Terrorist boat - Andy Gil - sunk

FrustratedDave said:

I can see where you are trying to go with this, but we are talking about international waters where no country has jurisdiction, not like a country or provence that has policing in place . At this stage no country is willing to police international waters which leaves ship owners to fend for themselves and this is the reason it is allowed for ships to arm and defend themselves against piracy. This is something you just can't seem to grasp is it?

Click to expand...

Again, you're taking my argument to somewhere that it wasn't intended.

So they could infact hire a Japanese security outfit and arm themselves that way if they were attacked, going by the above quote. They could always defend themselves that way. But , I think you will find that they really just want to be left alone and that is why they have done everything to avoid situatations like this.

Click to expand...

Doesn't pertain to the discussion.

I thought we went over the boat size thing? Even though it looks like the Ady Gil deliberately came into contact with the whaler, generally speaking I think it is pretty obvious that raming a boat and disabling it will allow them to make a get away, and from what I can gather the whalers were able to flee the attacks as the Bob Barker was not able to pursue the whalers any more. Really , read the quote below, it tells stories about why they can defend themselves.

Click to expand...

Doesn't pertain to the discussion.

I know your stance, I don't agree with your understanding of the collision. I don't condone putting peoples lives at risk, there are proper channels to protest if that is you stance.

Click to expand...

I don't care about how they protest, the video shows a larger boat ramming into the smaller boat, that is a fact anything else doesn't matter.

So why were they there in the first place and then deliberately put themselves in that position?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter

So what were they doing there again? Fishing? Sightseeing? Yep, poor innocent eco-terrorists, just minding their own busness and wham , a Japanese whaler out of the blue rams them. Absolutely shocking stuff. Don't forget to give that address so I can send you that postcard. LOL

Click to expand...

You don't seem to be grasping what i'm saying, I don't care what they did to deserve it, the fact of the matter, is they were rammed purposely by the larger boat. I don't care why they were there, the video shows the larger boat made a hard turn to the right, thus ramming into and having full intention of, ramming the smaller boat. Do you deny what the video shows?

What are your thoughts on this video, you seem to be avoiding it at all costs. Is that b/c the Ady Gil may actually be at fault and you don't want to admit it?

Click to expand...

Stop trying to manipulate my opinion into something it isn't, I don't care about the video because there is no more proof than there is of Aliens existing. Other than that, half of your post doesn't pertain to the discussion in any way.

Ainokeato said:

Again, you're taking my argument to somewhere that it wasn't intended.

Click to expand...

The incident was in interantional waters and the laws there are different, why is that not important? It is very pertinent to why the incident occurred

Ainokeato said:

Doesn't pertain to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Why? They are in international waters and have the right to defend themselves.

Ainokeato said:

Doesn't pertain to the discussion.

Click to expand...

You asked the question, I just answered it. So now it can't be entered into discussion. Why do I get the feeling you have no recourse?

Ainokeato said:

I don't care about how they protest, the video shows a larger boat ramming into the smaller boat, that is a fact anything else doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

The law states they can defend themselves and who says they ramed the smaller boat? why are we going around in circles?

Ainokeato said:

You don't seem to be grasping what i'm saying, I don't care what they did to deserve it, the fact of the matter, is they were rammed purposely by the larger boat. I don't care why they were there, the video shows the larger boat made a hard turn to the right, thus ramming into and having full intention of, ramming the smaller boat. Do you deny what the video shows?

Click to expand...

How covenient of you. I don't deny a collision occured, whos fault it was I don't know. But I don't live in a world where conclusions are made from personal opinions.

Ainokeato said:

Stop trying to manipulate my opinion into something it isn't, I don't care about the video because there is no more proof than there is of Aliens existing. Other than that, half of your post doesn't pertain to the discussion in any way.

Click to expand...

