Environmentalists pursue Japan's whalers

[Coligny]

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.

If we go this way... Putin and kimchi jong Un are next ? No ?

I think I don't need a rerun of these kind of debates... If you become as bad as those you fight whatever happens... You've lost anyway.

Gonna suit up and shoot some rice nigger, they bombed pearl harbour after all so it's all righty...

[Wage Slave]

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

Yes, but I am still unclear whose and which law was broken in Afghanistan and why OBL's involvement in 9/11 would have made it legal. So if you can provide that I would be grateful.

It might sound a bit pedantic but if you are going to argue illegality then these details are not optional.

If however you are arguing that the war was unjustified or not sufficiently morally justified then you don't have to worry about it. But that is a very different argument.

[Wage Slave]

If we go this way... Putin and kimchi jong Un are next ? No ?

No. For a variety of reasons - some good some pretty hypocritical and self serving.

Gonna suit up and shoot some rice nigger, they bombed pearl harbour after all so it's all righty...

[/quote]

Errrr .....I think that one finished 70 years ago. But at the time, I don't remember anyone saying that the US's response to Pearl Harbour was illegal.

[Russell]

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

Yes, but I am still unclear whose and which law was broken in Afghanistan and why OBL's involvement in 9/11 would have made it legal. So if you can provide that I would be grateful.

It might sound a bit pedantic but if you are going to argue illegality then these details are not optional.

If however you are arguing that the war was unjustified or not sufficiently morally justified then you don't have to worry about it. But that is a very different argument.

Wage Slave, I hope you understand that it is against international law to invade other countries without probable cause. If there is no concrete evidence that OBL was involved in the 9/11 tragedy, then this war was illegal.

[Wage Slave]

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

Yes, but I am still unclear whose and which law was broken in Afghanistan and why OBL's involvement in 9/11 would have made it legal. So if you can provide that I would be grateful.

It might sound a bit pedantic but if you are going to argue illegality then these details are not optional.

If however you are arguing that the war was unjustified or not sufficiently morally justified then you don't have to worry about it. But that is a very different argument.

Wage Slave, I hope you understand that it is against international law to invade other countries without probable cause. If there is no concrete evidence that OBL was involved in the 9/11 tragedy, then this war was illegal.

No sorry, I honestly don't know which or whose law you mean, what a "probable cause" is or why an alleged lack of evidence that OBL was involved in 9/11 was critical to the legality of the war in Afghanistan.

But hey .......You are welcome to believe I'm just too dumb or sheeple.

[Coligny]

Gonna suit up and shoot some rice nigger, they bombed pearl harbour after all so it's all righty...

Errrr .....I think that one finished 70 years ago. But at the time, I don't remember anyone saying that the US's response to Pearl Harbour was illegal.

Yea, today that would be missguided revenge... A bit like the OBL raid in fact...

[wagyl]

I've never really understood the difference between international law and the law of the schoolyard. Both give a slight advantage to the bully and the charismatic, and both rely on ostracism and peer scorn as penalties.

[Russell]

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

Yes, but I am still unclear whose and which law was broken in Afghanistan and why OBL's involvement in 9/11 would have made it legal. So if you can provide that I would be grateful.

It might sound a bit pedantic but if you are going to argue illegality then these details are not optional.

If however you are arguing that the war was unjustified or not sufficiently morally justified then you don't have to worry about it. But that is a very different argument.

Wage Slave, I hope you understand that it is against international law to invade other countries without probable cause. If there is no concrete evidence that OBL was involved in the 9/11 tragedy, then this war was illegal.

No sorry, I honestly don't know which or whose law you mean, what a "probable cause" is or why an alleged lack of evidence that OBL was involved in 9/11 was critical to the legality of the war in Afghanistan.

But hey .......You are welcome to believe I'm just too dumb or sheeple.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner with nut jobs by quoting their oft-used phrases is just too transparent. In general I value your balanced opinions on this forum, so it is a little disappointing that you consider it necessary to use this kind of language.

Now back to the legality of the Afghanistan war, my questioning can hardly be called a fringe opinion. In fact it is a legit discussion.

