6 ms·

It lost the "battle" by resorting to violence rather than policy and law.

commenter1 9y ago
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.)
- Fnoord 9y ago
  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?
  - dfc 9y ago
    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?
    - Fnoord 9y ago
      Bringing the war home itself is personal. RAF in this context stands for Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader Meinhof gang. See e.g Wikipedia
      - dfc 9y ago
        Given that definition it seems like all terrorism is personal and that there is nothing distinguishing about the methods of WU or RAF.
        Fnoord 9y ago
        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/research-insi/background/terrorism/12-the-revised-academic-consensus-definition-of-terrorism http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
    - synotna 9y ago
      Red army faction, German domestic terrorists in the 70s, see the movie baader-meinhof phenomenon
Fnoord 9y ago
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/ http://www.icj-cij.org/
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > 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-Wars-The-aggressive-tactics-of-Sea-Shepherd-Paul-Watson https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice... [3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-rejects-international-court-jurisidiction-over-whaling-20151018-gkc7rm.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-...
Tomte 9y ago
Are they violent? I used zo think that was their modus operandi, but „Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist“ paints a different picture.
- Fnoord 9y ago
  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.
mcguire 9y ago
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.)

Fnoord 9y ago
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?
- dfc 9y ago
  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?
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Bringing the war home itself is personal. RAF in this context stands for Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader Meinhof gang. See e.g Wikipedia
    - dfc 9y ago
      Given that definition it seems like all terrorism is personal and that there is nothing distinguishing about the methods of WU or RAF.
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        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/research-insi/background/terrorism/12-the-revised-academic-consensus-definition-of-terrorism http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
  - synotna 9y ago
    Red army faction, German domestic terrorists in the 70s, see the movie baader-meinhof phenomenon

Fnoord 9y ago

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/ http://www.icj-cij.org/

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> 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-Wars-The-aggressive-tactics-of-Sea-Shepherd-Paul-Watson https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice... [3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-rejects-international-court-jurisidiction-over-whaling-20151018-gkc7rm.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-...

Tomte 9y ago

Are they violent? I used zo think that was their modus operandi, but „Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist“ paints a different picture.

Fnoord 9y ago
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.

mcguire 9y ago

It seems like the Japanese aren't all that interested in policy and law on this issue.