Inevitable?

[332nd]

I have to go, but I'll just address this.

If I gave you the choice of sitting on a boat like the Ady Gil while it got rammed by a 491 ton steel-hulled whaling vessel, or of standing on the deck of any one of the vessels we've seen "rammed" by Sea Shepherd vessels while they got rammed by a roughly-equivalently sized ship, which would you choose?

If you chose the former, you have a suicidal streak. If you chose the latter, you're in for a bit of a judder and then some leaning over. Horrors.

Well if we're going to make things up...

If someone gave you a choice of standing 40 meters away from them while they fire a Glock 30 at you, or 100 meters away with an unknown weapon what would you choose?

 

[Ravenwood]

Heck, Since we are talking about risks here, Yoink, I happen to have a 100Mw Green laser sitting here on my desk. Would you be willing to let me shine it in your eyes? I work in a shop w/lasers & our safety policy seems to be at odds with your idea of them harmlessly "dazzling" the target.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

So, these "Sea Shepherds" have boats named Steve Irwin and Bob Barker?

A guy that made a living by pestering animals until they tried to bite him and another guy who tells you to cut your dog's balls off?

Awesome. What's their other ship named? Karamojo Bell?

 

[Farencue]

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-091020-1.html

Due to its speed capabilities, up to 50 knots, Captain Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd President and Founder) intends to use the Ady Gil to intercept and physically block the harpoon ships from illegally slaughtering whales.

Says Captain Watson, “We’re very excited that the Ady Gil will be joining the Steve Irwin in Antarctica this campaign. With these two ships, we will mount the most ambitious and aggressive effort to date to obstruct the slaughter of the whales in the Southern Ocean.”

Says Chuck Swift, Deputy CEO in charge of ship’s operations, “The Ady Gil gives us the speed necessary to catch and stay with the Japanese whaling fleet. We are very optimistic that with these two ships, and some other surprises, we will shut down whaling in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.”

 

[Seismosaurus]

Frankly, after reading my thread my reaction to this is that I'm glad it happened, and I only wish the collision had been severe enough to sink the boat quicker and drown those on board. If it were me, I'd be mounting .50 cals on the whaling boats and hosing down anything that came near.

 

[theprestige]

It's piracy. Piracy for a good cause, if you like, but still piracy.

My respect and support for Sea Shepherd waits on two things: First, that they show even the slightest amount of competence. And second, that they show even the slightest willingness to admit that they are engaging in piracy and that they believe that being treated like pirates is a worthy sacrifice for their cause.

Behaving like pirates right up to the moment when they get properly treated like pirates, and then complaining that they're being unjustly persecuted, as if they were peaceful, law-abiding citizens, is just... lame.

 

[gumboot]

I raised it in relationship to one specific question: the question of the normal use of the word "ramming." I did not suggest that that kind of impact was in any way equivalent from the point of view of danger to the impact of two vessels hitting side-to-side. I was unaware that I was engaged in a discussion with people who were so utterly ignorant about the difference between the way boats move in the water and the way that cars move on the land that it would cause so much terrible, terrible confusion.

I was merely point out that your interpretation of the ramming, or nudge, or whatever you want to call it, was way off base. Those ships came together with quite a bit of force. No, I don't think an impact like that is going to tip a boat over or anything like that, but it can still cause substantial damage. The absorbing effect of water won't stop immediate damage to the hull at the point of impact because the water can't absorb that sort of impact as fast as it can rupture steel and so forth.

No one was injured in that instance, but someone could have easily been. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be standing anywhere near the point of impact. Would you?

Lastly, the second ramming gives you a clue to another threat that relates much more closely to the car-ramming scenario. This stuff is occuring in Antarctic waters, surrounded by icebergs. In the second ramming the Sea Shepherd vessel ended up running aground on an iceberg because of the ramming. It takes little imagination to see how ramming a vessel in this way could cause it to be pushed into, or to be unable to avoid, an iceberg, causing it to run aground, rip its hull open, or any number of catastrophic occurrences.

Unless you're going to argue that icebergs don't pose a real danger to ships?

 

[Dragoonster]

Behaving like pirates right up to the moment when they get properly treated like pirates, and then complaining that they're being unjustly persecuted, as if they were peaceful, law-abiding citizens, is just... lame.

Yes, a good example is when, after tossing some stink and slick on the same boat, they send two people over in a speedboat. Those guys jump off onto the whaler, ostensibly to deliver a letter from Watson to that captain demanding an end to illegal whaling. Then the Japanese detain them for two days before handing them over to an Aussie customs ship, and Sea Sheperd issues releases claiming they were "hostages".