[Wage Slave]

Gonna suit up and shoot some rice nigger, they bombed pearl harbour after all so it's all righty...

Errrr .....I think that one finished 70 years ago. But at the time, I don't remember anyone saying that the US's response to Pearl Harbour was illegal.

Yea, today that would be missguided revenge... A bit like the OBL raid in fact...

There is some truth in that but there were trials and executions after the war had finished and Japan no longer posed a threat. I don't see a raid to snatch OBL was so different. It is true that they should have put him on trial though.

But as I said, I just can't bring myself to lose too much sleep over it. Maybe he did go for his gun anyway.

[Wage Slave]

Now back to the legality of the Afghanistan war, my questioning can hardly be called a fringe opinion. In fact it is a legit discussion.

I'm honestly sorry if I offended. I didn't mean it.

So, now we are clear. It was, in some people's opinion, a breach of the UN law which the US says it recognises and has incorporated into American law. This states that a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense.

If Al Qaeda had attacked the US and US embassies and if Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan with the tacit support of the Taliban then surely it is at least arguable that the US was using military force in self defence and hence it was legal.

OBL's exact status and role isn't critical to establishing that.

[Russell]

Now back to the legality of the Afghanistan war, my questioning can hardly be called a fringe opinion. In fact it is a legit discussion.

I'm honestly sorry if I offended. I didn't mean it.

So, now we are clear. It was, in some people's opinion, a breach of the UN law which the US says it recognises and has incorporated into American law. This states that a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense.

If Al Qaeda had attacked the US and US embassies and if Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan with the tacit support of the Taliban then surely it is at least arguable that the US was using military force in self defence and hence it was legal.

OBL's exact status and role isn't critical to establishing that.

OK, so you say that OBL's role in 9/11 was not critical for the invasion of Afghanistan. That's not exactly what we have been told by authorities. It was in fact used as the justification.

[Wage Slave]

Now back to the legality of the Afghanistan war, my questioning can hardly be called a fringe opinion. In fact it is a legit discussion.

I'm honestly sorry if I offended. I didn't mean it.

So, now we are clear. It was, in some people's opinion, a breach of the UN law which the US says it recognises and has incorporated into American law. This states that a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense.

If Al Qaeda had attacked the US and US embassies and if Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan with the tacit support of the Taliban then surely it is at least arguable that the US was using military force in self defence and hence it was legal.

OBL's exact status and role isn't critical to establishing that.

OK, so you say that OBL's role in 9/11 was not critical for the invasion of Afghanistan. That's not exactly what we have been told by authorities. It was in fact used as the justification.

How it was sold to the rednecks and what the real reason and objectives were are two different things. I remember much talk of destroying AQ as well as getting OBL at the time. Surely you recognise that OBL was an important man in AQ even if you are not convinced he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

[Russell]

Now back to the legality of the Afghanistan war, my questioning can hardly be called a fringe opinion. In fact it is a legit discussion.

I'm honestly sorry if I offended. I didn't mean it.

So, now we are clear. It was, in some people's opinion, a breach of the UN law which the US says it recognises and has incorporated into American law. This states that a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense.

If Al Qaeda had attacked the US and US embassies and if Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan with the tacit support of the Taliban then surely it is at least arguable that the US was using military force in self defence and hence it was legal.

OBL's exact status and role isn't critical to establishing that.

OK, so you say that OBL's role in 9/11 was not critical for the invasion of Afghanistan. That's not exactly what we have been told by authorities. It was in fact used as the justification.

How it was sold to the rednecks and what the real reason and objectives were are two different things. I remember much talk of destroying AQ as well as getting OBL at the time. Surely you recognise that OBL was an important man in AQ even if you are not convinced he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

As I said before, I have no problem with recognizing that OBL was a bad guy.

I just don't like the BS that we have been spoon-fed by the Bush/Cheney administration. If there would not have been 9/11, there would not have been the invasion to Afghanistan. And it was not just redneck Americans who fell for it. There was almost no critical thinking at the time in America, and even outside America. After all, we were all Americans...

[wagyl]

There was almost no critical thinking at the time in America, and even outside America.

