCas0o0&annotation_id=annotation_318076&feature=iv
Dave Smith
>>> It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
>>> killing all of those on board.
>> Unbelievable thinking.
>>> I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
>>> with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
>>> Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
>> There has to be a better way to reach the goal.
>
> There has to be a way for the anti whaling terrorists to join the
> civilized world and not try to force their views on others through
> terrorist attacks. Otherwise they should be rotting in prison or at the
> bottom of the ocean.
While their actions are extreme, their views on whaling are not a
minority view. There is an international moratorium on commercial
whaling. Japan claims to be doing it for scientific research, but whale
meat is finding its way to stores, so it looks more like commercial whaling.
Paul M. Cook
"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4B44F713...@sonic.net...
Bullshit, the harpoon ship turned into the speedboat and judging by the size
of the bow wake they were under full power. They are highly maneuravble
vessels and can stop and turn on a dime having bow and stern thrusters.
They made no attempt to slow, stop or evade. It was a deliberate ramming.
The Japanse have even shot at protestors and have been known to hurl large
steel nuts at the boats, potentially lethally.
Paul
Paul M. Cook
"--Bryan" <clas...@brick.net> wrote in message
news:a7e96fd0-a843-4953...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
They aren't eco-terrorists by any definition unless you call sailing under
the Dutch flag to make you a terrorist. The Japanese are illegally hunting
in a marine refuge. They are the terrorists. They target extremely
endangered species as well as more populous ones using bogus population
numbers. The Sea Shepherd is purely pacifist and has never even tried to
injure anyone. That is one hell of a lot more than the Japanese can say.
They have even been known to open fire on the protestors including Captain
Watson who took a round in a bullet proof vest.
Paul Watson is a hero.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/editorial-090611-1.html
Paul
Paul M. Cook
"Dave Smith" <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4b454261$0$13686$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
*ALL* the meat goes to markets. As part of the IWC rules on research
whaling they actually insist on it. A loophole added by the Japanese. The
whalers operate a factory ship on site where the whales are butchered and
packaged for sale. They arrive back at the dock with market ready meat,
neatly frozen in little boxes. BTW, there is very little demand for whale
meat in Japan. It has the stigma of being poor people's food. Most
Japanese either don't like it or will not eat it out of fear of being
associated with lower classes. The government subsidizes the whole market.
Absolutely nobody believes the Japanese are doing research. You do not have
to kill 10,000 Minke whales to know they eat krill. Every year!
Paul
Stu
Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into the
larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it, seems
they deliberately wanted a confrontation.
--Bryan
The Japanese whale hunting industry is not part of your "civilized
world," and IMO, should not be given the treatment that civilized
persons merit. They are no better than pirates, and should be gunned
down.
--Bryan
sf
wrote:
>There has to be a way for the anti whaling terrorists to join the
>civilized world and not try to force their views on others through
>terrorist attacks. Otherwise they should be rotting in prison or at the
>bottom of the ocean.
While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think the
Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to be
another way to reach and agreement.
sf
wrote:
>*ALL* the meat goes to markets. As part of the IWC rules on research
>whaling they actually insist on it. A loophole added by the Japanese. The
>whalers operate a factory ship on site where the whales are butchered and
>packaged for sale. They arrive back at the dock with market ready meat,
>neatly frozen in little boxes. BTW, there is very little demand for whale
>meat in Japan. It has the stigma of being poor people's food. Most
>Japanese either don't like it or will not eat it out of fear of being
>associated with lower classes. The government subsidizes the whole market.
>
>Absolutely nobody believes the Japanese are doing research. You do not have
>to kill 10,000 Minke whales to know they eat krill. Every year!
So, if there is little demand for whale meat and the Japanese
government is subsidizing the "research", why doesn't the government
just subsidize 100% (buy them out) so the whalers stop it altogether?
dsi1
> It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
> killing all of those on board.
>
> I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
> with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
> Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
Good to see that this country still has some folks that think it's OK to
bomb civilian targets given a good enough reason. I was beginning to
think that Americans was rabidly against this sort of pro-active
demonstrations of resolve. Good for you! :-)
Paul M. Cook
"dsi1" <ds...@spamnet.com> wrote in message
news:1ef1n.2885$rL7....@newsfe23.iad...
