Environmentalists pursue Japan's whalers

[Samurai_Jerk]

So, do anyone of you think that killing Cetaceans in and of itself is worse (or better) than killing / eating Chimpanzees or do experiments on them?

The short answer is no. Now that I've got that out of the way, I don't think people should eat chimps since it seems they've been the source of some pretty nasty diseases.

Not that I'm against eating whale or fish...but the level of consumption by some people....well:

Mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. High levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn.
Symptoms of methylmercury poisoning may include impairment of peripheral vision; disturbances in sensations ("pins and needles" feelings); lack of coordination; impairment of speech, hearing, walking; and muscle weakness.

http://www.medicinenet.com/mercury_pois ... rticle.htm

I'm more concerned about infectious diseases like Ebola and AIDS but if something is too poisonous to eat then yeah it probably shouldn't be on the market.

[Coligny]

If you fuck an ebola patient without condoms you truly deserve to bleed to death through your bunghole...

[Russell]

If you fuck an ebola patient without condoms you truly deserve to bleed to death through your bunghole...

Would it be any different if you would use condoms?!?

[Coligny]

If you fuck an ebola patient without condoms you truly deserve to bleed to death through your bunghole...

Would it be any different if you would use condoms?!?

Depends on the size of the condom...

image.jpg

But i think there was case made saying you are less likely to catch ebola than to marry a Kardashian... So lets go to Liberia and fuck everything on sight...
Also did we find a catchy name for cured but contagious survivorz ? Must beat Typhoid Marie in the headlines...

[wagyl]

I have also been meaning to get down there [i.e. Taiji] but I will definitely have to be in the mood to explain myself when I do go and I don't seem to feel that way often enough lately. Is it a nice area for a lesiurely drive? I do so love the whole outer Wakayama area. Such lovely water and beaches.

We interrupt the feasting on chimpanzee thighs to say...

I was taking the train back up to Koyasan after walking the Kumano Kaido so I was just passing through, dead tired, but I certainly didn't feel comfortable looking different from the locals (or indeed like a backpacker, even if in my case it was after several stinky days in the mountains). I actually think this is one of the bigger crimes of the movement: increasing hatred in the world, from both sides. The coast around there is pretty, rocky, cliffy and crinkly, with nice little secluded coves, for various marine activities.

[Takechanpoo]

interesting article about methylmercury included in whale, dolphin, tuna
http://swrcb2.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues ... r_1972.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637175/

[Russell]

Take,
In short, the argument is that killing a cetacean is no different than killing a humanoid, and indeed, worse because they are smarter than we are (which does raise the point of why they keep returning to the Taiji area ).

Not so fast.

Humans keep returning to Mecca every year, where they get crushed to death in some way or another...

The same way little kids go back to church every sunday to be cornholed by the priests...

At least that isn't fatal.

The Hajj is.

As the body count from the horrific Hajj stampede reached 719, the backlash started. Within hours, Saudi Arabia’s regional rival Iran had laid the blame for the deaths squarely on the heads of the House of Saud.

Saudi officials, by contrast, claimed “some pilgrims who didn’t follow the guidelines issued” may have been responsible for the sudden crush on the half-mile-long, five-storey Jamarat Bridge near Mecca. They also pointed to the extreme heat and fatigue of some pilgrims as potential causes.

As the authorities sought to deflect criticism for the worst tragedy to befall the annual pilgrimage in 25 years, Prince Khaled al-Faisal, the head of the central Hajj committee, provoked fury when he reportedly decided to blame “some pilgrims with African nationalities” for causing the stampede.

But never mind. It is apparently an honor to die near Mecca on their godly mission...

[kurogane]

Haji no tabi ha shini sute?????

[Wage Slave]

I'm getting close to throwing the radio out of the window. The BBC keeping interviewing prominent and nice sounding UK muslims who are saying that the UK should take the lead in developing and delivering compulsory Haj training for all pilgrims. Why are they telling us we should do this? It may be an excellent idea but it is clearly something that the muslim community has to organise, fund and administer. None of our business and that's that.

[Salty]

Long, but well-balanced and informative for those who have the time and interest.

In short, we're producing and eating too much meat.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/

Long pig solves the problem....

[Russell]

Haji no tabi ha shini sute?????

