@beagleboy547 Yes I am. We kill alligators and crocodiles that have been around a lot longer than whales. And what difference does it make how long ago a species evolved?
@DTofMN Yeah but they aren't almost extinct dumb ass. What if some stronger smarter faster form of people evolved and started killing us? We would be nothing to them. Just like endangered species are to people like you
@DTofMN There is no point to argue with a redneck like you. Japanese DO hunt whales AND dolphins AND other ENDANGERED marine species. Your justifying killing these creatures in the name of evolution. Thats like saying im killing in the name of Allah.
@beagleboy547 Try going back to school, boy. I never justified killing in the name of evolution. I was showing howq ignorant your claim that because they "have been around longer than us" is some kind of reason not to hunt them.
You realize fruit trees have been around longer than us, so I guess we shouldn't eat them either.
@beagleboy547 You know, DTofMN (someone who feels it necessary to lash out at others behind a computer) is on here looking for something very specific. You don't need to explain to him why it is you don't want things to suffer. It's best not to feed him. :P
DTodMN you are an idiot. You have been proven wrong countless times and yet you still keep spreading the same bullshit, until you run with your tail between your legs.
You're close enough for me to shoot you. Therefore it's your fault. He had a knife to cut the net. They never injure people. A nail gun would kill them causing the Japanese whaling operation to fall through. Bamboo poles are very strong. They could have pushed the guy into the water or poked his eye out. Physical violence for a ship non-violent boarding attempts is not justified. The Japanese use LDRs which could very well kill people. Especially when they used it on the helicopter pilot.
@HobbsO It is LRAD, and they are standard tools for repelling boarders.
Cutting the nets is piracy by the UNCLOS definition. Lethal force is allowed against pirates and is justified.
And yes it is their fault, including the helicopter pilot, for getting to close. If they didn't get closer than international regulations allow then the Japanese wouldn't be taking any action against them.
I can just see a robber suing the home owner for shooting him.
@DTofMN Sorry. Yer LRAD. Pretty sure that putting a pilot's life in danger because he's watching is a bit extreme. You know it's funny. I didn't see the word "net" used in the entire UNCLOS. As a net isn't actually part of the ship it's not piracy. They're not stealing anything. All Sea Shepard are doing is 1. Tainting the meat on the ships so they can ONLY be used for RESEARCH and 2. Trying to stop the Japanese turning a profit on "RESEARCH".
@HobbsO The net is part of the ship whether you believe it or not. It is piracy. But firing flares and causing fires on the whaling ships is damaging the ship and then we are back to them being pirates. Or there is they times they have nailed plates to the ships hull, again damaging the ship and again piracy.
The pilot is helping to direct the RHIB's that are attacking the whalers and thus is a pirate by aiding the pirates on the RHIB's. Pirates can be repelled with deadly force.
@DTofMN Causing fires? Oh and by nailed plates you mean those blood spilling drains from the Nisshin Maru where they "research" the meat. It's simple. The Japanese are breaking international law with there "research" of the perfect Whale meat sandwich. Breaking international law is piracy. You can attack pirates can't you?
@HobbsO No sorry breaking international law is not piracy. Piracy has a specific legal definition.
And then there is the fact that Japan isn't breaking international law.
But, if the whalers where doing something that made them pirates that would allow the targets of their actions to repel them. Since they haven't unprovokedly attacked the SSCS, the SSCS would not have the right to repel them. A law enforcement/naval vessel would have the right to attack them.
@GGDaolonWong - As a child in the 1950's there was a TV show I use to watch a children's show and the host was named Captain Kangaroo. When I first saw the cult leader I thought to myself "He looks exactly like Captain Kangaroo," and he does. If youo Google it, you will see it also in "Google Images."
@DTofMN Because they are using "research" as an excuse to continue commercial whaling. Researching whales can be done without killing them. They mean us no harm, and they are not eating too much fish, so why kill them ?
@iantaylor124 That is your opinion. And not all the data they are collecting can be done without killing them. So the reason to kill them is to collect data that can't be collected any other way.
@DTofMN Alright, you know darn well that the ICR's supposed studies revolve around population, migration, and feeding habits. All of which can be done in a nonlethal manner according to research documents released by the Australian government and other sources.
@122333nic Sorry, won't give the needed data. First dead washed up corpses may have deteriorated to a point where they aren't useful. Second beached whales are not representative of the population at large. Thirdly whales don't beach themselves in the numbers and species that may be required. Fourthly whales beaching are random both in time and location making any research hit and miss.
Oh and I asked how the sampling can be done non-lethally.
@DTofMN If a beached whale can be recovered in a manner in which it has been freshly or recently killed and discovered before there was significant deterioration, and it can be determined that its heart is in good condition and that its death was not related to a complication within its heart, than the organs can be sampled and tested. Sure. There would be complications, but there will always be complications just as there are complications to Japan's current activities.
@122333nic And how often do those conditions exist? How many years would it take to collect enough samples to be useful? And again I just posted one example. What about sampling for toxin loads in various organs and how they change over time. Your beached whales won't work for that due to the few samples available.
@DTofMN Like I said, there will be complications, but these conditions do exist. A fair example of these conditions are when transient killer whales, the minke's main predator use the hunting tactic of cornering a minke in a cove-like area. This often prompts the minke to dive onto the beach to escape. "few samples" Yes, this would prompt long, drawn out studies that could be used to study any organ that hadn't been impacted by deterioration or an ailment of sorts.
@122333nic Yes complications. Like so few samples and so spread out in time that no useful data could be collected. Meaning no meaningful research. Meaning a waste of time.
@DTofMN That complication would be durastically lessened through long term study processes. "Yes complications" Yes, there are complications. There will be complications involved in researching any topic, of course the "complications" we're discussing here are miniscule to the sort of complications the ICR is currently facing and will continue to face. "No meaningful research" Like the ICR's projects that are so scientifically fundamentally flawed and inappropriate that a plethra of
@DTofMN "What qualifications" Not my qualifications, the qualifications of those criticizing the ICR's activities. That does include the IWC by the way. You remember, right? "lack of testable hypotheses, failure to take performance measures; inappropriate use of ecosystem models, failure to include key data on ecosystem components.” "Other flaws in Japan’s “scientific” research, and criticized by the IWC, include Japan’s selective or inappropriate use of data.”
@DTofMN How about their violations of the ATS? Failure to make observations available to the public?
The PM's I sent are composed of sources and quotes only. At no time in the PM I attempt to do anything besides send you sources and quotes in support of my points.
@DTofMN According to experts, "Japan refuses to make the information it collects available for independent review". This is a violation of Article 3 section C of ATS because they've refused to make their observations available.
Well since I already quoted Article 3 Section C and it says nothing about 'independent review' I wonder who these experts are and what their statement means.
@DTofMN The information is not being made "freely available" for if it was, any entity could review the information. The fact is that the ATS applies to the whalers hunting area and it clearly outlines that their information must be made "freely available". The ICR is in violation of this for having not made their "information" freely available.
By the way, who is the "we"? It's just me and you. "your lie" You know, I feel that I've been very respectful and truthful with you for the
@122333nic Why do you insist on ignoring the plain words of the ATS? Are you a Contracting Party to the ATS or are any of your 'experts' Contracting Parties? If not then there is no requirement to make their data available. The ATS is between the Contracting Parties and thus the sharing requirement is between those selfsame Contracting Parties, not the public.
You have lied about what the ATS requires, that makes you a liar. How much simpler can it be?
@DTofMN Japan signed the treaty on Dec 1, 1959. Japan is a contracting party of the ATS and being a signatory of the treaty, they are required to adhere to its rules including Article 3 section C and it states that "scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available". By withholding information and refusing to make its "observations" freely available, they are in violation of ATS. I could have misread, but you seem to
@122333nic I know you aren't that stupid. When did you sign the ATS? When did your experts sign the ATS? Let me guess, the answer to both is never. Thus neither you or your experts have an expectation of seeing the data and Japan has no obligation to make their data available to you or your experts.