I guess if I break into a house, smear feces on its walls, and the owner tackles me and ties me up until the cops come or I agree to not repeat the incident I should refer to myself as a hostage!

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-16-01.asp

The whalers said they would return the hostages in return for Sea Shepherd agreeing to no longer interfere with their whaling operations.

Watson said the Sea Shepherd "is not interested in any demands based on the holding of hostages."

"Using hostages to make demands is the hallmark of terrorism and Sea Shepherd has no interest in negotiating with terrorist groups," said Watson. "The hostages must be released unconditionally."

"The Institute of Cetacean Research is acting like a terrorist organization," said Steve Irwin's First Officer Peter Brown. "Here they are taking hostages and making demands. Our policy is that we don't respond to terrorist demands."

No, you just attack vessels and make demands yourself. What a bunch of hypocrites, who can't handle getting some of their own, just like in the ramming of the Ady. A bit more:

The Institute of Cetacean Research says the two Sea Shepherd activists "illegally" boarded the Yushin Maru No. 2 "after they made attempts to entangle the screw of the vessel using ropes and throwing bottles of acid onto the decks."

In photos released by the Institute, Japanese crew members on the Yushin Maru No. 2 can be seen spraying water from high pressure hoses at an inflatable vessel carrying the Sea Shepherd activists.

Minoru Morimoto, director general of the Institute, said the men have not been harmed and were taken to a secure room. "The two men are being held in an office," he said.

Watson said Tuesday that the two hostages had been tied to the whaler's radar mast.

"Any accusations that we have tied them up or assaulted them are completely untrue," Morimoto said. "It is illegal to board another country's vessels on the high seas. As a result, at this stage, they are being held in custody while decisions are made on their future."

 

[politas]

OK, so clearly, the question of whether the Shonen Maru's captain was justified in running down the Ady Gil is debatable. I will admit that some arguments on the whaler's side are quite persuasive. Others are not so persuasive.

Can we agree that, from the video evidence, it does seem to have been a deliberate ramming? Because that's a separate question as to the justification of such an action.

From my look at the videos, it looks pretty clearly like a deliberate ramming. And if you are arguing that the Shonen Maru was justified in ramming the Ady Gil, then it sounds a lot like you're accepting that the intent was to ram her.

 

[GreyICE]

It's piracy. Piracy for a good cause, if you like, but still piracy.

My respect and support for Sea Shepherd waits on two things: First, that they show even the slightest amount of competence. And second, that they show even the slightest willingness to admit that they are engaging in piracy and that they believe that being treated like pirates is a worthy sacrifice for their cause.

Behaving like pirates right up to the moment when they get properly treated like pirates, and then complaining that they're being unjustly persecuted, as if they were peaceful, law-abiding citizens, is just... lame.

Well hells, if you're pirates, why not act like pirates? Plenty of people on this thread are endorsing killing the Sea Shepherds, so why don't they just bring a few Rocket-Powered Grenades with them on their ship, and ACTUALLY solve the issue? An RPG-7 to the tush should end any whaling problems.

Or maybe they're not acting like pirates?

 

[gumboot]

Can we agree that, from the video evidence, it does seem to have been a deliberate ramming?

No, I can't agree on that at all. The ship appears to have maintained a constant course and speed at all times. The Ady Gil clearly initiated a sudden increase in thrust immediately prior to the collision, but it's unclear if that was forward thrust to put the boat in the path of the whaler, or reverse thrust to move it back. I suspect the latter.

My own suspicion is that both ships were playing a "chicken" game of getting as close to each other as they could without actually hitting, and they miscalculated and collided. There's a reason ships at sea are supposed to maintain a separation measured in miles.

But I'll await Maritime New Zealand's conclusions before I stick by any judgments.

 

[quadraginta]

OK, so clearly, the question of whether the Shonen Maru's captain was justified in running down the Ady Gil is debatable. I will admit that some arguments on the whaler's side are quite persuasive. Others are not so persuasive.

Can we agree that, from the video evidence, it does seem to have been a deliberate ramming? Because that's a separate question as to the justification of such an action.

From my look at the videos, it looks pretty clearly like a deliberate ramming. And if you are arguing that the Shonen Maru was justified in ramming the Ady Gil, then it sounds a lot like you're accepting that the intent was to ram her.

No, I can't agree on that at all. The ship appears to have maintained a constant course and speed at all times. The Ady Gil clearly initiated a sudden increase in thrust immediately prior to the collision, but it's unclear if that was forward thrust to put the boat in the path of the whaler, or reverse thrust to move it back. I suspect the latter.

