Inevitable?

[The Drain]

Betcha can't eat a whole one

Like eating elephant: a little at a time. (But it does get a bit high after a while).

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Sea Sheppard ships have, on countless occasions, deliberately rammed other ships, in a clear attempt to sink those ships.



The above is footage of the MV Steve Irwin quite clearly and deliberately turning into the Yushin Maru No.3 and ramming it.

Here's more footage of another deliberate ramming by a Sea Sheppard ship against a Japanese ship.



<snip>

These situations are not analogous, they are not equivalent, they are certainly not equal.

You are suggesting that it's okay to run over a kid on a skateboard who's taunting you because his dad sideswiped your car.

It isn't needful to defend Sea Shepherd to condemn this act if it was a deliberate ramming. My sympathies are not with Sea Shepherd. If that collision was deliberate I would not want the man who did it in command of any vessel I was responsible for.

I sure would like to know how many of these internet tough guys that are crowing with glee about a fiberglass speedboat being run down by a 500 ton fishing ship have spent much time in a small boat on blue water.

I also don't understand why it is so difficult to concede that there may have been a disproportionate response here. even if the Japanese whalers are absolutely right, and Sea Shepherd is absolutely wrong in the larger view that does not make this one act right.

I guarantee you that a maritime court will not see it that way if it can be shown that the collision was deliberate.

 

[Yoink]

Something needs to be pointed out here folks. Sea Sheppard foul propellers and screw with equipment, yes. But that's the least of what they do, and I think we need to focus on the extreme end of their actions.

Sea Sheppard ships have, on countless occasions, deliberately rammed other ships, in a clear attempt to sink those ships.



The above is footage of the MV Steve Irwin quite clearly and deliberately turning into the Yushin Maru No.3 and ramming it.

Here's more footage of another deliberate ramming by a Sea Sheppard ship against a Japanese ship.



Note that the Sea Sheppard ship flies a Jolly Roger from its bow. Under International Maritime Law any ship flying a Jolly Roger is considered to be broadcast its intent to partake in piracy, and immediately loses any rights or protections under International Maritime Law. Any other ship may essentially whatever they like with said Pirate vessel.

Given the track record of Sea Sheppard deliberately ramming other vessels and officially displaying an intent to piracy, I think it is only wise that any ship in international waters should presume them to be a hostile vessel. Sea Sheppard ships, therefore, should probably be attacked and disabled at any opportunity.

They are pirates, criminals, and attempted murderers, plain and simple, and they deserve no protection.

And for the record, I am strongly opposed to what the Japanese ships are doing. But I cannot find fault with them even if they did deliberately ram the ship. Were I captain of a vessel on the open seas, and I charged with protection of a fleet of fishing ships, and I to encounter a pirate ship, I would ram it too if I thought my own vessel would not be endangered.

It is truly bizarre hyperbole to describe either of those collisions as an attempt to "sink" the ships. It's like describing someone TP-ing your house as engaged in "aerial bombardment." Both collisions resulted in exactly the amount of damage you'd expect--some badly scraped paint and, at most, a couple of bent davits. The fact that those who want to excuse attempted murder on the part of the skipper of the Shonan Maru keep resorting to absurd exaggerations doesn't say much for the strength of their case.

The Shonan Maru clearly had nothing further to fear from the Ady Gil at the time of the collision. The Ady Gil had allowed them to pass and was stopped in the water. The crew of the Ady Gil had called it a day and were talking about returning home to refuel. The Shonan Maru turned around and came seeking them out. Whether the skipper just went mad and decided to try to kill as many of the crew as he could or if he just thought he'd try to give them a good scare his actions were clearly criminal.

And yes, the actions of the boats in your two videos are clearly criminal as well--but they threatened nobody's life. You are comparing vandalism to attempted murder and trying to draw a moral equivalence.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Well, it looks to me like the Ady Gil crossed the bows of the Shonen Maru, somehow turned, so they were facing the Shonen Maru's projected path, at which point they held station, possibly intending to throw things at the Shonen Maru as it passed them. At that point, the Shonen Maru turns so that the Ady Gil is now directly in its path, the Ady Gil tries to escape by moving forward, which the Shonen Maru makes impossible by turning back in the other direction to keep them directly ahead. That's what it looks like to me, based on the combination of the two videos posted.