@DTofMN I do not have to sign the ATS to obtain information that is required to be made "freely available". In addition, the only people to ever sign the ATS have been government officials representing a nation. No where in the ATS does it even hint that making the information "freely available" means only among a the contracting parties. How exactly you're managing to misinterpret "freely available" for "available among the treaties signatories" puzzles me a little.
@122333nic Please reread ALL of section 3, you may learn something. It says nothing about independent experts or individuals, it only mentions contracting parties. An agreement to share is between the people/groups who signed the agreement, not random third parties unless the agreement states that third parties are covered.
@DTofMN "The contracting parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available." It never hints that the "freely available" phrase ever referring to being freely available......but only within the signatories. If all observations were made "freely available" any "expert or individual" that wanted the information could gain access because it would be "freely available".
@DTofMN You're trying very hard to press this issue, but the treaty never hints or uses wording in any way to suggest that making observations "freely available" means "freely available but only to the signatories of the treaty". The words "freely available" in a treaty that never hints to the term "freely available" referring to just the signatories is a difficult entity to misinterpret.
@122333nic You're trying very hard to press this issue, but the treaty never hints or uses wording in any way to suggest that making observations "freely available" means "freely available to anyone who asks". The words "freely available" in a treaty that never hints to any third parties just the contracting parties is a difficult entity to misinterpret.
@DTofMN Hmm... You copied and pasted half my comment and threw in a few additional words and your misinterpretation. The treaty specifies that observations made by the contracting party must be made "freely available". Information that is made freely available would be available to anyone. Why? Because the information has been made "freely available". Japan is in violation of the ATS. Exactly what quote from the treaty is luring you into believing that "freely available" information is
@122333nic Well since the data is all given to the IWC I guess it is made freely available. And if your claim is correct why haven't you or one of these experts filled a suit in court to get the data?
You are using the same argument that many Climate Change deniers use, and it sounds just about as foolish.
@DTofMN freely available only to another signatory of the ATS when it never makes mention of the "freely available" information being confined to other signatories? And before you ask something like "what quote makes you believe what you believe", the "freely available" information part leads me to believe that any third party is allowed to have access to the data considering it is supposed to be freely available data. I'm having a very difficult time following your thinking right now.
@122333nic Well the fact the ATS never makes mention of the "freely available" words applying to the general public.
Your belief is that the lack of specific limiting words means it is completely open, while I believe the lack of any specific completely open words means it is limited. Why can't you understand that both arguments have equal validity? The solution is for a court to interpret the language, and since your side is currently not getting its wish you should file a lawsuit.
@DTofMN Both arguments do not have equal validity. You continually have stated that a treaty that requires information to be made "freely available" somehow means that the information is only available to treaty signatories. You have no quote from the treaty in support of your statement, and no reason to hold such a misinterpretation. I've specifically quoted the treaty. When information is "freely available", it is available to anyone seeking the information.
@122333nic That is your interpretation. You have no quote from the treaty in support of your statement, and no reason to hold such a interpretation. You haven't shown anywhere that a treaty is construed in the manner you propose, just like I haven't either. Thus both interpretations are equally valid.
Nothing short of a court ruling specifically on the ATS will settle the matter. Though the fact no one has ever filed suit weighs against your interpretation.
@DTofMN It's not my interpretation, it's the wording of the treaty. In order to promote international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica, as provided for in Article II of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available.
@DTofMN When information is made freely available, it is made available to those who seek it because it is freely available information. You're holding on to an empty argument. The treaty's use of the words "freely available" are in my favor and you have nothing in yours. Both interpretations are not equally valid because your interpretation is a misinterpretation based upon absolutely nothing while mine is supported by the treaty itself.
@DTofMN The words "freely available" in themselves mean that the entity at hand is freely available information. You're holding on to an empty argument. No part of the treaty ever hints at information that is supposed to be "freely available" being freely available only to other treaty signatories.
"why don't the experts sue" I'm not sure. If you want to know, maybe you should find out.
"why don't you sue" Because that would take a legal team, a pretty penny, and a few years.
@122333nic Then why the fuck don't you stop beating a dead horse and file a lawsuit against the Japanese whalers. You could stop whaling all by yourself just be filing a simple lawsuit that you know you have already won.
Oh wait, you care about the whales just not if it cost money or takes any of your time or involves any effort. My how thrilled the whales must be at your support.
@DTofMN "Won't spent time or money" That's a fairly odd statement considering you have no idea how much time or money I may have spent on the subject of saving marine life or whales.
"They don't think they can win" Well, that's a conjecture on your part. You have nothing to back up that track of thinking, and worst of all you've been reduced to assumptions. We all know what they say about assumptions? Good. Best to keep your distance then.
@122333nic Not odd at all. You haven't spent any time or money filing a lawsuit now have you? That is what we were discussing now wasn't it?
Well since they claim it could stop whaling and they claim they want to stop whaling then there is no logical reason for them not to file the lawsuit except if they are afraid they will lose.
And I know what 6 year-olds say about assumptions. So should I lump you in a group with them?
@DTofMN Yes, very odd. We were not discussing how much money I've spent on a lawsuit. You made this allegation, "Oh wait, you care about the whales just not if it cost money or takes any of your time or involves any effort." Well, you have no idea what kind of money or time I've invested. It may not be in a court room, but it would be money and time nonetheless.
"they're afraid they'll lose" Yes, you've used that conjecture already. The fact is that you're lacking in support.
@DTofMN There could be a number of different reasons they wouldn't file a lawsuit. Maybe it's funds, maybe they suspect the ICR would be done with the SO by the time it settled, maybe they're involved in research projects that are occupying their funds, etc. You immediately jump to the conjecture that they're afraid of losing because you believe it'll help your argument.
"lump you in a group with them" Well, it wouldn't be a change of pace. Your comments are full of baseless
@122333nic No I logically arrive at that conjecture. Australia with the help and advice of many experts has filed a lawsuit against Japan and yet makes no claim about any violations of the ATS. Why wouldn't they use this 'proven' violation as part of their lawsuit? Logically they would use all claims that they think can prevail. So logically they must not think the ATS claim will be found valid.
@DTofMN A conjecture is a theory formed without necessary evidence to back yourself. So you logically formed a theory without the necessary evidence to back yourself? Uh... Okay. If that's what'll float your boat. "Why wouldn't they use the ATS violation" Nice try. Australia's final written arguments in the case will not be released until later this year.
@DTofMN You've literally just answered your own argument. If it would take a new filing to add a complaint to the Australian case, than obviously they can include a new arguing point on the grounds that the final arguments are not yet due.
If they want to add a new claim they will have to refile the case, not adding it to their final argument. Filing a new case will restart the whole process, that would delay the whole process by at least another 2 years. Hardly something you would expect them to do if they really want to end Japanese research whaling.
Oh and then there is the fact that the claim will have no effect on whaling even if they add it and even if they succeed.
@DTofMN Hey broski, I would have commented back sooner but for some reason your comment didn't appear in my inbox leading me to believe our discussion had ended.
@DTofMN "refile the case" Why would they have to refile their case to add an argument to a case in which the arguments are not yet due to be finalized? My source uses pretty specific wording to suggest that last minute arguments could be thrown into the mix. "Final written arguments in Australia's complaint against Japan over whaling in the Southern Ocean will be due in March 2012, the world court said on Tuesday, ensuring that the case will take years to resolve."
@122333nic Yes the final arguments aren't due yet, but Australia already made their claims. The final arguments are just their detailed support for those claims and the ATS isn't one of the claims they made, thus the ATS will not be part of their final argument as it has no bearing on any of their claims.
