Inevitable?

[arthwollipot]

Your second paragraph - is it connected with the other two? Are you referring to the Ady Gil at the scene of the incident? They'd be much more than negligent to allow a boat like that to run completely out of fuel and be idled while carrying on their tactics. This is the first I've heard that they might have been unable, rather than just unwilling or unprepared, to move.

Also, someone noted that they did actually remove what amounts to a small amount of fuel from the wreckage before it sank. I know nothing about sailing, but I would expect that for a 12,000 litre tank, 400l would easily be around the "stop to refuel" point. But yes, 400l might be enough if they had the time to power up and get moving before the ship hit them.

EDT: Saw your retraction lower down. Ignore me.

Not a retraction, exactly - the guy still did say that the Ady Gil had stopped to refuel and couldn't get out of the way. But like I said, if she were out of fuel, why aren't Sea Shepherd shouting this all over the news? "They ran over an immobile ship! Their actions were deliberate and premeditated! We win!"

 

[shadron]

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

That may have been what you see. "A bit of judder" is, of course, what the passengers on board the Titanic felt one night. The forces that are made available by two vessels of that size colliding are way beyond a little judder. The ones depicted show little problems, but they could well have broken or bent structural members in either craft that could have well been an early cause to a failure hat might have killed either ship. I understand that the SS vessel is a converted ice breaker with additional concrete poured into the nose; it might as well be a huge, slow speed cannon. More or less equivalent collisions with other ships haven't worked out as well:

 

[Burning Beard]

That will have the Japanese quaking in their boots.

Hahahaha, true.

I think the our Army, Navy and Airforce all share the one pistol.

 

[theprestige]

I simply don't think a group that includes explanations of how to make sure that a ship is unoccupied before scuttling it belongs in the same category as the Al Qaeda and the Somali pirates that the US military killed.

I have a firm belief that words have meanings, and characterizing them as 'terrorists' and 'pirates' makes those words lose the meanings that they typically have. Maybe 'saboteurs' would be better, as that word reasonably describes their actions, neh?

And yet apparently sabotage on the high seas makes one a pirate (or "enemy of humanity", if you like): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5499979#post5499979

Actions have meanings, too. Given Sea Shepherd's stated mission, and their established MO, what is it that you believe entitles them to set the terms of engagement or determine the limits of escalation?

Although, the more I think about it, I'm not sure what your problem is, even by your own definitions. So the Sea Shepherd is a saboteur organization. Alright, fine: You're not arguing that saboteurs should be exempt from sabotage themselves, are you? And you're not arguing that the same laws of the sea that give Sea Shepherd the privilege of committing acts of sabotage prohibit their intended victims from engaging in sabotage as well, are you? So then, consider sinking the Ady Gil as an act of sabotage, every bit as legitimate as any act of sabotage ever committed by Sea Shepherd.

As for risk to human life, Sea Shepherd puts lives at risk with every act of sabotage they commit. Sure, they take precautions, but precautions don't eliminate risk. Policemen sometimes shoot innocent people. Firefighters don't always come out of the burning buildings they rush into. Warfare includes collateral damage and friendly fire incidents.

Sea Shepherd has chosen to play a risky game, and they've forced other people to play the game with them. Why should those people play that game by Sea Shepherd's rules? Why should those people--who would prefer not to play Sea Shepherd's game at all--keep the risk level within Sea Shepherd's comfort zone, or keep attrition to a level Sea Shepherd can sustain? Why should Sea Shepherd be entitled to sail the seas, proclaiming, "this much sabotage, and no more"?

 

[WildCat]

Why weren't Paul Watson and his crew arrested years ago?

 

[GreyICE]

And yet apparently sabotage on the high seas makes one a pirate (or "enemy of humanity", if you like): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5499979#post5499979

Actions have meanings, too. Given Sea Shepherd's stated mission, and their established MO, what is it that you believe entitles them to set the terms of engagement or determine the limits of escalation?

Although, the more I think about it, I'm not sure what your problem is, even by your own definitions. So the Sea Shepherd is a saboteur organization. Alright, fine: You're not arguing that saboteurs should be exempt from sabotage themselves, are you? And you're not arguing that the same laws of the sea that give Sea Shepherd the privilege of committing acts of sabotage prohibit their intended victims from engaging in sabotage as well, are you? So then, consider sinking the Ady Gil as an act of sabotage, every bit as legitimate as any act of sabotage ever committed by Sea Shepherd.

As for risk to human life, Sea Shepherd puts lives at risk with every act of sabotage they commit. Sure, they take precautions, but precautions don't eliminate risk. Policemen sometimes shoot innocent people. Firefighters don't always come out of the burning buildings they rush into. Warfare includes collateral damage and friendly fire incidents.