So what are your thoughts on the Ady Gil moving forward into the Whaler? The wake was clear and present. Why do you continue to not present an argument on this. You said show the proof and I have so what is your response to the video? If all you care about is the ramming , them don't be a pussy and say why the Japanese were at fault and stop dancing around.

Faustianideals said:

You are a very pitiful person, FrustratedDave. Killing whales may have been acceptable in the past, but science has provided us with the knowledge that they are intelligent creatures. They do so many things that make them exceptional in the animal kingdom, and yet you condone their murder?

Click to expand...

Show me one word where I said that I condone it.

Faustianideals said:

The comparison to cows, sheep, or chickens being killed for food is weak. They are not intelligent in the same way whales are. You could shoot a sheep in the head one day, and come out to the rest of the group with a gun and they would not have learned to run away. The same applies for cows. I personally raise chickens, and I can pick a chicken up, and behead it, and the other chickens don't respond.

Click to expand...

Are kidding me? You are going to say that these animals don't have what a whale has. Ever seen a dog have its life long pal die, watch the grief. Or watch the greif of a cow when a calf dies in front of its mother. You obviously have never lived on a farm.

Faustianideals said:

Furthermore, in your own argument, you would be as guilty as the Institute of Cetacean Research. You argue the point that they have the right to whale, and yet you condone their blatant lying to the international community. They are not performing scientific research on the whales. If anything at all, they're testing the gullibility of the international community by continuing on with these shameful acts.

Click to expand...

Where is your evidnece they are not gathering research data, at the present time there is only opinions. Sorry , like I said I don't make decisions on things I don't know about or have feelings toward and I don't know if they are or are not, but I am not going to take sides except with the law. It is called being adult and looking at the world from an unbiased perspective. You should try it some time?

Faustianideals said:

Worst of all, Japan is whaling in the southern ocean whale sanctuary. It's a SANCTUARY FOR WHALES. Norway doesn't hunt there, Iceland doesn't hunt there, Greenland doesn't hunt there, so what gives Japan the right beyond their own ignorant stubbornness?
As much as I deplore whaling practice as a whole, at least the other countries who hunt whales do not do it in the Indian Ocean Whale Sanctuary, or the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Click to expand...

So that makes it ok then? If you are going to take a line on something stick to it.

Faustianideals said:

Now, is Sea Shepherds walking the line between illegal and legal with their actions? Yes, they've clearly stated that they are. Are they morally justified? Yes, they are. Are they legally justified? Not so much. However, the fact that the international community is taking little to no action against the illegal hunting of oceans in the southern ocean whale sanctuary made it possible for a group like Sea Shepherds to persevere. Someone has to do so until the IWC stops being lazy in protecting the sanctuary themselves.Breaking the law , regardless if it is the

The fact that Japan lies about the purpose of their hunting is disgraceful, and only kicks dirt in the face of Japan's government, and as a member of the international community. You're free to be as deluded as you like, FrustratedDave, but you are wrong in the eyes of so many, and the Sea Shepherds will in the long run will be applauded for the line they walked, for putting their lives on the line to protect whales.

Japan will not.

Click to expand...

Really, so putting peoples lives at risk is a good thing? That is a first for me. I am not sure everyone thinks the way you do either.
Read the links and the replies down the bottom of each link ,lots of people calling them idiots. And there are lot of people applauding the Sea Shepherds actions, everyone has a right to an opinion. But , not everyone shares your veiw on their "moral right" to attack these vessels.

Idiots at Sea: "Sea Shepherds" Continue to Act Dangerously -This Time in the Med
http://rokdrop.com/2010/01/06/sea-shepherds-ady-gil-sunk-by-japanese-whalers-security-ship/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6062496-504083.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/out...-being-struck-by-japanese-whaling-vessel.html

FrustratedDave said:

The incident was in interantional waters and the laws there are different, why is that not important? It is very pertinent to why the incident occurred

Click to expand...