The Shonen Maru shows a lot of manoeuvrability in the video shot from the other boat, and the Ady Gil was sitting still in the water, which makes it not very manoeuvrable.

They went looking to harass the whalers, not to sink them.

I've heard a lot of talk about drag lines being used by the Sea Shepherd people to foul anchors. Has any whaler boat ever actually been disabled by such a tactic? Is there actual evidence that these drag lines have been used, or is it just claims?

The video above with the interview with someone from the Sea Shepherd person has him saying that they were out trying to foul the propeller. What would happen to a ship that was disabled like that in high seas?

It is truly bizarre hyperbole to describe either of those collisions as an attempt to "sink" the ships. It's like describing someone TP-ing your house as engaged in "aerial bombardment." Both collisions resulted in exactly the amount of damage you'd expect--some badly scraped paint and, at most, a couple of bent davits. The fact that those who want to excuse attempted murder on the part of the skipper of the Shonan Maru keep resorting to absurd exaggerations doesn't say much for the strength of their case.

The Shonan Maru clearly had nothing further to fear from the Ady Gil at the time of the collision. The Ady Gil had allowed them to pass and was stopped in the water. The crew of the Ady Gil had called it a day and were talking about returning home to refuel. The Shonan Maru turned around and came seeking them out. Whether the skipper just went mad and decided to try to kill as many of the crew as he could or if he just thought he'd try to give them a good scare his actions were clearly criminal.

And yes, the actions of the boats in your two videos are clearly criminal as well--but they threatened nobody's life. You are comparing vandalism to attempted murder and trying to draw a moral equivalence.

I believe that the video shows two different Japanese ships. I don't think it was the Shonan Maru that was alongside the boat.

And I'm not sure that the Shonun Maru delibertly rammed the ship. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but there was a fairly significant sea state going on and I think the Shonun Maru was trying to get really close to the boat and got pushed into it by the swell. My opinion. But a ship of that size isn't that maneuverable at speed and in close quarters.

The Ady Gil was much more maneuverable and should have been able to get out of the way.

If you live by the sword...

 

[Yoink]

The video above with the interview with someone from the Sea Shepherd person has him saying that they were out trying to foul the propeller. What would happen to a ship that was disabled like that in high seas?

That's not particularly rough sea they're in there. And the idea that a ship that temporarily loses propulsion is DOOMED to go down to Davy Jones's Locker is one of the typical pieces of ridiculous hyperbole that people who want to excuse the Shonan Maru have peddled. Ship's have mechanical problems of one kind of another every day all over the world; it's exceedingly rare for it to lead to disaster.

I believe that the video shows two different Japanese ships. I don't think it was the Shonan Maru that was alongside the boat.

You might be right, I'm not sure. Even if you are, the Ady Gil was quite clearly done for the day and not bothering anyone at the time of the collision. The Shonan Maru 2 went hunting for it and ran it down.

And I'm not sure that the Shonun Maru delibertly rammed the ship. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but there was a fairly significant sea state going on and I think the Shonun Maru was trying to get really close to the boat and got pushed into it by the swell. My opinion. But a ship of that size isn't that maneuverable at speed and in close quarters.

The Ady Gil was much more maneuverable and should have been able to get out of the way.

If you live by the sword...

The Shonan Maru is only 50 meters long. That's really not as big as you seem to think. It's basically twice the length of the Ady Gil. We're not talking about some kind of supertanker. As for your idea that she was shunted into the Ady Gil by a wave (funny how she goes from being an unmaneuverable behemoth to being a cork on the waves)...the video contradicts that. Look at the way the Shonan Maru is heeling as she swings around towards the Ady Gil. She heels away from the direction of the turn. That's the way a boat her size reacts to having the helm swung hard over (the opposite of a little motorboat which will lean into the turn). If a wave was pushing her towards the Ady Gil it would have to have come from the side towards which the ship is leaning. That'd be a mighty funny way for a ship to react to a wave as it pushes her around. Ships don't lean into waves, they lean away from them. QED.