It was indeed a remarkable episode. I was in the San Francisco Bay Area one week later -- a colleague had been trapped when flights were grounded -- and there was a palpable atmosphere of "no criticism will be spoken," even within traditional centres of dissent and free thought like San Francisco. There was a bucketload of self-censorship going on. If you didn't have something to say in support, you kept your mouth shut. Or as someone eloquently said, "you are either with us or against us." Nationalistic display become de rigueur, and I am not sure how much was spontaneous and how much was proactive defence. Polarisation of thought has only increased since then.

[Russell]

There was almost no critical thinking at the time in America, and even outside America.

It was indeed a remarkable episode. I was in the San Francisco Bay Area one week later -- a colleague had been trapped when flights were grounded -- and there was a palpable atmosphere of "no criticism will be spoken," even within traditional centres of dissent and free thought like San Francisco. There was a bucketload of self-censorship going on. If you didn't have something to say in support, you kept your mouth shut. Or as someone eloquently said, "you are either with us or against us." Nationalistic display become de rigueur, and I am not sure how much was spontaneous and how much was proactive defence. Polarisation of thought has only increased since then.

Wagyl, this is exactly what I was referring to. It was scary, and I feared at the time democracy was going to disappear. So much for having a corrupt imbecile in power as president of the U.S. Since then, things have become better in my opinion, even though Obama is not perfect.

[Coligny]

Gonna suit up and shoot some rice nigger, they bombed pearl harbour after all so it's all righty...

Errrr .....I think that one finished 70 years ago. But at the time, I don't remember anyone saying that the US's response to Pearl Harbour was illegal.

Yea, today that would be missguided revenge... A bit like the OBL raid in fact...

There is some truth in that but there were trials and executions after the war had finished and Japan no longer posed a threat. I don't see a raid to snatch OBL was so different. It is true that they should have put him on trial though.

But as I said, I just can't bring myself to lose too much sleep over it. Maybe he did go for his gun anyway.

Let me help you:
This bombed Pearl Harbour

image.jpg

This crashed the WTC

image.jpg

The red circles on the first plane ID it as belonging to the Imperial Flying Pig army of Monkistan (or Japan if you'z one of them PC fags) making it easy to hunt and prosecute the actors belonging to an official army.

In OBL case, aside from the illegal army issue (that Isis so efficiently solved) even with an internationnal arrest mandate. Popping up in dirkaland and taking out peeps you don't like is usually frowned upon. Even the djews "only" kidnaped Eichmann to make him stand trial. And there was no possible denial of what the guy did...

There was no justice served just lustfull revenge. The kind of behaviour that put Assange, Snowden anthe rest of the planet at risk from bullying pigfuckers with nukes.

[Russell]

This crashed into the WTC

image.jpg

FTFY

[Coligny]

Or "through"

Or "against"

Feckin' d00tsh

[Russell]

Or "through"

Or "against"

Feckin' d00tsh

Whatever...

[kurogane]

urp

[Coligny]

Wow. Even for a painfully obviously Dutch Dutch, that was incredibly Dutch. Where I went to postgrad that was synonymous with Douche. In English we used to call it The Ministry of the Bleeding Obvious with Special Attachment to the Secretary for Peurile Quibbling BS.

Culture is so cute.

Say the GNAA guy... also you forgot to say "spastic"

[Russell]

Wow. Even for a painfully obviously Dutch Dutch, that was incredibly Dutch. Where I went to postgrad that was synonymous with Douche. In English we used to call it The Ministry of the Bleeding Obvious with Special Attachment to the Secretary for Peurile Quibbling BS.

Culture is so cute.

Say the GNAA guy... also you forgot to say "spastic"

Nah, the guy is drunk again.

He first posted the above reply in the "Auslander raus" thread. Talking about a douche...

[Coligny]

That would explain the lack of spasticity...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Back on topic ....

Judge Rules Sea Shepherd Wrongfully Sank Crippled ‘Whale Wars’ Vessel

The unfortunate drama surrounding the collision and sinking of the Ady Gil has finally reached a conclusion. An arbitrator last week ruled that the Sea Shepherd acted “wrongful” in their decision to scuttle the ship and not allow for proper salvage efforts.

