Protest ship rams whaler

[depakid]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald


Sea Shepherd's ship the Steve Irwin collides with the stern of Japanese harpoon whaling ship, the Yushin Maru No. 2 while factory ship the Nisshin Maru (background) processes a newly caught minke whale.
------------

A protest ship in the Southern Ocean has rammed a Japanese whaling vessel in what protesters say is the most intense clash the two groups have ever had. Captain Paul Watson, from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, said his ship, the Steve Irwin, was forced to hit the Japanese ship Yushin Maru No. 2 about 8.30am (AEDT).

Mr Watson said his protest ship was trying to stop the Japanese from pulling a whale onto a ship when the clash happened. "The Yushin Maru No. 1 was transferring the whale up the slipway and we were trying to block that transfer and the Yushin Maru No. 2 just shot right in front of us," Mr Watson said, speaking via satellite phone.

"I couldn't move to starboard without hitting the vessel and I couldn't move to port without hitting them. "I tried to back off, but it was too sudden and we ran right into their stern ... they threw themselves right in front of us. There wasn't anything we could do". Mr Watson said he crushed a railing at the back of the Japanese ship but was unaware of anyone being injured. He said in the five years his ships had been confronting the Japanese in Antarctic waters, this season had seen the most extreme clashes.

"This has certainly been the most intense confrontation we have had with the Japanese whalers over the last five campaigns we have had down here," Mr Watson said. "We have never seen them this aggressive. They are obviously frustrated at the money they are losing and they have been ordered to do whatever needs to be done in order to prevent us from preventing them from killing whales."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/whale-watch/stev...

[ZombieHorde]

1. The SS is getting ridiculous.

They are crossing a line.

[Taverner]

3. I'm actually glad they did it

If they sank the whaling ship, I probably wouldn't shed a tear

[ZombieHorde]

6. Are you claiming violence is an acceptable tactic to prevent whaling?

[Taverner]

7. Vandalism yes

[ZombieHorde]

8. How about violence?

[Taverner]

10. There was nothing violent about their tactics

The Whaling ship was trying to dock, they stopped them, and because the whalers were playing "chicken" they got hit

Poor widdle whalers! They only wanted drive the mean nasty whales into extinction

[ZombieHorde]

13. Will you answer the question?

Is violence an acceptable tactic for preventing whaling?

[Taverner]

14. Depends

Are we talking just sinking the whaling ship (fine with me) and rescuing the crew

Or are we talking a sustained bombing campaign?

[ZombieHorde]

19. Question answered, thank you. Now about your playing chicken comment...

I am not sure which boat is which in the photo, but those ships were not playing chicken. If you look at the water in the photo, you will see that both boats were going in the same direction. One boat was moving towards and one boat was moving away.

[Nihil]

65. Information on which boat is which

> I am not sure which boat is which in the photo

From the caption in the OP:
>> Sea Shepherd's ship the Steve Irwin collides with the stern
>> of Japanese harpoon whaling ship, the Yushin Maru No. 2 while
>> factory ship the Nisshin Maru (background) processes a newly
>> caught minke whale.

i.e., the furthest boat is the Nisshin Maru, the middle boat is
the Yushin Maru #2 and the foreground boat is the Steve Irwin.

> If you look at the water in the photo, you will see that both boats
> were going in the same direction.

If you look at the water in the photo, you will see that both the
Steve Irwin (foreground) and the Nisshin Maru (background) are going
in the same direction but the Yushin Maru #2 (middle) is cutting across
from right to left at a significant angle (and at speed).

When a car does that manoeuvre on the highway, it is said to be
cutting up the vehicle behind - deliberately forcing the latter to
brake or take evasive action rather than hold its previous course.

When a boat does that at sea (and at that speed), it is being far
more stupid than the above driver as there are fewer options for the
following vehicle to take in order to avoid a collision.

The Yushin Maru #2 *was* playing chicken and the Steve Irwin did well
to avoid a far worse outcome than a slightly bent rear rail.

[Redwraithvienna]

29. Define Violence ...

if the account by the Sea Shepard Captain is right, the whaler cut them.

if that would happen on a highway you would hit the breaks and proably nothing would happen.

But things are different if you drive a few thousand tons of steel around ...

So i dont really see violence by the SS ... only reckless driving by the wahlers.

[ZombieHorde]

41. Check out the water in the photo, you can see that the SS came up right behind the whaler's ship.

[psychopomp]

58. Don't be dense

They cut the Sea Shepherd off. I don't support violence in this situation and the way I see it, the tactics of all the parties involved produced this collision.

[Marrah_G]

67. The captain of the SS is an ignorant fool who should not be running a ship.

[atreides1]

96. Actually it's the Steve Irwin

SS stands for Sea Shepard, the organization that the ship belongs to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. They have had two ships by that name as well, and the Steve Irwin has Sea Shepard painted on it

[snooper2]

78. If you want to be a poster boy for the whalers go ahead..

At least get the ship's name right...

It's not the SS, "Sea Shepherd"- that's the name of the conservation society...

The ships name is the "Steve Irwin"

Oh, as for violence- there are over 6 BILLION 6,000,000,000 people in the World. If 100 or so of them have to die to protect the whales so be it. Fuck em'

There are few things out there that piss me off more....now you got me all worked up!!!

[ZombieHorde]

93. I am not concerned about the Steve Irwin, because its an inanimate object.

I am concerned about the people, who belong to the organization, Sea Shepard.

Oh, as for violence- there are over 6 BILLION 6,000,000,000 people in the World. If 100 or so of them have to die to protect the whales so be it. Fuck em'

This sounds like you are pro-murder.

[snooper2]

103. Pro-Whale

[Scairp]

180. Thank you

They named this particular vessel in honor of the late Steve Irwin, who was a deeply devoted conservationist. Sea Shepard is an organization, the "Steve Irwin" is the name of their vessel. What is so difficult to understand about that? Density permeates this discussion. Whalers are evil assholes, and I have no trouble believing that they intentionally cut the Steve Irwin off so that the SI had no choice but to hit them. I think the whaler was trying to sink them, IMO. They are becoming more violent as the Sea Shepard organization gets more determined to stop them from killing whales under this bullshit "research" exception. Research my ass. They sell whale meat and other body parts of the whales they kill for a profit. Whaling for any purpose must be banned internationally, period. Frankly, I have no problem with anything the Sea Shepard organization is doing to achieve that goal.

[Downtown Hound]

54. A whale is almost human in terms of its intelligence

And the truth is, for all we know, they might even be more intelligent than we are. So, while I'm hesitant to come out and say that violence is acceptable, would you feel that it's so unacceptable if they were killing human beings?