> On 1/6/2010 5:06 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> It's too bad that someone didn't just destroy the whaling ship,
>> killing all of those on board.
>>
>> I don't provide material support for eco terrorists, and I don't agree
>> with most of their goals, but if I heard that they were bombing those
>> Japanese *research* ships, I'd get a warm fuzzy.
>
> Good to see that this country still has some folks that think it's OK to
> bomb civilian targets given a good enough reason. I was beginning to think
> that Americans was rabidly against this sort of pro-active demonstrations
> of resolve. Good for you! :-)
>
If you knew anything you'd know Watson operates under the law and has never
bombed anybody. The Japanese are violating the international laws governing
marine sanctuaries. The Dutch keep a very close eye on him, as do the
Australiand in whose harbors the Sea Shepherd Society maintains their
vessels. Either would retract in an instant their charter if he started to
use violent or illegal tactics. It would be nice to know there were people
les ignorant than yourself.
Paul
Paul M. Cook
"Stu" <s...@foodforu.ca> wrote in message
news:verak5hg8ae7fttb4...@4ax.com...
I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the harpoon
ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to port
to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
collision from that distance.
Paul
Paul M. Cook
"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:vfvak5hsgio0av2e1...@4ax.com...
Because the Japanese just don't work that way. The government has decided
that no law on Earth will govern their fisheries. Whaling is simply a
protest on their part. The Japanese government even paid for that fleet of
vessels that you see on Whale Wars. All to thumb their nose at what they
claim is nobody's business but their own.
It is very Japanese.
Most of the "demand" is elementary school children's lunches, food for old
age government pensioners and pet food. It is not haute cuisine by any
stretch. Many who try it claim it is not very good to eat. They say it is
greasy and heavy and smells bad. Two food qualiies the Japanese don't like.
Paul
dsi1
We have a misunderstanding. I have no idea who "Watson" is. Rest assured
that I was not referring to this person. Just you. Good to hear that
Watson, never bombed anybody. I heartily commend your wish for increased
intelligence in the world. These Usenet groups would be a great place to
start. :-)
>
> Paul
>
>
Paul M. Cook
If you're somehow conflating Paul Watson and his Sea Shepherd Society with
the "IGWOT" then you are really, really making a stretch. So far, in fact
it falls under the category of absurdity. And if somehow my support of SSS
equates to a tacit or even explicit support of the "Bush Doctrine" well you
just took a leap of reason worthy of any Olympic pole vaulter.
Paul
dsi1
>> that I was not referring to this person. Just you. Good to hear that
>> Watson, never bombed anybody. I heartily commend your wish for increased
>> intelligence in the world. These Usenet groups would be a great place to
>> start. :-)
>
>
> If you're somehow conflating Paul Watson and his Sea Shepherd Society with
> the "IGWOT" then you are really, really making a stretch. So far, in fact
> it falls under the category of absurdity. And if somehow my support of SSS
> equates to a tacit or even explicit support of the "Bush Doctrine" well you
> just took a leap of reason worthy of any Olympic pole vaulter.
Ha ha. Never mind. You're so used to the petty partisan bickering that
must permeate this NG that you can understand little outside of that
context. I don't play that game myself but I'll assume that you can do
little else. My post did not mention, nor did it imply, anything about
Greenpeace's tactics, the Japanese whaling industry, Paul Watson,
"IGOWOT" or the "Bush Doctrine." I'll give you the benefit of a doubt
and assume you are mistaking me for someone interested in such things.
>
> Paul
>
>
Pete C.
Their views are a minority view. If you were to actually poll the worlds
population, you would find that their views are supported by a single
digit percentage.
Their terrorist actions are illegal, and the actions of those supporting
these terrorists are illegal as well.
Pete C.
sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:46:37 -0600, "Pete C." <aux3....@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >There has to be a way for the anti whaling terrorists to join the
> >civilized world and not try to force their views on others through
> >terrorist attacks. Otherwise they should be rotting in prison or at the
> >bottom of the ocean.
>
> While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think the
> Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to be
> another way to reach and agreement.
