Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewl
You still don't get it. I don;t support capturing the whalers and making them walk the plank to their death for punishment as whalers.
|
No, but you so appear to support Watson's threat to ram the ships, which could very easily result in loss of life. Perhaps several lives.
Does, for example, the ship's cook on a whaler deserve to die just because he's aboard a whaling ship?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewl
But if the IC refuses to step in, the whalers should be prepared to deal with resistance. If one of them dies, it is tragic. Albeit the risk is small.
|
No, sorry, if one of them dies at the hands of Watson or his crew, it's premeditated murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewl
This is in no way the same as saying i support an deliberate attempt to kill the whalers. The attempt and the intent is only to stop them from whaling.
|
Ramming the vessel at sea is an attempt to kill them. Do you think they can just walk home if their ship sinks in arctic waters?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewl
You and others have made the same argument justifying collateral damage im sure. And if the consequences of not taking action are worse than the collateral damage it is justified. Right?
Andrew
|
Please, let's not try to shift the topic to Iraq because you find yourself defending an untenable position.
Matt