How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/23/sea-shepherd-loses-antarctic-battle-japan-whale-hunters
47 comments
So can anyone declare an act of terrorism? Can it be declared terrorism if an armed (almost by definition) whaling vessel approaches a protecting ship?
I'm curious as to whether the Japanese scientists involved in this "scientific study" actually ever release anything, or does Japan not bother to carry the pretense that far? Or is the contention that their scientists are too incompetent to actually get any useful research out of these oh-so-important hunts?
I'm curious as to whether the Japanese scientists involved in this "scientific study" actually ever release anything, or does Japan not bother to carry the pretense that far? Or is the contention that their scientists are too incompetent to actually get any useful research out of these oh-so-important hunts?
Among academics, terrorism is defined by The Revised Academic Consensus Definition by Alex P. Schmid [1]. The source I normally refer to (terrorismanalysts.com) is down at this moment.
Whether that is used by the Japanese or not, I don't know.
I share your curiosity regarding the Japanese scientists.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
Whether that is used by the Japanese or not, I don't know.
I share your curiosity regarding the Japanese scientists.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
Obvious solution is to start sinking Japanese whaling ships, after all they already labeled you terrorist.
Yes although ramming whaling ships isn’t exactly a victimless crime.
It's false logic to assume that ending the killing of whales will lead to the International Community's condemnation of killing fish as well. Killing large game mammals is an entirely separate concern when compared to killing fish and other species that are used for sustenance and to feed the population. If the Japanese government is to acquiesce on this issue I do not feel as though the government should have concerns about pressure on other types of marine life that is seized for sustenance all over the world.
We should all come together as globsl citizens of this planet and make an agreement on what is safe to capture so we can protect and manage the sea as one international community. Being an outlier and killing these mammals as brutally as it is done is not a position Japan's government and the people who elect that government should be willing to accept.
We should all come together as globsl citizens of this planet and make an agreement on what is safe to capture so we can protect and manage the sea as one international community. Being an outlier and killing these mammals as brutally as it is done is not a position Japan's government and the people who elect that government should be willing to accept.
Plus whales are (near?) sentient, while most fish are not.
[Citation needed], especially for the minke whales.
Orca and dolphin recognize themselves in mirror test [1].
Whales are mammals [2].
Mammals all possess a neocortex [3]. "The neocortex, also called the neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and language." [4] and AFAIK a CNS (Central Nervous System) as well.
Animals are recognized as sentient beings in certain jurisdictions such as Canada and New Zealand, but not world-wide.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_te...
[2] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system#Mammals
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex
Whales are mammals [2].
Mammals all possess a neocortex [3]. "The neocortex, also called the neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and language." [4] and AFAIK a CNS (Central Nervous System) as well.
Animals are recognized as sentient beings in certain jurisdictions such as Canada and New Zealand, but not world-wide.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_te...
[2] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system#Mammals
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex
It seems ugly logic but it makes sense. They don't want to stop any fishing. The more fish they get the more money they have to keep fishing. Plus the less money conservation groups have to focus on one section.
If killing animals for food is immoral at all, then whale meat is one of the least immoral forms of meat consumption there is. The reason is, you get a huge amount of meat per animal, and their lives are much better than those of livestock. Maybe better than minke whale is venison, since we need to cull the deer population anyway -- might as well eat it. Or maybe all hunting, moderated to prevent overhunting to extinction, is equally sound, because the animals would otherwise overpopulate and starve to death or get killed by some other predator. It might depend on whether there's some other predator in the food chain.
Whales are so intelligent though. Their brains are very large, and it's possible that they possess languages.
Pretty sure the protection of whales (and other sea life) was being negotiated as part of TPP to at least be stronger than the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning whale hunting altogether ...
> People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning whale hunting altogether
People have tried [1]. It's complicated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_t...
People have tried [1]. It's complicated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_t...
Anyone know what this military equipment is?
Better radars?
"In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd. “Essentially, they can see exactly where we are, but we still only have a rough idea of their position,” said Watson."