And from what I understand about this story, it seems there was more than enough blame on the whaler's part for this collision. And if you haven't been watching the show, then let me remind you that at the end of the last season the whalers shot Paul right in his chest. If it hadn't been for his body armor, he could have been killed. I don't think it's the Sea Shepard that's really doing the violence.

[ZombieHorde]

55. "would you feel that it's so unacceptable if they were killing human beings?"

Fair question, I would use violence against a person or animal if I truly believed they were going to kill a presumably innocent person.

[underseasurveyor]

62. Yes!

When it comes to saving whales? Yea fair game.

[ZombieHorde]

94. Are you a supporter of the Death Penalty?

eta: link

[underseasurveyor]

140. Only for for those that needlessly and illegally kill marine mammals

especially whales

oh and for republicans

[mdmc]

119. What hasn't violence fixed?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

132. It certainly finalized any number of things, but I am not sure I would call that fixed

[mike_c]

9. you don't get it-- the Steve Irwin's tactics are NONVIOLENT....

Blocking access to the slipway with their own bodies is the equivalent of a sit-in. It's completely non-violent action. The Steve Irwin's crew are heroes, IMO.

[Taverner]

11. Yep

[ZombieHorde]

12. People could have gotten seriously hurt or killed in that stunt.

What if someone almost rammed your loved one's car with their car because your loved one was going to buy some hot dogs?

[Taverner]

15. Dude that is a non sequitor if there ever was

[mike_c]

20. that's a meaningless comparison....

If someone rammed my loved one because she was in their way, is that her fault? Is she the one committing violence?

The Steve Irwin is conducting nonviolent, disruptive action to prevent the taking of whales. Her crew puts themselves between factory ships and tenders, between whalers and their prey. It is the essence of nonviolence.

Nonviolence is usually met by violent reprisal. Remember what Ghandi said about nonviolence? "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." the rat bastard whalers are responding according to formula.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Look at the water in the photo, the boat was rammed.

[mike_c]

26. AFTER it swung directly ahead of the Steve Irwin...

...and blocked her way. Watson tried to avoid a collision, but could not because the Yushin Maru 2 was too close.

But let's be frank, OK. If the Steve Irwin sends the Yushin Maru 2 to the bottom, I won't shed a tear. And before we instigate another round of rhetoric games, I'll be clear. Yes, I support violence against the Japanese whaling fleet if that's what it takes to make them stop killing for profit.

[Dumak]

23. If my loved one, who was going to buy some hot dogs, was

suddenly attacked by a horde of zombies, I'd try to at least distract the zombies with my car. If some of the zombies went in front of my car to make me stop, and my car hit them, I might blame the zombies because they shouldn't be going after my loved one in the first place.

[petersjo02]

59. Give it a rest, ZH.

It's the whaling that's violent. You've obviously got a burr under your saddle, for some reason.

[Marrah_G]

66. The SS has done some other really stupid shit that put their own crew in jeopardy

Watching the show was a real eye opener. The guy is a first class asshole. Ignorant of many things and that ignorance puts his young volunteers in jeopardy. It's amazing that none have been killed.....yet. One did get a broken pelvis due to a complete lack of training on the part of his team.

[XemaSab]

166. Word up

I was APPALLED at how many people were injured and could have been killed or lost at sea due to poor training.

Again, saying you'll die to save a whale? Fine, whatever.

But dying because nobody practiced launching the boats and other issues of basic boat safety BEFORE THE STEVE IRWIN LEFT SYDNEY? Ridiculous.

[ZombieHorde]

21. Look at the water in the photo, one ship rammed the other.

[Usrename]

138. Maybe their anti-skid braking system was inoperative.

You can clearly see that they were pursuing the first ship in the photo when the second ship rammed them.

Can you see how the second ship is clearly cutting across the first ship's wake?

They were rammed. It's obvious.

[ZombieHorde]

144. The whalers were rammed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGmR99-D0k

[Usrename]

145. Nope, I don't think so.

Looks like the whaler just slowed right in front of him. They would have to maintain course and speed to allow the burdened vessel to pass behind them. Wonder why they don't show the 30 seconds prior to the collision. Is it because they slowed down just prior to the collision?

[flvegan]

146. Oh, SNAP!

Someone gets it.

Wait until next season's Whale Wars where we get to see the whole thing. Let crow be served.

[Usrename]

149. In any event...

... I will gladly eat crow if the Steve Irwin is ever determined to be in the wrong here.

[petronius]

150. Huh? It's perfectly clear in that clip that the Irwin is making a sharp right turn

Unless there is a major unseen obstacle to the left (right side of the screen), the SS deliberately (or ineptly, but I doubt that) caused the collision...

[Usrename]

154. That would have come after the other ship slowed.

The other ship must maintain his course until he is past the burdened vessel. Otherwise, any ship could stop any other ship from navigating by putting them in a permanent left turn, which is what they tried to do. There's going to be plenty of footage to show what happened. I wouldn't be so hasty to jump to conclusions.

Privileged vessel to keep course. - It is the duty of the privileged vessel to keep on her course until a departure is necessary to avoid immediate danger and the rule as to speed is the same as that regarding the course. The fact that subsequent events show that stopping and backing on the part of the privileged vessel would have avoided collision does not prove negligence The Binhamton CCA 2d Cir 1921 271 Fed 69

Rule applied - Where a privileged steamer maintained her course and speed up to one minute of the time of the collision prior to which time it was possible for the other to avoid her by porting she will not be held in fault at least in the absence of some distinct indication that the burdened vessel was about to fail in her duty.

The Binglmmton CCA 2d Cir 1921 271 Fed 69 <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=m-I4AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA407... ">The Federal Statutes Annotated Containing All the Laws of the United States of a General and Permanent Nature in Force on the First Day of January, 1903 By United States, William Mark McKinney, Charles C. Moore, Peter Kemper</a>

>

In other words, the way I understand it, if the whaler was to slow or change course it must be acting to avoid a collision, if it changes speed less than one minute before the Steve Irwin would have had to turn to her port in order to avoid a collision.


It ain't what it first appears. But I could be completely wrong in my supposition. I'd like to see the aerial view.

[petronius]

163. In the clip you responded to, the Irwin turned to starboard and hit a Japanese vessel

The filming (Japanese) vessel ahead of the Irwin may have slowed to force the Irwin to turn, and if those two had hit the Japanese vessel would perhaps have been at fault, but the collision that did occur took place because the Irwin chose to turn to starboard (when there was open water to port)...