And yes, the Ady Gil should have been able to get out of the way. They could have started backing off as soon as the Shonan Maru started to head towards them. Obviously they made a bad decision in holding their ground--obviously assuming that the Shonan Maru skipper was planning to buzz past them. That doesn't absolve the Shonan Maru skipper from his act of deliberately steering his ship into the Ady Gil, however. If I'm out in my car and decide to swerve towards a pedestrian on the sidewalk, it's no excuse for my actions if the pedestrian stands still thinking "oh, he'll swerve away at the last minute" rather than running to safety at the first sign of danger.

 

[dudalb]

No. The right to self defence.

And putting the victim on the same level as the aggresor is really,really,stupid anyway.

 

[dudalb]

Something needs to be pointed out here folks. Sea Sheppard foul propellers and screw with equipment, yes. But that's the least of what they do, and I think we need to focus on the extreme end of their actions.

Sea Sheppard ships have, on countless occasions, deliberately rammed other ships, in a clear attempt to sink those ships.



The above is footage of the MV Steve Irwin quite clearly and deliberately turning into the Yushin Maru No.3 and ramming it.

Here's more footage of another deliberate ramming by a Sea Sheppard ship against a Japanese ship.



Note that the Sea Sheppard ship flies a Jolly Roger from its bow. Under International Maritime Law any ship flying a Jolly Roger is considered to be broadcast its intent to partake in piracy, and immediately loses any rights or protections under International Maritime Law. Any other ship may essentially whatever they like with said Pirate vessel.

Given the track record of Sea Sheppard deliberately ramming other vessels and officially displaying an intent to piracy, I think it is only wise that any ship in international waters should presume them to be a hostile vessel. Sea Sheppard ships, therefore, should probably be attacked and disabled at any opportunity.

They are pirates, criminals, and attempted murderers, plain and simple, and they deserve no protection.

And for the record, I am strongly opposed to what the Japanese ships are doing. But I cannot find fault with them even if they did deliberately ram the ship. Were I captain of a vessel on the open seas, and I charged with protection of a fleet of fishing ships, and I to encounter a pirate ship, I would ram it too if I thought my own vessel would not be endangered.

I think the term Terrorists needs to be applied here, much as it does to the Earth First morons in the USA.
And the Irony is I think they hurt their cause a lot more then they help it.

 

[Dragoonster]

These situations are not analogous, they are not equivalent, they are certainly not equal.

You are suggesting that it's okay to run over a kid on a skateboard who's taunting you because his dad sideswiped your car.

For this analogy to fit, you'd first have had to try to have the dad arrested but the police would refuse. In fact, there'd be no law at all, either to arrest him, or you if you were to retaliate. The dad wouldn't have sideswiped your car once, but multiple times. He would've totalled other cars and expressed a desire to total yours, even with you in it. He's also only one of an organization that has the same goal. Imagine this happens every time you go out for a drive. One day you see a member of the organization on a skateboard (let's leave the age component out of it), and he's maneuvering in front of you, perhaps in an effort to delay you until his cohorts with cars arrive. You know they will never stop trying to destroy your car or killing you, and no law will ever stop them; in fact other neighbors give them safe haven. It would make perfect sense to run him down in that case and be entirely justiable (imo).

And it made sense for the SM2 captain to run down the Ady. A great opportunity to cause serious damage to a terrorist organization bent on your destruction. The idea that it's bad simply because the Ady was a soft target is nonsense--that's exactly why it was a good thing to do.

Also, that the Sea Shephard organization is largely incompetent, either at ramming or prop-fouling, doesn't mean they're a wacky group of misfits. Their intent is to destroy the Japanese whaling expeditions, and one of the publicly-expressed methods is destruction/disabling of their ships. The whalers don't have to wait until the Sea Shephard people are succesful in ramming one of their vessels to the point of sinking before they in defense ram one of the Sea Shephard's to the point of sinking. If the Sea Shephard people don't like this but still want to continue their tactics and goals, they should get bigger boats.