That is the way courts work. The original claims set the issues to be litigated. New claims need a new case to be filed.
@DTofMN I don't know about that buddy. That sounds a little strange. Don't tell me "that is the way courts work". Right now, final arguments are not due to the court. Exactly what is giving you the idea that to add an additional argument to the ones already in existence before the final arguments are due to be submitted to the court would require the progress within the court to be restarted? A source including a link to explain your thinking on the matter would be beneficial.
@122333nic It is not a new ARGUMENT. It is a new CLAIM.
Article 38 of the ICJ rules;
" 2. The application shall specify as far as possible the legal grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the Court is said to be based; it shall also specify the precise nature of the claim, together with a succinct statement of the facts and grounds on which the claim is based."
@DTofMN I've never seen those terms before. It appears that it wouldn't be worth the time for Australia to include the ATS violation within their lawsuit currently. Nicely played. This is of course trivial. It does not change the fact that the ICR is in violation of the ATS on the grounds of our previous comments.
@122333nic What I said was that the ATS claim that you have taken so long arguing about would not result in a ruling that would stop or even slow down whaling. But if you want to ignore what was plainly written, it is not like you haven't done so before.
@DTofMN "ignore what was plainly written" Uh... I didn't ignore anything about your comment, nor have I in the past. Your comment appeared to me to be void of things deserving to be argued or discussed. If it came down to Japan facing a penalty over their ATS violations, they would probably just come to their senses and release the data. I figured, "For now it seems, but the future is uncertain" would be a nice way to round up our discussion here but apparently not.
@122333nic And more ignoring what is plainly written and this time you try repeat what I wrote and try and make it look like you arrived at it yourself..
@DTofMN I haven't ignored anything, I haven't repeated you, and I haven't tried to make it look like I've "arrived at it" myself either. I said this, "If it came down to Japan facing a penalty over their ATS violations, they would probably just come to their senses and release the data" not to take credit, but to show that I concurred on what Japan's actions would be in such a scenario. I don't understand what you think I'm "ignoring", but I haven't ignored anything.
@122333nic Article 44 is the setting of filing documents.
" 1. In the light of the information obtained by the President under Article 31 of these Rules, the Court shall make the necessary orders to determine, inter alia, the number and the order of filing of the pleadings and the time-limits within which they must be filed."
A new claim would go back to Article 38 and require a new case schedule.
@DTofMN What is giving you the impression that Australia's lawsuit would have to be refiled and progress restarted to add an argument before final arguments are do?
@122333nic The fact that the ATS issue is not an argument it is a claim. Arguments support claims, they don't make claims. And no claim involving the ATS was raised by Australia, so no final arguments dealing with the ATS.
@DTofMN mudslinging. If you'd like to categorize me in a group of any kind, it's your own decision. It's nothing new and to be honest, I'm not interested in what you think of me.
@DTofMN state a belief that Article 3 section C applies only to making information freely available between other signatories of the treaty. This is incorrect. At no time does the treaty point to making information available between the contracting parties. The information must be made "freely available", not available among the other signatories. Sources on the way.
@DTofMN time I've known you. I've backed myself up with sources, something you are not known for participating in, and I've been careful not to insult you. This is something you do frequently. You can state the same "you're lying" line all you want. Just like your many other mudslinging comments, it's baseless.
I don't get how anyone could be debating about this. The rules are very clear. It's illegal to kill whales for commercial purpose and the zone where the Japanese whaling fleet hunts whales is within the Australian economic exclusion zone, meaning it is the territory of Australia. As they have designated that area as a "whale sanctuary" it is even illegal to kill whales there for scientific purposes. So it doesn't matter, Japan, how big you write RESEARCH on the side of your ships. It's ILLEGAL!!
@MrRobinDP I don't know how you could be so wrong. It is not Australia's EEZ, that claim is in violation of the Antarctic Treaty and it isn't recognize by 98% of the countries in the world. So the Japanese produce data and peer reviewed research papers every year which means their whaling is legal, and the area they hunt whales is not closed to research whaling.
It is very funny looking through the comments and seeing how a vast number of people have been brainwashed by the Sea shepherd. They also get so aggressive if you say anything bad about their stupid organisation.
And another thing I have observed is that sea shepherd supporters (and sscs themselves) never seem to be wrong. They never accept an opinion different to their own.
minke whale maybe not, fin whale are in danger and whalers plans to take humpback which are also in danger! More than this they are hunting them in a whale sanctuary! You know what a sanctuary is? You think people in the southern hemisphere have no right to protest whaling in that sanctuary? As for criminals...where and with what crimes have they been found guilty of comitting crimes? Again...if they are convicted criminals the US should deregister their organization!
@sEiGoSaYgO They have taken 14 fin whales in 20 years, and zero humpback whales in the same 20 years. Now how is taking zero whales going to negatively effect the population? And how are 14 whales in 20 years going to negatively effect a population estimated as greater than 30,000?
And I have discussed the sanctuary issue, it doesn't apply to Japan.
We can thank SS for the lack of fin and humpback taken!
The sanctuary applies to all countries doing commercial whaling and that is essentially what Japanese whalers are doing and is why Australia has taken them to ICJ!
@sEiGoSaYgO So you want to claim that for years before the SSCS even where in the Antarctic they somehow are responsible? You really are brainwashed aren't you?
Try reading Article V Section 3 of the IWC regulations. Any member country can object to any new regulation and if they object then the regulation doesn't apply to them. Japan objected to the sanctuary and thus it doesn't apply to them.
You really should educate yourself. It is so much easier than continuing to look stupid.
Funny you mention article V because the whalers are not claiming article V...they are claiming article VIII...research whaling! And that is why they have been taken to ICJ! Claiming research to do commercial whaling in a whale sanctuary! Screaming research then crying culture and then accusing racism! Hmmm...which is it? Any country, especially southern hemisphere countries have every right to protest this as it is not science or culture!
@sEiGoSaYgO The whole IWC convention applies. Article VIII allows research whaling, while Article V allows objections to new regulations.
But if you want to play the Article VIII game, have you even read Article VIII? Because if you had you would have read where it says whaling under Article VIII isn't subject to the rest of the convention, meaning Article VIII would also allow them to whale in the sanctuary.
So your lack of intelligence leads to a double fail for you.
Huh!? LOL! What do the words "scientific research" mean to you? Does it say in the regulations that if you paint research on your ship it classifies as research? Do they really need fine print say "by the way...the research should be legitimate"....or is their fine print I havent found saying "fake research is also okay"...if I missed that please show me where it says that!
@agaen96 Sorry but you are wrong. The levels at which they hunt are well below levels that will cause a decline in population. And it is not illegal to hunt them for selling. Although Japan hunts for research, which is allowed by the IWC regulations. And those same regulations say that any excess meat after research shall be processed and sold.
Please read Article VIII of the IWC convention on the IWC website.
@DTofMN Anyone that would like to read can do so. Anyone that would like to comment is welcome to, while they might not receive a response unless they are my opponent. Uncalled for insults based on absolutely nothing are a sign of individuals that can't effectively assert themselves. You commented to me first, so you will lay out your debate in an insult free manor or I will deny you the attention you logged in looking for. Remember, be a kind, respectful individual or no attention.
@TheKogajoe SOPA isn't person or group so it can't come after anybody. It also doesn't exist yet (and may not ever exist) which is another reason it can't come after anybody.
Why are the She Shepards allowed to keep their 501-C status in the US?? While Paul the Plump cries poverty to suckers to send their money in, he lives and the SSCS is based on an island full of multi-million dollar homes. Come on you suckers, he needs to keep living the high life in a rich neighborhood while old ladies send their social security checks because he sends them cute pictures of poor whales etc.. lol!!