[Usrename]

165. I don't think you understand what I am saying.

It looks like the ship that the Irwin hit was overtaking them. If that is true, which I think it is, then that Japanese ship has the responsibility to maintain a steady heading and speed until any risk of a collision has past. I don't think they did that.

Look, what is to stop a more maneuverable ship from forcing another ship into a permanent left-hand turn? Why isn't that kind of thing perfectly legal?

The answer is simple, the ship that is on the starboard side MUST maintain heading and speed. That is their responsibility since they are considered to have the right of way and it is the other ship's responsibility to avoid a collision. (This is generally done by the other ship by falling off to the port, like you said.) But the first ship still has to avoid changing course or speed. They must. They cannot just keep forcing another ship to run in a circle, which is what they were trying to do.

Do you get it? The Japanese ship is at least partially at fault, if not entirely at fault, if they did not maintain their course and speed while overtaking the burdened vessel.

[petronius]

168. But the Irwin clearly turns to starboard, which brings them into contact

with the Japanese ship. If the Irwin had maintained course or turned to port, those two ships wouldn't have hit. The leading Japanese ship, the one not involved in the collision, may have slowed and would thus bear some responsibility (although the Irwin still should have turned the other way), but we can't tell that from the clip...

[Usrename]

178. You don't get it at all.

You seem to be saying that international navigation rules don't matter at all.

Do you believe that it is legal, under international law, for a ship to hijack another ship by blocking their path? IT IS NOT PERMITTED. If an attempt to block another ship's path results in a collision, then it's obvious who is at fault.

The Japanese ship, the one that was hit, was in the wrong. Completely in the wrong. He MUST maintain course and speed in order that the Sea Shepard can navigate around him to avoid a collision.
It does not appear as if the ship that was hit was maintaining course and speed in accordance with the international rules of navigation. It was HIS own fault.

When the two are on intersecting courses, which they were, the ship to the STARBOARD has the PRIMARY responsibility to maintain speed and heading in order that the other ship can avoid a collision. It's that simple. If he did not do what he was responsible to do, where he has the PRIMARY responsibility, and a collision occurs, then he is at fault. Get it now?

[petronius]

179. You're repeating the SS description and ignoring what's actually on video

The Japanese vessel that is hit is maintaining course at least (it's too short a clip to judge speed). The Irwin is turning sharply to starboard - all you need to do to see that is watch the spacing between the masts relative to the unmoving background. And you've got it backward on the law: when two power vessels are crossing it's the one to port (the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side) that is required to evade. That's the Irwin in this case.

Clear your mind and watch it again (pretend these are just three anonymous vessels in a simulation, if it helps) - it's clear that the Irwin had three choices: 1) turn to port and ram nobody, 2) do nothing and ram the lead vessel, 3) turn to starboard and ram the ship that got hit. The rules (and common sense) require choice 1, choice 2 would divide the onus between the ships, and choice 3 is a deliberate collision precipitated by the Irwin.

I think international rules matter very much, and in this case the rules governing collision avoidance are clear that the Irwin should have turned to port.

Why is there so much desire from SS supporters to pretend that the Irwin didn't ram the other ship? If disrupting whaling is the right thing to do, what's the harm in admitting to (giving credit for) a deliberate fender-bender?

Finally, I think it's funny that you have such an ALL CAPS aversion to blocking another vessel's path when that's precisely the point of the Irwin's general maneuvers - the larger context in which the collision occurred. (However, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much in the rules about 'blocking'; it's probably not something that was thought very likely when the rules were written...)

[Usrename]

182. I do not think that I have it wrong.

Blocking or interrupting shipping lanes was the major consideration when these rules came about. What do you think their main purpose is for? Look it up somewhere.

The sea shepherd vessel was BEHIND the ship they were following. Wouldn't they be IN FRONT of them if they were trying to illegally block their progress? HUH?

There are only two ships involved in the collision.

The Steve Irwin is referred to as the Give-Away vessel because they have the burden of navigating to avoid the other ship by steering clear of the course that the other ship is holding.

The ship to their starboard is referred to as the Stand-On vessel and it must maintain its course and speed.

It should be very simple to understand.

So, the question might ought to be, "How did everyone manage to navigate to be where they were in relation to the Steve Irwin, and is it possible to do so without changing course or speed?"

If you can answer that then I think you would begin to understand what I'm talking about.

You seem to think that the Steve Irwin navigated into a position where they could ram the other boat, but there isn't any evidence of that in the clips that I see. And, it doesn't make any sense, either. What does make sense is that the other boat was navigating in order to get in between the Steve Irwin and the lead ship (which is exactly what was described, coincidentally) and that to do so they came up on them from the starboard side and then did not allow them to navigate around them. If they slowed to prevent the Steve Irwin from passing behind their stern, or if they turned to port, either one is a no-no. Here's the link to the US rules which I believe are the same as the international rules.

But who knows, I could be completely wrong. For one thing, there isn't enough video to see what happened before hand, and for another thing I wouldn't believe anything the captain of the Steve Irwin says. We'll see what happened when the TV show airs.


on edit>

look at what happens 24 seconds into this video - if the Steve Irwin were to slow down they would cause a collision, and they would be at fault because the Japanese ship is passing across their stern - crazy drivers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-h3vkRScvY

[petronius]

184. You're seeing what you want to see, but I'll try one more time

(All of this refers to the clip in post 144, the start of this sub-thread. Your clip appears to be the very end of this encounter.)

There are 3 ships: the factory vessel (where the camera is), the Irwin, and the harpoon vessel. The Irwin has maneuvered to a position immediately astern of the factory vessel. The purpose of this maneuver is to block access to the stern of the factory vessel, so that the harpoon boats can't unload. The harpoon boat is on a parallel or converging course to starboard of the Irwin. It's perfectly possible and likely that the 3 ships reached this configuration in a legal and safe manner (the Irwin overtaking the factory vessel plus the harpoon boat being astern and to starboard of the factory vessel initially, or the harpoon vessel overtaking or converging with the Irwin).

The legal relationship (crossing or overtaking, and which vessel has the right of way) between the Irwin and the harpoon vessel is unclear, because we don't see the approach - if it's a crossing situation or if the Irwin caught up to the two Japanese vessels, then the Irwin must give way. If the harpoon vessel caught up to the other two ships, then the harpoon boat must avoid (and the Irwin and the factory vessel must maintain course and speed). My interpretation of the clip is that it's a crossing situation, because it appears the Irwin is moving faster than the harpoon vessel.