The trimaran, named for its benefactor and owner Ady Gil, a Hollywood TV businessman and animal activist, famously collided on January 7th, 2010 with a Japanese whaling vessel. The event, captured on film for Animal Planet’s “Whale Wars” reality series, drew international attention for both the conservation organization and its anti-whaling mission.

While the Ady Gil was disabled by the collision, it was by engineering standards apparently never in jeopardy of fully sinking. In rendering her decision, arbitrator Jean Kalicki said Sea Shepherd’s interests were not for the vessel, but likely for the television ratings and public favor to be gained in its demise.

“Respondents nonetheless concocted and implemented a secret plan to scuttle the vessel, for their own reasons and without consulting the vessel’s owner,” she writes in a portion of the ruling (not subject to the protective order) sent to us by Ady Gil. “This decision was not made for the primary reason of reducing navigational hazards….but for purposes of continuing their mission and more fundamentally maintaining the high drama that they believed the Whale Wars audience had come to expect, and on which SSCS’s own popularity (and potential future fundraising) in part depended.”

The arbitrator adds that the Sea Shepherd’s decision was ‘wrongful,” with the matter not nearly so dire that the organization had any right to take the situation into its own hands without first contacting Mr. Gil.

In characterizing testimony for the suit, the arbitrator was particularly harsh on Paul Watson; finding the Sea Shepherd founder in some instances to “be highly evasive, internally contradictory, or at odds with his own prior written statements, and in certain areas simply lacking the basic indicia of genuineness that instinctively inspires confidence and trust.”

[kurogane]

Nah, the guy is drunk again...

Yes, he was. Sorry about that. :bow:

So, BOT:
I bet 3 kopecknicks that this decision will not have much affect on Watson's true acolytes but might lead to a shift away from the automatic support he enjoys amongst the middling classes and his less ideologically pure donors. I have noticed that the Sea Shitbirds seem much less visible in reports from Taiji this year, while the O'Barry-oids also seem less confrontational. I wonder if that is a change in strategy or the result of the immigration crackdown, both of which would be welcome developments.　There was a healthy amount of shouting on the onegreenplanet discussion boards about 2 weeks ago regarding the Japanese authorities unconscionable infringements on the rights of protestors to enter Japan as tourists but even a few hardcore Flipper Huggers were careful to point out that simply being stupid doesn't make you right. Perhaps they have learned that shouting only gets more dolphins killed and that enlightened self-discipline might be the quicker route to end the hunt.

[matsuki]

Back on topic ....

Judge Rules Sea Shepherd Wrongfully Sank Crippled ‘Whale Wars’ Vessel

NIce...I'm sure it helps the whales a ton when they litter the ocean with carbon and kevlar "eco-boats"

[kurogane]

Depending on how deep it sank it might make a good play fort for the widdle bebbe whales. Before they get speared and grilled. Which is what they should do to Watson. That fucker could feed a small Papuan tribe for half a year.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Back on topic ....

Judge Rules Sea Shepherd Wrongfully Sank Crippled ‘Whale Wars’ Vessel

NIce...I'm sure it helps the whales a ton when they litter the ocean with carbon and kevlar "eco-boats"

Fuck Sea Shepherd but a few sunken boats is going to have zero impact on the whales.

[matsuki]

Back on topic ....

Judge Rules Sea Shepherd Wrongfully Sank Crippled ‘Whale Wars’ Vessel

NIce...I'm sure it helps the whales a ton when they litter the ocean with carbon and kevlar "eco-boats"

Fuck Sea Shepherd but a few sunken boats is going to have zero impact on the whales.

Maybe not...but you know if it was a Japanese ship, it would be headline news "Intentionally sank Japanese vessel polluting pristine waters of the whale sanctuary!" or something like that. (maybe even "Fukushima nuclear waste hidden aboard" for good measure)

[Coligny]

Don't know if carbon fiber is as good, but old ships/trains/battletank are commonly sunk to be used as shelter by coutless ...naval... species... plus that means you are one dive session away from getting those spare part for your Renault FT17...

image.jpg