 | Forum Threads |  |
| Random Photo | |
| Member Poll | |
|
| Comments |
on January 06 2010 18:52:48
It certainly seems like that black boat has full throttle on their engines, and causing the accident themselves.
And I can't believe anything else after watching a few episodes of Whale Wars on Discovery!  |
on January 06 2010 21:37:11
Only problem might be, that the idiots on the black boat actually have the right of way there.
But, truth be told, I think that actively sinking or damaging any ship or boat that sails under any type of the Jolly-Roger should be allowed without any repercussions of any kind. |
on January 07 2010 09:46:01
The camera is fixed on the whaling boat, so if the whaling boat turns it will seem as if it is keeping its heading while the other boat seems to turn. |
on January 07 2010 12:38:56
Sea Shepherd claim that their boat was rammed while stationary. I think it is quite clear (when you look at the stern of the boat in the film) that the boat was moving and therefore not stationary.
However, when you look at the wake (i.e. the foam on the ocean) at 0.36 it definitely looks like the Japanese ship has changed its course and so probably was (at least partly) to blame.
But I think I agree with Jogvanth. What are they supposed to do when a ship (a pirate vessel?) is sailing extremely close to your ship and trying to force you to change your course?
This has played right into Sea Shepherd's hands. They want their people to "be attacked" and such. Remember how they claimed the japanese had "kidnapped" their activists a few years ago? |
on January 07 2010 14:16:32
A little research goes a long way in the face of ignorant arrogance.
The ‘pirate’ insignia of Sea Shepherd is a skull that represents what man is doing to the oceans (killing them). The skull comprises of a yin and yang sign made up of a dolphin and a sperm whale. What would have been crossed bones on a pirate’s jolly roger, are in fact a shepherd’s crook and neptune’s trident because they are Sea Shepherds – pirates of compassion.
Sea Shepherd's ships sail under national flags, which by definition pirate ships do not.
Sea Shepherd employ the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.
Sea Shepherd have rammed and sunk a few ships, but only what they consider 'pirate whalers', i.e. whalers that exceed quotas or break laws. |
on January 07 2010 14:50:44
but only what they consider 'pirate whalers'
What does that mean?
If Sea Shepherd considers someone to be a 'pirate whaler' do they then have a right (or letter of marque if you will) to sink those ships?
I know that Sea Shepherd vessels carry national flags and such, and I did not mean to imply that they were pirates in the literal sense. However, boarding another ship (and then leaving your own crewmates there) which they did a few years ago does not seem entirely legal to me.
Has it been established e.g. in an international court that the Japanese whalers are breaking laws? |
on January 07 2010 15:43:13
The UN charter (as, I guess, most national laws) provides authority to individuals to enforce the law.
Many of Sea Shepherd's activities have been toward confirmed illegal whalers, and no legal action has been taken against them after these. Indeed, their actions have sometimes prompted the navy or coast guard to take action against the illegal whalers.
As far as the Japanese whaling industry is concerned (and arguably also the Icelandic and Norwegian) matters are a bit more complicated, as they have circumvented moratoriums and the like by claiming to only be whaling for scientific purposes. This has been protested by several governments and groups.
Regarding those two guys who boarded a Japanese whaling boat; the whaling boat was hunting whales in an IWC whaling sanctuary, where commercial whaling is forbidden, and while the two were later transferred to the Australian coast guard, no criminal charges were raised against them by the Australian authorities. |
on January 07 2010 15:50:06
This can, of course, also be viewed as a form of civil disobedience, as Sea Shepherd believes (I presume) that they have the moral right, or even duty, to break certain laws in order to protect the whales. |
on January 07 2010 15:54:42
A little research goes a long way in the face of ignorant arrogance.
Hereby quoting wiki The Jolly Roger is the name given to any of various flags flown to identify a ship's crew as pirates. The flag most usually identified as the Jolly Roger today is the skull and crossbones, being a flag consisting of a skull above two long bones set in an x-mark arrangement on a black field.
Have you taken a look at the so-called "Sea shepherd flag"?
Nitpicking that it's not actually a genuine Jolly Roger, but symbols of this and that meaning "Mans quest for what we believe is the right thing" is hogwash, and you know it.
Any ship or boat flying a dark flag with a white skull-like insignia over anything cross-shaped, proudly boasting how many ships they've sunk, can only be deemed as a pirate vessel. If they fly any other flag in addition is besides the point. Look at the video. What flag is more visible on the Ady Gil? The skull-and-cross or a national flag?
Sea Shepherd have rammed and sunk a few ships, but only what they consider 'pirate whalers', i.e. whalers that exceed quotas or break laws.
The fact that they ram and sink ships is not to be considered as breaking any law then? I still say shoot or ram the bastards. Don't give them any chance more than they would give their victims.
They where actively trying to disable the Japanese ship! This is illegal and dangerous, and can therefore be considered piracy. |
on January 07 2010 15:58:51
But I think I agree with Jogvanth. What are they supposed to do when a ship (a pirate vessel?) is sailing extremely close to your ship and trying to force you to change your course?
Sometimes when I walk down the street this happens to me, but I never try to kill the guy in my way... |
on January 07 2010 16:39:48
Your arguments in this case are weak and feeble and you know it.
Just let it go, Vuzman.