All of that becomes irrelevant however, because of the single crucial fact that you are either ignoring or missing:

at the beginning of the clip, the Irwin makes a sharp turn to starboard, toward and into the harpoon vessel, a turn which is clearly apparent in the video. It is this course adjustment that makes the collision inevitable. Even if the Irwin had the right-of-way initially, this course change puts the responsibility for the hit squarely on the Irwin.

It all boils down to this: the Irwin deliberately steered at and into the harpoon vessel. The technical term for that is 'ramming.' The Irwin had a Japanese boat on her right, and the Irwin deliberately turned to the right. I can't make it any simpler than that...

[Usrename]

186. I see what you are saying, but you miss the point completely.

If the harpoon vessel slowed, then they are at fault.

What you believe is true would be correct if, and only if, the harpoon vessel maintained their speed. I don't think they did.

It looks to me as if the Steve Irwin was manuvering to cross their stern, not manuevering to collide with them. And if the other ship slowed, it is their fault that the collision occurred.

How do you know when the clips that I linked to were recorded? I think they may have occured before the other collision happened.

[petronius]

187. If these were cars, or if the Irwin had just clipped the stern, I'd say you had a point,

but ships don't slow down like that. The Irwin started her turn from ~50 yards abeam of the harpoon boat, and managed to hit almost amidships. There's just no way the harpoon boat could have slammed on the brakes so dramatically as soon as the Irwin started turning - the Irwin was certain to hit as soon as she put the helm over (IMO, anyway)...

I'm just guessing on your clip - it looks very like the tail end of the one in post 144, albeit from a different angle, but it could easily be from another incident. Even though I'm quite certain that the Irwin initiated the hit in the video above, I'd be shocked if the Japanese haven't delivered some rammings of their own...

[Usrename]

188. They don't turn very fast, but they do slow down quickly from top speed.

When they are running at full tilt, they slow down immediately when the power is pulled off. It may take a while for all of the inertia to be dissipated and the vessel come to a complete stop, but the drag is so great when they are running at full speed that the initial deceleration is very quick. The turn that you see wasn't initiated at the same time that the vessel actually turned.

[petronius]

189. Not that quickly they don't - even if the Japanese boat had cut power

right when the Irwin started to turn, there's no way they would have fallen back so quickly as to be hit the way they were. The helmsman on the Irwin could not possibly have thought there was enough space to turn behind the harpooner.

For another perspective, here's the view from the Irwin's bridge, of what I'm pretty certain is the same collision. I'm not seeing or hearing anything to suggest that the Irwin was surprised at the hit, or was expecting the harpoon boat to be anywhere other than dead ahead. In fact the comment about helmets makes it pretty clear that this was planned for...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOWh6WX9PDs&feature=rela...

[leftchick]

73. thanks mike

for stating the obvious. Those that deny it are clueless.

[Bonobo]

155. You could not have watched the video. nt

[Hawkeye-X]

17. Yes, to save the whales, I'm on the side of the protestors.

Japan even admitted that they don't need that much whales. They're just subsidizing this shit - and Japan has economy worse than us, and they still do stupid shit.

Japan is in violation of international treaties. I understand that they used an illegal item "military grade" acoustic device that almost downed the Sea Shepard's helicopter.

[The Stranger]

74. The taboo against violence is often invoked by the empowered to justify social injustices.

Yet they maintain power by the most extraordinary violence imaginable -- hundreds of thousands murdered in a bullshit war and millions of members of a now endangered species exterminated.

Wake the fuck up.

[ZombieHorde]

95. How do you feel about Gandhi?

[The Stranger]

102. Love him. What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

[ZombieHorde]

109. Gandhi spoke out against violence, and your post (#74) is pro-violence.

Many of the votes in this poll are pro-violence. You may love him, but you seem to reject his philosophy as false.

[The Stranger]

124. Bullshit. My post is trying to wake you up as to the reality of violence.

Violence in itself is neither moral or immoral. Any philosopher worth his or her weight in dogshit will tell you there are times when violence is not only permissible, but morally required.

And the world is beautiful spectrum of shades of gray.

[ZombieHorde]

128. "Any philosopher worth his or her weight in dogshit will tell you"

According to Gandhi, what are these times?

And the world is beautiful spectrum of shades of gray.

When it comes to killing whales?

[Usrename]

141. Why do you think it is OK for a few folks to do this?

Do you really think it is morally acceptable for a few people to force the rest of us to live in a world without any whales?

What on earth would give them that right?

The whales would have been gone decades ago if it weren't for people like the sea shepherds. You do know that, don't you?

[The Stranger]

181. So you agree then that violence, in itself, is niether moral or immoral.

And that there are instances, in one of Plato's examples, for example, if an insane person were to wield a weapon, when violence would not only be permissible (to disarm the person), but morally required.

Once you have resolved this error in your thinking, the rest will follow. The taboo against violence is often invoked by the empowered to justify their hegemony, when they wield extraordinary violence of incomprehensible scale to maintain power.

Stay with it now.

[Renew Deal]

82. Save the whales. Kill the humans!

[John Kerry VonErich]

122. It's all nice until

Three guys show up with AK-47s and start busting caps.

[mikelgb]

86. I much perfer you sitting on your ass.

At least no one gets hurt

[slay]

50. I'm glad they did it too

nobody else has the balls to help these whales. good for them.

[MUAD_DIB]

53. I seem to remeber Greenpeace ramming a whaler in the early 80s.

[Renew Deal]

81. That's idiotic

And what if they sank themselves?

[wordpix]

174. BOYCOTT Japanese goods - a nonviolent tactic that would work

[leftchick]

4. fuck the whales!

save the sea rapers!

[mike_c]

5. no, they're not....

They were trying to block the factory ship slipway, to prevent the transfer of a whale-- the equivalent of a sit-in. Nonviolent. The Yushin Maru #2 attempted to interfere, putting its crew and the Steve Irwin's crew in jeopardy-- all to maintain the bloody profits of factory whalers. Piss on that.

[cosmicone]

30. This is where I'd think

the Somali pirates could be put to good use.... going after the whaling ships!! If the ransoms cost more than the whale meat, the whaling would be seriously hampered.

Two problems solved with one action.

[snooper2]

80. you might be on to something

[glitch]

35. No, they;re not.

Not ridiculous and not crossing any legitimate lines.

[Alexander]

47. Another DUer unaware of how the Japanese whalers are breaking treaties.

Do you have the same callous disregard for the law when you approach a stop light?

[ZombieHorde]

118. Those treaties are not recognized by most of the world, including the U.S.

[snooper2]

77. I hope they do more...

I haven't as of yet but I'm going to start donating to them...