This seems like a hamfisted attempt to whitewash the incident, Tony. I wonder if you are on the take? Those rightists that you side with are closely connected to organized crime. Is some of that dirty money ending up in your pocket? Living on a fixed income as you do, I am sure you could use some cash.
@DTofMN Why don't you mind your own business and refrain from sending me comments unless you feel like debating an issue? I'll comment on any video I see fit.
@122333nic And I will comment on any comments I see fit. Why do you seem to think you should get special treatment? Just because you took the short bus doesn't make you special.
@DTofMN That is the single most baseless and absurd personal attack I've seen out of you thus far. Mudslinging like that belongs in a play ground sand box. Sorry pal, you just make a very poor keyboard commando. You know, if you could gather your maturity together and cut out the nonsense, we could debate in a civil manner.
You refuse to discuss anything. You come to a public forum and issue challenges to discuss one-on-one in private. Yeah that is real maturity, the same maturity you and your buddies show at POA.
@DTofMN "What a joke you are." And this is based on what exactly? The fact that I refuse to contribute to your unproductive, immature, baseless mudslinging? I thought so. People that sling baseless insults from behind a computer screen are funny. "You refuse to discuss anything." I don't know about you, but I discuss things on here fairly often. They involve one on one discussions in an anti-childish environment. "in private" I don't seek a debate in private. I debate in public forums.
@DTofMN If you believe that your time is best spent stalking people on the net, then go for it. Your mudslinging remains baseless, uncalled for, and a little silly. Remember, watch your manners or no attention.
@122333nic Whoever the hell you are, and wherever the hell you are, don't let these clowns bother you. everything you've said in this forum is absolutely right. The ICR and their work is neither moral, nor legal, and anyone who says differently is incorrect. I feel sad, knowing they are so misled. I can only say that I for one value life in out planet's oceans, and your words give me confidence that you do too.
@TheBlueHandOfDeath Thank you for your kind comment, but I never let keyboard commandos get to me. DTofMN and myself several months ago had a long, drawn out debate in which he did very poorly and didn't manage to come out on top. He refuses to debate because of this and he's been reduced to running around online stalking users and behaving rudely, but whatever. He's free to do this, and I'm free to shake my at him in disappointment.
the japanese whalers should just ram and sink them, they got away with one ship sunk(not that they did it), the world wouldnt give a shit if sea shepherds sunk to the bottom of the ocean
The real truth is, The eco-terrorists threw the hooks at the Japanese.The Japanese unhooked the ones that grabbed on & DROPPED them back into the ocean.The zodiacs were probably right underneath the rail of the ships,as they were trying to pull themselves closer.Gravity did the rest.I'm sure the Japanese who have EXPLOSIVE CANNONS on board and could easily open the hull of the Steve Irwin like a tuna can,would not waste their time throwing grappling hooks
THANKS FOR PUBLICIZING THE GOOD WORK THAT SEA SHEPHERD DOES FOR THE OCEANS! THEY'RE IN NEED A THIRD VESSEL, AND IT'S A GOOD TIME TO DONATE TO THE CAUSE. EVERY TIME tony-THE-INTERNET-tiger MAKES A VIDEO, WE ALL DONATE! WITH YOUR HELP, WE'LL GET CAPTAIN WATSON HIS THIRD VESSEL! DONATE NOW, AND REMEMBER YOUTUBERS, THANK tony-THE-INTERNET-tiger FOR ALL HIS SUPPORT OF SSCS!
And yes keep donating, because without your donations paul Watson may not be able to give himself another 26% raise like he did in 2010 even though SSCS donations were down. His pay was $120,000 then, I wonder what it is up to now?
I wish the japs would just send boats out to mess up the she sheeperd's propeller or just fire harpoons at them as self defence, after warning the seashepard's vessel
filthy propaganda
DJCake2013 2 weeks ago
But there cause is good isn't it? They are preventing whaling. Whaling is f'ed up and should be illegal. End of story.
beagleboy547 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 But whaling isn't illegal. And the SSCS's actions are illegal.
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN I honestly don't care. I'm not a fucking hippie. But these ancient mammals shouldn't be killed by us monkeys
beagleboy547 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 Why not?
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN Are you really asking why is it wrong to kill marine mammals that have been around longer than us? Derp-a-herp
beagleboy547 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 Yes I am. We kill alligators and crocodiles that have been around a lot longer than whales. And what difference does it make how long ago a species evolved?
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN Yeah but they aren't almost extinct dumb ass. What if some stronger smarter faster form of people evolved and started killing us? We would be nothing to them. Just like endangered species are to people like you
beagleboy547 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 And most whale species aren't almost extinct either, in fact none of the species Japan hunts are almost extinct.
So you are against evolution? Why?
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN There is no point to argue with a redneck like you. Japanese DO hunt whales AND dolphins AND other ENDANGERED marine species. Your justifying killing these creatures in the name of evolution. Thats like saying im killing in the name of Allah.
beagleboy547 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 Try going back to school, boy. I never justified killing in the name of evolution. I was showing howq ignorant your claim that because they "have been around longer than us" is some kind of reason not to hunt them.
You realize fruit trees have been around longer than us, so I guess we shouldn't eat them either.
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@beagleboy547 You know, DTofMN (someone who feels it necessary to lash out at others behind a computer) is on here looking for something very specific. You don't need to explain to him why it is you don't want things to suffer. It's best not to feed him. :P
122333nic 2 weeks ago
3 Japan
0 Sea Shepherd
How can you say that when Sea Shaperd year after year ensures that Japan's quotas are not collected?
MrTweaknews 3 weeks ago
DTodMN you are an idiot. You have been proven wrong countless times and yet you still keep spreading the same bullshit, until you run with your tail between your legs.
iantaylor124 1 month ago
@iantaylor124 And another one from the peanut galley stands up.
I haven't been proven wrong countless times. You need to learn what proven really means.
DTofMN 1 month ago
Pleeeeeeeeeease shut up
ecelectrical2004 1 month ago
You are a pathetic little man.
Ajr5691 1 month ago
I wish Hitler would have killed you midgets off too. Nobody likes you.
17whitters 1 month ago
You're close enough for me to shoot you. Therefore it's your fault. He had a knife to cut the net. They never injure people. A nail gun would kill them causing the Japanese whaling operation to fall through. Bamboo poles are very strong. They could have pushed the guy into the water or poked his eye out. Physical violence for a ship non-violent boarding attempts is not justified. The Japanese use LDRs which could very well kill people. Especially when they used it on the helicopter pilot.
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO It is LRAD, and they are standard tools for repelling boarders.
Cutting the nets is piracy by the UNCLOS definition. Lethal force is allowed against pirates and is justified.
And yes it is their fault, including the helicopter pilot, for getting to close. If they didn't get closer than international regulations allow then the Japanese wouldn't be taking any action against them.
I can just see a robber suing the home owner for shooting him.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Sorry. Yer LRAD. Pretty sure that putting a pilot's life in danger because he's watching is a bit extreme. You know it's funny. I didn't see the word "net" used in the entire UNCLOS. As a net isn't actually part of the ship it's not piracy. They're not stealing anything. All Sea Shepard are doing is 1. Tainting the meat on the ships so they can ONLY be used for RESEARCH and 2. Trying to stop the Japanese turning a profit on "RESEARCH".
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO The net is part of the ship whether you believe it or not. It is piracy. But firing flares and causing fires on the whaling ships is damaging the ship and then we are back to them being pirates. Or there is they times they have nailed plates to the ships hull, again damaging the ship and again piracy.
The pilot is helping to direct the RHIB's that are attacking the whalers and thus is a pirate by aiding the pirates on the RHIB's. Pirates can be repelled with deadly force.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Causing fires? Oh and by nailed plates you mean those blood spilling drains from the Nisshin Maru where they "research" the meat. It's simple. The Japanese are breaking international law with there "research" of the perfect Whale meat sandwich. Breaking international law is piracy. You can attack pirates can't you?