 

[Yoink]

For this analogy to fit, you'd first have had to try to have the dad arrested but the police would refuse. In fact, there'd be no law at all, either to arrest him, or you if you were to retaliate. The dad wouldn't have sideswiped your car once, but multiple times. He would've totalled other cars and expressed a desire to total yours, even with you in it. He's also only one of an organization that has the same goal. Imagine this happens every time you go out for a drive. One day you see a member of the organization on a skateboard (let's leave the age component out of it), and he's maneuvering in front of you, perhaps in an effort to delay you until his cohorts with cars arrive. You know they will never stop trying to destroy your car or killing you, and no law will ever stop them; in fact other neighbors give them safe haven. It would make perfect sense to run him down in that case and be entirely justiable (imo).

And it made sense for the SM2 captain to run down the Ady. A great opportunity to cause serious damage to a terrorist organization bent on your destruction. The idea that it's bad simply because the Ady was a soft target is nonsense--that's exactly why it was a good thing to do.

Also, that the Sea Shephard organization is largely incompetent, either at ramming or prop-fouling, doesn't mean they're a wacky group of misfits. Their intent is to destroy the Japanese whaling expeditions, and one of the publicly-expressed methods is destruction/disabling of their ships. The whalers don't have to wait until the Sea Shephard people are succesful in ramming one of their vessels to the point of sinking before they in defense ram one of the Sea Shephard's to the point of sinking. If the Sea Shephard people don't like this but still want to continue their tactics and goals, they should get bigger boats.

Your analogy was running along nicely until you suddenly realized that it was still going to leave 'running over the skateboarder' as an act of utterly unjustified murder. So then you decided to throw in they're trying to KILL you and they'll NEVER stop unless you take action NOW!!!. The problem with that claim is that it has been utterly unsupported in this thread, and is clearly and explicitly false with regard to the actions of the Ady Gil in this case.

We have precisely 0 documented instances in this thread of the Sea Shepherds trying to kill anybody or even taking actions that could in any reasonable likelihood be expected to endanger someone's life. There's been plenty of evidence of wanton vandalism and other criminal behavior, but absolutely nothing to back up this fantastic idea that it would somehow have been reasonable for the skipper of the Shonan Maru to think "it's them or me!"

Particularly in this case, the Ady Gil was sitting in the water doing nothing whatsoever to impede the operations of any vessel.

So the analogy is that you live next door to an incredibly annoying kid who is always keying your car and one day you see him out on his skateboard and decide to run him over--and by sheer good luck he happens to survive the incident. The kid may be a horrible little turd, but you still didn't have the right to try to solve the problem by trying to kill him.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

We have precisely 0 documented instances in this thread of the Sea Shepherds trying to kill anybody or even taking actions that could in any reasonable likelihood be expected to endanger someone's life.

I don't buy this for a second. It's documented that they've deliberately rammed other ships. The argument against that seems to be, "Well, the ships were about the same size, so they weren't really trying to kill anyone," which strikes me as bizarre. Yes, I get that a larger ship ramming a smaller one is more dangerous. But I find it hard to believe that there is no danger of serious injury or death when one ship deliberately rams another in the middle of the ocean.

I agree it is not justification to go ramming another ship, even if it is the Sea Shepherds. But I don't think the concern is all that exaggerated.

 

[Dragoonster]

Your analogy was running along nicely until you suddenly realized that it was still going to leave 'running over the skateboarder' as an act of utterly unjustified murder. So then you decided to throw in they're trying to KILL you and they'll NEVER stop unless you take action NOW!!!. The problem with that claim is that it has been utterly unsupported in this thread, and is clearly and explicitly false with regard to the actions of the Ady Gil in this case.

