Anti Whale Terrorist Boat Gets Rammed

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...but like most people of his ilk, human life is far less important to him than animal life.

And to you and yours, a human life is much more valuable. OMG , WWJD? Perhaps thay are equally valuable and we should allow nature to run its course.

HINT: Humans are not born hunters of animals.

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

A guy with a knife, fork and cooked steak really doesn't bear much relationship to how a carnivore eats.

You must frequent a better quality of restaurant than the average skydiver.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nigel99 588]

Quote

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.

I thought the video was pretty damning that they were "buzzing" the whaling boat in a pretty intimidating manner, that is instilling fear.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

A guy with a knife, fork and cooked steak really doesn't bear much relationship to how a carnivore eats.

You must frequent a better quality of restaurant than the average skydiver.

Yeah. The words "knife", "fork", and "cooked" don't necessarily apply.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[billvon 3,090]

>Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct . . .

A terrorist uses terror to accomplish his political goals. Who is now terrified? Not the guy using the water cannon on the smaller boat. Not the crew who just ran over the boat with no damage to their own.

>I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply
>got run over - tough luck to them.

Probably. That makes them either stupid (if they weren't trying to be run over) or smart (if they wanted to get in the news, which they did.) Doesn't make them terrorists.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Anti Whale Terrorist Boat Gets Rammed

Holy shit. If TSA can't even screen out whale-terrorists, we've REALLY got a problem.

Call it profiling if you will, but I think whales should be searched thoroughly before allowing them on any public transport.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.

I thought the video was pretty damning that they were "buzzing" the whaling boat in a pretty intimidating manner, that is instilling fear.

Indeed - just like a cyclist intimidates an 18-wheeler truck and instils fear.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Anti Whale Terrorist Boat Gets Rammed

Holy shit. If TSA can't even screen out whale-terrorists, we've REALLY got a problem.

Call it profiling if you will, but I think whales should be searched thoroughly before allowing them on any public transport.

Don't give them any bright ideas. I want to keep flying, but they'll have to shoot me before I let them search my blowhole.

[TrophyHusband 0]

are you saying that the sea shepherds are not eco-terrorists? do a little googling of that organization and read about the things that paul watson has done over the years.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[pbwing 0]

Quote

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

I thought so as well, but looking at it from this angle, it does appear that the whaling ship did veer towards the smaller boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=video_response

[billvon 3,090]

>are you saying that the sea shepherds are not eco-terrorists?

I'm saying that getting run over by a big fishing vessel is not a terrorist act. Neither is getting in the way of their water cannons.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

My bromeliads, ficus, philodendrons, orchids, and varius herb plants told me last night that they think you are a despicable predator. What have their species ever done to you, to be treated so poorly.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

Yes, of course...because you NEVER hear about anyone getting bitten by a rattlesnake.

First rule of holes: STOP DIGGING

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.

I thought the video was pretty damning that they were "buzzing" the whaling boat in a pretty intimidating manner, that is instilling fear.

Indeed - just like a cyclist intimidates an 18-wheeler truck and instils fear.

If you think that OTR driver isn't scared shitless after almost hitting the biker, you need to think again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not in favor of whale hunting, but I do believe the Japanese version of this incident.
The smaller boat positioned itself to be rammed, either deliberately or accidentally.

AFAIK, groups like these have been 'stalking' whaling boats for years. Is it an effective tactic ?
Has there been evidence to suggest that fewer whales were killed as a result of this type of 'sea stalking' ?
Anyone perhaps know ?

Since as far as I can tell this is about the only response to the thread, I have replied to it.

Andy's assertion that they are terrorists is correct, although I guess you could call them vigilantees just as easily. BBC had a short video of them and to be honest they were piloting their craft in an agressive manner and buzzing a much larger ship. How does a high speed, highly manouvarable craft get rammed by a large unweildy vessel? I think they cocked up with there aggressive manouvers and simply got run over - tough luck to them.

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.

I believe you also need intent to induce the fear.

If the gun wearing tea-partiers did so in order to produce fear, then the terrorist label could be fairly applied. If they wore guns, and any fear generated was not intended by them, then they are not acting to incite fear, and (in my mind) not terrorists.

Who can determine intent? Not I.

just trying to tweak your definition. I believe intent is required.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Indeed - just like a cyclist intimidates an 18-wheeler truck and instils fear.

you don't think a trucker fears running over the cyclist? he'd likely end up on the news, in court, out a bunch of money, and anywhere there's a critical mass group, he might end up with death threats or more. (those fuckers piss me off)

--
Rob

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

>are you saying that the sea shepherds are not eco-terrorists?