HobbsO 1 month ago
@HobbsO No sorry breaking international law is not piracy. Piracy has a specific legal definition.
And then there is the fact that Japan isn't breaking international law.
But, if the whalers where doing something that made them pirates that would allow the targets of their actions to repel them. Since they haven't unprovokedly attacked the SSCS, the SSCS would not have the right to repel them. A law enforcement/naval vessel would have the right to attack them.
DTofMN 1 month ago
why do call him captain kangaroo?
GGDaolonWong 1 month ago
@GGDaolonWong - As a child in the 1950's there was a TV show I use to watch a children's show and the host was named Captain Kangaroo. When I first saw the cult leader I thought to myself "He looks exactly like Captain Kangaroo," and he does. If youo Google it, you will see it also in "Google Images."
PropagandaBuster 1 month ago
@PropagandaBuster HEY. I live in dallas too!
dealerofjustice 4 weeks ago
@DTofMN Because they are using "research" as an excuse to continue commercial whaling. Researching whales can be done without killing them. They mean us no harm, and they are not eating too much fish, so why kill them ?
iantaylor124 1 month ago
@iantaylor124 That is your opinion. And not all the data they are collecting can be done without killing them. So the reason to kill them is to collect data that can't be collected any other way.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Alright, you know darn well that the ICR's supposed studies revolve around population, migration, and feeding habits. All of which can be done in a nonlethal manner according to research documents released by the Australian government and other sources.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic So you are back to spread more lies.
"Morphological varieties of the Purkinje fiber network in mammalian hearts, as revealed by light and electron microscopy."
Just one example of a recent research paper. And pray tell us how you can retrieve samples of heart tissue from a whale non-lethally?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN This can be recovered through the dead corpses of beached whales.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Sorry, won't give the needed data. First dead washed up corpses may have deteriorated to a point where they aren't useful. Second beached whales are not representative of the population at large. Thirdly whales don't beach themselves in the numbers and species that may be required. Fourthly whales beaching are random both in time and location making any research hit and miss.
Oh and I asked how the sampling can be done non-lethally.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN If a beached whale can be recovered in a manner in which it has been freshly or recently killed and discovered before there was significant deterioration, and it can be determined that its heart is in good condition and that its death was not related to a complication within its heart, than the organs can be sampled and tested. Sure. There would be complications, but there will always be complications just as there are complications to Japan's current activities.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic And how often do those conditions exist? How many years would it take to collect enough samples to be useful? And again I just posted one example. What about sampling for toxin loads in various organs and how they change over time. Your beached whales won't work for that due to the few samples available.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Like I said, there will be complications, but these conditions do exist. A fair example of these conditions are when transient killer whales, the minke's main predator use the hunting tactic of cornering a minke in a cove-like area. This often prompts the minke to dive onto the beach to escape. "few samples" Yes, this would prompt long, drawn out studies that could be used to study any organ that hadn't been impacted by deterioration or an ailment of sorts.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Yes complications. Like so few samples and so spread out in time that no useful data could be collected. Meaning no meaningful research. Meaning a waste of time.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN That complication would be durastically lessened through long term study processes. "Yes complications" Yes, there are complications. There will be complications involved in researching any topic, of course the "complications" we're discussing here are miniscule to the sort of complications the ICR is currently facing and will continue to face. "No meaningful research" Like the ICR's projects that are so scientifically fundamentally flawed and inappropriate that a plethra of
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN experts have announced that it's blatantly an unscientific endeavour?
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic And other experts have announced that it is valid science.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Those "experts" are mistaken. I'm going to send you a PM.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic You mean it is your opinion that those experts are mistaken. What qualifications do you have to make such a claim?
And I thought you had no problem discussing things in public? Why the PM and not a public comment?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN "What qualifications" Not my qualifications, the qualifications of those criticizing the ICR's activities. That does include the IWC by the way. You remember, right? "lack of testable hypotheses, failure to take performance measures; inappropriate use of ecosystem models, failure to include key data on ecosystem components.” "Other flaws in Japan’s “scientific” research, and criticized by the IWC, include Japan’s selective or inappropriate use of data.”
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN How about their violations of the ATS? Failure to make observations available to the public?
The PM's I sent are composed of sources and quotes only. At no time in the PM I attempt to do anything besides send you sources and quotes in support of my points.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic How about your lies?
From the ATS;
"... the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable:
(c) scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available."
Hmm. It doesn't say anything about the public and it qualifies the sharing with the statement "to the greatest extent feasible and practicable".
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN According to experts, "Japan refuses to make the information it collects available for independent review". This is a violation of Article 3 section C of ATS because they've refused to make their observations available.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic So we will just ignore your lie? OK.
Well since I already quoted Article 3 Section C and it says nothing about 'independent review' I wonder who these experts are and what their statement means.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN The information is not being made "freely available" for if it was, any entity could review the information. The fact is that the ATS applies to the whalers hunting area and it clearly outlines that their information must be made "freely available". The ICR is in violation of this for having not made their "information" freely available.
By the way, who is the "we"? It's just me and you. "your lie" You know, I feel that I've been very respectful and truthful with you for the
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Why do you insist on ignoring the plain words of the ATS? Are you a Contracting Party to the ATS or are any of your 'experts' Contracting Parties? If not then there is no requirement to make their data available. The ATS is between the Contracting Parties and thus the sharing requirement is between those selfsame Contracting Parties, not the public.
You have lied about what the ATS requires, that makes you a liar. How much simpler can it be?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Japan signed the treaty on Dec 1, 1959. Japan is a contracting party of the ATS and being a signatory of the treaty, they are required to adhere to its rules including Article 3 section C and it states that "scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available". By withholding information and refusing to make its "observations" freely available, they are in violation of ATS. I could have misread, but you seem to
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic I know you aren't that stupid. When did you sign the ATS? When did your experts sign the ATS? Let me guess, the answer to both is never. Thus neither you or your experts have an expectation of seeing the data and Japan has no obligation to make their data available to you or your experts.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN I do not have to sign the ATS to obtain information that is required to be made "freely available". In addition, the only people to ever sign the ATS have been government officials representing a nation. No where in the ATS does it even hint that making the information "freely available" means only among a the contracting parties. How exactly you're managing to misinterpret "freely available" for "available among the treaties signatories" puzzles me a little.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Please reread ALL of section 3, you may learn something. It says nothing about independent experts or individuals, it only mentions contracting parties. An agreement to share is between the people/groups who signed the agreement, not random third parties unless the agreement states that third parties are covered.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN "The contracting parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available." It never hints that the "freely available" phrase ever referring to being freely available......but only within the signatories. If all observations were made "freely available" any "expert or individual" that wanted the information could gain access because it would be "freely available".
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN You're trying very hard to press this issue, but the treaty never hints or uses wording in any way to suggest that making observations "freely available" means "freely available but only to the signatories of the treaty". The words "freely available" in a treaty that never hints to the term "freely available" referring to just the signatories is a difficult entity to misinterpret.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic You're trying very hard to press this issue, but the treaty never hints or uses wording in any way to suggest that making observations "freely available" means "freely available to anyone who asks". The words "freely available" in a treaty that never hints to any third parties just the contracting parties is a difficult entity to misinterpret.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Hmm... You copied and pasted half my comment and threw in a few additional words and your misinterpretation. The treaty specifies that observations made by the contracting party must be made "freely available". Information that is made freely available would be available to anyone. Why? Because the information has been made "freely available". Japan is in violation of the ATS. Exactly what quote from the treaty is luring you into believing that "freely available" information is
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Well since the data is all given to the IWC I guess it is made freely available. And if your claim is correct why haven't you or one of these experts filled a suit in court to get the data?