We have precisely 0 documented instances in this thread of the Sea Shepherds trying to kill anybody or even taking actions that could in any reasonable likelihood be expected to endanger someone's life. There's been plenty of evidence of wanton vandalism and other criminal behavior, but absolutely nothing to back up this fantastic idea that it would somehow have been reasonable for the skipper of the Shonan Maru to think "it's them or me!"

Particularly in this case, the Ady Gil was sitting in the water doing nothing whatsoever to impede the operations of any vessel.

So the analogy is that you live next door to an incredibly annoying kid who is always keying your car and one day you see him out on his skateboard and decide to run him over--and by sheer good luck he happens to survive the incident. The kid may be a horrible little turd, but you still didn't have the right to try to solve the problem by trying to kill him.

Well, I'm no expert but I've watched a lot of Whale Wars, and Watson expresses a desire to sink whalers (I think he said "send them to the bottom fo the sea, ideally" or somesuch, I'll try to locate a quote), which would assuredly lead to death. Maybe it was just bluster, but I don't think the benefit of the doubt should be given to him and not who he's threatening. I'll take your word earlier about how being without a prop doesn't mean a high likelihood of death, but prop-fouling (attempts of which I watched on Whale Wars) strikes me as far more than vandalism. And yes, they have rammed ships, albeit not succesfully due to incompetence or not having a heavy enough ship. And apparently have sunk vessels in port.

And again, I'd rather the "kid" part of that analogy be ignored. Everyone in the organization are adults, and each can presumably crew a different ship at different times, they're interchanegeable. I.E. Watson's personal crew, if the "dad", has equal motivations and desires as the Ady crew, they only have a different momentary capability. Destroying the Ady means a less efficient effect of their larger vessels, and being frank--if the crew is killed, less members to pull from for various operations. And calling them "kids" implies they're wacky goofballs just out for some fun hijinks. I disagree.

What do you think is the true maximum danger Sea Shephard represents to Japanese whalers? And what do you think the response should be when an organization repeatedly rams your vessels, tosses chemicals on your boats, boards your boats, and attempts to foul your propellers, and there are no legal avenues to turn to? What would you do--if not in this specific incident, but as a larger strategy to defend your vessels against this?

 

[Farencue]

http://www.news.com.au/national/ady-gil-promises-to-rebuild-sea-shepherds-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225817540187

It is interesting how far Greenpeace are willing to go in the name of their cause.
Apparently Bob Brown of the Greens has sent the bill for the Ady Gil to the Japanese government.
I don't donate to these clowns anymore, they obviously have backers with money to burn.

 

[Yoink]

I don't buy this for a second. It's documented that they've deliberately rammed other ships. The argument against that seems to be, "Well, the ships were about the same size, so they weren't really trying to kill anyone," which strikes me as bizarre. Yes, I get that a larger ship ramming a smaller one is more dangerous. But I find it hard to believe that there is no danger of serious injury or death when one ship deliberately rams another in the middle of the ocean.

I agree it is not justification to go ramming another ship, even if it is the Sea Shepherds. But I don't think the concern is all that exaggerated.

It's documented that they used their boats to hit other boats. The incidents are caught on video. They show the Sea Shepherd vessel coming alongside the other vessel and then veering into it. That is not "ramming" as most people would understand the term. If their desire was to attempt to sink the vessel they were colliding with they chose a tactic which could not possibly achieve that end (unless the other vessel had strapped some explosive device to its hull which the action would trigger). Two 50-odd meter vessels coming together in a gentle vee collision is not a recipe for sinking. It's not even a recipe for doing much damage (as the videos show). Have a look at the hand held video camera on the Japanese vessel at the moment of impact. There isn't even all that much of a jolt as the two vessels gently come together. Both vessels will endure far rougher assaults from the actions of waves and ice floes than they suffered in these pissant collisions.

If there is evidence of them actually endangering people's lives I find it surprising that it hasn't been presented in this thread. I don't claim to know enough about them to say that they've never done, but I do know enough about ships and the sea to know that the evidence presented so far doesn't come close.