Because, had you read my original post, I don't care why it happened, the fact is that is happened, the larger boat rammed the smaller boat, how many times do I have to repeat this for you to understand?

Why? They are in international waters and have the right to defend themselves.
You asked the question, I just answered it. So now it can't be entered into discussion. Why do I get the feeling you have no recourse?

Click to expand...

Refer to the statement above.

The law states they can defend themselves and who says they ramed the smaller boat? why are we going around in circles?

Click to expand...

The video clearly shows a larger boat veering to the right with full intent on ramming the smaller boat.

How covenient of you. I don't deny a collision occured, whos fault it was I don't know. But I don't live in a world where conclusions are made from personal opinions.

Click to expand...

You don't? I could have sworn you've been here trying to deny what happened in the video actually happened. Because, you know, video lies.

So what are your thoughts on the Ady Gil moving forward into the Whaler? The wake was clear and present. Why do you continue to not present an argument on this. You said show the proof and I have so what is your response to the video? If all you care about is the ramming , them don't be a pussy and say why the Japanese were at fault and stop dancing around.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, had the whaler kept going its course or even moved to the left it wouldn't have been their fault had the smaller boat rammed into them, but they didn't do that, instead, they moved right and rammed the small boat. Boy, does basic logic escape you?

FrustratedDave said:

So that makes it ok then? If you are going to take a line on something stick to it.

Click to expand...

I absolutely despise liars, FrustratedDave. As a matter of fact, Japan is lying to the entire international community by claiming they're whaling for scientific research. Norway, Greenland, and Iceland are not lying. What they are doing is wrong, but they're not whaling in areas marked by the international community as a sanctuary for whales, are they? At least the latter countries have the moral backbone to admit they're whaling to sell the meat. It's a big start.

Some of you folks have clearly spent no time at all around ships. There is no way on earth you can stop or maneuver a larger vessel as well as a smaller one.

That big Japanese ship couldn't have hit the whale-huggers' boat if it wanted to -- unless the smaller boat deliberately or carelessly got in the big ship's way. It would be like a semi-truck trying to hit a Porshe in a gigantic, empty parking lot. Or a commercial airliner trying to hit an F-22.

Here ya go:

"The Law Of Gross Tonnage: A Matter of Common Sense
The law of gross tonnage is actually more an unwritten rule than a law. It has a great deal to do with simple common sense. If it's bigger than you are, get out of the way.

On the water, this means that even though your boat may have the right of way as determined by the Navigation Rules and Regulations, you should yield for a larger vessel. This isn't about etiquette; it's about logic and the survival instinct. Smaller vessels are more maneuverable than their larger counterparts. Smaller boats are going to sustain more damage in the event of a collision, ergo, it is in the best interests of the smaller boat to "get the heck out of Dodge" in such situations.

The practicality of this law is evidenced in non-maritime situations as well. Subcompacts and oversized SUVs rarely jockey for position on the roadways. The smaller kid on the playground almost always makes way for the bigger one. The five-foot-ten basketball player does not try to make his shot over the head of the 6-foot-seven giant standing in front of him.

That's the law of gross tonnage in a nutshell. The heavier vessel ALWAYS has the right of way. Don't rely on its captain to change course, to see you, or to stop in time to avoid a collision. Yielding is the smart way to take charge of your own safety."

http://madmariner.com/tip/122707

Whoever captained that Ady Gil knew, or should have known, nautical customs and rules.

Ainokeato said:

You don't? I could have sworn you've been here trying to deny what happened in the video actually happened. Because, you know, video lies.
It doesn't matter, had the whaler kept going its course or even moved to the left it wouldn't have been their fault had the smaller boat rammed into them, but they didn't do that, instead, they moved right and rammed the small boat. Boy, does basic logic escape you?

Click to expand...