"In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd. “Essentially, they can see exactly where we are, but we still only have a rough idea of their position,” said Watson."
A reasonable guess would be spread spectrum radios for communication; they have lower narrow band spectral power output and they are harder to intercept the content of the transmissions, i.e. to determine what their plans are.
It lost the "battle" by resorting to violence rather than policy and law.
That's a wild statement given the facts, some of which you can read throughout the article.
* They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats. That's akin to me standing before you so you cannot cross the zebra (while I have the moral highground).
* Furthermore, Japan claims it requires these whales for "scientific" purposes. In reality they're used for consumption.
* As can be read in the article: Japan is hunting in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean.
* Quoting from the article: "Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. [...]" [1]
* After which they increased the "research" area: Quote "But, crucially, the Japanese also doubled the area of the Southern Ocean from which they said they would seek whales"
Furthermore, the reason why they lost isn't because they resort to violence. The reason, as stated in the article: "In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd." and "This is all part of the vast subsidy provided by the Japanese government for their whalers. And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for anybody to approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel"
And, as you can read from the article, the reasons why Japan opposes quitting whale hunting is three-fold: 1) nation pride and its tradition to receive large amounts of protein from dish 2) the fear for a domino effect 3) Quote: "And then there is the issue of the Antarctic Treaty which strictly controls how the continent and its waters are exploited. That treaty does not expire until 2048. But if Japan maintains a presence in Antarctic waters it could make a claim to be allowed greater influence in the region when a new treaty is negotiated by world powers."
[1] The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations http://www.icj-cij.org/
* They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats. That's akin to me standing before you so you cannot cross the zebra (while I have the moral highground).
* Furthermore, Japan claims it requires these whales for "scientific" purposes. In reality they're used for consumption.
* As can be read in the article: Japan is hunting in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean.
* Quoting from the article: "Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. [...]" [1]
* After which they increased the "research" area: Quote "But, crucially, the Japanese also doubled the area of the Southern Ocean from which they said they would seek whales"
Furthermore, the reason why they lost isn't because they resort to violence. The reason, as stated in the article: "In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd." and "This is all part of the vast subsidy provided by the Japanese government for their whalers. And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for anybody to approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel"
And, as you can read from the article, the reasons why Japan opposes quitting whale hunting is three-fold: 1) nation pride and its tradition to receive large amounts of protein from dish 2) the fear for a domino effect 3) Quote: "And then there is the issue of the Antarctic Treaty which strictly controls how the continent and its waters are exploited. That treaty does not expire until 2048. But if Japan maintains a presence in Antarctic waters it could make a claim to be allowed greater influence in the region when a new treaty is negotiated by world powers."
[1] The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations http://www.icj-cij.org/
> They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats
They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on whalers and commercial fishing vessels" [1].
There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
> The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-...
They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on whalers and commercial fishing vessels" [1].
There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
> The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-...
Do you fault a country’s coast guards (South Korea and Argentina) when they fire on or sink Chinese fishing vessels violating their sovereign waters to pillage their natural resources?
If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?
Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.
If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?
Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.
> Do you fault country’s coast guards
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
> Violence is sometimes necessary
Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.
Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change. Contrast the culture at the UN to e.g. a regulatory agency.
Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic solution to whaling for a generation or two.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Soci...
[2] https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in...
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
> Violence is sometimes necessary
Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.
Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change. Contrast the culture at the UN to e.g. a regulatory agency.
Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic solution to whaling for a generation or two.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Soci...
[2] https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in...
>> Do you fault country’s coast guards
> The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
Private entities are allowed to enforce the law in international waters, actually.
> The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
Private entities are allowed to enforce the law in international waters, actually.
On your own ship, and depending on jurisdiction (based on flag flown and the UNCLOS) [1]. Nobody allows running out to find a ship doing things one doesn’t like and then ramming or blocking its path.
In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].
Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically, however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
[2] the article
In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].
Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically, however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
[2] the article
I stand by my assertion regarding the use of force, just as poachers of endangered animals should be shot on sight (with proper signage around the kill box of course; “This preserve is off limits to humans without prior approval. The use of lethal force at all times is authorized”).
