Inevitable?

[theprestige]

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.)

Don't forget the non-violent intentional fouling of propellers. Or the non-violent scuttling of ships. Etc.

Hey, I wonder if fouling propellers counts as "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;"

I figure this brings us back to Square One: Sea Shepherd are pirates, and pirates properly get run over whenever the opportunity presents itself. For best results, Sea Shepherd should either be better pirates, or stop being pirates at all.

 

[David Wong]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[David Wong]

No sailor, certainly no blue water sailor can watch that video without seeing in their own mind's eye the hull of the Shonan Maru looming above them, and thinking about the icy water below. This isn't some kind of action movie, or a video game.

I probably can't express myself well about this. You either get it or you don't. Anyone who has spent much time handling small boats in big water will get it.

Do you mean handling small boats in big water and using them to try to harass, damage and endanger much bigger boats? I'm hoping anyone who engages in those practices "gets" that there's a really good chance they'll get sunk some day.

 

[dudalb]

Don't forget the non-violent intentional fouling of propellers. Or the non-violent scuttling of ships. Etc.

Hey, I wonder if fouling propellers counts as "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;"

I figure this brings us back to Square One: Sea Shepherd are pirates, and pirates properly get run over whenever the opportunity presents itself. For best results, Sea Shepherd should either be better pirates, or stop being pirates at all.

They Need to watch the Naval Sequences from "Ben Hur". Now THOSE pirates knew how to ram.....

 

[Ravenwood]

That's some interesting mental gymnastics...I really have a hard time seeing the use of class IIa laser devices intended to blind the target (powerful enough to be classified as a prohibited weapon in some countries) as "non-violent". Let's not forget their use of limpet mines...didn't the french get in a bit of trouble for using that tactic on Greenpeace?

 

[dudalb]

When Earth First, in the US, were bombing labs using animals for research, the PETA types tried to explain that since no one was hurt the bombings were "non violent".

 

[MikeMangum]

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?

So it isn't "terrorism terrorism"? Kinda like it wasn't "rape rape"?

Ok, Whoopi, if you say so.

 

[MikeMangum]

"Self-defence" does not include killing somebody because you think that maybe, later, they'll get off the harmless vessel they're currently on and get onto some other vessel and maybe cause you some possible harm then.

There is no possible way of describing what the Shonan Maru did to the Ady Gil as "self-defence."

If we were talking about somewhere on land, where there is a sovereign entity to which you can appeal for law enforcement, you would be correct.

 

[theprestige]

"Hi! We're Sea Shepherd! We're here to cause you trouble!"

"Not if we sink you first."

"You can't sink us! We're non-violent!"

"It's the high seas. We can do whatever we want."

"Nuh-uh!"

"Tell you what. Don't try to cause us any trouble, and we won't try to sink you."

"What if we only try to cause you a little bit of trouble?"

"What if you don't try to cause us any trouble at all?"

"Unacceptable. We're definitely going to cause you some trouble!"

"And we're definitely going to try to sink you."

"No fair!"

 

[Travis]

I can't figure out why the fishing vessels (they are not just against whaling, they have rammed all types of fishing vessels) don't just hire a security detachment. I mean some ex-military hotshots with a couple of M2 .50 calibers would quite things right fast.

 

[GreyICE]

So it isn't "terrorism terrorism"? Kinda like it wasn't "rape rape"?

Ok, Whoopi, if you say so.

Yes Mike. It's the sort of Terrorism where nobody got killed, nobody got hurt, no one tried to hurt anybody, and no one tried to kill anybody.

So in context of "Rape rape" it's the sort where the man and the woman didn't see eachother naked, didn't see eachother clothed, never met, but might have at some point seen a photograph of the other person.

It's about the same as if the Al Qaeda had showed up in NYC on 9/11 and thrown rotten eggs at the towers and broken a few windows.

But sure. 'Terrorism.' Can I get you a towel so you can dry off your shirt, those hysterics make quite a mess?

 

[gumboot]

Yes Mike. It's the sort of Terrorism where nobody got killed, nobody got hurt, no one tried to hurt anybody, and no one tried to kill anybody.

So in context of "Rape rape" it's the sort where the man and the woman didn't see eachother naked, didn't see eachother clothed, never met, but might have at some point seen a photograph of the other person.

It's about the same as if the Al Qaeda had showed up in NYC on 9/11 and thrown rotten eggs at the towers and broken a few windows.

But sure. 'Terrorism.' Can I get you a towel so you can dry off your shirt, those hysterics make quite a mess?

Is anyone actually saying what they're doing is terrorism?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Is anyone actually saying what they're doing is terrorism?

Are you going to try and claim that

"So it isn't "terrorism terrorism"? Kinda like it wasn't "rape rape"?