You mean "Hajj no inochi ha kakisute"?

[Russell]

Long, but well-balanced and informative for those who have the time and interest.

In short, we're producing and eating too much meat.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/

Long pig solves the problem....

Time to move to the UK...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Long, but well-balanced and informative for those who have the time and interest.

In short, we're producing and eating too much meat.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/should-humans-eat-meat-excerpt/

Long pig solves the problem....

Time to move to the UK...

I like the title Shadow Secretary. Sounds quite sinister.

[kurogane]

As does she. I kind of like this Corbyn fellow even with that distinctly Frosted Lucky Charms sounding name, but he seems to like the wingnuts. WhoTF is an anti-evolutionary to tell other people what to eat? Hippy cunt.

Off topic, but:

OOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The shadows just got longer:

Jeremy Corbyn: 9/11 was 'manipulated'
In comments that will raise questions about his suitability to lead the Labour Party, Mr Corbyn appeared to blame George Bush and Tony Blair for using the September 11 attacks in New York to allow them to go to war

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... lated.html

Smart money says he's half right, which still isn't good enough if you come off sounding like a Schizoid retard that hasn't had enough animal protein to think straight.

[wagyl]

If you think the Telegraph is going to spin a headline to make the Labour Party look good you have very high expectations.

If you say it as "GWB and Blair used the fresh-in-the-memory concept of terrorism (including some revenge-lust) and some pulled-from-someone's-arse intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and links between Al Qaeda and Iraq to justify military intervention in the Middle East" I think you will find little controversy.

[Russell]

If you think the Telegraph is going to spin a headline to make the Labour Party look good you have very high expectations.

If you say it as "GWB and Blair used the fresh-in-the-memory concept of terrorism and some pulled-from-someone's-arse intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and links between Al Qaeda and Iraq to justify military intervention in the Middle East" I think you will find little controversy.

Good points, Wagyl!

[kurogane]

He or they seem to suggest that it was more about Osama Bin Laden being framed and then murdered, but yeah, what you wrote sounds about what I meant by half right. He does sound like a true lefty loony but I vote that we give that version of stupidity its rightful chance. What's the worst that could happen? Wars in the Middle East? A Gazillion refugees and their shadow migrants trying to get into Europe? Corporate welfare and private poverty? That would be a change


Anyways, BOT: Ric O'Barry, self-righteous senile douchebag or shamelessly sanctimonious doddering hypocrite? Discuss

[Russell]

He or they seem to suggest that it was more about Osama Bin Laden being framed and then murdered, but yeah, what you wrote sounds about what I meant by half right.

I then assume you refer to Osama Bin Laden as being responsible to 9/11, which Bush/Cheney tried to link to Saddam Hussein.

But apparently you want to talk about Osama Bin Laden, so in order to have a fruitful discussion, please, could you first show me the legal evidence that he was guilty of being involved in the 9/11 attacks?

[Wage Slave]

But apparently you want to talk about Osama Bin Laden, so in order to have a fruitful discussion, please, could you first show me the legal evidence that he was guilty of being involved in the 9/11 attacks?

I'm not sure what you mean by legal evidence but there is certainly evidence that he conceived the idea, was involved in the planning and that his organisation carried it out. It Includes a statement by him explaining the rationale. It was received and published by Al Jazeera 4 years after the event. He sort of denied being a player initially even though he was delighted by the success of it but that didn't last long.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html

[kurogane]

He or they seem to suggest that it was more about Osama Bin Laden being framed and then murdered, but yeah, what you wrote sounds about what I meant by half right.

But apparently you want to talk about Osama Bin Laden, so in order to have a fruitful discussion, please, could you first show me the legal evidence that he was guilty of being involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Ummm, coz he said he did it? That's good enough reason to put a few caps in his head towel.

BTW, I am all for the actual investigation and exposure of the obvious manipulations and outright deceptions of the Anglo-American War on Browns. I am also sick to death of mental mediocrities that think because they have an internet connection and happen to like the sound of some conspiratard schizoid BS that it makes it "the most compelling and plausible argument available". I also see patterns where others don't, but I can smell self-aggrandising BS even better. The undereducated and overopinionated need to STFU and let trained people do their jobs, not obscure the available information in a miasma of mediocre mental mudpie.

EDIT: oook. Nice work there, WS.