Diplomacy is apathy by committee. If governments do not act, private citizens must. We only get one Earth.
Diplomacy is apathy by committee. If governments do not act, private citizens must. We only get one Earth.
Are private citizens allowed to shoot poachers on sight?
In most countries, the right of private citizens to enforce the law themselves is very narrow. This is not because we do not respect the law, but because allowing private people to play cops and robbers can easily become a situation where it’s hard to tell who is what.
In most countries, the right of private citizens to enforce the law themselves is very narrow. This is not because we do not respect the law, but because allowing private people to play cops and robbers can easily become a situation where it’s hard to tell who is what.
[deleted]
> They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on whalers and commercial fishing vessels"
Lets see:
1) Ramming (non-physical person to person)
2) Sabotaging (vague; the rest are all examples of sabotage. I can't take this vague term serious)
3) Shooting water cannons (again, non-physical person to person)
4) Stink bombs (apparently this is violence in 2017; laughable)
You define all of this as violence? You know what I call violence? Killing whales. Using grenades. Using napalm/agent orange on trees, innocent civilians, friendlies and enemies alike, using depleted uranium, cluster bombs, the usage and sale of (semi) automatic weapons. All of this crap causes way more deaths than anything you summed up. Nothing even close to what in this example the US government resorted to in the previous and current century ever since WWII (I'm just using the US as an example since its an easy one I know a wee bit about; there are other ones as well of course). Never mind the term terrorism which is without base (the above is not terrorism as per the definition of Alex P. Schmid), flat out character assassination / the pot calling the kettle black (fallacy). Violence is a very relative term, indeed what Sea Shepherd have resorted to is at the very worst 'modest violence'. There's a better, less loaded term for their behavior which also covers their intentions: activism.
> There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
That's a theory, and a theory you can have about any proactive activism vs pacifist protests. Even in WWII, resistance fighters had different methods. Some more proactive, some more pacifist. At the very least, being pacifist won't save any injustice on the short term.
> The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
If you can avoid a jurisprudence because you don't wish to respect the court in the first place I call that a loophole within the law. Would be something, if I as civilian of The Netherlands can decide to flat our ignore jurisprudence from the courts of The Netherlands because I don't like the subject or the outcome.
Furthermore, they have the law on their side because Japan isn't using these whales for scientific purposes AFAICT. It doesn't seem Japan has to defend that case which is another loophole.
> In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
Action -> Reaction, and Predator vs Prey. Like with bullying, if you bully (or troll) someone, and that victim ends up eventually biting you back, then you got only yourself to blame. The way I see it, Sea Shepherd is protecting the weak, the victim, the pray (literally).
Lets see:
1) Ramming (non-physical person to person)
2) Sabotaging (vague; the rest are all examples of sabotage. I can't take this vague term serious)
3) Shooting water cannons (again, non-physical person to person)
4) Stink bombs (apparently this is violence in 2017; laughable)
You define all of this as violence? You know what I call violence? Killing whales. Using grenades. Using napalm/agent orange on trees, innocent civilians, friendlies and enemies alike, using depleted uranium, cluster bombs, the usage and sale of (semi) automatic weapons. All of this crap causes way more deaths than anything you summed up. Nothing even close to what in this example the US government resorted to in the previous and current century ever since WWII (I'm just using the US as an example since its an easy one I know a wee bit about; there are other ones as well of course). Never mind the term terrorism which is without base (the above is not terrorism as per the definition of Alex P. Schmid), flat out character assassination / the pot calling the kettle black (fallacy). Violence is a very relative term, indeed what Sea Shepherd have resorted to is at the very worst 'modest violence'. There's a better, less loaded term for their behavior which also covers their intentions: activism.
> There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
That's a theory, and a theory you can have about any proactive activism vs pacifist protests. Even in WWII, resistance fighters had different methods. Some more proactive, some more pacifist. At the very least, being pacifist won't save any injustice on the short term.