Funny thing is you wanted me to prove that they were trying to snag the props ect, I did and now it becomes irrelevant? Why was it important for me to do that? Sounds to me like you are running out responses, so all that is left is for you to brush them aside b/c you really don't have a clue. But where is your evidence that they deliberately rammed the Ady Gil, all I see is a video of two boats colliding, that does not prove it was deliberate. The buck is on you now and you can keep saying "look at the video" all you like ,but there is no evidence thus far that it was a deliberate. As RolandtheHeadless stated it is almost impossible for a ship that large to hit something that small on purpose.

I am taking into account all circumstances, are you? Clearly not. Anyone could say that that boat deliberately try to ram the Ady gil. If you took in all the events happening that day (which you are too stupid to) the Ady Gil had been trying to foul the prop ,( whether they succeeded or does not change the fact that they were doing it) . So they had been running accross the front of the boat many times with a rope dragged behind, so would'nt you say it would be a fair assumption that the Whaler was trying to avoid being snagged from the smaller Ady gil, so you may be able to see one of the reason as to why they did not stay their original corse for fear of being fouled. But b/c the Ady gil was moving forward and the obvious fact that a vessel of that size has a huge turning circle and can not maneuver in time the end result was a collision.

That is why the events and circumstances of that day are so important to outcome of this crash. And you can't ignore them like you are, those actions an reactions are part and parcel of the crash and no one in there right mind or a court of law just take a few seconds of video before a crash and determine which party was at fault. Why do you think they have trials in a court? To get sufficient evidence to asses why the crash may have occurred, not just look at one piece of evidence and make a decision from there.

Your argument is baseless and you keep dismissing important factors in an event that led to the collision and why it happend and who was at fault. In any case , you clearly don't listen to reason.

Faustianideals said:

I absolutely despise liars, FrustratedDave. As a matter of fact, Japan is lying to the entire international community by claiming they're whaling for scientific research. Norway, Greenland, and Iceland are not lying. What they are doing is wrong, but they're not whaling in areas marked by the international community as a sanctuary for whales, are they? At least the latter countries have the moral backbone to admit they're whaling to sell the meat. It's a big start.

Click to expand...

Regardless the Sea Shepherd is undertaking actions of vigilantes and no matter which way you slice it if it is forgiven it just sets a precedent for anarchy.

RolandtheHeadless said:

Some of you folks have clearly spent no time at all around ships. There is no way on earth you can stop or maneuver a larger vessel as well as a smaller one.

That big Japanese ship couldn't have hit the whale-huggers' boat if it wanted to -- unless the smaller boat deliberately or carelessly got in the big ship's way. It would be like a semi-truck trying to hit a Porshe in a gigantic, empty parking lot. Or a commercial airliner trying to hit an F-22.

Click to expand...

Clearly.

FrustratedDave said:

Funny thing is you wanted me to prove that they were trying to snag the props ect, I did and now it becomes irrelevant? Why was it important for me to do that? Sounds to me like you are running out responses, so all that is left is for you to brush them aside b/c you really don't have a clue. But where is your evidence that they deliberately rammed the Ady Gil, all I see is a video of two boats colliding, that does not prove it was deliberate. The buck is on you now and you can keep saying "look at the video" all you like ,but there is no evidence thus far that it was a deliberate. As RolandtheHeadless stated it is almost impossible for a ship that large to hit something that small on purpose.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure if I can see the left side of your boat from a distance as you're coming straight on, I'm pretty sure that means you're turning the opposite direction that I can see your boat from.

I am taking into account all circumstances, are you? Clearly not. Anyone could say that that boat deliberately try to ram the Ady gil. If you took in all the events happening that day (which you are too stupid to) the Ady Gil had been trying to foul the prop ,( whether they succeeded or does not change the fact that they were doing it) . So they had been running accross the front of the boat many times with a rope dragged behind, so would'nt you say it would be a fair assumption that the Whaler was trying to avoid being snagged from the smaller Ady gil, so you may be able to see one of the reason as to why they did not stay their original corse for fear of being fouled. But b/c the Ady gil was moving forward and the obvious fact that a vessel of that size has a huge turning circle and can not maneuver in time the end result was a collision.