[Wage Slave]

BTW, I am all for the actual investigation and exposure of the obvious manipulations and outright deceptions of the Anglo-American War on Browns. I am also sick to death of mental mediocrities that think because they have an internet connection and happen to like the sound of some conspiratard schizoid BS that it makes it "the most compelling and plausible argument available". I also see patterns where others don't, but I can smell self-aggrandising BS even better. The undereducated and overopinionated need to STFU and let trained people do their jobs, not obscure the available information in a miasma of mediocre mental mudpie.

Yep, and the really infuriating thing is that it makes it much more difficult to bring the bastards to account when they can distract everyone by effortlessly batting away endless barrage of said BS.

As for OBL, I do think it would have been better had he been captured alive and put on trial. However, I'm not going to lose a whole lot of sleep over it - live by the sword, die by the sword. And he was a complete cunt in charge of a bunch of complete cunts. Let's not forget that either.

[Russell]

OK, Wage Slave and Kurogane, so Osama Bin Laden said he did it.

Now, funny thing is that even the FBI didn't say he did it.

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.

So, they had sufficient evidence to charge him with the bombings of those embassies, but apparently not sufficient evidence for the 9/11 attacks, otherwise they would have stated this on that Wanted poster.

And since when is a hearsay story in a news paper sufficient evidence to hold up in court?

Oh, and did you hear Dick Cheney's opinion on it?

[Samurai_Jerk]

Russell, why would they frame bin Laden and not go after the real mastermind? Or are you one of those nutcase truthers that thinks it was an inside job?

[Wage Slave]

It's not hearsay evidence whatever else you may wish to say about it. Hearsay evidence is "someone told me that he heard/saw xyz." Al Jazeera were sent a videotape of the man himself speaking and they published it. Anything but hearsay.

And as for Dick Cheney - Pay attention to exactly what he said and what he didn't say. He said that the evidence is not forthcoming. He didn't say that the evidence doesn't exist. In other words, we are are not going to reveal what evidence we have and how we got it because it isn't in our interests. And that's why we aren't going to lay formal charges - if we do we will have to reveal more than we want to. In the meantime we have plenty enough on OBL for the embassy attacks to have him arrested and/or killed if he resists. And that's also why the FBI doesn't mention it directly on their Wanted poster.

A bit like the Japanese police arresting someone for unlawful disposal of a body rather than for murder. It gives them more room for maneuver and doesn't weaken their operational position a jot.

[wagyl]

Especially so if they have no plans to have any formalities about it, just to send in a state sponsored team of assassins, in which case it doesn't matter if he did it or not, they achieved their political purpose.

Why do the cheers of approval for that particular act remind me of the ululations when the World Trade Center collapsed? And how does it not then legitimise assassination of any person one may choose, in a Battle Royale?

But we are getting way off topic, and although I do not believe in holding my tongue because some other person dislikes what I have to say, those Navy Seals can be damn persistent, more so than dolphins!

[Russell]

It's not hearsay evidence whatever else you may wish to say about it. Hearsay evidence is "someone told me that he heard/saw xyz." Al Jazeera were sent a videotape of the man himself speaking and they published it. Anything but hearsay.

And as for Dick Cheney - Pay attention to exactly what he said and what he didn't say. He said that the evidence is not forthcoming. He didn't say that the evidence doesn't exist. In other words, we are are not going to reveal what evidence we have and how we got it because it isn't in our interests. And that's why we aren't going to lay formal charges - if we do we will have to reveal more than we want to. In the meantime we have plenty enough on OBL for the embassy attacks to have him arrested and/or killed if he resists. And that's also why the FBI doesn't mention it directly on their Wanted poster.

A bit like the Japanese police arresting someone for unlawful disposal of a body rather than for murder. It gives them more room for maneuver and doesn't weaken their operational position a jot.

What tape is that? And would it hold up in court?

I do not dispute that OBL was a bad guy, neither do I regret that he is likely dead, my problem is the legal process that was followed. If you do not have evidence charging the guy, then killing him is illegal, and it makes the whole war in Afghanistan illegal.

But anyway, they found the mastermind of 9/11: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He confessed after being waterboarded hundreds of times. If that makes you comfortable.

[Wage Slave]

What tape is that? And would it hold up in court?