Japan is an internationally accepted sovereign nation last time I
checked, they are 100% in the right and are being attacked by foreign
terrorists supported by foreign terrorist financiers.
Dave Smith
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> While their actions are extreme, their views on whaling are not a
>> minority view. There is an international moratorium on commercial
>> whaling. Japan claims to be doing it for scientific research, but whale
>> meat is finding its way to stores, so it looks more like commercial whaling.
>
> Their views are a minority view. If you were to actually poll the worlds
> population, you would find that their views are supported by a single
> digit percentage.
>
> Their terrorist actions are illegal, and the actions of those supporting
> these terrorists are illegal as well.
I guess I need to repeat what I said. The actions of the Sea Shepherd
people are extreme, but their view on commercial whaling are not a
minority view. There is an international moratorium on commercial
whaling. The Japanese continue to harvest whales to be sold for food.
They do it under the guise of research, but the meat ends up on store
shelves for consumption.
Dave Smith
>> While I think they have taken their tactics too far, I don't think the
>> Japanese "researchers" are in the right either and there has to be
>> another way to reach and agreement.
>
> Japan is an internationally accepted sovereign nation last time I
> checked, they are 100% in the right and are being attacked by foreign
> terrorists supported by foreign terrorist financiers.
The incident did not occur in Japanese waters.
Pete C.
An international moratorium does not equate to a majority view by any
means, all it equates to is a minority of loud supporters of the
moratorium and apathy among the majority who do not support it, but
don't care enough to take the time to oppose it.
Pete C.
So terrorist attacks are now legal in international waters?
Dave Smith
>
>> I guess I need to repeat what I said. The actions of the Sea Shepherd
>> people are extreme, but their view on commercial whaling are not a
>> minority view. There is an international moratorium on commercial
>> whaling. The Japanese continue to harvest whales to be sold for food.
>> They do it under the guise of research, but the meat ends up on store
>> shelves for consumption.
>
> An international moratorium does not equate to a majority view by any
> means, all it equates to is a minority of loud supporters of the
> moratorium and apathy among the majority who do not support it, but
> don't care enough to take the time to oppose it.
It is an international consensus...which Japan chooses to ignore.
Info
Seems so, as well these Somalia Pirate attacks. If found attacking a vessel,
they should be blown from the water with no questions asked.
Dave Smith
No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
Pete C.
Yes indeed. The only reason these criminals are still alive is the
Japanese pacifist attitude. If they were trying these terrorist attacks
against say the Russians, they would be at the bottom of the ocean in
minutes.
Pete C.
You see only what you want to see that matches your prejudices.
Dave Smith
>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
>> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
>> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
>> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
>> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
>> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> You see only what you want to see that matches your prejudices.
My personal prejudices would be more likely to make me see it the other
way. Personally, I think most of those guys are weird. I watched both
videos several times and it appears to me to be very clear that the
Japanese ship turned toward the protester's boat, and that IMO is
evident in both videos. To make matters worse, they blasted the
protesters with water cannons while they were scrambling after the
collision.
Doug Freyburger
>
> I have seen the video many times today. And others as well. The smaller
> boat was oing what it was supposed to do, ie get in the way of the harpoon
> ship. That is their objective. I can see the harpoon vessel under full
> throttle gunning towards the small boat and then making a hard over to port
> to ram the boat. Trust me, if you've seen those boats in action on Whale
> Wars you'll see they are amazingly agile and can easily have avoided a
> collision from that distance.
So it was everybody's fault. Thus making this entire thing purely
entertainment.
Most of the world object to whaling for what reason? If they object
because in the past humans hunted many whale species nearly to
extinction and we might still end up pushing some of them to extinction,
these guys are hunting the high population Minke species. That's not
one in danger of extintion. If they object because whales are cute like
Bambi go have some venison and get over it. If they object because
certain whale species like Orcas are highly intelligent then I don't
need to be impressed by folks who can't tell the difference.
But whale meat tastes gross? Okay, I'll go with that one.
I bet there's a better reason. Minke's eat krill and fish eat krill.
Fewer Minkes mean more krill mean more fish. Fish are good for dancing
singing penguins and dancing singing penguins are cute. Oh wait.
Dancing singing penguins taste gross ...