Sea Shepherd has chosen to play a risky game, and they've forced other people to play the game with them. Why should those people play that game by Sea Shepherd's rules? Why should those people--who would prefer not to play Sea Shepherd's game at all--keep the risk level within Sea Shepherd's comfort zone, or keep attrition to a level Sea Shepherd can sustain? Why should Sea Shepherd be entitled to sail the seas, proclaiming, "this much sabotage, and no more"?

You've conflated three things, and built one strawman. Lets try to tease them apart, to see what you're talking about.

First, the idea that I was suggesting that the whalers must remain in Sea Shepherd's comfort zone. I didn't say that. It's a strawman, it's discarded.

Okay, now we can move on. First, you've asked whether Sea Shepherd can determine the limits of engagement. They cannot. However, you are implicitly acknowledging here that they exist. Unless we are really going to go the '.50 caliber machine gun' route. And actually even then. Engagements have limits, this is a fact in the modern world.

So do the engagement limits include deliberate ramming? Questionable. I would say that they do. Deliberate ramming at low speed, enough to disable/destroy the ship while giving the people on board enough time to react (thanks to proximity alarms and the like) is exactly the limits Sea Shepherd likes to play in. So to answer your question, I believe it is within the defined limits of this engagement. Suggestions in this thread like 'use the main gun of an M1 Abrams on Sea Shepherd' are retardedly out of bounds.

The second is the question of risk of human life. The answer to this one is rather a tad more complicated. Certainly their actions put lives at risk. So do yours. Do you drive? Congratulations. Statistically, you're putting lives at risk. More drivers = more deaths from driving. You put lives at risk every day. Own a dog? Lives at risk. Protest with signs in the street? Lives at risk. Serve food that contains nuts? Lives at risk.

Obviously lives at risk makes a great emotional slogan, very loaded, very charged. Good thing to shout at a rally, or try and convince a middle school kid. Wonderful rallying phrase. But it's a lousy argument, and it doesn't really stand up. Sea Shepherd doesn't kill people, their goal is to avoid killing people. Their goal is property destruction. A crime? Yes. As major? Obviously not. You do not think so either.

So it really boils down to they destroy property. Very well. This is not a capital crime.

Finally your idea that these are Sea Shepherd's rules. They are not. But seriously, one should accurately define the situation. It is not terrorism, it is not piracy.

 

[gumboot]

The boat was out of fuel. They were sitting dead in the water, waiting for their support vessel to arrive. They couldn't have got out of the way if they'd tried

No it wasn't. It was underway, albeit slowly. You can hear the engine on the video, and moments before impact it suddenly increased its throttle (I'm guessing to back away from the oncoming ship). The Ady Gil has a range of up to 13,000km. There's no way it was out of fuel.

Sea Sheppard also stated themselves that they emptied the ship of fuel before abandoning it (in response to the Japanese claim that the decision to abandon the ship was bad because it was leaking fuel).

 

[Farencue]

Why weren't Paul Watson and his crew arrested years ago?

He has been arrested a few times, just not convicted unfortunately.
Interesting to note he has been denied an Australian visa also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson

 

[Beerina]

I don't give a darn whose fault it is. That was the Ady Gil. Used to be Earthrace.

Trashing this boat is a tragedy.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Earthrace-2.jpg/300px-Earthrace-2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Ady_Gil_1.jpg/180px-Ady_Gil_1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Ady_Gil_2.jpg/180px-Ady_Gil_2.jpg[/qimg]

Speed Racer shouldn't be surprised if someone slashes his tires because he was hanging around in a bad neighborhood.

 

[luchog]

Or maybe they're not acting like pirates?

Or maybe they're at least smart enough to know that doing so would lose them the little bit of plausible deniability they have left; and result in their being hunted as pirates and terrorists both on the high seas and in what few ports still allow them to dock. Even getting caught attempting to purchase such weaponry, which is effectively illegal everywhere outside the Third World, would result in their being targetted by every First World naval law enforcement and military agency in the world. Not to mention whaling fleets hiring mercenaries to blow them out of the water should they approach within RPG range. The US would certainly immediately revoke their charitable status, and seize all US-based assets; while placing them on the terrorist watch list.

Given their stated aims, it's only their failing to engage in this sort of wholesale destruction of life and property that enables them to enter any port without being immediately targetted by law enforcement and coast guard patrols. I don't think they're stupid enough to get themselves banned from what few ports still allow them in; and the Japanese and Russian whalers would not fail to take proactive steps should they indicate their intention to escalate their attacks to this degree.