I'm saying that getting run over by a big fishing vessel is not a terrorist act. Neither is getting in the way of their water cannons.

but fouling their props is. so is throwing chemicals onto the ship. so is ramming the ship. the sea shepards have even sunk ships before.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

>are you saying that the sea shepherds are not eco-terrorists?

I'm saying that getting run over by a big fishing vessel is not a terrorist act. Neither is getting in the way of their water cannons.

but fouling their props is. so is throwing chemicals onto the ship. so is ramming the ship. the sea shepards have even sunk ships before.

terrorist is a word with other connotations. I'd rather think of them as pirates.

--
Rob

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

I'd rather think of them as pirates.

Thieves and murderers?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

I'd rather think of them as pirates.

Thieves and murderers?

butt pirates

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

To apply the defintion, they are terorists. Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. But we could also apply that to abortion clinic protestors, esp the non-peaceful type. Where peaceful protest of any kind ends and terrorism begins is highly subjective. I guess we could call the idiots at the tea parties who carried guns while Obama showed up terrorists and the non-gun carriers as peaceful dissent. It's about the introduction of fear that defines if they are terrorists, as well as the political agenda. Of course we will have a barrage of people piping in to say that the anti-whalers are terrorists and the gun-carrying tea partiers are not and then using some twisted version of the dictionary to explain that. Remember, you have both:

- Introduction of fear

- To achieve a political agenda

to be terrorism.

I thought the video was pretty damning that they were "buzzing" the whaling boat in a pretty intimidating manner, that is instilling fear.

In this very post I wrote: Terrorsim is the infliction of fear to achieve a political agenda, so in a way they are creating a sort of fear on the lower end of that definition. So I guess you're arguing with yourself. At the same time, draw a line bwtween nuisance and fear. The Whaling ship intentionally refused to miss the other ship in an act of defiance. Either way, there was no shown violent agenda, but as I said, this could be interpreted as a lower end form of terrorism, just barely, as they showed to intent to inflict fear, just a nuisance.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

are you saying that the sea shepherds are not eco-terrorists? do a little googling of that organization and read about the things that paul watson has done over the years.

They use economic terrorism, not physical terrorism. Is it still terrorism? Barely an in a limited sense. You're using the term losely.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

My bromeliads, ficus, philodendrons, orchids, and varius herb plants told me last night that they think you are a despicable predator. What have their species ever done to you, to be treated so poorly.

Tell em not worry, I don't predate on them, perhaps distant realtives.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The Whaling ship intentionally refused to miss the other ship in an act of defiance.

Can't access the video, but given the size of whaling ships I've seen, unless the dumbshit greenpeacer was at LEAST 200-300 yards ahead of the whaler when he crossed the bow, there was NO WAY the whaler was going to miss him - and that's moving dead slow.

Ships don't maneuver like cars.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

BTW, human canines, as small as they are, are more pronounced in males, hence used for fighting.

AKA- biting flesh/meat... pretty weak argument AGAINST omnivorism.

To take it a step further from my other post to you, look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat. Young snakes might strike a human with venom, but adult snakes use their venom generally only for food, not defense. So a human can use their teeth for defense and not for consuming flesh, esp since human's digestive systems are not designed for that.

Yes, of course...because you NEVER hear about anyone getting bitten by a rattlesnake.

First rule of holes: STOP DIGGING

Right, this is why I wrote: ...look at rattlesnakes if you want to see an animal/reptile that bites/strikes and doesn't eat.

You came in late, but the point made by someone else was that since humans have canines for fighting, they must also eat that flesh they bite as they are defending themselves. I supplied the rattlesnake reply that that STRIKE and not eat or inject venom as a defense, esp in adult snakes with regard to the venom.

Let me spell it out for you simply: TEETH/FANGS CAN BE USED AS DEVICES IN WHICH TO EAT AND/OR TO FIGHT AND DEFEND YOURSELF, SO A HUMAN'S CANINES CAN BE USED TO FIGHT AND THEN NOT EAT WHAT THEY DEFENSIVELY BITE, AS THEIR DIET IS BASED UPON MEAT AND DIGESTIVE SYSTEM DOESN'T DIGEST MEAT WELL.

Simple enough?