Steve Pope
>Most of the world object to whaling for what reason?
One reason is that animal advocates wish to limit the number of
mammal species used for food to a relatively small number.
The reasoning for this is that there is a per-species cost associated
with developing and enforcing humane standards for animal treament,
and so most advocates would say ban exotic meats entirely.
The world's need for meat can be satisfied with just a handful of
the most popular food species. It would be much cheaper to
have a total ban on whaling, than to expend the ongoing costs of
conferences, treaties, lawmaking, and enforcement; you could then direct
the resources you saved towards improving conditions for normal everyday
farm animals.
It would be very reasonable to establish a list of about a dozen mammalian
species that is it legal to raise or hunt for food use, and have
a worldwide ban on food use of all other mammal species. It would save
a ton of money and effort, and the vast majority of consumers would not
care that a few specialty meats are unavailable. Under the present
system we are all paying for a huge amount of overhead catering
to tiny special interests, such as whalers.
Steve
Mark Thorson
>
> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into the
> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it, seems
> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.
The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
needs to raise funds. They need to show that
they are doing something. Staging a collision
is the most effective way of doing that.
It's sort of like the campaign against the
harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
the organization.
Different animal, different country, same tactic,
same motivation. Same level of honesty.
Steve Pope
>The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
>needs to raise funds. They need to show that
>they are doing something. Staging a collision
>is the most effective way of doing that.
>
>It's sort of like the campaign against the
>harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
>an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
>skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
>for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
>but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
>the organization.
>
>Different animal, different country, same tactic,
>same motivation. Same level of honesty.
I actually don't think you know what you're talking
about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.
Sure, they need to raise money just as any other
nonprofit does, but everything I've seen suggests that their
maritime interdictions are their main activity, not some
sort of sideshow.
Steve
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
> >needs to raise funds. They need to show that
> >they are doing something. Staging a collision
> >is the most effective way of doing that.
> >
> >It's sort of like the campaign against the
> >harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
> >an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
> >skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
> >for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
> >but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
> >the organization.
> >
> >Different animal, different country, same tactic,
> >same motivation. Same level of honesty.
>
> I actually don't think you know what you're talking
> about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
> in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.
Staging a collision is the same level of dishonesty.
> Sure, they need to raise money just as any other
> nonprofit does, but everything I've seen suggests that their
> maritime interdictions are their main activity, not some
> sort of sideshow.
Skinning a live harp seal was not a sideshow for
the "environmentalist" group that hired it.
It was a mainline moneymaker for them, as planned.
Steve Pope
>> I actually don't think you know what you're talking
>> about. Sea Shephard has never been remotely involved
>> in anything like skinning a baby seal for publicity.
>Staging a collision is the same level of dishonesty.
Okay, we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of the
word "dishonesty".
Steve
dsi1
Killing animals for food is savage business. It would seem logical to
prefer animals that provide more product per kill than something like a
chicken that will have it's life taken to provide a single meal for a
few people. We illogically place more value on the life of whales
because we can identify with these friendly cuddly creatures. Of course
the main problem with this is that whale meat tastes like crap. No
sweat, scientists are, at this very moment are attempting to combine cow
DNA with that of the whale. In a few decades, we'll have whale sized rib
roasts that will make the ones seen on the Flintstones seem ridiculously
tiny. :-)
Paul M. Cook
"Doug Freyburger" <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hi5nf7$u59$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Whales are still threatened species and not suitable for commercial hunting.
The Japanese use bogus population numbers to set their quotas. The Japanese
have resorted to violence against protestors many times in the past. This
fits their MO.
It is an obscenity that they engage in it merely to make a point. It exists
for no other reason.
Paul
Paul M. Cook
> Stu wrote:
>>
>> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into the
>> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it,
>> seems
>> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.
>
> The only reason they do this is that Sea Shepard
> needs to raise funds. They need to show that
> they are doing something. Staging a collision
> is the most effective way of doing that.
>
In 2009, the Sea Shepherd society deprived Japan of fully 1.3 of their
quota. That is not just talk, ti is real action. And those people really
do put their lives on the line for their cause.