"A cameraman from the Sea Shepherd helicopter Kookaburra videotaped the harpooning and shooting of a Minke whale at 1045 Hours.

The whale took 25 minutes to die after being struck with a harpoon and receiving 7 shots from a high powered rifle. The sea was full of blood.

The killing took place 10 miles away from the Steve Irwin.

"We can't cover all the harpoon vessels with the resources we have," said Sea Shepherd U.K. director Steve Roest who was injured as a result of a sonic blast from a Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD). "These hunter killer ships are out for blood, our blood and the blood of the whales."

The crew of the Steve Irwin are now directly behind the slipway of the Nisshin Maru attempting to block the transfer of the whale's body to the factory ship.

"Seeing the long prolonged agonizing murder of that defenceless whale has made me angry," said Captain Paul Watson. "Very angry. We are going to make a stand here today to shut this obscenity down. It will be dangerous but we did not come down here to witness the slaughter of whales, we came down to stop the killing. We have a very big disadvantage," continued Watson. "Japan will defend the violence of their mad dog killers. Our governments don't have the guts and will condemn us for defending ourselves and the whales. Sometimes you just have to say, what the hell and make a stand and that is what we intend to do here today. We intend to make a stand."

FUCK THE WHALERS

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-090205-4...

[ZombieHorde]

110. Are you a vegetarian?

Do you support the death penalty?

How do you feel about Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence?

[spoony]

111. I believe ramming has long been in their playbook n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Its how Watson does business. It will end when he loses this ship

Get extradited to Norway, or kills himself or some of his crew.

[flvegan]

136. No it won't.

Thank the gods. What for the Nybraenna? Good luck with that. That bitch deserved to rest on the bottom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

151. My point is that Watson is the defining force behind the SSCS and when he goes away it will wither

There will be others to oppose whaling, but when great FSM squeezed out Watson, it was a one time thing

[wordpix]

171. yeah, SS is terrible, trying to enforce anti-whaling laws when gov's that signed treaties won't

Let's just avert our eyes and let every nation kill all the threatened and endangered species they want, despite the laws and treaties designed to protect those species. That will help keep them rebound from near extinction for sure.

[mike_c]

2. Bravo, Steve Irwin!

[MasonJar]

16. Great! I admire these brave souls more than anyone else I can think of.

I hope that they were able to save the whale, which is a sentient, caring mammal.

[Harry Monroe]

18. I am no fan of whaling, but the "Steve Irwin" was clearly at fault here

I am a 20 year veteran of the Merchant Marine and a deck officer. I often pilot and conn ships and the "Steve Irwin" is clearly at fault, especially if the Japanese whaler vessel was engaged in pulling a whale onto the ship. The Japanese whaling ship had the right of way, this is called "restricted in the ability to maneuver", especially if the "Steve Irwin" was astern of her. If she rammed the stern Japanese whaling vessel, she would be considered an overtaking and had the obligation of staying out of the way of the vessel being overtaken, ie: the Japanese whaling vessel.

Again I do not condone whaling in any way, shape or form, but this is the law of the sea according to the COLREGS (Collision Regulations) and the captain of the "Steve Irwin" should face a court of admiralty law for this action and have his license suspended.

[Hawkeye-X]

24. Sorry, Harry - Yushin Maro #2 is in the WRONG big time.

First of all, they are in violation of an international treaty by whaling outside of their territory, second, they used an illegal item that could have SERIOUSLY jeopardized the safety of the Steve Irwin crew (acoustic device - military grade). All of Sea Shepard's actions were non-violent, and Japan has to go violent so they could haul in endangered whales. Brilliant deduction, even from a Merchant Marine like yourself, to think "right of ways" - Japan has never had the right to kill endangered whales, and they still don't. The law of the sea does NOT apply in the case - because the whaling ships are illegal in the first place. Sea Shepard were merely enforcing the international laws, and they were correct to do so.

I guess you didn't hear that Captain Paul Watson was nearly assassinated by a bullet from the same ship last year? I guess he was very smart to wear a bulletproof vest.

Hawkeye-X

[Harry Monroe]

28. I am simply stating that the "Steve Irwin" was negligent in its actions

...to stay out of the way of a vessel working which has the right of way by virtue of being "restricted in the ability to maneuver". From my perspective as a 20 year veteran of the Merchant Marine, this is the case. I am not talking about violating international treaties but simply collision regulations. This would be a case the Admiralty courts would take up and assign blame to each vessel in proportion. The "Steve Irwin" IMHO, seems to be the bigger violator here and the captain should have his license suspended. These tactics, while I applaud them, would be illegal in any Admiralty court of law in the world.

[Hawkeye-X]

33. No courts in the world will find against Steve Irwin - as they are the enforcers of the said law

You may be right about the collision law, but for the sake of the whales, Sea Shepard had to do what they did to prevent Yushin Maru from profiteering needlessly.

Hawkeye-X

[Harry Monroe]

37. And that is NOT what I am talking about here

Geez, read my posts. The "Steve Irwin's" captain could and should be hauled before an Admiralty court for negligence in operating his vessel. I am not talking about their supposed "enforcer" of the international law of taking whales illegally. By what jurisdiction did they claim that enforcement power anyway??

[Lance_Boyle]

115. Sea Shepard and the Steve Irwin are not legitimate "enforcers" of any law.

Next time they ram another vessel, I hope their egomaniacal asshole "captain" goes down with his pirate ship.

[wordpix]

173. SS is the enforcer, since the nations that signed anti-whaling treaties won't do it

The Japanese use whale meat for restaurant food and not for research---that goes against the "research" quota allowance, which is total BS to begin with and was only agreed to for political expediency.

I say, BOYCOTT JAPANESE GOODS until they stop whaling for "research."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

152. You need to read up some

Watson has been convicted in Norway and will serve time when they get him. Watson only goes to countries he knows will not turn him over.

The other SSCS ship is locked down in Canada with no prospect of being released any time soon. It will most likely end up in the breakers dock for mooring fees. The SCCS claim of illegal seizure will not hold up.

[arikara]

113. Even if it were true that the Japanese actually were the "victims"

would the maritime law stand if the act happened while the Japanese were performing illegal acts of piracy?

And if the second Japanese ship cut the Steve Irwin off then how could it be Sea Shepherd's fault. I'm no expert on boats but I've been on a few and I know that the bigger the boat is, the longer it takes to change course, and also that you cannot hit the brakes like a car and stop quickly.

[Marrah_G]

70. I saw the "shooting"

I have to say- I think the captain was full of shit. My BS meter went off the charts.