> The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
If you can avoid a jurisprudence because you don't wish to respect the court in the first place I call that a loophole within the law. Would be something, if I as civilian of The Netherlands can decide to flat our ignore jurisprudence from the courts of The Netherlands because I don't like the subject or the outcome.
Furthermore, they have the law on their side because Japan isn't using these whales for scientific purposes AFAICT. It doesn't seem Japan has to defend that case which is another loophole.
> In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
Action -> Reaction, and Predator vs Prey. Like with bullying, if you bully (or troll) someone, and that victim ends up eventually biting you back, then you got only yourself to blame. The way I see it, Sea Shepherd is protecting the weak, the victim, the pray (literally).
I think it darker than simple consumption. The japanese like fish more than whale. On the grand scale, fish and whales compete with each other to consume calories from smaller creatures. More whales means less food for fish. They dont want to eat whale. They hunt whales because they want whales dead.
Modeling of fish population dynamics is way more complicated than this. Increasing food availability can decrease population, for example.
Are they violent? I used zo think that was their modus operandi, but „Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist“ paints a different picture.
If one can paint their opponent as irrational (violent, terrorists, culture haters) then one can make a personal attack of their opponent, causing a distraction of the issue at hand, shifting the blame (and debate), and ignoring cause and effect. Furthermore, one no longer has to listen to their opponent, and one can justify the means to resort to countermeasures (such as in this case subsidies). Its an age old trick with multiple fallacies at work.
If they'd never resort to physical violence with their boat they're like a barking dog who doesn't bite. They need to show their teeth regularly, and seek the confrontation. Nobody wants to end up like Dutchbat in Srebrenica where the opponent knows that you won't take respond to their actions.
If they'd never resort to physical violence with their boat they're like a barking dog who doesn't bite. They need to show their teeth regularly, and seek the confrontation. Nobody wants to end up like Dutchbat in Srebrenica where the opponent knows that you won't take respond to their actions.
It seems like the Japanese aren't all that interested in policy and law on this issue.
No. It's stupid attacking the ships. Go after the people and their families. (Don't actually do that, but that's how you get things to change - make it personal.)
The ships aren't attacked by definition. Its just game theory and they're generally going for confrontation/fight. Well, they can't do that anymore, since the enemy has military-grade early warning system subsidized by the Japanese government.
Terrorism is an illegal means to an end and its effectiveness is highly debatable. Making it personal is one method which was used by groups such as Weather Underground and RAF. Its debatable whether they were effective (and its debatable whether such is even viable in 21st century police states). One problem with these methods is that civilian casualties make these groups lose the moral highground.
Economic damage specifically however (which can be done via legal, grey, and illegal means) is a method which has proven to work, and in this subject it has worked in the past. It no longer does which means the situation (ie. the extinction of whales) is escalating. The activists need to think of different methods to stop this escalation.
Furthermore, the war is fought on multiple fronts. The ICJ's verdict was also in Sea Shepherd's favor but the wheels of justice grind slowly and it is difficult to maintain justice on the (remote) sea. The main problem IMO is the same problem with issues such as global warming: it is apathy, and a hyperfocus on short-term gain instead of long-term gain. That is to say, if you love eating whale, why not let the whale population grow so that you can continue eating whales?
Terrorism is an illegal means to an end and its effectiveness is highly debatable. Making it personal is one method which was used by groups such as Weather Underground and RAF. Its debatable whether they were effective (and its debatable whether such is even viable in 21st century police states). One problem with these methods is that civilian casualties make these groups lose the moral highground.
Economic damage specifically however (which can be done via legal, grey, and illegal means) is a method which has proven to work, and in this subject it has worked in the past. It no longer does which means the situation (ie. the extinction of whales) is escalating. The activists need to think of different methods to stop this escalation.
Furthermore, the war is fought on multiple fronts. The ICJ's verdict was also in Sea Shepherd's favor but the wheels of justice grind slowly and it is difficult to maintain justice on the (remote) sea. The main problem IMO is the same problem with issues such as global warming: it is apathy, and a hyperfocus on short-term gain instead of long-term gain. That is to say, if you love eating whale, why not let the whale population grow so that you can continue eating whales?