> It's sort of like the campaign against the
> harvest of seals in Canada. A few decades ago,
> an "environmentalist" group hired somebody to
> skin a live baby harp seal on camera. This made
> for massive propaganda against the seal harvest,
> but more importantly was a major fundraiser for
> the organization.
>
> Different animal, different country, same tactic,
> same motivation. Same level of honesty.
Not hardly. You simply know nothing about what you speak.
Paul
--Bryan
> "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You are 100% correct. What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
know this. I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
bystanders. If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. Give their bodies to
the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
military had for Korean sex slaves.
They sure do build good cars though.
>
> Paul
--Bryan
Paul M. Cook
"--Bryan" <clas...@brick.net> wrote in message
news:8f4d4216-044b-4122...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=
And damned good cameras.
Paul
--Bryan
> "--Bryan" <class...@brick.net> wrote in message
And I really like those Miyazaki movies.
>
> Paul
--Bryan
Dan Abel
<8f4d4216-044b-4122...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
--Bryan <clas...@brick.net> wrote:
> They sure do build good cars though.
Of course, many Japanese cars sold in the US are made in the US. Not
all, though. My Nissan Sentra was made in Mexico.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
john bently
"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:hi6f90$brd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:4B469865...@sonic.net...
>> Stu wrote:
>>>
>>> Watch the video, the smaller boat accelerated at the last minute into
>>> the
>>> larger ships way, the bigger ship had no other option but hitting it,
>>> seems
>>> they deliberately wanted a confrontation.
i would like to know what happens to all this whale meat in japan. I'm told
its almost never for sale in the big fish departments of major stores or
anywhere else in tokyo. i'm told japanese are not overly fond of whale meat
anyway. guess it goes into cat food or something...anyone know for sure?
ffu
>In article
><8f4d4216-044b-4122...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> --Bryan <clas...@brick.net> wrote:
>
>
>> They sure do build good cars though.
>
>Of course, many Japanese cars sold in the US are made in the US. Not
>all, though. My Nissan Sentra was made in Mexico.
Probably made in the old VW plant that I picked up my Bug from before they
closed the plant.
blake murphy
you haven't had dancing singing penguins the way *i* make them...
your pal,
blake
blake murphy
> "--Bryan" <clas...@brick.net> wrote in message
> news:8f4d4216-044b-4122...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> You are 100% correct. What's amazing is that almost everyone doesn't
> know this. I don't consider those who oppose the Japanese whaling
> ships to be terrorists, as they only target perpetrators, not
> bystanders. If they were to kill the entire crew of a Japanese
> whaling ship, I would think that was beautiful. Give their bodies to
> the sea that they have about as much respect for as the WWII Japanese
> military had for Korean sex slaves.
> They sure do build good cars though.
> =
>
> And damned good cameras.
>
> Paul
General Jack D. Ripper: Were you ever a prisoner of war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well, yes I was, matter of fact, Jack, I was.
General Jack D. Ripper: Did they torture you?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, yes they did. I was tortured by the
Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, what happened?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Oh, well, I don't know, Jack, difficult to
think of under these conditions; but, well, what happened was they got me
on the old Rangoon-Ichinawa railway. I was laying train lines for the
bloody Japanese puff-puff's.
General Jack D. Ripper: No, I mean when they tortured you did you talk?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted
me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was
just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they
make such bloody good cameras.
your pal,
muffley
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Most of the world object to whaling for what reason?
>
> One reason is that animal advocates wish to limit the number of
> mammal species used for food to a relatively small number.
Ah. The movement to wipe out all hunting as a denial of the reality of
actual human nature. Check. I've seen societal pressure like that as
far back as I can remember. On a different front the pressure against
hunting has resulted in a population exposion among deer and a lot more
cars colliding with deer. Local versus global of the same issue.
So it ends up being a question of what is extreme and what isn't.
Limiting to a small number of mammal species is a very different and
much more extreme version of the discussion than asking if Minke's
really are endangered and if commercial hunting really is to get
government sponsorship.
> The reasoning for this is that there is a per-species cost associated
> with developing and enforcing humane standards for animal treament,
> and so most advocates would say ban exotic meats entirely.
They can range from pressure to not kill endangered species, which
Minke's might or might not be, all the way through pressure to not eat
goat meat because goats didn't make the cut on the list. As such it's a
matter of perspective and judgement and motivation.