 

[gumboot]

We have precisely 0 documented instances in this thread of the Sea Shepherds trying to kill anybody or even taking actions that could in any reasonable likelihood be expected to endanger someone's life. There's been plenty of evidence of wanton vandalism and other criminal behavior, but absolutely nothing to back up this fantastic idea that it would somehow have been reasonable for the skipper of the Shonan Maru to think "it's them or me!"

I personally provided two clear examples of large Sea Shepherd ships deliberately ramming other ships. There is no way any sane person could say that there's no likelihood of that endangering anyone's life.

 

[lionking]

http://www.news.com.au/national/ady...a-shepherds-boat/story-e6frfkvr-1225817540187

It is interesting how far Greenpeace are willing to go in the name of their cause.
Apparently Bob Brown of the Greens has sent the bill for the Ady Gil to the Japanese government.
I don't donate to these clowns anymore, they obviously have backers with money to burn.

Bob Brown's support for the Sea Shepherd thugs is well documented. Apart from a few inner urban areas, the Greens are irrevelent, and the sooner the general public realises it the better.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It's documented that they used their boats to hit other boats. The incidents are caught on video. They show the Sea Shepherd vessel coming alongside the other vessel and then veering into it. That is not "ramming" as most people would understand the term.

Uh what??? That sure is ramming as I would understand the term.

If their desire was to attempt to sink the vessel they were colliding with they chose a tactic which could not possibly achieve that end (unless the other vessel had strapped some explosive device to its hull which the action would trigger). Two 50-odd meter vessels coming together in a gentle vee collision is not a recipe for sinking. It's not even a recipe for doing much damage (as the videos show). Have a look at the hand held video camera on the Japanese vessel at the moment of impact. There isn't even all that much of a jolt as the two vessels gently come together. Both vessels will endure far rougher assaults from the actions of waves and ice floes than they suffered in these pissant collisions.

That nobody got hurt that time doesn't mean nobody could have gotten hurt. Nobody was killed in this incident either, so clearly the Shonan Maru rammed them in a nice and safe way, right?

If there is evidence of them actually endangering people's lives I find it surprising that it hasn't been presented in this thread. I don't claim to know enough about them to say that they've never done, but I do know enough about ships and the sea to know that the evidence presented so far doesn't come close.

It has been, you're just downplaying it by suggesting that there really isn't anything dangerous about ships colliding with one another.

The Sea Shepherds don't just ram other ships, by the way. They've rigged a huge blade that they call "the can opener" onto the side of their ship. You can see it clearly in this article. Third picture down.

Incidentally, here is an article from The New Yorker in 2007:

Watson believes in coercive conservation, and for several decades he has been using his private navy to ram whaling and fishing vessels on the high seas. Ramming is his signature tactic, and it is what he and his crew intended to do to the Japanese fleet, if they could find it.

Sounds like "ramming" is indeed what he is doing by most definitions of the term.

 

[Farencue]

Bob Brown's support for the Sea Shepherd thugs is well documented. Apart from a few inner urban areas, the Greens are irrevelent, and the sooner the general public realises it the better.

Couldn't agree more - Bob Brown earned my contempt when he overturned the Euthanasia Bill, but that's for another thread.

 

[Yoink]

Well, I'm no expert but I've watched a lot of Whale Wars, and Watson expresses a desire to sink whalers (I think he said "send them to the bottom fo the sea, ideally" or somesuch, I'll try to locate a quote), which would assuredly lead to death.

Produce the quotation and the context and then we can talk. Even if your half-memory is correct he could have been talking simply metaphorically, or talking about the scuppering of ships in harbor that they've done (which, again, is vandalism, but is not an attempt to kill anyone). But even if he had said his ultimate goal was to sink ships while at sea with people aboard them (and, frankly, if he had said that I think that quotation would be pretty easy to find because it would be pretty notorious), that isn't an excuse to sink a vessel which posed no threat and could pose no threat of such an action.

Maybe it was just bluster, but I don't think the benefit of the doubt should be given to him and not who he's threatening. I'll take your word earlier about how being without a prop doesn't mean a high likelihood of death, but prop-fouling (attempts of which I watched on Whale Wars) strikes me as far more than vandalism. And yes, they have rammed ships, albeit not succesfully due to incompetence or not having a heavy enough ship. And apparently have sunk vessels in port.