My own suspicion is that both ships were playing a "chicken" game of getting as close to each other as they could without actually hitting, and they miscalculated and collided. There's a reason ships at sea are supposed to maintain a separation measured in miles.

But I'll await Maritime New Zealand's conclusions before I stick by any judgments.

To sum it up. "We're not gonna admit the Japs did on purpose, but if they did on purpose we're not gonna admit it was wrong."

 

[gumboot]

To sum it up. "We're not gonna admit the Japs did on purpose, but if they did on purpose we're not gonna admit it was wrong."

Um, no. Just because you're comfortable accusing people of wrongdoing without evidence doesn't mean others are.

 

[Seismosaurus]

"Admit" would imply that I think it was on purpose. I can't tell if the Japanese boat hit the pirates on purpose, or if it was the other way around, or if it was just an accident with a game of chicken gone a little too far.

As for the second part; if they did do it on purpose, I am not going to refuse to admit that it's wrong, I've flat out said that it's NOT wrong, and I wish they'd gone further.

 

[quadraginta]

Um, no. Just because you're comfortable accusing people of wrongdoing without evidence doesn't mean others are.

Um ...

Show me where I accused anybody "of wrongdoing without evidence".

While you are looking take note of the many places where I clearly and unequivically said that I was not yet convinced that the collision was intentional. I have said that I saw things in the videos which could lead me to that conclusion. I have also said that I was waiting for further information and had not yet made up my mind. Apparently the distinction between that and accusation is too much for you to encompass.

Are you actually reading this thread? Or are you just injecting broad statements of uninformed opinion?

 

[Dragoonster]

Looked deliberate to me. As to whether it was wrong--if the seas had any kind of policing or justice system it would be, because such a system would've stopped Sea Shepherd from attacking the whalers. But it has no system and vigilante terrorists have pretty free reign, so yeah, I'd say attempting to neutralize that threat (which I think is serious, not just hijinks) is justified, even if via killing people.

Sea Shepherd claims to be forced to act as police because there are none and they consider the whaling to be illegal; by that logic the whalers should also act as police against the Sea Shepherds' terrorism and attacks. So even if my opinion is wrong or immoral, it DOES seem to follow logically from the Sea Shepherd people themselves. They want to do whatever they want and stop at their own chosen threshholds--tossing bottles, ramming ships but supposedly in a nonlethal way. Yet they cry foul when the people they're attacking decide to raise the threshhold just a bit above what they're willing to do. They want a world that works as follows:

Illegally boarding a ship is okay--but detaining those who board it is "hostage-taking" and demands government intervention to get them released

Tossing bottles which can cause injury from glass shards or the slippery stuff it releases on decks is okay--but the Japanese tossing flash grenades at them is terrorism

Ramming a ship of a certain size at a certain angle is okay--but ramming a smaller ship at a different angle is attempted murder

 

[gumboot]

Um ...

Show me where I accused anybody "of wrongdoing without evidence".

Why would you use phrasing such as "admit wrongdoing" if you aren't even sure there is any? You can't admit something that isn't true.

Your post doesn't even make sense at all.

 

[quadraginta]

Why would you use phrasing such as "admit wrongdoing" if you aren't even sure there is any? You can't admit something that isn't true.

Your post doesn't even make sense at all.

Well, for one thing there was that "if" in the sentence. In boldface. Maybe you didn't notice that. It read like this ...

...but if they did on purpose we're not gonna admit it was wrong.

So it appears that I was right, and you're not actually reading, or perhaps your grasp of the language is impaired.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Well hells, if you're pirates, why not act like pirates? Plenty of people on this thread are endorsing killing the Sea Shepherds, so why don't they just bring a few Rocket-Powered Grenades with them on their ship, and ACTUALLY solve the issue? An RPG-7 to the tush should end any whaling problems.

Or maybe they're not acting like pirates?

By the same token, the whalers have weapons and equipment capable of killing whales. If they were to bring this gear to bear against the Sea Shepards, this situation would be over pretty quickly.

Or maybe the whalers aren't quite the ruthless murderers that the Sea Shepards are making them out to be, either.

 

[gumboot]

Well, for one thing there was that "if" in the sentence. In boldface. Maybe you didn't notice that.

I can read. My point stands. We're not saying we won't admit to something. We're saying there's nothing to admit to. That's rather a different point. I don't even know why we're arguing, since we seem to have the same position. Why did you even quote my remark at all?