I don't want to support something just because the PETA folks oppose it
because that's too simple minded. But one person's exotic meats are the
ones on endangered species lists and another person's exotic meats are
the kind cut off of any animal.
I need to contribute to Ducks Unlimited. They favor sustainable hunting
of sustained populations of more species than just the one in their
name.
Then again Ducks Unlimited is not interested in commercial hunting and
fishing, which is what the whalers are.
> The world's need for meat can be satisfied with just a handful of
> the most popular food species.
If you view humans as ranchers not as hunters. Humans are the top
predator on the planet. We're hunters. To carefully limit the range
and bag of hunting to make sure the prey species thrive and last forever
- That's the goal of every hunter preservationist club I've ever heard
of with Ducks Unlimited as the best known example. To deny the hunter
nature of onmivorous humanity and point us away from hunting - That's a
baby step on the way to PITA enforcing veganism on everyone.
There's more to meat than the nutitrional needs. And again I end up
asking myself if I'm favoring the whalers just because PITA stands
against them or if I'm opposing the whalers because I don't believe the
Japanese population numbers are accurate. There are native tribes who
get whale hunting waivers for spiritual and heritage reasons and I can't
justify a commercial whaling ship in turns of Shinto spirituality.
Interesting how the topic shines light brightly on the extreme ends
without much illuminating the moderate middle ground.
> It would be much cheaper to
> have a total ban on whaling, than to expend the ongoing costs of
> conferences, treaties, lawmaking, and enforcement; you could then direct
> the resources you saved towards improving conditions for normal everyday
> farm animals.
If you believe banning whaling will have any effect on the lives of
cows, you've never had any dealings with an actual polictian. I get
the concept of "think globally, act locally" but that's not how it
works. If you want better lives for cows work on that topic. Try to
make the commercials about California that as "Happy cows make better
cheese" actually be a discussion of how cows are treated on real farms.
> It would be very reasonable to establish a list of about a dozen mammalian
> species that is it legal to raise or hunt for food use, and have
> a worldwide ban on food use of all other mammal species.
This is a step in the direction of PITA's plan to impose veganism by
force. Count me out on any support down that path. Next you'll want to
ban all commercial and sports fishing and only allow farmed fish. Then
work on banning even farmed meat.
> It would save
> a ton of money and effort, and the vast majority of consumers would not
> care that a few specialty meats are unavailable.
Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies who
would notice.
> Under the present
> system we are all paying for a huge amount of overhead catering
> to tiny special interests, such as whalers.
Sport hunters pay their way and end up slightly profitable to
governments. Commercial hunters generate both tax revenues and
licensing overhead that's much closer to revenue neutral. I'd be
interested in seeing stats that commercial fishing is revenue neutral to
governments.
Rhonda Anderson
>
> Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
> missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies
> who would notice.
If you're talking globally, that's not actually true. Who misses what will
differ from country to country, and even sometimes regions within
countries. I can tell you that if lamb disappeared from shops here there'd
be an almight outcry.
--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
My Country, Dorothea MacKellar, 1904
PLucas
news:Xns9CFBAA920E3C3sc...@61.9.191.5:
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:hi7rpe$slj$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> Most consumers wouldn't notice if duck, goose, goat and lamb would go
>> missing in the stores. Fortunately on RFC the regulars are foodies
>> who would notice.
>
> If you're talking globally, that's not actually true. Who misses what
will
> differ from country to country, and even sometimes regions within
> countries. I can tell you that if lamb disappeared from shops here
there'd
> be an almight outcry.
>
>
And we'd look around at all the damn Kiwis, and blame them!!
Nahhhhhhh, they'd just give it love bites, leave it behind in the frisge,
and steal your thongs ;-P
--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia
Mary had a little lamb
her father shot it dead.
Now it goes to school with her
between two chunks of bread.
Wim van Bemmel
The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
water spouts, amongst others. The ecos needed publicity. What is better
than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
view.
Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
position to be rammed.
--
Groet, salut, Wim.
--Bryan
It would have been better if they hadn't survived because their boat
was loaded with explosives that blew both boats to smithereens.