"Far more than vandalism" why? Ships foul their props all the time. The world's oceans are full of lost fishing nets and long-lines and who knows what all. This bizarre notion that a fouled prop is some sort of death sentence is a pure figment of the imaginations of the posters in this thread. If the Ady Gil succeeded in fouling one of the whaling boat's props the net result would be a few hours of lost time while they set about repairing the problem (probably by sending a diver down to cut the line free). I suppose you could try to dream up some sort of bizarre scenario in which the prop gets fouled and then suddenly, out of nowhere, a huge storm brews up and then a rogue wave comes along and rolls the poor defenceless ship. But if you are picturing a wave big enough to capsize a 50 meter whaling vessel and thinking that it would be able to keep safe just by keeping its nose aimed at the wave, you're dreaming.

And again, I'd rather the "kid" part of that analogy be ignored. Everyone in the organization are adults, and each can presumably crew a different ship at different times, they're interchanegeable. I.E. Watson's personal crew, if the "dad", has equal motivations and desires as the Ady crew, they only have a different momentary capability. Destroying the Ady means a less efficient effect of their larger vessels, and being frank--if the crew is killed, less members to pull from for various operations. And calling them "kids" implies they're wacky goofballs just out for some fun hijinks. I disagree.

Great, change it to "you have an annoying adult neighbour who keeps keying your car and then one day you see him on the sidewalk and decide to run him over." I don't see that it looks all that much better. It still means that you're responding to property damage with attempted murder.

What do you think is the true maximum danger Sea Shephard represents to Japanese whalers?

From the evidence presented here (and I've done no separate research into this), broken equipment and lost time. I've seen no documentation whatsoever of any attempt to cause physical injury (oh, other than temporary dazzling with a laser pointer--which I hope no one will try to parlay into "piracy" or "terrorism.")

And what do you think the response should be when an organization repeatedly rams your vessels, tosses chemicals on your boats, boards your boats, and attempts to foul your propellers, and there are no legal avenues to turn to? What would you do--if not in this specific incident, but as a larger strategy to defend your vessels against this?

I think there are all sorts of responses you might make. Having vessels fire water cannons and play loud noises at the Sea Shepherd vessels seems entirely fair enough, for example. Attempting to murder people because they threaten to cost you money, however, does not strike me as reasonable. I guess I'm wacky that way.

 

[gumboot]

If there is evidence of them actually endangering people's lives I find it surprising that it hasn't been presented in this thread. I don't claim to know enough about them to say that they've never done, but I do know enough about ships and the sea to know that the evidence presented so far doesn't come close.

What about attaching a limpet mine to a ship they'd already rammed, and blowing a hole in it, causing it to sink?

What about pouring petrol on police vessels going about their lawful duty, and then attempting to use signal flares to set the petrol alight?

What about the President of Sea Shepherd leaving in 1991 in protest because he felt it was not right for them to be harming people?

What about deliberately firing on whaling vessels, as they did in 1993, as documented on the TV documentary "Defenders Of The Wild - Ocean Rider"?

The fact is this group has a very, very long history of violence and disregard for the lives of others.

 

[gumboot]

But even if he had said his ultimate goal was to sink ships while at sea with people aboard them (and, frankly, if he had said that I think that quotation would be pretty easy to find because it would be pretty notorious), that isn't an excuse to sink a vessel which posed no threat and could pose no threat of such an action.

If you are being attacked by a collective group, and believe that collective group poses a real threat, every single vessel belonging to that group is a threat, not just the ones that might directly ram your vessel.

The group themselves claim to have sunk many ships, some of them at sea. In both Whale Wars and previous documentaries about the group, they openly discuss and attempt to ram ships, as well as fire at them (Sea Sheppard ships carry firearms amongst their other weapons).

At the very least their attacks on Faroese police attempting to board their ship (because they refused to leave Faroese territorial waters) is a clear-cut case of attempting to murder officers of the law.