Terrorist boat - Andy Gil - sunk

[Nuala]

Coveniently ignoring the fact as to WHY WERE THEY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I love how people love to blame others... I really love this society....:banghead:

They were there to disrupt Japanese whaling vessels. I don't think that gives the crew of the Shonan Maru #2 the right to get that close to a CARBON FIBRE SPEEDBOAT. That's recklessly endangering the lives aboard the Ady Gil.

 

[FrustratedDave]

They were there to disrupt Japanese whaling vessels. I don't think that gives the crew of the Shonan Maru #2 the right to get that close to a CARBON FIBRE SPEEDBOAT. That's recklessly endangering the lives aboard the Ady Gil.

So they were there trying to sabotage the Japanese ships and you say that gives them no right to get that close to a carbon fiber boat. Do you even realise what you are saying? This is worth another infraction, but you are an idiot.

I am sure the Japanese whalers have vital stats on the Ady gill being carbon fiber and all, another stupid statement, well do on that one. :banghead:

And those lives that you supposedly are being endangered by the Whaling ship are being put in danger by no one else but themselves when they set out to break the law by trying to sabotage the ship.

I suppose you are one of those people who would sue a house owner for damages after you illegally broke into their house, tripped on a step, broke you neck and were paralysed for the rest of your natural life. That is about how stupid you sound right now.

Really what is this world coming too, there are proper avenues to protest against something and this is obviously not one of them.

 

[Samuekl]

It is a shame they didn't sink the boat completely. Idiot activists...

I agree. I honestly think the Japanese would have a premise to shoot these "activists" for their violent actions.

 

[Nuala]

I suppose you are one of those people who would sue a house owner for damages after you illegally broke into their house, tripped on a step, broke you neck and were paralysed for the rest of your natural life. That is about how stupid you sound right now.

So, with your argument, let's see.

Home owner - Japanese whaling fleet
Thief/Robber - Sea Shepherds.

Nah, that example is complete trash. Sorry, try again.

Sea Shepherds entered waters not belonging to the Japanese in an attempt to impair the Japanese whaling fleet's efforts to illegally kill whales. Japanese do not have the right to kill these whales simply because they want to. In addition, slipping through the moratorium against commercial whaling by claiming the whales killed will be used for research is illegal.

Aren't you ashamed of your country for shaming itself with these deceitful actions, FrustratedDave?

 

[FrustratedDave]

So, with your argument, let's see.
Home owner - Japanese whaling fleet
Thief/Robber - Sea Shepherds.
Nah, that example is complete trash. Sorry, try again.
Sea Shepherds entered waters not belonging to the Japanese in an attempt to impair the Japanese whaling fleet's efforts to illegally kill whales. Japanese do not have the right to kill these whales simply because they want to. In addition, slipping through the moratorium against commercial whaling by claiming the whales killed will be used for research is illegal.
Aren't you ashamed of your country for shaming itself with these deceitful actions, FrustratedDave?

No I don't need to try again, that example was to demonstrate how ridiculus yours and others argument on this situation. As in you are supporting the criminals in this case.

There is something you are not quite understanding, it has nothing to do with international waters who has the right to be in them, b/c both ships have that right. What you can't seem to grasp is the fact that them attacking the Japaneses ship and trying to sabotage it is illegal and the whalers have every right to defend themselves against attcaks like that. So it comes down the the fact that they were there commiting crimes against the Japanese whalers.
Read this ,

Environmental action groups such as Sea Shepherd have been accused of engaging in piracy and terrorism, when they ram and throw butyric acid on the decks of ships engaged in commercial fishing, shark poaching and finning, seal hunting, and whaling. In two instances they boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. While non-lethal weapons are used by the Sea Shepherd ships, their tactics and methods are considered acts of piracy by some.

Sea Shepherd and piracy

And you know that the Japanese are not carrying out research how? What proof do you have other than your guesses and innuendos?