>
> --
> Groet, salut, Wim.
--Bryan
Dave Smith
>
>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
>> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
>> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
>> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
>> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
>> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>
> The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
> rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
> water spouts, amongst others.
I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
survivors of a marine collision.
> The ecos needed publicity. What is better
> than a collision, scheduled as a purposed ramming? They played it well,
> got what they wanted. A pity they survived. From their publicity point of
> view.
> Alas, we do not all see the purpose of the Japanese, but we now all can
> see how the anti-whalers brought their fast and manouvrable boat in
> position to be rammed.
The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
Stu
wrote:
>Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>>
>>> No one said that it is. You said that Japan is an internationally
>>> accepted sovereign nation. It can do what it wants in Japan. The
>>> incident didn't happen in Japan or in Japanese waters. I don't consider
>>> obstructing the progress of ship contravening an international whaling
>>> moratorium to be an act of terrorism. Nor do I condone the use of a
>>> large and agile ship to ram a smaller boat to be acceptable. Having seen
>>> both videos, there is no doubt in my mind that the whaling ship
>>> intentionally rammed the anti whaler's boat.
>>
>> The anti-whaler boat was clearly brought in a position to be inevitably
>> rammed. The whaler tried to warn and avoid the eco-terrorists, by using
>> water spouts, amongst others.
>
>I don't think so. I have seen the video taken from the ship and by the
>anti-whalers, and it sure looks to me like the whaling sheep changed
>direction and intentionally rammed the bat boat. I trust that you also
>noted that after ramming and shearing the bow off the bat boat that they
>proceeded to use the water canons on the people on the smaller boat. It
>is one thing to use water cannons to scare someone off, but is something
>completely different to use high pressure water canons to assault the
>survivors of a marine collision.
The film off the whalers boat clearly shows the bat boat opening it's
throttles up just a few seconds before the collision. I believe that all the
whalers wanted to do was get close enough to use the water cannons.
They did get close enough for the bat boat to move into the whalers path
quickly enough to cause a collission, all this so the whalers would be blamed.
J. Clarke
If you've ever handled a ship at sea you'll know that "maneuverable" is a
very relative thing. No matter how "maneuverable" it may look in a video it
still takes time and distance to turn. A small fast powerboat should have
little difficulty avoiding a collision if the coxswain wants to do so.
I am Tosk
adavid...@sympatico.ca says...
The bat boat went looking for a collision and got it... So the captain
of the Niponese boat swerved the wrong way trying to avoid, what's the
issue?
Scotty
I am Tosk
We have been talking about this on my boating group and it is clear. The
Bat ship had been harassing this boat for nearly a month. Finally
somebody made a mistake... Either way, as a boater and boat builder, and
assuming the Whaler was not breaking any laws, technically they did
nothing wrong by holding their line and speed. All of the rules of
maritime navigation place the blame squarely on the bat boat...
Period...
I am Tosk
You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month. When two vessels
are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on land. On
land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for gaining or
reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before the crash and
then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought the batboat was
passing in front (yet again) and turned right to miss behind it (the
batboat). Now if the skipper of the batboat cut his power all of a
sudden a boat of that configuration would slow very quickly (I will have
to look at the video to see if the bow dives) and then he could apply
power as he did and hit the side of the ship, as he did... As to
stopping, remember, most ships of this configuration can only steer and
maneuver while under power. No Captain is going to go dead in the water
while he is being attacked, period.
Either way, in open water the smaller more maneuverable ship has the
responsibility to avoid that collision. The fact is, the batboat and his
friends have been playing chicken with the ship for a long time and
finally somebody made a wrong decision. Another fact to remember is that
this is all done for pure publicity (remember the balloon boy hoax?)
that's why they used the exotic boat instead of a solid skiff which
would be a much better tool for the job...
Scotty.... Former boat builder;)
--Bryan
wrote:
> In article <4b4a75f1$0$32116$9a6e1...@news.newshosting.com>,
> adavid.sm...@sympatico.ca says...
Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. It would have been nice
to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
--Bryan
sf
wrote:
>Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. It would have been nice
>to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
>
One again, you've taken a decent discussion to the wrong level. There
is no reason to bring anything like that into this thread. Put a lid
on it.
