Pirates operating in Southern Ocean........

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by SURV69

Rosa Parks(a black woman), was breaking the written law when she refused to give her seat to a black man on a public bus.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, in the black section of the bus, to a white man.

And thus is misinformation born (and borne) on the internet.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So "pirate" is now an all-purpose mad-at-them word like "terrorist", huh?

Not really. In this case pirate is probably being used mainly as a legal type of term in order to describe a group of terrorists!

[Dsanduril]

Fits even the classic definition of the word pirate to me, but I suspect from a prosecutorial perspective it also gets used as leverage:

18 USC § 1651
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

That's a pretty big stick to use to intimidate defendants.

And just from a curiosity perspective, here's another action that is defined as piracy:

Whoever holds out or shows any false light, or extinguishes any true light, with intent to bring any vessel sailing upon the sea into danger or distress or shipwreck—

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Jimbo485

RAPISTS?

DOJ, have you been looking at Daisy with lustful thoughts?

He did run out of goats in Jersey.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Don L

Not really. In this case pirate is probably being used mainly as a legal type of term in order to describe a group of terrorists!

pirate /ˈpīrət/ n. a type of sea-going terrorist

terrorist /ˈterərist/ n. a type of land-based pirate

[sailorboy1]

to me there is a difference because I look at a pirate as a low life murdering scum and thief that carries out their attacks on boats

terrosits on the other are just low life murdering scum that don't have any interest on stealing your stuff or where they carry out thier attacks

[nagrom snoyl]

Is it true that under english merchant law the flying of the skull and crossbones is still a hangable offence but was never written out and just not enforced? mind you it could be like the one i heard in york not so long ago where its okay to shoot a scotts man on a sunday if hes wearing a kilt and you use a bow and arrow

[JPA Cate]

I'm wondering if all the passion here is coming from a more basic philosophical question: at what point to ends stop justifying means? Unlikely to reach a consensus on this one.

And of course, related to which consumable foods one eats, isn't that an individual choice? All cultures and religions have some food prohibitions, after all.

FWIW, there are more humpbacks now in Australia than for a very long time, so the conservation policies already in place seem to be allowing population increase.

It is one of the great, deep mysteries of life, that in order to sustain our own life, we have to kill something to eat it, unless we eat it still living or have somebody else kill it. Possibly we feel better about it if we use the whole beast-- if we are among those who eat sentient beings. Incidentally, there are people who believe that if "it" is sentient enough to try to escape, it is too "sentient" to eat! Not the American way, and especially so amongst the vast majority who buy their food at the supermarket.

What a world, eh?

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Dang. Outside of Blackbeard or Somalia, I always thought "pirates" were the folks on the boat two docks over with the skull'n'crossbones flag, a paper parrot, and a bottomless drink blender.

I know that guy!

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by minaret

Watch the whole episode. He goes on and on for like five minutes about how hidden snipers aboard Japanese whaling boats are trying to assassinate him, he must wear a bulletproof vest at all times. Drama queen!

Irrelevant

What is relevant is he had an explosive device tossed at him and was hit in the chest by metal fragments.

What if he wasn't wearing a vest?
What if he was hit in the head?

Do you support the Japanese whalers throwing explosive devices at people?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Do you support the Japanese whalers throwing explosive devices at people?

Yes

Personally I would have deployed a sub long ago and finished 'em off one dark night .

Apart from the Acid attacks I would regard the attempt to disable the Whalers by fouling the props to be an attempt to kill me and mine as the Southern Ocean not a safe place to be on a ship that cannot manouevre.

But I iz a bit funny with folks who iz trying to kill me - sometimes the time to act is well before you see the whites of their eyes.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by DennisM

I fully support Sea Shepherd's mission to protect the whales, and I admire their courage for doing it. I had the good fortune to speak briefly with some crew members at dockside in Wellington, NZ, last month and made a small monetary donation to their cause. I don't have to agree with all of their tactics to recognize that no other organization or government has the intestinal fortitude to enforce the ban.

No Government or Organisation can "enforce the ban" because what the Japanese are doing is not illegal........as there is no actual law which they are breaking......all there is in place is an agreement, which the Japanese are stretching beyond what others think it means. An Agreement is not a law.

That only matters if you want to live under the rule of law.

Fair play if you don't - but then you get to suck up the consequences of playing in that game, including not complaining that the other side has a bigger stick. and is using it.....the only reason that Sea Shepherd are still around is because the Japanese have been wearing kid gloves (they do have the bigger sticks), and Sea Shepherd are counting on that continuing - time will tell if that confidence is well placed..........probably lucky for them I will likely not become Japanese PM .

[Brogan007]

The nay-sayers here make me smile. How long since any significant volume of people got off their fat asses to actually get their point across? The 60's?Here's these folks, standing up and being counted.
So... What are you doing about your personal crusade? Apart from bitchin' bout others who've actually got enough balls to walk the walk.


[QUOTE=dirkdig;1171489]So here is a group actually doing something to try to save the oceans and not just talking about it.

[Jim Cate]

[QUOTE=Brogan007;1172182]The nay-sayers here make me smile. How long since any significant volume of people got off their fat asses to actually get their point across? The 60's?Here's these folks, standing up and being counted.
So... What are you doing about your personal crusade? Apart from bitchin' bout others who've actually got enough balls to walk the walk.

Originally Posted by dirkdig

So here is a group actually doing something to try to save the oceans and not just talking about it.

Can you please explain how attempting to disable vessels far in the Southern Ocean is doing something to "save the ocean"?

I doubt if you have ventured there yourself... if you had, you would understand that in those dangerous waters, a ship being without propulsion is in serious danger. Should it then founder, it's fuel load becomes an environmental hazard, one with far greater environmental perils than the killing of whales. The potential for loss of life should also be sobering, even for your heroes with "enough balls to walk the walk".

I too am against the whaling, but join others in condemning the methods of the Sea Shepherds.

Cheers,

Jim

[bobsadler]

here is a group actually doing something to try to save the oceans...

Oh, the humility !