 

[Ainokeato]

What are they doing there in the first place? Why were they in a position like they were in? What were they doing to provoke an attack like you and others are saying? The point is they should not have been there, b/c what they are doing is illegal. So if they got rammed and lost millions of dollars of equipment, they should of thought about that when they woke up that morning. So no I don't see why he has the right to have a loaded crossbow or why he should be able to bash someones kneecaps in. Those activists are going out looking for trouble and from where I see it the Japanese boats have every right to arm themselves against these idiots, b/c as law states right now , they are not breaking any. So any damages they receive are only due to themselves, they cannot cry innocent.

That entire statement was a huge contradiction, it doesn't matter what they're doing there, or if they were breaking laws or not, fact of the matter is the big *** boat rammed the small *** boat destroying property and breaking laws themselves. Do you know why there are law enforcement? To enforce laws. Do you shoot a man dead if he kicks a dent in the side of your vehicle? No you call the police and settle it that way. Breaking one law because someone pissed you off because they were breaking the law, doesn't make you any more right than the person who pissed you off.

And like I said, I don't care what they were doing, I don't care if they deserved it or not. The boat DID ram the smaller boat on purpose that IS what happened, trying to say otherwise when there is irrefutable video evidence is admitting your will full ignorance.

Hey, I all for believing in what you want, but there are ways to protest and this is not one of them. Lets have vigilantes running around dealing out punishment were they see fit, yeah I want to live in a society like that....

Vigilantes dealing out punishment where they see fit? You do understand you just defended the Japanese boat with that argument in your previous paragraph right?

 

[Ainokeato]

What you can't seem to grasp is the fact that them attacking the Japaneses ship and trying to sabotage it is illegal and the whalers have every right to defend themselves against attcaks like that. So it comes down the the fact that they were there commiting crimes against the Japanese whalers.

That's actually very wrong. What are they defending themselves from? The speed boat is 1/3rd the size of the bigger boat. Not to mention, if you look at the video, you can see, that NOT ONLY did the larger boat, had it kept going straight, it would have avoided hitting the smaller boat. But if it had veered left it would have missed it completely, instead it turned right and intentionally rammed the other boat, so defending itself is completely out of the question.

 

[Nuala]

And you know that the Japanese are not carrying out research how? What proof do you have other than your guesses and innuendos?

Where is all the information they've obviously collected by now? It hasn't be released anywhere for public review. It's fair to say that the claim to be whaling for scientific research is completely false.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

There is only one problem with your argument, Tokis-Phoenix. The Ady Gil's engine was turned off at the time when the Shonan Maru #2 crew decided to be retarded and move way too close to the Ady Gil. If you noticed, the crew of the Ady Gil were on top of the ship.

Nope, in the BBC news link video you can clearly see the Ady Gils engine was turned on (you have a birds eye view of the Ady Gil from the Shonan Maru's camera)- so the flaw is really in your argument.

edit: Seriously, i like whales, but i'm just saying what i see. IMO too many people in this debate just see what they wanna see- if everything was as "blatently clear-cut" as everyone is making out the case to be, then it would be a non-argument case. So i'm getting a little fed of people just saying stuff like "Don't you have eyes! etc" because it undermines the quality of debate to just a "who can shout louder" contest.

Really, IMO there is a massive amount of wrongs done on both sides, and if anyone is denial about this then i think they should re-think their perspectives on this whole bad episode.

 

[Nuala]

Nope, in the BBC news link video you can clearly see the Ady Gils engine was turned on (you have a birds eye view of the Ady Gil from the Shonan Maru's camera)- so the flaw is really in your argument.

A carbon fiber speedboat did not drive in front of a colossal harpoon ship.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

A carbon fiber speedboat did not drive in front of a colossal harpoon ship.

Well thats what i saw in the video (as detailed in one of my previous posts).

 

[Nuala]

Well thats what i saw in the video (as detailed in one of my previous posts).