Click to expand...

Okay, fine, let's go with that logic, the net was in the larger boats course and could in fact damage the boat, why not move left INSTEAD of right UNLESS, you purposely wanted to hit something, again, basic logic is lost upon you.

That is why the events and circumstances of that day are so important to outcome of this crash. And you can't ignore them like you are, those actions an reactions are part and parcel of the crash and no one in there right mind or a court of law just take a few seconds of video before a crash and determine which party was at fault. Why do you think they have trials in a court? To get sufficient evidence to asses why the crash may have occurred, not just look at one piece of evidence and make a decision from there.

Click to expand...

Again, ignoramus, read my posts, no where did I mention where I cared about who did what to who before hand, who was breaking what law, and who was the guilty party of any of the events before hand. The larger boat turned into the smaller boat, again, THAT is what happened, unless you are going to willingly deny what happened in the video.

Your argument is baseless and you keep dismissing important factors in an event that led to the collision and why it happend and who was at fault. In any case , you clearly don't listen to reason.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't comprehend what i'm saying, I don't care about your stupid feud's with people who are none of your concern.

Ainokeato said:

I'm pretty sure if I can see the left side of your boat from a distance as you're coming straight on, I'm pretty sure that means you're turning the opposite direction that I can see your boat from.

Click to expand...

How can you say that, as you are not willing to take into account the weaving and turning the Ady Gil was doing in front of the whaler all that morning? So you can't say what could or could not be done can you?

Ainokeato said:

Okay, fine, let's go with that logic, the net was in the larger boats course and could in fact damage the boat, why not move left INSTEAD of right UNLESS, you purposely wanted to hit something, again, basic logic is lost upon you.

Click to expand...

Wow, you asked why. Why? b/c the circumstance were not ordinary, they were under continual attack from the Ady Gil and when circumstances are not normal , logical reactions usually don't take place. This is something you can't seem to understand and are unwilling to even acknowledge .Your also not taking into account that the whaler could have possibly done what you said previously only to be out maneuvered by the Ady Gil previously so this time they took a different tactic to evade the ropes. You are very unwilling to accept that it was the Ady Gil doing the engaging and making repeated attacks at the whaler, while the whole time the whaher was full steam ahead and could not possibly outrun the Ady gil. And if that whaler was able to out run the Ady Gil it would have done it right from the start, but again the Ady Gil was playing games of chicken all day and it is inevitable that an accident like this was to happen. You know what they say, play with fire and you will get burnt.

Ainokeato said:

Again, ignoramus, read my posts, no where did I mention where I cared about who did what to who before hand, who was breaking what law, and who was the guilty party of any of the events before hand. The larger boat turned into the smaller boat, again, THAT is what happened, unless you are going to willingly deny what happened in the video.
You clearly don't comprehend what i'm saying, I don't care about your stupid feud's with people who are none of your concern.

Click to expand...

Well numbnuts, why did you ask me to prove that the Ady gil was actually attacking the whaler with ropes if you don't care about the events before hand, you still have not answered that. Now that I have proved they were, why do you keep saying those events don't "pertain" to this dicussion? Is it b/c now you have nothing but a video of two ships colliding and all you can say that the poor little defenseless smaller boat was doing nothing wrong. When the reality is they were attacking the whaler all morning long, oh but they must have been there sightseeing and boom , out of the blue a big fricken whaler rams them. let me know the address so I can send that post card. Not to mention you completely dismissing the fact that their boat is many , many times more maneuverable , and much , much faster that the whaler.

Hey guys, I'm getting a feeling that Godwin's Law is about to be invoked. May I suggest to everyone that we take a step back, and remember that this discussion should be based on facts made clear to us by science? Nothing else matters, so let's stop with the name-calling, and continue forward.