I am having trouble thinking of many examples of the Weathermen making "terrorism personal" (it's a messy term but I understand what you meant). The only thing that comes to mind is the judge's house.
RAF? I assume it's not the Royal Air Force?
RAF? I assume it's not the Royal Air Force?
Bringing the war home itself is personal.
RAF in this context stands for Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader Meinhof gang. See e.g Wikipedia
RAF in this context stands for Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader Meinhof gang. See e.g Wikipedia
Given that definition it seems like all terrorism is personal and that there is nothing distinguishing about the methods of WU or RAF.
What do you mean, 'that definition'?
The definition of terrorism is defined by Alex P. Schmid - The Revised Academic Consensus Definition Of Terrorism. The website I normally link to is down though, so I'll have to link to [1].
Relevant are:
"6) The main direct victims of terrorist attacks are in general not any armed forces but are usually civilians, non-combatants or other innocent and defenceless persons who bear no direct responsibility for the conflict that gave rise to acts of terrorism;
7) The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"
Hence, I'd say we used the term "personal" wrong in this context but "bringing the war home" is described by #6 (which is what I meant but apparently wasn't understood as such) whereas #7 explains the targets are a means to an end. Though that wasn't disputed its an important addition and addendum to #6.
As a side note, I recommend to keep these 12 rules in mind when discussing terrorism. It makes discussing terrorism much easier because we're using definitions as agreed upon my academics who study (counter)terrorism.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
The definition of terrorism is defined by Alex P. Schmid - The Revised Academic Consensus Definition Of Terrorism. The website I normally link to is down though, so I'll have to link to [1].
Relevant are:
"6) The main direct victims of terrorist attacks are in general not any armed forces but are usually civilians, non-combatants or other innocent and defenceless persons who bear no direct responsibility for the conflict that gave rise to acts of terrorism;
7) The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"
Hence, I'd say we used the term "personal" wrong in this context but "bringing the war home" is described by #6 (which is what I meant but apparently wasn't understood as such) whereas #7 explains the targets are a means to an end. Though that wasn't disputed its an important addition and addendum to #6.
As a side note, I recommend to keep these 12 rules in mind when discussing terrorism. It makes discussing terrorism much easier because we're using definitions as agreed upon my academics who study (counter)terrorism.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
Red army faction, German domestic terrorists in the 70s, see the movie baader-meinhof phenomenon
I read the article and I do think with the sea Shepherd was doing was wrong. They were confronting Japanese whaling ships in a hostile act, and should have resorted to legal means.
The sea shepherds are the key in seeding the legal debate - they are documenting and exposing whale hunting as it is.
Without this documentation and tracking, the whalers will continue to hide from anyone's view.
Without this documentation and tracking, the whalers will continue to hide from anyone's view.
They have a HUGE bias, I doubt anything coming out of them is the actual truth.
There are around 500,000 minke whales (the type they hunt) in the Antarctic, Japanese whaling kills approximately 300 whales per year.
Please explain to me why you think this is such an issue?
There are around 500,000 minke whales (the type they hunt) in the Antarctic, Japanese whaling kills approximately 300 whales per year.
Please explain to me why you think this is such an issue?
There are 8 billion humans. So we should be allowed to hunt a few hundred thousand a year without anyone having a problem with it.
The problem isn't primarily about the numbers of minke whales. It's that they are hunting what many people consider a sentient species, in an inhuman way. In most parts of the world, you aren't allowed to slaughter an animal (at least in theory) in a way that causes pain or distress. With whales there is no reasonable way of doing this due to their size.
The problem isn't primarily about the numbers of minke whales. It's that they are hunting what many people consider a sentient species, in an inhuman way. In most parts of the world, you aren't allowed to slaughter an animal (at least in theory) in a way that causes pain or distress. With whales there is no reasonable way of doing this due to their size.
A good introduction to the moral problems of animal slaughter is Charles Patterson's Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust.
The slippery slope that it seems the whole world is already sliding down.