You are using the same argument that many Climate Change deniers use, and it sounds just about as foolish.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN freely available only to another signatory of the ATS when it never makes mention of the "freely available" information being confined to other signatories? And before you ask something like "what quote makes you believe what you believe", the "freely available" information part leads me to believe that any third party is allowed to have access to the data considering it is supposed to be freely available data. I'm having a very difficult time following your thinking right now.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Well the fact the ATS never makes mention of the "freely available" words applying to the general public.
Your belief is that the lack of specific limiting words means it is completely open, while I believe the lack of any specific completely open words means it is limited. Why can't you understand that both arguments have equal validity? The solution is for a court to interpret the language, and since your side is currently not getting its wish you should file a lawsuit.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Both arguments do not have equal validity. You continually have stated that a treaty that requires information to be made "freely available" somehow means that the information is only available to treaty signatories. You have no quote from the treaty in support of your statement, and no reason to hold such a misinterpretation. I've specifically quoted the treaty. When information is "freely available", it is available to anyone seeking the information.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic That is your interpretation. You have no quote from the treaty in support of your statement, and no reason to hold such a interpretation. You haven't shown anywhere that a treaty is construed in the manner you propose, just like I haven't either. Thus both interpretations are equally valid.
Nothing short of a court ruling specifically on the ATS will settle the matter. Though the fact no one has ever filed suit weighs against your interpretation.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN It's not my interpretation, it's the wording of the treaty. In order to promote international cooperation in scientific investigation in Antarctica, as provided for in Article II of the present Treaty, the Contracting Parties agree that, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available.
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN When information is made freely available, it is made available to those who seek it because it is freely available information. You're holding on to an empty argument. The treaty's use of the words "freely available" are in my favor and you have nothing in yours. Both interpretations are not equally valid because your interpretation is a misinterpretation based upon absolutely nothing while mine is supported by the treaty itself.
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN The words "freely available" in themselves mean that the entity at hand is freely available information. You're holding on to an empty argument. No part of the treaty ever hints at information that is supposed to be "freely available" being freely available only to other treaty signatories.
"why don't the experts sue" I'm not sure. If you want to know, maybe you should find out.
"why don't you sue" Because that would take a legal team, a pretty penny, and a few years.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Then why the fuck don't you stop beating a dead horse and file a lawsuit against the Japanese whalers. You could stop whaling all by yourself just be filing a simple lawsuit that you know you have already won.
Oh wait, you care about the whales just not if it cost money or takes any of your time or involves any effort. My how thrilled the whales must be at your support.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN "Won't spent time or money" That's a fairly odd statement considering you have no idea how much time or money I may have spent on the subject of saving marine life or whales.
"They don't think they can win" Well, that's a conjecture on your part. You have nothing to back up that track of thinking, and worst of all you've been reduced to assumptions. We all know what they say about assumptions? Good. Best to keep your distance then.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Not odd at all. You haven't spent any time or money filing a lawsuit now have you? That is what we were discussing now wasn't it?
Well since they claim it could stop whaling and they claim they want to stop whaling then there is no logical reason for them not to file the lawsuit except if they are afraid they will lose.
And I know what 6 year-olds say about assumptions. So should I lump you in a group with them?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Yes, very odd. We were not discussing how much money I've spent on a lawsuit. You made this allegation, "Oh wait, you care about the whales just not if it cost money or takes any of your time or involves any effort." Well, you have no idea what kind of money or time I've invested. It may not be in a court room, but it would be money and time nonetheless.
"they're afraid they'll lose" Yes, you've used that conjecture already. The fact is that you're lacking in support.
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN There could be a number of different reasons they wouldn't file a lawsuit. Maybe it's funds, maybe they suspect the ICR would be done with the SO by the time it settled, maybe they're involved in research projects that are occupying their funds, etc. You immediately jump to the conjecture that they're afraid of losing because you believe it'll help your argument.
"lump you in a group with them" Well, it wouldn't be a change of pace. Your comments are full of baseless
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic No I logically arrive at that conjecture. Australia with the help and advice of many experts has filed a lawsuit against Japan and yet makes no claim about any violations of the ATS. Why wouldn't they use this 'proven' violation as part of their lawsuit? Logically they would use all claims that they think can prevail. So logically they must not think the ATS claim will be found valid.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN A conjecture is a theory formed without necessary evidence to back yourself. So you logically formed a theory without the necessary evidence to back yourself? Uh... Okay. If that's what'll float your boat. "Why wouldn't they use the ATS violation" Nice try. Australia's final written arguments in the case will not be released until later this year.
122333nic 4 weeks ago
@122333nic But Australia claims are in their original filing, they can't make a brand new claim in their written arguments.
DTofMN 4 weeks ago
@DTofMN Until later this year when final written arguments are due, they can.
122333nic 4 weeks ago
@122333nic No they can't. They have made their claims already, adding more claims would require a new filing.
DTofMN 4 weeks ago
@DTofMN You've literally just answered your own argument. If it would take a new filing to add a complaint to the Australian case, than obviously they can include a new arguing point on the grounds that the final arguments are not yet due.
122333nic 4 weeks ago
@122333nic Please try reading what is written.
If they want to add a new claim they will have to refile the case, not adding it to their final argument. Filing a new case will restart the whole process, that would delay the whole process by at least another 2 years. Hardly something you would expect them to do if they really want to end Japanese research whaling.
Oh and then there is the fact that the claim will have no effect on whaling even if they add it and even if they succeed.
DTofMN 3 weeks ago
@DTofMN Hey broski, I would have commented back sooner but for some reason your comment didn't appear in my inbox leading me to believe our discussion had ended.
122333nic 3 weeks ago
@DTofMN "refile the case" Why would they have to refile their case to add an argument to a case in which the arguments are not yet due to be finalized? My source uses pretty specific wording to suggest that last minute arguments could be thrown into the mix. "Final written arguments in Australia's complaint against Japan over whaling in the Southern Ocean will be due in March 2012, the world court said on Tuesday, ensuring that the case will take years to resolve."
122333nic 3 weeks ago
@122333nic Yes the final arguments aren't due yet, but Australia already made their claims. The final arguments are just their detailed support for those claims and the ATS isn't one of the claims they made, thus the ATS will not be part of their final argument as it has no bearing on any of their claims.
That is the way courts work. The original claims set the issues to be litigated. New claims need a new case to be filed.
DTofMN 3 weeks ago
@DTofMN I don't know about that buddy. That sounds a little strange. Don't tell me "that is the way courts work". Right now, final arguments are not due to the court. Exactly what is giving you the idea that to add an additional argument to the ones already in existence before the final arguments are due to be submitted to the court would require the progress within the court to be restarted? A source including a link to explain your thinking on the matter would be beneficial.
122333nic 2 weeks ago
@122333nic It is not a new ARGUMENT. It is a new CLAIM.
Article 38 of the ICJ rules;
" 2. The application shall specify as far as possible the legal grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the Court is said to be based; it shall also specify the precise nature of the claim, together with a succinct statement of the facts and grounds on which the claim is based."
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN I've never seen those terms before. It appears that it wouldn't be worth the time for Australia to include the ATS violation within their lawsuit currently. Nicely played. This is of course trivial. It does not change the fact that the ICR is in violation of the ATS on the grounds of our previous comments.
122333nic 2 weeks ago
@122333nic 'Nicely played'?
Oh I see you have immutable facts but I am playing with words.
Well that is your belief.
But even if it is true, will it stop whaling? No. Japan will release the data and continue to hunt whales
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN "Japan will continue to hunt whales" For now it seems, but the future is uncertain.