Ok, Whoopi, if you say so."

Is not saying that what they're doing is terrorism?

 

[GreyICE]

Is anyone actually saying what they're doing is terrorism?

No, gumboot. I edited the post I quoted, so that it would appear like that, but actually he never wrote anything of the sort. Also, there's no post in this thread that contains this quote:

I think the term Terrorists needs to be applied here

I'm glad you caught me in that blatant lie. Next, can you expose my conspiracy to reveal the direction of sunrise and the east-west fiction? That one is getting very hard to maintain.

Seriously... what the heck?

 

[GanipGnop]

Starboard! My dingy has the right of way

The Shonan Maru 2 is 52 meters long and can only make 12 knots top speed it can't outmaneuver a boat half it’s size. On the other hand the Ady Gil is a race boat that is only 24 metes and it can do 40 knots! There is no question which boat is more maneuverable and you can plainly see that the Ady Gil isn't sitting still in the video. Both outriggers show a trail indicating forward motion and at the last moment the Ady Gil accelerates into the SM2. Contrary to Watson's BS the Ady Gil wasn't backing away in either video if it was it could have probably outrun the SM2 in reverse. It just goes to show you the bigger boat has right of way especially if you're made of carbon composite and the bigger boat has a steel hull.
SM2 specs:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBMQFjAD&url=...

Earth Race/Ady Gil specs:

http://www.earthrace.net/index.php?section=18

Vessels at sea do not actually have any "right of way"—they are, correctly, in the position of being 'stand on vessel' or 'give way' vessel. This means that at no time should any vessel actually navigate its way into a collision situation, and the rules are clear that no one in command of a vessel should assume a "right of way" and should at all costs avoid a collision. There are other rules governing which is a stand on vessel, such as

****small ships giving way to big ships****

Powered ships give way to sailing ships. BUT sailing vessel don’t have the right of way against larger powered vessels.

http://www.marinesafety.vic.gov.au/Web1/msvhome.nsf/AllDocs/D71DDE256FE1...

Little boats don’t have the right away against bigger boats PERIOD!!! Bethune knows this because he killed a fisherman in a smaller boat with the Earth Race in Guatemalan a few years ago. I wonder how much it cost to kill someone in Guatemala while questing for a world speed record? You can see how broke up Bethune is over the death he didn’t even mention his victims by name they were just generic faceless “guys” to him. As a matter of fact according to the article, “Mr Bethune's wife, Sharyn, said she had received an email from her husband saying he had hired some "high-powered lawyers" for the court appearance. She said she was pretty devastated by the accident but glad to hear that the crew were fine”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10429738

Is Watson A Threat To Legal Shipping USN SAYS YES! How much do you want to bet the SSCS makes the Worldwide Threat To Shipping list in 2010 while the Japanese researchers don't?
26 FEB 09
.
OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
CIVIL MARITIME ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT
WORLDWIDE THREAT TO SHIPPING
MARINER WARNING INFORMATION
.
POC: ANDREW MOULDER:
COMM (301) 669-4784
FAX (301) 669-3247
E-mail [email protected]
.1. This message provides information on threats to, and criminal
action against merchant shipping worldwide in the last 30 days.
.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC NON-STATE ACTIVIST GROUPS:
.
1. SEA SHEPHERD: Sea Shepherd’s anti-whaling vessel (STEVE IRWIN) collided with
Japanese whaler on 6 Feb 09, in the Southern Ocean near Antartica. The (STEVE IRWIN) collided with the (YUSHIN MARU 2) as the harpoon vessel tried to block its attempt to prevent the transfer of a dead whale up the slipway of the factory ship (NISSHIN MARU), according to the captain of the (STEVE IRWIN), Paul Watson. The collision crushed a railing at the back of the Japanese ship, but there were no reports of injuries. In a statement, the Japanese research group condemned the protesters’ actions. The day before, members onboard the (STEVE IRWIN) tbrew bottles of butyric acid (rancid butter) and prop fouling devices at the Japanese ships. The whalers reportedly responded by hurling pieces of blubber and whale meat at the ship. Earlier in the week, activists from Sea Shepherd accused Japanese whalers of injuring members onboard the (STEVE IRWIN) by using long range acoustic devices against the protesters. A spokesman for the research group denied these claims and insisted any actions taken were in self defense (AFP, AP, Reuters).

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200902261...

And in 2007 (Look for Non-State Activist Groups at the bottom of each page)

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200711281...

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200702211...

They are in there for 2008 also but I think you get the picture the SSCS is considered a threat to shipping the Japanese aren’t.