</mommyout>

Faustianideals said:

I think you don't understand the laws of physics.

Click to expand...

You can clearly see that the engines were on- you can choose to ignore that if you want to, thats your choice, but you're not going to convince me about anything by just insulting people in this thread, repeating yourself over & over, talking in a patronising or superior manner or changing topics etc.
I don't particularly care about anything that you have to say if you act like this at all- can't reason with the unreasonable. (I'm a polite person who mostly views forums as a waste of life hours, so i am not going to stick around purely to experience unpleasant behavior).

Faustianideals said:

Hey guys, I'm getting a feeling that Godwin's Law is about to be invoked. May I suggest to everyone that we take a step back, and remember that this discussion should be based on facts made clear to us by science? Nothing else matters, so let's stop with the name-calling, and continue forward.

</mommyout>

Click to expand...

You know, the whaling ships are a lot like Hitler's regime, trying to expunge the Jews (whales) from the face of the planet and hiding behind their racial supremacy (research) to do it. Was that good enough?

Half-n-Half said:

You know, the whaling ships are a lot like Hitler's regime, trying to expunge the Jews (whales) from the face of the planet and hiding behind their racial supremacy (research) to do it. Was that good enough?

Click to expand...

You know, the eco-terrorist boats are a lot like Hitler's regime, trying to expunge the Whalers (Japanese only) from the face of the planet and hiding behind their racial supremacy (environment) to do it. Was that good enough.

Astroboy said:

Was that good enough.

Click to expand...

Yep

I hope you know I was being sarcastic and not serious.

Faustianideals said:

Hey guys, I'm getting a feeling that Godwin's Law is about to be invoked.

Click to expand...

Godwin's Law

Tokis-Phoenix said:

You can clearly see that the engines were on- you can choose to ignore that if you want to, thats your choice, but you're not going to convince me about anything by just insulting people in this thread, repeating yourself over & over, talking in a patronising or superior manner or changing topics etc.
I don't particularly care about anything that you have to say if you act like this at all- can't reason with the unreasonable. (I'm a polite person who mostly views forums as a waste of life hours, so i am not going to stick around purely to experience unpleasant behavior).

Click to expand...

Heeey, you're entitled to your opinion. As much as I don't like it, it's yours to have and share. The discussion has degenerated to calling each other names though, so, as I said, and am repeating myself, just take a step back, take a deep breath, and continue the discussion. ._.

Or are you all just a bunch of ugly jerkfaces? :?

Faustianideals said:

Heeey, you're entitled to your opinion. As much as I don't like it, it's yours to have and share. The discussion has degenerated to calling each other names though, so, as I said, and am repeating myself, just take a step back, take a deep breath, and continue the discussion. ._.
Or are you all just a bunch of ugly jerkfaces? :?

Click to expand...

I don't believe in calling rational people names. That said I am still waiting for Numbnuts (Ainokeato) to answer my questions, instead of just brushing them aside when he even thought they were "pertinent" by the reason of asking me to prove that they Ady Gil was engaging the Whaler and trying to foul the prop. I did that so then he decides that it doesn't matter what they were doing before hand. Yeah, thats a good one, tell that story to the women who was cleared of ALL wrong doings when she hit a pedestrian with her car. Did I mention that the guy was drunk and stepped in front of it, oh but yeah, I remember, it doesn't matter what was happening before hand now does it? B/c if we saw a video of that car hitting the guy all we would see is the collision we would be able to say that she was completely in the wrong b/c he was a pedestrian and she had the big a$$ car, so she must of hit the guy on purpose. What laugh...

Then he comes up with an argument that they were only "attempting" to foul the prop and that they didn't succeed. Yeah , they should amend the law to say that attempted murder is ok b/c the person did not succeed in killing them. Looks like we have an Einstein on our hands here for sure.

We're turning in circles here, nasty circles.

Chill-out, temporarily closed.