If someone was trying to stop you, while you are driving in your car, by trying to ram or block you, and this was not a "official" vehicle (e.g. a police car) would you then just stop, get out of your car, and in kind words ask them to leave you be, or try to avoid or disable the aggressive car? |
on January 07 2010 16:51:48
Have you taken a look at the so-called "Sea shepherd flag"?
Nitpicking that it's not actually a genuine Jolly Roger, but symbols of this and that meaning "Mans quest for what we believe is the right thing" is hogwash, and you know it.
This is the 21st century dude. Real pirates don't have a flag anymore. This part of the conversation is moo.
The fact that they ram and sink ships is not to be considered as breaking any law then? I still say shoot or ram the bastards. Don't give them any chance more than they would give their victims.
They sink ships in harbors. They're not trying to kill people...
They where actively trying to disable the Japanese ship! This is illegal and dangerous, and can therefore be considered piracy.
They were trying to, at most, obstruct the Japanese ship; at least according to their own reports. As was pointed out by Laluu, the whaling boat seems to be turning into the other boat, and I agree. And I honestly don't think the Sea Shepherd guys were doing this on purpose; they obviously couldn't disable the whaling boat by ramming it, and I don't think they would want to wreck their cool BatBoat just months after they got it.
I also think your authoritarian nuttiness is reaching new, previously unthought-of, heights. You have actually advocated the vigilante killing of anyone breaking the law regardless of reason, anyone wearing a t-shirt with a pirate flag on, or anyone just mildly suspicious. |
on January 07 2010 17:05:24
According to its mission statement, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas".[40] Direct actions have included scuttling and disabling commercial whaling vessels at harbour, ramming other vessels, throwing glass bottles of butyric acid on the decks of vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment.
Is that not aching to piracy? Even if you do not think so, how the hell, can you possibly justify such behaviour by anyone?
They were trying to, at most, obstruct the Japanese ship
They were actively trying to lay wires and ropes, in order to destroy or disable the Japanese ships propeller and/or rudder. This is according to their own statement. Look at the pictures of the boat or the movie. See all the "stuff" in it? That's what they were using to try to disable a ship, in artic waters. In my view, that's something you do not do, and therefore I'm glad they got their comuppance. |
on January 08 2010 10:52:57
In order to take this further I will need you to understand how some people can believe so much in something that they're willing to break the law. I'm afraid this is beyond your grasp, so I'm going to give up here. |
on January 08 2010 12:07:25
I understand fully that they believe in something so badly, that they choose to disregard all laws working against them, but that still does not make them or their actions right. They have chosen their path, it just so happens, that this particular course of action works against all commonly held codes of conduct on the seas, and therefore I do not pitty them or their loss of lives. limbs and least of all boats as a consequence of their breaking laws (held in reverence by mostly all legitimate countries) and directly hostile actions. They may be morally correct in your, mine or others view, but that still does not grant them immunity from the repercussions from their own actions.
P.S. The only "nation" currently allowing Sea Shepherd to use their flags are the Dutch (that are currently working on passing a law forbidding the vessels of Sea Shepherd to be registered in Holland) and the Iroquois Confederacy. I think this says something about their status and acceptance of their methods. |
on January 18 2010 15:17:11
I understand fully that they believe in something so badly, that they choose to disregard all laws working against them, but that still does not make them or their actions right [... and] that still does not grant them immunity from the repercussions from their own actions.
What can I say? You really do not seem to understand. Obviously their belief does make them right... at least in their own heads. And these people are obviously ready to face any legal repercussions from their actions.
I don't believe they are trying to physically harm people, and I think their actions prove this. Therefore I think it is concerning that you seem to approve, even delight, in any harm coming to them. It seems like you are just repeating your mantra of 'laws must be obeyed, and if you don't, anything you get as a result is deserved!'. |
on January 18 2010 23:52:15
Obviously their belief does make them right... at least in their own heads. And these people are obviously ready to face any legal repercussions from their actions.
And there in lies my point. They are willing to face any legal repercussions because they know that they have a powerful "hippie"-movement to back them up in their claims. But, the reality is, that they are at best vigilanties, who do not care what or who might be damaged in their attempt to serve their version of justice.
I don't believe they are trying to physically harm people, and I think their actions prove this.
So, ramming a ship at full speed, can in no way be expected to possibly cause any physical harm to anyone aboard that ship?
Or how about throwing glassbottles filled with acid at the decks of ships, where people are walking about? Those actions couldn't possibly cause anyone any physical harm, could it?
I think you are as blind to my points, as they are. You probably like their activities. In my view, they are trying to oppose a legal activity, by taking the law into their own hands. They have the right to object to that, and even to try to disturb it, but NOT to the extent that they do. They are causing dangerous situations at sea, and this I think shows a blatant disregard for the lives and safety of the humans on these attacked ships. I do not object to self-defence or retaliation to being attacked. And this is excately what I believe that these japanese did.
It seems like you are just repeating your mantra of 'laws must be obeyed, and if you don't, anything you get as a result is deserved!'.
No, I don't. But if you attack someone outside a nightclub, then, in my view, you DO NOT get the right to complain, if that guy turns around and kicks your ass. |
on January 09 2013 08:32:45
http://www.tmz.com/2013/01/08/whale-wars-lawsuit-ady-gil-paul-watson-crash-japanese-sea-shepherd-society/#ixzz2HQMVwYOz |
|
|
| Post Comment | |
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
| Login | |
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
| | 
| Last Seen Users | |
| Obituaries | |
You must login to post a message.
|
| |
|
Awesome