122333nic 2 weeks ago
@122333nic What I said was that the ATS claim that you have taken so long arguing about would not result in a ruling that would stop or even slow down whaling. But if you want to ignore what was plainly written, it is not like you haven't done so before.
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN "ignore what was plainly written" Uh... I didn't ignore anything about your comment, nor have I in the past. Your comment appeared to me to be void of things deserving to be argued or discussed. If it came down to Japan facing a penalty over their ATS violations, they would probably just come to their senses and release the data. I figured, "For now it seems, but the future is uncertain" would be a nice way to round up our discussion here but apparently not.
122333nic 2 weeks ago
@122333nic And more ignoring what is plainly written and this time you try repeat what I wrote and try and make it look like you arrived at it yourself..
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN I haven't ignored anything, I haven't repeated you, and I haven't tried to make it look like I've "arrived at it" myself either. I said this, "If it came down to Japan facing a penalty over their ATS violations, they would probably just come to their senses and release the data" not to take credit, but to show that I concurred on what Japan's actions would be in such a scenario. I don't understand what you think I'm "ignoring", but I haven't ignored anything.
122333nic 2 weeks ago
@122333nic Article 44 is the setting of filing documents.
" 1. In the light of the information obtained by the President under Article 31 of these Rules, the Court shall make the necessary orders to determine, inter alia, the number and the order of filing of the pleadings and the time-limits within which they must be filed."
A new claim would go back to Article 38 and require a new case schedule.
DTofMN 2 weeks ago
@DTofMN What is giving you the impression that Australia's lawsuit would have to be refiled and progress restarted to add an argument before final arguments are do?
122333nic 3 weeks ago
@122333nic The fact that the ATS issue is not an argument it is a claim. Arguments support claims, they don't make claims. And no claim involving the ATS was raised by Australia, so no final arguments dealing with the ATS.
DTofMN 3 weeks ago
@DTofMN mudslinging. If you'd like to categorize me in a group of any kind, it's your own decision. It's nothing new and to be honest, I'm not interested in what you think of me.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic "why don't the experts sue" I'm not sure. If you want to know, maybe you should find out.
I already know. They don't think they can win.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN state a belief that Article 3 section C applies only to making information freely available between other signatories of the treaty. This is incorrect. At no time does the treaty point to making information available between the contracting parties. The information must be made "freely available", not available among the other signatories. Sources on the way.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Article 3 clearly states it applies to the Contracting Parties. Not the public, not experts, the Contracting parties.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN time I've known you. I've backed myself up with sources, something you are not known for participating in, and I've been careful not to insult you. This is something you do frequently. You can state the same "you're lying" line all you want. Just like your many other mudslinging comments, it's baseless.
122333nic 1 month ago
@DTofMN Sources will arrive in your PM box tomorrow on account of these comments being written from an iphone using a "dragon dictation" app.
122333nic 1 month ago
Maybe Sea Shepherd would stop attacking the whalers IF THE WHALERS STOPPED KILLING WHALES IN A WHALE SANCTUARY YOU FUCKING IDIOTIC MIDGET
iantaylor124 1 month ago
@iantaylor124 Why should the whalers stop legally researching whales by lethal means in a sanctuary that doesn't apply to them?
DTofMN 1 month ago
JAPAN, STOP ILLEGAL WHALING !!!!
MrRobinDP 1 month ago
@MrRobinDP And just where does this illegal whaling take place?
DTofMN 1 month ago
I don't get how anyone could be debating about this. The rules are very clear. It's illegal to kill whales for commercial purpose and the zone where the Japanese whaling fleet hunts whales is within the Australian economic exclusion zone, meaning it is the territory of Australia. As they have designated that area as a "whale sanctuary" it is even illegal to kill whales there for scientific purposes. So it doesn't matter, Japan, how big you write RESEARCH on the side of your ships. It's ILLEGAL!!
MrRobinDP 1 month ago
@MrRobinDP I don't know how you could be so wrong. It is not Australia's EEZ, that claim is in violation of the Antarctic Treaty and it isn't recognize by 98% of the countries in the world. So the Japanese produce data and peer reviewed research papers every year which means their whaling is legal, and the area they hunt whales is not closed to research whaling.
DTofMN 1 month ago
It is very funny looking through the comments and seeing how a vast number of people have been brainwashed by the Sea shepherd. They also get so aggressive if you say anything bad about their stupid organisation.
And another thing I have observed is that sea shepherd supporters (and sscs themselves) never seem to be wrong. They never accept an opinion different to their own.
Anyway just my thoughts.
dylanotoshiro 1 month ago 3
Tony is a dwarf :-)
888daaron 1 month ago
Comment removed
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
fuck you motherfucking shit !!!
apolomoreno 1 month ago
Do you have nothing more to do than sit around trying to make Sea Shepherd look bad?
And is that a fake uniform?
agaen96 1 month ago
@agaen96 Nobody has to make Sea Shepherd look bad, they do it all by themselves.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Yeah, saving innocent animals from dying out is so bad!
But talking trash about people trying to make a difference is a good thing, right?
agaen96 1 month ago
@agaen96 The whale species being hunted aren't in danger of dying out.
And talking trash about criminals is a good thing.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN
minke whale maybe not, fin whale are in danger and whalers plans to take humpback which are also in danger! More than this they are hunting them in a whale sanctuary! You know what a sanctuary is? You think people in the southern hemisphere have no right to protest whaling in that sanctuary? As for criminals...where and with what crimes have they been found guilty of comitting crimes? Again...if they are convicted criminals the US should deregister their organization!
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
@sEiGoSaYgO They have taken 14 fin whales in 20 years, and zero humpback whales in the same 20 years. Now how is taking zero whales going to negatively effect the population? And how are 14 whales in 20 years going to negatively effect a population estimated as greater than 30,000?
And I have discussed the sanctuary issue, it doesn't apply to Japan.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN
We can thank SS for the lack of fin and humpback taken!
The sanctuary applies to all countries doing commercial whaling and that is essentially what Japanese whalers are doing and is why Australia has taken them to ICJ!
Writing research on a ship doesn't make it legal!
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
@sEiGoSaYgO So you want to claim that for years before the SSCS even where in the Antarctic they somehow are responsible? You really are brainwashed aren't you?
Try reading Article V Section 3 of the IWC regulations. Any member country can object to any new regulation and if they object then the regulation doesn't apply to them. Japan objected to the sanctuary and thus it doesn't apply to them.
You really should educate yourself. It is so much easier than continuing to look stupid.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN
Funny you mention article V because the whalers are not claiming article V...they are claiming article VIII...research whaling! And that is why they have been taken to ICJ! Claiming research to do commercial whaling in a whale sanctuary! Screaming research then crying culture and then accusing racism! Hmmm...which is it? Any country, especially southern hemisphere countries have every right to protest this as it is not science or culture!
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
@sEiGoSaYgO The whole IWC convention applies. Article VIII allows research whaling, while Article V allows objections to new regulations.
But if you want to play the Article VIII game, have you even read Article VIII? Because if you had you would have read where it says whaling under Article VIII isn't subject to the rest of the convention, meaning Article VIII would also allow them to whale in the sanctuary.
So your lack of intelligence leads to a double fail for you.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN
No...Article VIII applies if it is legitimate science!
Sure some science is done but the main purpose is commercial!
That is why they have been taken to ICJ!
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
@sEiGoSaYgO No Australia claims that it isn't research. That is why it has to go to court, so truth can be determined.
And please show me where in the IWC regulations it says legitimate science?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN
Huh!? LOL! What do the words "scientific research" mean to you? Does it say in the regulations that if you paint research on your ship it classifies as research? Do they really need fine print say "by the way...the research should be legitimate"....or is their fine print I havent found saying "fake research is also okay"...if I missed that please show me where it says that!
sEiGoSaYgO 1 month ago
@DTofMN If they continue at this speed, they will die out.