--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.
--Bryan
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:59:35 -0800 (PST), --Bryan <class...@brick.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Too bad it was just ineffectual harassment. It would have been nice
> >to litter the ocean with dismembered bits of Japanese whalers.
>
> One again, you've taken a decent discussion to the wrong level. There
> is no reason to bring anything like that into this thread. Put a lid
> on it.
>
They are hunting endangered species of cetaceans, which are generally
agreed to be the most intelligent, sentient non-apes. Just like with
WWII, maybe the only way to get them to agree to stop is to kill them
en masse.
--Bryan
sf
wrote:
>On Jan 12, 12:47�pm, sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
You're way to violent for me. Time to put you where you belong
because you've gone off the deep end again.
Doug Freyburger
>
> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
So either of the ships could probably have avoided the collision and
neither did. Both sides agreed to the collision.
So is this about Japanese folks who love whales or about whales that
hold Japanese passports having relationship issues?
> Either way, in open water the smaller more maneuverable ship has the
> responsibility to avoid that collision. The fact is, the batboat and his
> friends have been playing chicken with the ship for a long time and
> finally somebody made a wrong decision.
If both sides agreed to the collision it's not a wrong decision. If
both sides want publicity it's not a wrong decision. It's a crazy
decision which isn't quite the same as wrong. ;^)
> Another fact to remember is that
> this is all done for pure publicity (remember the balloon boy hoax?)
> that's why they used the exotic boat instead of a solid skiff which
> would be a much better tool for the job...
Exotic looking boats are better publicity than solid looking boats. The
bat boat was a good tool for what the job was. If the goal had been to
ram and sink the whaler a very different boat would have been better.
If the goal had been to stop the harassment a harpon would have been
used to sink it not a water hose to piss off its crew.
The entire situation is some sort of publicity stunt "reality TV" game
to make all of the participants look like idiots. That's the most real
part of the whole thing.
Dave Smith
>
>> The whaling ship was pretty manouverable too. From what I saw, it
>> steered to starboard to hit, or at least to intimidate the bat boat.
>> Immediately after collision it made a sharp turn to port.
>
> You can't really see the whole story here. IIRC the batboat and it's
> buddies had been hounding this ship for nearly a month.
Okay, we can add motive to the circumstances surrounding the accidental
collision.
> When two vessels
> are meeting on the water there are a lot more variables than on land. On
> land you can steer and count on certain laws of physics for gaining or
> reducing speed. If the batboat was moving quickly before the crash and
> then slowed down, the ships captain may have thought the batboat was
> passing in front (yet again) and turned right to miss behind it (the
> batboat).
Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat was
all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had turned to
starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after the collision
it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there is no excuse for
them hitting the survivors with a water canon.
J. Clarke
Of course there is. They thought it was on fire. Works for me anyway.
I am Tosk
says...
I still say the Whaler captain might have turned in one direction or
another trying to anticipate where the bat boat would be, and that could
be based on continuous action by the batboat for the last month. It
would not be hard for the batboat to "condition" the captain of the
whaler to react one way then change the gameplan, mid game and force the
collision. I can not see any way possible a Japanese Whaler that far
from home would want to risk collision or damage. The batboat probably
had support ships near by, I still say the Whaler ship was innocent. As
to using a harpoon instead of a water hose, I just doubt the captain of
the Whaler has clearance to use deadly force which a harpoon would/could
be. And besides, why would he want to kill some pimple faced punk out
there with daddys money trying to impress girls? ;)
blake murphy
i think the water cannon part tells the story.
your pal,
blake
blake murphy
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Based on what I saw in the video taken from the whaler, the bat boat
>> was all but stopped, and it sure looked to me like the whaler had
>> turned to starboard, toward the smaller craft, and immediately after
>> the collision it turned very quickly to port. Accident or not, there
>> is no excuse for them hitting the survivors with a water canon.
>
> Of course there is. They thought it was on fire. Works for me anyway.
just like bull connor.
your pal,
blake
J. Clarke
Yeah, right, animal rights loons are equivalent to civil rights protestors.
Foam, mouth, napkin. And get some cortisone in that knee while you're about
it.