The videotape of a speech by OBL sent to Al Jazeera. Yes of course it would be admitted as evidence. The authenticity might be challenged or might not be. That challenge might or might not be accepted by the jury. Most people appear to accept it is authentic. Although there will always be some, for whatever reasons, who will never accept anything except their own version of the facts.

I do not dispute that OBL was a bad guy, neither do I regret that he is likely dead,

Likely dead? You mean you do not even believe the US when they say and provide evidence that they have killed him? Wow, you are really cautious.

my problem is the legal process that was followed. If you do not have evidence charging the guy, then killing him is illegal,

You haven't shown they didn't have evidence to charge him - and I think they can show that they did. And even if you believe they didn't have enough evidence to convict him of being involved in 9/11 there were plenty of other things to get him on. Actually, they were acting illegally in arresting him at all - dead or alive - in the sovereign state of Pakistan. But if we overlook that on the grounds Pakistan is a compromised state then as far as killing him goes they say that he went for his gun - and he did have an AK47 with him at all times.

and it makes the whole war in Afghanistan illegal.

I don't see how that follows at all - Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban and Al Qaeda had attacked America. In any case, if you say the war in Afghanistan was illegal then you have to cite a law that makes it illegal. What law are you referring to?

[Coligny]

Russell, why would they frame bin Laden and not go after the real mastermind? Or are you one of those nutcase truthers that thinks it was an inside job?

Well, they killed my dad too for 9/11, despite the guy being not even remotely involved. To the point where if I remember well he offered his help against AQ...

image.jpg

Miss you daddy. Dun't worry, I'll make those kapitalist porks pay...

Now, if you can find anywhere a trace where OBL claim to have been the successfull mastermind behind 9/11... Be my guest.

Just consider that it might be easier to blame random sheep shaggers than point the fingers at the Saoudies...

Also...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... legal.html

[Wage Slave]

OBL was a Saudi - and a very well connected Saudi - the last time I checked. However, he wasn't based in Saudi although It is widely suspected that a lot of his considerable funding and many of his operatives came from Saudi. He was based in Afghanistan and before that Libya/East Africa.

How is that the Taliban and Saddam's Baath Party have suddenly become democrats fully subscribed to the rule of law and human rights? I accept that there is no evidence at all that Saddam was any kind of Al Qaeda supporter but that fact alone does not make him one of the good guys.

[Russell]

What tape is that? And would it hold up in court?

The videotape of a speech by OBL sent to Al Jazeera. Yes of course it would be admitted as evidence. The authenticity might be challenged or might not be. That challenge might or might not be accepted by the jury. Most people appear to accept it is authentic. Although there will always be some, for whatever reasons, who will never accept anything except their own version of the facts.

There was never a court case, so you don't know. You are just making things up about how an imaginary jury would decide.

I do not dispute that OBL was a bad guy, neither do I regret that he is likely dead,

Likely dead? You mean you do not even believe the US when they say and provide evidence that they have killed him? Wow, you are really cautious.

There was no body, so no evidence that he is dead, or that it was OBL who was killed. I prefer to stick with the facts. Please, provide facts.

my problem is the legal process that was followed. If you do not have evidence charging the guy, then killing him is illegal,

You haven't shown they didn't have evidence to charge him - and I think they can show that they did. And even if you believe they didn't have enough evidence to convict him of being involved in 9/11 there were plenty of other things to get him on. Actually, they were acting illegally in arresting him at all - dead or alive - in the sovereign state of Pakistan. But if we overlook that on the grounds Pakistan is a compromised state then as far as killing him goes they say that he went for his gun - and he did have an AK47 with him at all times.

Again, I do not deny he was a bad guy and needed to be charged for the crimes they had evidence of. The problem is they did not have evidence of his involvement in 9/11. That's probably why they tried to stick it to other people, like the guy who was waterboarded.

and it makes the whole war in Afghanistan illegal.

I don't see how that follows at all - Al Qaeda were based in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban and Al Qaeda had attacked America. In any case, if you say the war in Afghanistan was illegal then you have to cite a law that makes it illegal. What law are you referring to?

The official justification for going to war in Afghanistan was to get OBL, because of his alleged involvement in 9/11. In the end, they did not show any evidence of that.

Regarding the law you asked about, ever heard about international laws?