 

[theprestige]

The Shonan Maru 2 is 52 meters long and can only make 12 knots top speed it can't outmaneuver a boat half it’s size. On the other hand the Ady Gil is a race boat that is only 24 metes and it can do 40 knots! There is no question which boat is more maneuverable and you can plainly see that the Ady Gil isn't sitting still in the video. Both outriggers show a trail indicating forward motion and at the last moment the Ady Gil accelerates into the SM2. Contrary to Watson's BS the Ady Gil wasn't backing away in either video if it was it could have probably outrun the SM2 in reverse. It just goes to show you the bigger boat has right of way especially if you're made of carbon composite and the bigger boat has a steel hull.
SM2 specs:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBMQFjAD&url=...

Earth Race/Ady Gil specs:

http://www.earthrace.net/index.php?section=18

Vessels at sea do not actually have any "right of way"—they are, correctly, in the position of being 'stand on vessel' or 'give way' vessel. This means that at no time should any vessel actually navigate its way into a collision situation, and the rules are clear that no one in command of a vessel should assume a "right of way" and should at all costs avoid a collision. There are other rules governing which is a stand on vessel, such as

****small ships giving way to big ships****

Powered ships give way to sailing ships. BUT sailing vessel don’t have the right of way against larger powered vessels.

http://www.marinesafety.vic.gov.au/Web1/msvhome.nsf/AllDocs/D71DDE256FE1...

Little boats don’t have the right away against bigger boats PERIOD!!! Bethune knows this because he killed a fisherman in a smaller boat with the Earth Race in Guatemalan a few years ago. I wonder how much it cost to kill someone in Guatemala while questing for a world speed record? You can see how broke up Bethune is over the death he didn’t even mention his victims by name they were just generic faceless “guys” to him. As a matter of fact according to the article, “Mr Bethune's wife, Sharyn, said she had received an email from her husband saying he had hired some "high-powered lawyers" for the court appearance. She said she was pretty devastated by the accident but glad to hear that the crew were fine”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10429738

Is Watson A Threat To Legal Shipping USN SAYS YES! How much do you want to bet the SSCS makes the Worldwide Threat To Shipping list in 2010 while the Japanese researchers don't?
26 FEB 09
.
OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE
CIVIL MARITIME ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT
WORLDWIDE THREAT TO SHIPPING
MARINER WARNING INFORMATION
.
POC: ANDREW MOULDER:
COMM (301) 669-4784
FAX (301) 669-3247
E-mail [email protected]
.1. This message provides information on threats to, and criminal
action against merchant shipping worldwide in the last 30 days.
.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC NON-STATE ACTIVIST GROUPS:
.
1. SEA SHEPHERD: Sea Shepherd’s anti-whaling vessel (STEVE IRWIN) collided with
Japanese whaler on 6 Feb 09, in the Southern Ocean near Antartica. The (STEVE IRWIN) collided with the (YUSHIN MARU 2) as the harpoon vessel tried to block its attempt to prevent the transfer of a dead whale up the slipway of the factory ship (NISSHIN MARU), according to the captain of the (STEVE IRWIN), Paul Watson. The collision crushed a railing at the back of the Japanese ship, but there were no reports of injuries. In a statement, the Japanese research group condemned the protesters’ actions. The day before, members onboard the (STEVE IRWIN) tbrew bottles of butyric acid (rancid butter) and prop fouling devices at the Japanese ships. The whalers reportedly responded by hurling pieces of blubber and whale meat at the ship. Earlier in the week, activists from Sea Shepherd accused Japanese whalers of injuring members onboard the (STEVE IRWIN) by using long range acoustic devices against the protesters. A spokesman for the research group denied these claims and insisted any actions taken were in self defense (AFP, AP, Reuters).

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200902261...

And in 2007 (Look for Non-State Activist Groups at the bottom of each page)

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200711281...

http://www.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/MISC/wwtts/wwtts_200702211...

They are in there for 2008 also but I think you get the picture the SSCS is considered a threat to shipping the Japanese aren’t.

And that is why I have no objection, to use GreyICE's terms, with acts of sabotage committed against Sea Shepherd. And why I have no problem calling them pirates who commit acts of piracy.

 

[GanipGnop]

A Welcome Worthy Of The SSCS.

Have you ever wondered why Sea Shepherd doesn't do direct action in Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, South Africa, Iceland and Norway anymore? Why doesn't Watson make an effort to stop the JARPN (North Pacific research program)? Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUIaB76NBIg

St-Pierre fishermen chase anti-sealing ship from harbour

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/04/04/stpierre-watson.html

At a later date Canada confiscated the SSCS vessel Farley Mowat arrested the crew for interfering with their annual state sanctioned seal hunt. Canada later sold the Mowat for unpaid berthing fees. Watson claimed he was going to bring Canada to its knees because they had to pay to store and protect his ship while it was in their custody. IIRC He refused to take it back unless the Canucks:

1) Dropped all charges
2) Paid $5000 dollars a day for loss of his vessel
3) Returned his vessel in the exact condition it was taken
4) Admitted they were wrong
5) Apologize in writing

Canada did what most states do when you refuse to retrieve your property from their custody, they gave written notice of their intent and followed through. This is like having your car towed and then refusing to retrieve it because you thought the cops were wrong. The state will just serve you notice and sell your vehicle at auction to cover their costs especially if you make ridiculous demands.

