Would the Japanese be within their rights to sink a Greenpeace ship for "terrorist" aggression?

Question

I'm completely against the renewed whaling efforts by the Japanese. I thought we had learned enough about the intelligence and social structure of these animals to leave them alone. But I guess not. The Japanese just "gotta have" the most exotic sushi they can get.

That said, in the current climate of anti-terrorism efforts, could the Japanese treat interference by a Greenpeace ship as an act of aggression by a terrorist organization, and if the Japanese Navy was accompanying their whaling ship, would that Navy vessel be within its rights to take any responsive action necessary to defend its ship from terrorists?

In other words, torpedo and sink the ship?

It's really no different than if Al Quaida had a ship and it was attacking other ships at sea. Greenpeace may have better intentions, but their tactics are still an act of terroristic aggression, no less than eco-terrorists who set fire to SUV car lots.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Most of these "tree huggers", use and advocate what could be called terroristic tactics. As to the idea of killing whales, while we as Americans condemn these acts, and try to save the world from various forms of suicide, everyone else is flipping us off, and doing what they please. We can sit here in America, and do the right thing to save our planet, but if the rest of the world doesn't bother, what have we accomplished?

Answer 2

I'm sorry, but Greenpeace have roughly similiar intentions as Al Qaeda. Aren't they both aiming to make the world into a better place?

And yes, many Greenpeace actions should have put them as one of the most active terrorist organizations, it's only due their 'green movement' prevent them to be categorized as a terrorist organization by some.



As for Japanese ships and whaling.

If the whales reside at Japanese territory, it's up to the Japanese to decide.

if the whales reside outside Japanese territory, it's up to the host to decide.

Answer 3

I think the effort of Greens peace to save the maximum critical numbers of whales is an effort to preserve the continued availability of this mammal for use as a food source that will provide animal protein to a grossly overpopulated nation. There is important information available to all that recognize the population crisis of Japan, and the effect is has imposed on this population. Japan has, to me the most healthy population of our globe. Every member of this nation seems to nurture the comprehension of the necessity of dietary excess. Aggressive behavior by any philosophical entity will only be met with aggressive response. So, for me, dialog that will provide a resolution acceptable to the preservation of the continuing survival of the present members of the whale population, works for me.

Answer 4

By definition, anyone engaging in illegal acts to further a political or other agenda is acting as a terrorist organization ergo the Japanese government (or any other government for that matter) would absolutely be within their rights to exercise any and all legal measures to deter such acts - including the use of military force.

Answer 5

properly for me i'm able to surely say that I want song it somewhat is somewhat "catchy" and consists of aspects that i'm able to hold close unto. i do no longer recommend catchy as in a hook or a looping refrain yet fairly a definite sound or variety-particular element that my recommendations can latch unto and groove to.Sludge metallic for occasion has the "heaviness" element and sluggish, crunchy sound that i found I even have cherished ever considering the fact that my first few listens to Black Sabbath. i'm no longer merely going to hearken to a song with the aid of fact i admire the lyrics or the drums sections is prolific or different motives that human beings have indexed as to why they hear to a definite song. different than that my style is exceedingly diverse yet i'm merely 19 so it continues to be very plenty arising and progressing. real now, i'm open to exceedingly plenty something. i'm no longer likely set on any particular ideology or something of that form. despite sounds solid i will bump it. BQ: Black Sabbath device of a Down Bone Thugs n solidarity Parokya ni Edgar Eraserheads

Answer 6

I'm not a student of Japanese law, but it might vaguely be criminal mischief and/or criminal trespass, depending on where they interfere with the Japanese flagged vessels. It wouldn't be piracy, but it could conceivably be considered terrorism. Although you can't open fire on an unarmed vessel just because it's running around being a nuisance. I suppose it could be boarded.

Answer 7

'Terrorism' is something you seem to define extremely and alarmingly loosely: so did Herr "you're either with us or you're against us" Hitler. Yes, it was him who first used those words in the face of 'foreign aggression' and 'terrorism'.

Terrorism was also Hitlers excuse / pretext to invade foreign countries and instigate the worlds most bloody event to date, world war 2.

The fact is that freedom of speech, expression and protest are at the heart of democracy and in this case the ones who are ignoring international laws and treaties are the Japanese government.

So no, the use of force needs to be proportionate, especially when it is exercised by a sovereign power - and that is assuming that the sovereign power has legal and moral right on it's side... there's a huge difference between direct action in terms of obstructing someone from violating international agreements and blowing up people and property indiscriminately!

Answer 8

Eco - freaks engaging in violence is rare to the point of irrelevance. Whalers and loggers raise the idea as a boogie -man to support their own commercial interests.

Is Greenpeace 'attacking', or 'interfering'? This is what the lawyers will dicker about, (I Think). I don't think you can violently defend your - self from a nuisance, legally.

Good question

Which of you F*ck-tards gave me a thumbs down, and why? BE BRAVE, explain your-self