I think AnimuX was trying to say that people say that Sea Shepherd are as bad as the terrorists in the Middle East, and namely the ones who committed 9/11.

Only a complete tool compares activists who never killed anybody to the most murderous terrorists in the world. It’s a clear sign of ideological bias against environmental activism in general. It’s obviously a rather poor smear campaign considering the wealth of supporters Sea Shepherd has gained in the USA.

Maybe when you’ve finished slinging the word terrorist around you can go back to calling Obama a socialist or Marxist or whatever uncharacteristic nickname the right-wing U.S. pundits have invented this week.

Antagonists working diligently to demonize anti-whaling activists, like David “the tool”, are quite fond of the word “terrorist” and will bend and shape the perception of the word in order to fit into their ongoing negative campaign.

What’s understood by reasonable people is terrorists purposely kill and threaten to kill people.

Activists who have never killed a single person nor threatened to kill anyone are not terrorists.

Sea Shepherd doesn’t employ “terror” as a political weapon. Sea Shepherd does not use “extreme fear” to coerce people to do anything.

The allegations made by those attempting to demonize environmental activists is quite focused on this false perception of “terror”.

I’m sure that as SSCS activists fire “foam crocs” out of air canons in honor of Steve Irwin reasonable people can clearly see these are not acts to invoke “extreme fear”.

Sea Shepherd activists shoot cameras – not machine guns. They throw stink bombs – not grenades. They don’t threaten to kill anyone or attempt to kill anyone. They are not terrorists.

@AnimuX

“Activists who have never killed a single person nor threatened to kill anyone are not terrorists.”

I tend to agree. I believe they are called “Eco-Terrorists”.

… about the first comment that I commented on.

Your welcome sidewinder but I think I will stay around for the foreseeable future.

The World According To A Turd. The fact that SSCS has not killed anyone makes it less an eco-TERRORIST organization by entire orders of magnitude. The fact that they don’t seek to harm people at all makes them anything but a terrorist organization. When will you rejects realize that the more you stretch your own bullshit and distort reality, the more feeble an already feeble argument becomes?

Yes, than the whalers ramming the Ady Gil also constitutes them as ‘terrorists.’ The bottles might not be made of glass. In an ICR.org PR photo, the bottle looked plastic.
http://www.icrwhale.org/gpandsea-img268.htm

They fire the flares above the ships, and if they were disabled than they have the rest of the fleet to come around and tow them. They aren’t alone.

Now come the ‘SSCS IS POLLUTING, THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.’ Well they never to my knowledge have claimed to be an environmental organization. They save the eco-system, not environment. Well, by saving the eco-system they save the environment, but you get the point. Who knows, I am probably wrong on the bottles. Glass is avoidable, and the activists try not to throw them near people. Even so, they have enough padding in their winter clothes.

Not intentionally if I am an apologist. The ‘yes…’ was only referring to the ‘People can say whatever they want but their actions are what is important.’ and adding onto the terrorist argument.

The pollution one was to rebuttal those who would mention it since I mentioned plastic.

The fleet could have sent someone to help, but only they know how close they were in the period between the Steve Irwin encountering the SM2, and the Bob Barker getting the tip from the Orion. Prop fouling has worked once, and the whalers get the rope untangled without any help, so chances are slim that it’d work, and if it did than the whalers could get it untangled. Many think that the whaling ships have things that prevent prop fouling from working.

How exactly do you know if they were shot AT them? They are used to intimidate, not harm. If they were shot low it was so they wouldn’t hit the helicopter, which was at risk by accident, since they hadn’t used any flares at that point.

Obviously we are going by a different definition of ‘apologist’ so whatever confusion was caused is unintentional.

The whalers have tried to prop foul the Steve Irwin before, and they had ZERO reinforcements at the time. The whalers have fast ships, and can be there faster than Sea Shepherd would be. When the Steve Irwin got their line caught in the SM2s prop, it was chopped to bits, so I think chances are closer to zero that it’d work. Still, it’s obvious that you wont understand because you would rather that hundreds of whales die instead of the beyond minuscule chance that a prop get caught and it can be unwound from the prop without help.

Did you see exactly where he was aiming? Were you in his head, and did you know the specific spot he was hoping to hit? That answer is an obvious no. From my judgment, the flare was aimed too high for it to be a real threat to the harpoon boat, but more of a threat to the helicopter.

And you do realize that the flares don’t have a perfect flight, but they have a ‘general’ flight. They flew over the whaler ships, and thats the end of it.

No need to see who can make a bigger list.

Japanese whaling
1. Legal

SSCS direct actions
1. Illegal

Oh and whether Paul ordered the mission or not, as the captain of the ship he is responsible for his crews actions and unless a large portion of his crew mutinied, he and they were actively involved in launching the skidoo. Which makes all of them co-conspirators and they can all be charged with the same crimes.

crumpet, SSCS liar. End of story.

So because an employee of a subcontractor to the ICR is breaking the law that means the ICR is breaking the law?

Sorry that isn’t the way it works