For those of you not familiar with "Capt'n" Whale Turd you might want to take a look at this New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_khatchadourian

 

[GanipGnop]

We're not terrorist.... We're Eco-Terrorists!

While the SSCS isn't the Taliban they aren't thought of as nonviolent protesters. James F. Jarboe is the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division and he gave testimony to congress that mentions the SSCS by name as the originators of eco-terrorism. They are just careful to disavow members if they break the law in the US like the Ben White case (see bottom).

February 12, 2002
"The Threat of Eco-Terrorism"

"Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature".

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

Here’s some more salt for the shaker. Back in 1993 Paul Watson described the criminal Ben White as a misguided Sea Shepherd endangering the SSCS’s very existence. I guess it was too soon after the crime to change history in this article. This might be one of the reasons Watson says, “we’ve never been convicted of a felony”.

"Sea Shepherd activities require very delicate strategies. We walk a fine line between legal and illegal. To date, we have avoided criminal convictions. The one exception was when Ben White was arrested in Florida for attempting to rescue captive dolphins. The attempt failed. Sea Shepherd was hit with an $8,000 legal bill and we narrowly avoided a civil suit. White acted in Sea Shepherd's name without the knowledge of the Sea Shepherd board. He was quite aware of the Sea Shepherd policy that prohibits any illegal action within U.S. territorial waters. We operate internationally, and we need the sanctuary of the U.S. to be effective. White's actions threatened the security of Sea Shepherd."

From "Attacks on Sea Shepherd are unfair," by Paul Watson, Animal People, December 1993

But later the story was changed to:

“In 1992, Ben left Sea Shepherd to devote more energy to championing the rights of captive dolphins and to work with Friends of Animals, and later, with the Animal Welfare Institute”.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-050617-2.html

That is how the AWI wants to remember history too, but they claim White resigned as president.

http://www.awionline.org/pdf/BenWhite_Compilation_hr_1.pdf

 

[shuize]

Have you ever wondered why Sea Shepherd doesn't do direct action in Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, South Africa, Iceland and Norway anymore? Why doesn't Watson make an effort to stop the JARPN (North Pacific research program)? Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUIaB76NBIg

St-Pierre fishermen chase anti-sealing ship from harbour

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundlan...re-watson.html

It's interesting to watch and read Sea Shepherd's hypocritical reaction to the cutting of its ship's lines and casting it adrift in the incident noted above as that is essentially what they attempt to do when trying to foul props and ram ships in the Southern Ocean.

I understand that one act is in port and one is at sea. But considering that all the Sea Shepherd ship needed to do in the example above was start its engines, it's amusing to hear the woman in the video on the Sea Shepherd ship crying about how what the fishermen were doing was "dangerous."

 

[GanipGnop]

**** you Whare!….. **** You Dorphin!

Actually large vessels like the Farley Mowat can take 20 minutes or more to get underway from a cold start. The Mowat has an engine room and a command station on the bridge both have to be manned to move the vessel. With the hippy dippy crew of "World's Most Nautical Nincompoops" in charge starting the boat could take hours. From what I understand the Mowat drifted pretty close to a breakwater before they got it started. But I do agree, the danger factor is about a million times greater in the Antarctic ocean as opposed to a harbor.

Paul Watson and his crew of ignorant parrots is constantly inserting both of their feet in to their mouths. Back when Canada detained and boarded the Farley Mowat Watson had the nerve to claim that boarding a vessel without formal permission of the captain was an act of piracy. Never mind the Canadian government had notified them they had broken Canadian law and the Mowat was well within their 200mi EEZ at the time of the boarding. Then flash forward to Watson inserting what by his own admission is an illegal boarding party onto a Japanese research vessel. Then he LIED to the world that the Japanese had taken two of his crew "hostage" what a class A Turd! Watson claims the UN Charter for Nature gives him the right to act like an idiot but that's BS, he never uses it against the commercial whaling fleets of Iceland and Norway or Japan's North Pacific whale research program because he values his freedom. Watson doesn't cause trouble in Canada anymore either, because they handed his *** to him (why didn't he whip out the UN charter).

If you haven't seen the "South Park" episode titled "Whale Whores" I would suggest watching it if you have a fast enough connection you can watch the full episode here. (I don't know if the satire will be lost in translation but the message at the very end of the episode is pretty clear).

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1311/