I started watching because I am anti-whaling and I thought it would be great to see them in action.

I was shocked by the shear ignorance of the group as far as safety was concerned.

Very irresponsible leadership.

[Codeine]

106. Watson was not shot.

That whole event was clearly fabricated, which leads me to have little faith (read: NONE) in their current tale about "military grade acoustical weapons." My sympathies lie entirely with Sea Shepherd, but their tactics and spin are absurd lately.

That said, ram the fuckers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. No, you are wrong, LOS does apply

That they are whaling has no bearing. In an Admiralty Court the "felony murder rule" kind of argument you are espousing is not recognized.

The so called assassination attempt was never verified. I saw the video which was far from convincing. Any follow up by law enforcement? Anything other than by claims by Watson?

[mike_c]

25. as I understand it, the Yushin Maru 2 was not the ship engaged...

...in off-loading the whale. They were in fact the vessel that restricted the Steve Irwin's ability to maneuver, precipitating the collision. The Yushin Maru 2 swung into the Steve Irwin's path to prevent them from blocking the slipway.

But the larger question has to do with Sea Shepherd's tactics. Blocking access to the slipway prevents whaling ships from offloading their prey onto the factory ship. That only restricts the whaler's ability to maneuver if they ignore the danger and attempt to ram their way forward. That is extremely irresponsible-- but of course, the Steve Irwin is creating the situation that the whalers respond to with violent confrontation.

Still, the Steve Irwin's actions are nonviolent as long as the whalers don't respond violently.

[Harry Monroe]

34. Sorry, you're wrong

The "Steve Irwin" is simply a vessel "underway" and cannot claim to be a vessel "restricted in the ability to maneuver" That distinction belongs to the vessel doing work at the time, ie: loading or offloading a whale. If the Yushin Maru 2 blocked the "Steve Irwin's" path, she is indeed at fault, but the "Steve Irwin" is also at fault for failing to overtake properly. Any Admiralty Court in the world would tell you that, and the Court would additionally assign proportionate blame to each vessel, depending on the facts on the case.

[sailor65]

48. You are exactly right, Harry

Without reiterating all your points, you've got it nailed. No matter at all what the whalers were doing.

Up here on Lake Huron we had a somewhat similar case involving a dive operator. A local private boat was headed onto a private mooring carrying 2 divers. The owner of the mooring, the operator/captain, attempted to beat the private boat to the buoy. The private boat ran up the dive marker and dropped one diver early, about 20 feet from the marker while underway toward it. The mooring owner (Approaching from the Port side) wound up bumping the illegal dive boat.

The mooring owner/Captain went under review with an automatic suspension of his ticket until review was complete. For right of way to the Starboard vessel, and for maintaining way through a marked dive radius. It took 2 months off his season and nearly cost him his ticket even though the other boat was carrying on illegal operations AND dropped its first diver/hoisted its marker improperly.

[glitch]

32. Hawkeye-X and Mike-c appear correct and you appear wrong.

The Steve Irwin would be cleared in a court of law IMO. And since when do pirates get right of way?

[Harry Monroe]

38. You have no concept of Admiralty Law and proportionate blame in a collision, do you?

My posts were simply about the "Steve Irwin" violating law in "restricting" a vessel working and being held to blame for the collision. That's all. I've heard of cases where ships have run "pirates" down in the Straits of Malacca after being threatened and still being hauled before courts in those jurisdiction (Malaysia and Singapore) and being held at fault, because the surviving "pirates" and their families held that the supposed "pirates" were simply fishing. A ship underway is obligated to stay out of the way of one fishing.

[glitch]

39. Really? More baseless assumptions on your part.

Fishing is not quite the same as pirating is it? Or does illegally fishing count as fishing in your view?

I think once you look into what actually happened you'll realize you are making incorrect assumptions, but I don't expect you to look into what actually happened or admit your mistake. Why bother, when assumptions can be so gratifying?

[ZombieHorde]

40. Most countries do not recognize Australia's claim on those waters.

[Harry Monroe]

42. I am not making any assumptions whatsoever. I am simply stating the law as Admiralty Courts

...interpret them. No assumptions whatsoever. The courts found for the pirates in the cases I cite. Fishing legally or illegally will still be held as fishing in an Admiralty Courts view. The fact that they are fishing legally or illegally would have no bearing on who would be at fault in the collision. Fishing legally or illegally would be a subject for a completely different case from the one assigning fault in a collision. And what background do YOU have in making YOUR assumptions. I've got 20 years under my belt and I know at least a little of how Admiralty Law works!!!!

[glitch]

43. Yes you are. You are assuming the Steve Irwin rammed the whaler.

Not that the whaler threw itself in front of the Steve Irwin (this would be the pirate move, that would lose its case in court).

Wait for the facts and stop making assumptions. Applying facts to wrong inference is still assumption.

[Harry Monroe]

44. The picture clearly shows the "Steve Irwin" as the after vessel

Ramming the vessel ahead of it. Any Admiralty Court would cite the "Steve Irwin" as at least partially at fault for following too closely. I have taken a few courses in Admiralty Law at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and I have friends and colleagues who are Admiralty lawyers. They'd tell you the same thing. Again..what background do YOU have in making YOUR assumptions?? I'd like to know.

[glitch]

45. Wait for it. nt

[Renew Deal]

84. Wait for what? Another clueless ,snarky, remark from you?

The other poster has some experience with this? Do you?

[depakid]

49. Interesting then that there's never been a judgment rendered against its vessels

Though the same isn't true of the Japanese whailing ships.

[Marrah_G]

72. This time they might face some charges

Better charges then any deaths or serious injuries though. He is very lucky no one was killed.

[depakid]

85. There was a simlar incident last year

Yet...drumroll...no chrages in any admiralty court.

The reason?

Neither the Japanese nor any other country engaged in illegal whaling wants to submit to jurisdiction.

Ask the person citing laws above why that might be....

[Usrename]

147. Isn't the stand-on vessel supposed to hold it's course steady?

It sure seems as though they were slowing just in front of the Steve Irwin. Wouldn't the Admiralty Court have to consider that, if indeed they did slow their course?

[Renew Deal]

83. You don't know what you're talking about.

And the other person does. You should be a little more respectful.

[glitch]

108. I don't think you are correct either. Disagreeing isn't disrespect.

You might want to reread all the posts and look again at who is throwing the insults.

[Bonobo]

157. Where is it illegal?

[Renew Deal]

92. Here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD2TpLifYM

[petronius]

135. That pretty clearly (~2:20) shows the Steve Irwin deliberately ramming

the Japanese ship.