It is even illegal to hunt them for selling it. Why do you think so?
agaen96 1 month ago
@agaen96 Sorry but you are wrong. The levels at which they hunt are well below levels that will cause a decline in population. And it is not illegal to hunt them for selling. Although Japan hunts for research, which is allowed by the IWC regulations. And those same regulations say that any excess meat after research shall be processed and sold.
Please read Article VIII of the IWC convention on the IWC website.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Anyone that would like to read can do so. Anyone that would like to comment is welcome to, while they might not receive a response unless they are my opponent. Uncalled for insults based on absolutely nothing are a sign of individuals that can't effectively assert themselves. You commented to me first, so you will lay out your debate in an insult free manor or I will deny you the attention you logged in looking for. Remember, be a kind, respectful individual or no attention.
122333nic 1 month ago
Opinion vs. Opinion.
ziable 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
long live She Shepard.
TheKogajoe 1 month ago
If SOPA passes, there'll be NO YouTube, Twitter, Google, Wikipedia, Facebook & End Piracy, Not Liberty!
TheKogajoe 1 month ago
@TheKogajoe If that is what you believe then stop worrying about whaling and go do something about SOPA.
DTofMN 1 month ago
tony you might want to which you you post on youtube sopa might come after you.
TheKogajoe 1 month ago
@TheKogajoe SOPA isn't person or group so it can't come after anybody. It also doesn't exist yet (and may not ever exist) which is another reason it can't come after anybody.
DTofMN 1 month ago
Why are the She Shepards allowed to keep their 501-C status in the US?? While Paul the Plump cries poverty to suckers to send their money in, he lives and the SSCS is based on an island full of multi-million dollar homes. Come on you suckers, he needs to keep living the high life in a rich neighborhood while old ladies send their social security checks because he sends them cute pictures of poor whales etc.. lol!!
redlegagent 1 month ago
This seems like a hamfisted attempt to whitewash the incident, Tony. I wonder if you are on the take? Those rightists that you side with are closely connected to organized crime. Is some of that dirty money ending up in your pocket? Living on a fixed income as you do, I am sure you could use some cash.
blazinchalice 1 month ago
Note the choice of words in broadcast- it speaks volumes!
It's never "the whalers" or "the ICR." It is invariably "the Japanese whalers" or, even more simply, "the Japanese."
As if to tell people that the ENTIRE NATION OF JAPAN is all a bunch of whale killers.
ShindentheGreat 1 month ago
thank you,dad!
Sea Shepherd is a spare.
kurusu1123 1 month ago
Why don't you construct a video about SOPA and PIPA?
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Why don't you make a comment that has some relation to the video?
Oh that's right your a troll. Go back to your circle jerk at POA.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Why don't you mind your own business and refrain from sending me comments unless you feel like debating an issue? I'll comment on any video I see fit.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic And I will comment on any comments I see fit. Why do you seem to think you should get special treatment? Just because you took the short bus doesn't make you special.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN That is the single most baseless and absurd personal attack I've seen out of you thus far. Mudslinging like that belongs in a play ground sand box. Sorry pal, you just make a very poor keyboard commando. You know, if you could gather your maturity together and cut out the nonsense, we could debate in a civil manner.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic What a joke you are.
You refuse to discuss anything. You come to a public forum and issue challenges to discuss one-on-one in private. Yeah that is real maturity, the same maturity you and your buddies show at POA.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN "What a joke you are." And this is based on what exactly? The fact that I refuse to contribute to your unproductive, immature, baseless mudslinging? I thought so. People that sling baseless insults from behind a computer screen are funny. "You refuse to discuss anything." I don't know about you, but I discuss things on here fairly often. They involve one on one discussions in an anti-childish environment. "in private" I don't seek a debate in private. I debate in public forums.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic It is based on observing you here, on other videos and at POA.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN If you believe that your time is best spent stalking people on the net, then go for it. Your mudslinging remains baseless, uncalled for, and a little silly. Remember, watch your manners or no attention.
122333nic 1 month ago
@122333nic Whoever the hell you are, and wherever the hell you are, don't let these clowns bother you. everything you've said in this forum is absolutely right. The ICR and their work is neither moral, nor legal, and anyone who says differently is incorrect. I feel sad, knowing they are so misled. I can only say that I for one value life in out planet's oceans, and your words give me confidence that you do too.
TheBlueHandOfDeath 1 month ago
@TheBlueHandOfDeath Thank you for your kind comment, but I never let keyboard commandos get to me. DTofMN and myself several months ago had a long, drawn out debate in which he did very poorly and didn't manage to come out on top. He refuses to debate because of this and he's been reduced to running around online stalking users and behaving rudely, but whatever. He's free to do this, and I'm free to shake my at him in disappointment.
122333nic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid video.
122333nic 1 month ago
The US should annul any registration by SS with US authorities. The question is, why isn't the US doing that?
tsjoencinema 1 month ago
@tsjoencinema because sea shepherd is registered with the dutch.
scottbaioisdead 1 month ago
hhaha wait til sscs take out the paintball guns, all those pansies on the yushin marus will dive for cover..
BulgarianInCanada 1 month ago
Test
fogelbise 1 month ago
Could you comment on what you think Sea Shepherd member's motives are?
fogelbise 1 month ago
the japanese whalers should just ram and sink them, they got away with one ship sunk(not that they did it), the world wouldnt give a shit if sea shepherds sunk to the bottom of the ocean
juki0h 1 month ago
I have no idea why anyone would give money to the sea Shepherd Society? They are complete frauds.
bushbob2000 1 month ago 2
Thank you for the lesson in common sense!
CloeBuckingham 1 month ago
The real truth is, The eco-terrorists threw the hooks at the Japanese.The Japanese unhooked the ones that grabbed on & DROPPED them back into the ocean.The zodiacs were probably right underneath the rail of the ships,as they were trying to pull themselves closer.Gravity did the rest.I'm sure the Japanese who have EXPLOSIVE CANNONS on board and could easily open the hull of the Steve Irwin like a tuna can,would not waste their time throwing grappling hooks
at Admiral Bedbug & the Cockroach Crew!
bigskip2121 1 month ago
THANKS FOR PUBLICIZING THE GOOD WORK THAT SEA SHEPHERD DOES FOR THE OCEANS! THEY'RE IN NEED A THIRD VESSEL, AND IT'S A GOOD TIME TO DONATE TO THE CAUSE. EVERY TIME tony-THE-INTERNET-tiger MAKES A VIDEO, WE ALL DONATE! WITH YOUR HELP, WE'LL GET CAPTAIN WATSON HIS THIRD VESSEL! DONATE NOW, AND REMEMBER YOUTUBERS, THANK tony-THE-INTERNET-tiger FOR ALL HIS SUPPORT OF SSCS!
byrddust 1 month ago
@byrddust They already have 3 vessels.
And yes keep donating, because without your donations paul Watson may not be able to give himself another 26% raise like he did in 2010 even though SSCS donations were down. His pay was $120,000 then, I wonder what it is up to now?
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN You're right, Paul's not paid enough! I think I'll donate more! Cheers!
byrddust 1 month ago
@byrddust As the saying goes;
A fool and his money are soon parted.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Call me a fool then, because I'm sending it!
byrddust 1 month ago
@byrddust OK.
You are a fool.
DTofMN 1 month ago
@DTofMN Thanks! Just call me Dr. Fool with lots of money for Sea Shepherd!
byrddust 1 month ago
I wish the japs would just send boats out to mess up the she sheeperd's propeller or just fire harpoons at them as self defence, after warning the seashepard's vessel
DeviousWizard 1 month ago
The Japanese should have used that Niffy Harpoon they got there!
runisunke 1 month ago