Given their stated philosophy and goals, I believe it's simple pragmatism that's prevented them from doing this, nothing else.

 

[GreyICE]

*snipped conjecture and speculation*

Ah, mind reading. I suppose Randi will shortly be out one million.

 

[Ravenwood]

So it really boils down to they destroy property. Very well. This is not a capital crime.

Finally your idea that these are Sea Shepherd's rules. They are not. But seriously, one should accurately define the situation. It is not terrorism, it is not piracy.

I would argue that the use of blinding lasers by the Sea Shephard crew is more than just property damage or harassment...(not to mention illegal in Australia, since they like to point out that they are in Australian waters.) IMO, they are risking taking this to another level, as there are much more powerful optical weapons available, and I would be very surprised if in light of their little stunt, that the ICS does not outfit their vessels with those devices.

 

[dudalb]

And last time I looked causing property damage and harassment were against the law as well.
I love the way people can justify criminal activity if it is done in the name of an ideology they agree with.

 

[luchog]

Ah, mind reading. I suppose Randi will shortly be out one million.

Cavalier dismissal is not a refutation. Show me how anything I've said is not a logical induction from the history and documented words of the Sea Shepherd organization and leaders.

 

[theprestige]

Cavalier dismissal is not a refutation. Show me how anything I've said is not a logical induction from the history and documented words of the Sea Shepherd organization and leaders.

Nothing you've said is consistent with GreyICE's predetermined conclusion. Q.E.D.

ETA: I mean, GreyICE's predetermined conclusion that Sea Shepherd is not a pirate organization because it doesn't use firearms to sink ships, damage property, and put human lives at risk. Sure, it does all those things, but without specifically using RPGs and machine guns, none of that could possibly be piracy.

 

[Ravenwood]

International convention would say otherwise.
From Wikipedia:
In the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, "maritime piracy" consists of:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

 

[GreyICE]

Cavalier dismissal is not a refutation. Show me how anything I've said is not a logical induction from the history and documented words of the Sea Shepherd organization and leaders.

#
# Sea Shepherd adheres to the utilization of non-violent principles in the course of all actions and has taken a standard against violence in the protection of the oceans.

http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html

Well that took five seconds.

Tell me why I should listen to the hysterical wailing of the big-military, big-government wing of the conservative church, convinced that we are surrounded by terrorists who should eat us in our bed, and our only protection is to shoot everyone who isn't working for a properly approved corporation?

P.S. Why do idiots keep on using words like 'justify?' I am pointing out that if we evaluate actions, we should do so rationally, and that means understanding what the actions are. Sadly, some people are so opposed to rational thinking that the suggestion that we actually evaluate actions is antithetical to them.

 

[Giz]

http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html

Well that took five seconds.

.

My English must not be as good as I thought it was. I didn't realize that ramming (and sinking) ships and throwing flasks of acid counted as "non-violent".

Bunch of self righteous posturing jolly roger flying vigilantes who do their cause a disservice.

 

[GreyICE]

My English must not be as good as I thought it was. I didn't realize that ramming (and sinking) ships and throwing flasks of acid counted as "non-violent".

Bunch of self righteous posturing jolly roger flying vigilantes who do their cause a disservice.

Throw acid? Perhaps you should clarify. This makes it sound like they are pitching hydrochloric acid about.

Butyric acid at the concentrations they use has one harmful property - it smells really, really bad.

Other than that, allow me to use at the acid throwing line.

This is what I mean. Individuals seem content to allow lies to slide because the lies are convenient and reinforce their position.

 

[Giz]

Throw acid? Perhaps you should clarify. This makes it sound like they are pitching hydrochloric acid about.

Butyric acid at the concentrations they use has one harmful property - it smells really, really bad.

Other than that, allow me to use at the acid throwing line.

This is what I mean. Individuals seem content to allow lies to slide because the lies are convenient and reinforce their position.

Not really a lie, is it? I mean you yourself just admitted that "they throw flasks of diluted acid" while my original was "they throw flasks of acid".

Tell you how I see it; rather than blaming folks like me for commenting unfavourably on sea sheppards thuggish activities you could try blaming sea shepperd for giving us stories to comment on… I mean, if they hadn't hurled stuff at other ships in the first place then we wouldn't be talking about how dilute the stuff they'd thrown was…


(Notice you ignored the "non-violent" ramming… perhaps it was a watered down ramming?)

(And I will accept your doubtless forthcoming apology to me in respect of your over wrought knee jerk accusation of lying. You're welcome.)