It's just stupid - the video of the dying whale would carry far more weight, and it's all washed away by these stupid and dangerous antics...

[Bonobo]

158. +1

[Nihil]

64. That would only be true if the Steve Irwin had collided with the Maru #1.

It was the Maru #1 that was attempting to unload to the factory ship.

It was the Maru #2 that cut across the bows of the Steve Irwin and
caused the (minor) collision.

If the Steve Irwin had collided with the factory ship (the furthest
one in the line) then your arguments would be valid.

If the Steve Irwin had collided with the Maru #1 (the one attempting
to unload) then your arguments would be valid (again).

The Steve Irwin was maintaining a close escort position with regard
to the above two vessels (not overtaking) and was thus law-abiding.

The collision occurred because the Maru #2 attempted to scare the
Irwin off course by cutting *illegally* across the bows of the latter
and misjudged. As someone else pointed out (and as you well know)
you don't get the option of an "emergency stop" in a boat.

I follow your arguments (and they are correct in principle) but you
are mistaken about the identity and purpose of the two vessels involved
in the collision - hence your conclusion is invalid.

[Marrah_G]

69. Have you seen their tv show? The captain is dangerously ignorant

He sends kids into the icy waters of the Atlantic with no training, no experience, on little inflatables.....There were episodes where they didn't even know how to launch the boats. Another time an untrained volunteer was put on a boat with no training and broke her pelvis because she didn't know what she was doing.

The guy is dangerous.

[wordpix]

172. "law of the sea": how about enforcement of anti-whaling treaties?

I guess that's not considered "law of the sea" because protection of threatened marine species is unimportant in your book.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. Good.

The Japanese whalers are just a bunch of sadistic criminals.

[roody]

31. I support the Sea Shepherd and direct action.

[robinlynne]

36. You mean whaler rams protest ship!

[and-justice-for-all]

46. Good for Sea Shepherd!!! Sink'em!!!! nt

[Tony238]

51. Like it or not whaling is still legal

What the Steve Irwin did was wrong. They either forced a collision or purposely rammed the ship. Even if you think whaling is wrong it does not give you the right to interfere with a legal activity. This is yet another mark against the credibility of Paul Watson in my books.

[ZombieHorde]

56. Welcome to DU. May your skin be thick. nt

[Nihil]

63. ... because your head certainly is ... (n/t)

[Nevernose]

60. They had a moral obligation to interfere with that particular legal activity

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience
Read it sometime. Just because the Japanese government is afraid of losing face doesn't make whaling okay.

[Renew Deal]

88. According to you

[Usrename]

148. I don't think it is legal.

What makes you think a few people have the right to deprive the world of whales?

The kind of whaling they are up to is definitely illegal. What scientific body do you know of that would say what they are up to is necessary or scientific? It's an international crime.

[Renew Deal]

87. Kill people to save the whales! Rah! Rah! Rah!

[atreides1]

97. No

Kill whalers to save the whales! No more whalers, no more whaling.

Kind of simple.

[Renew Deal]

100. OK

How about no more people, no more whaling?

[Larkspur]

52. The Japanese whalers must be in trouble when they are willing to risk their ship's safety

to ram a protest boat.

I sent Sea Shepherd $500 last year. I had a job back then. Hope I can help them out $$ this year but I need a job first.

[smalll]

57. Naming a ship the "Steve Irwin" then going around trying to IMPALE whaling ships with it --

doesn't seem right somehow. Perhaps they should have named it the "Sting Ray" instead.

[Bonobo]

159. LOL!!

[underseasurveyor]

61. Right or Wrong

Right Fucking On Sea Shepherd

Do it again

Fuck all the whale murderers in the world. That includes you too Iceland /middlefingerextended:

[Pavulon]

68. Once you are willing to ram

a ship dozens of miles from any real medical help you should be willing to sink it outright. People are seriously injured when sailboats collide. At 6 - 10 kts. Once you start colliding large vessels you are taking a risk of seriously injuring or killing people.

Maybe they can find some torpedoes.

Not a fan of whalers but once you are willing to be violent dont bring a knife to a gunfight right?

[Marrah_G]

71. he's already had at least one young volunteer hurt due to ignorance and lack of training

The show shows a shocking amount of negligence on the part of the SS leadership.

[The Stranger]

75. Fight on, Sea Shepherd! Fight the Whaler Criminals!

[Omaha Steve]

76. The violence is all on the part of the whaling fleet

Send them to Davey Jones locker!

K&R!

[Renew Deal]

79. That's dangerously stupid.

When do they start arming themselves?

[Omaha Steve]

104. Check LBN

Sonic (sound) weapons fired on the Steve Irwin helicopter before this bumping incident.

[saigon68]

89. "Lots a Love" on this Thread

[ProgressiveProfessor]

167. Watson is a very polarizing element, even among those of us who are serious about conservation

[Godhumor]

90. I have no respect for the Steve Irwin or its crew

As some others have said the show was incredibly damning towards them. Other than the lack of training, intelligence or even awareness of what to do on the water there were so many other problems.

- I was incredibly annoyed at how happy the crew seemed to be at the prospect of being "martyred" to make a statement

- Spinning incidents to look like innocent victims (Throwing sticky stink bombs at the whalers and reacting to "assault" when the whaler responded with flashbangs after warning that they would retaliate.

- The utterly ridiculous "shooting" incident. I will never take a sea Shepherd press release at face value due to that incident.

- The absolute willingness to push volunteers into dangerous situations they are untrained for (goes with the martyr thing)

- The ending interviews from the season finale struck me as a lot closer to brainwashing and blind hero worship then rational thought. It was disturbingly cult-like.

There has to be better people and organizations to be the face on ending whaling then these fools.

[Barrett808]

91. "There has to be better people and organizations" -- Guess what? There aren't.

And governments, of course, won't uphold environmental/conservation law.

Now go donate to Greenpeace and finance some more whale snuff porn.

[Bonobo]

160. You have torpedoed your rep.

[Codeine]

107. "I will never take a sea Shepherd press release at face value due to that incident."

Precisely. They all read to me like Pentagon press releases or North Korean propaganda now -- and that's from somebody who actually sympathises with them! They've undermined their credibility dramatically with Watson' "Made for TV" bullshit.

[Barrett808]

114. So you view ICR press releases as the unvarnished truth?

I'll take SSCS press releases any day of the week.

[Codeine]

121. Logical fallacy, dead ahead!

Oops, you rammed right into it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Somebody needs to arrest Paul Watson.

And extradite him. Either to Norway, where he's been convicted in absentia for trying to sink a fishing boat, or to Costa Rica where he's wanted for attempted murder.

[Godhumor]

99. Hopefullybefore he gets someone killed in these stunts n/t

[Barrett808]

116. "Costa Rica where he's wanted for attempted murder" -- Pure BS

My wife was the media officer on that campaign. She documented the whole Varadero incident, and the "attempted murder" charge was tossed out on the strength of her photographic evidence. The Taiwanese fishing mafia had to venue shop through six judges before one would even hear the case.

Puntarenas is basically controlled by Taiwan. See the movie Sharkwater (http://www.sharkwater.com ) for details.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. The Norway conviction is still valid though

[flvegan]

101. False fucking headline.

It was a collision, if ANYBODY wants to take the fucking time to read the article. It wasn't an intentional ramming.

Jesus, the stupid in this thread is insulting.

[Barrett808]

117. Word. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

123. I have no dog in this fight but it's pretty clear the protesters rammed the whalers.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFGmR99-D0k

[flvegan]

137. That's "clear" to you?

Wow.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

139. What's not clear about it?

The SI went hard over to the right exposing the markings on her left front bow. The whaler never turned. Furthermore, the SI maintained contact for a good thirty seconds and it appeared he attempted another little bump as the whaler pulled away.

Like Hooper said, "This was not a boating accident!!"

Pretty clear.

[flvegan]

143. Looks to me

like the whaler crosses the Steve Irwin's bow. And, it's not exactly third party video, either. But opinions are just that.

[wordpix]

176. also possible all those water cannons blinded the captain/crew

There were a lot going on at the same time

[flvegan]

142. By the looks of it

the whaler crosses the bow of the Steve Irwin. But, opinions are just that.

[Usrename]

156. It isn't that clear to me.

It looks very much like the whaler was slowing in front of them. That would be a big no-no. If they were overtaking the protesters (as it appears to me) then they must maintain course and speed. It's looks like they intentionally slowed. That would make any collision their fault, unless they can claim they were doing so in order to avoid a collision, in which case there might share the blame. But if they did change course or speed, then it DEFINITELY isn't the protester's fault. The other ship either gets all or just some of the blame if they failed to hold their speed and heading.

At least that is the way I understand it, but I could be wrong.

[wordpix]

175. were you a witness?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

177. I witnessed the video. I have two eyes and I can see.

I know that when you see the bow of a ship head-on and the all the sudden you see their left side and you see their wake trail veer to your left the ship in question is making a right turn.

After the collision, look at the SI's wake trail. It makes a significant arc to it right. Notice the SI engages the whaler for 30 seconds, disengages and then gets one more bump in before they break off and then cuts across her stern - again, look at the wake trail.

Tell me, where is the other ship the SI captain says was boxing him in from his left? Maybe the apologists can tell me how I missed the phantom ship in the video . Or is the SI captain a fucking liar?

[Bonobo]

162. The video is completely unambiguous. They rammed them from behind.

100% clear. If you saw it, you would have to agree.

[flvegan]

164. Really? I saw it and I disagree.

Considering the whalers were filming it. Seems the whalers crossed their bow. Oh, and if Sea Shepherd did indeed ram them, I look forward to the forthcoming charges against them.

Yeah, mark. Let me know when that happens.

Larf. Hey, why do the Japanese have illegal military weaponry this round?

Don't hurt yourself answering that one.

[Bonobo]

170. The weaponry, illegal or not, is a response to stated threats of violence.

They SAY they intend to ram them. Then they ram them. So they defend themselves with non-lethal weapons. What's surprising?

As for your opinion of who's fault it is, not all opinions are equally valid. It WAS unambiguous.

Just because I say I am of the opinion that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it an open debate, you know.

[Joanne98]

105. YAY

[cottonseed]

112. Not just good for the whales. It's great for the ratings!

Their show will definitely be picked back up next season. Can't wait until someone dies. Can you say Prime Time!

[time_has_come]

125. Yeah Watson, it was their fault.

What a joke.

I'd like to see the "captain" just be honest for once. I know he is fighting the good fight and all that, but his propensity to lie has left his reputation in tatters.

You rammed them Mr. Capi-ton. Admit it, you rammed them. The truth feels good, try it out once in a while.

[time_has_come]

126. "We have never seen them this aggressive." What a SCAM Watson is running.

I hate being lied to.

I hope Watson's boat springs a leak and they all safely take to their life boats and the Japanese whalers save them and make them hang out in the hold with all that whale blubber.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

161. The latest on the SSCS site does show things that have not been done before

It would appear that Watson was forced onto the defensive for a while by a taste of his own tactics. I would not be surprised if there is more of that from the Japanese.

Watson will be in serious trouble if he loses his steering or power. He is a long way from any rescue.

[progressoid]

127. This is the kind of thing that gets you sunk to the bottom of the ocean

Remember the Rainbow Warrier?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

131. Or your ship locked down

[Barrett808]

134. I do remember the Rainbow Warrior: French agents were convicted of manslaughter. n/t

[progressoid]

153. And released.

A murder enquiry began and a number of the French agents were tracked and arrested. The revelations of French involvement caused a political scandal and the French minister of defence Charles Hernu resigned. The captured French agents were imprisoned, but later transferred to French custody. They were confined to the French military base on the Island of Hao for a brief period before being released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_ (1978)

[depakid]

169. Errr... Care to look at the actual tally?

* 1979 – the whaler Sierra rammed and sunk in Portugal;
* 1980 – the whalers Isba I and Isba II sunk in Vigo, Spain;
* 1980 – the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa;
* 1986 – the whaling ships Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7 sunk in Iceland;
* 1992 – the whaler Nybraena sunk in Norway;
* 1994 – the whaler Senet sunk in Norway;
* 1998 – the whaler Morild sunk in Norway.

In 2007, two ships operated by Sea Shepherd (Farley Mowat and Robert Hunter) were removed from the shipping registers of the United Kingdom and Belize. Later on that year, the ships received the flag of the Kahnawake Mohawk nation. According to a November 2007 article in The New Yorker, both the Farley Mowat, and the Steve Irwin now sail under the Dutch flag.

In December 2007, the ship Robert Hunter was renamed the Steve Irwin, after Australian Steve Irwin ("The Crocodile Hunter"), who was rumored to be planning to sail with the Sea Shepherds.

[Barrett808]

185. Also worth noting that the whalers' Oriental Bluebird was deflagged by Panama...

...for breaching international environmental law.

[crimsonblue]

183. This is international piracy

and the crew of the Sea Shepard should be brought to justice.