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

 

[FrustratedDave]

That entire statement was a huge contradiction, it doesn't matter what they're doing there, or if they were breaking laws or not, fact of the matter is the big *** boat rammed the small *** boat destroying property and breaking laws themselves. Do you know why there are law enforcement? To enforce laws. Do you shoot a man dead if he kicks a dent in the side of your vehicle? No you call the police and settle it that way. Breaking one law because someone pissed you off because they were breaking the law, doesn't make you any more right than the person who pissed you off.
And like I said, I don't care what they were doing, I don't care if they deserved it or not. The boat DID ram the smaller boat on purpose that IS what happened, trying to say otherwise when there is irrefutable video evidence is admitting your will full ignorance.
Vigilantes dealing out punishment where they see fit? You do understand you just defended the Japanese boat with that argument in your previous paragraph right?

That's actually very wrong. What are they defending themselves from? The speed boat is 1/3rd the size of the bigger boat. Not to mention, if you look at the video, you can see, that NOT ONLY did the larger boat, had it kept going straight, it would have avoided hitting the smaller boat. But if it had veered left it would have missed it completely, instead it turned right and intentionally rammed the other boat, so defending itself is completely out of the question.

Sorry pal, no contradicting here. In an event of piracy (What is considered piracy is in my earlier link) the ship under attack can defend itself. Now if those ships Ady Gil and others were not engaging in the whalers you may have something to cry about, but as it stands they were engaged in attacks with them and the whalers have every right to try to escape and defend themselves. If that means the Ady gil trying to block their path then all they can do is run over them. Thats right, I see the Ady gil trying to block there path and you say " why would they want to do that?", well ask those protesters who chain themselves to tress in front bulldozers, b/c that is the same type of eco-terrorism that the Sea Shepherd is undertaking.

So yes it does matter what they were doing , b/c it changes to whole outcome, another thing that you are obviously using your selective vision on.

Here you go, just so you can get a recap on the situation of some of the tactics that the Ady Gil and Sea Shepherd are using.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

In this one they continuously get in front of the ship trying to hinder it as well as laser attacks.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Oh and what about this one, was the raming incident intentional on the Adi gils behalf?

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]


What are they defending themselves from? You obviously have tunnel vision too, only choosing to see what you want to see. The Sea Shepherd has continuously tried to sabotage the whalers by snagging props, throwing dangerous objects , boarding the ships , do I have to go on?

So back and look at the videos again, especially that last one where it shows you that the Ady gil was powering forward into the whaler, it clearly has wake from it powering forward and was not dead in the water.

 

[Ainokeato]

Sorry pal, no contradicting here. In an event of piracy (What is considered piracy is in my earlier link) the ship under attack can defend itself. Now if those ships Ady Gil and others were not engaging in the whalers you may have something to cry about, but as it stands they were engaged in attacks with them and the whalers have every right to try to escape and defend themselves. If that means the Ady gil trying to block their path then all they can do is run over them. Thats right, I see the Ady gil trying to block there path and you say " why would they want to do that?", well ask those protesters who chain themselves to tress in front bulldozers, b/c that is the same type of eco-terrorism that the Sea Shepherd is undertaking.

Okay, tell me where these "attacks" were coming from, on a boat one third the size of the victim. What, a little laser? Give me a break, some kid pinches you, does that mean you can put on brass knuckles and straight out deck the guy? No, no it doesn't, also, "All they can do is run over them" There was nothing in it's path had it continued going its course, or turned. You're wrong, accept it and move on.

What are they defending themselves from? You obviously have tunnel vision too, only choosing to see what you want to see. The Sea Shepherd has continuously tried to sabotage the whalers by snagging props, throwing dangerous objects , boarding the ships , do I have to go on?

That was on a different boat, your inane logic isn't going to work on me. If you notice in those videos that you give as evidence to support your argument of "Snagging props" or "throwing dangerous objects" that was done by different people on a different boat. NOT the Ady Gil, so you're wrong again, yes they were going in front of the boat, but at a reasonable distance it was NOT necessary to ram into the smaller boat.

So back and look at the videos again, especially that last one where it shows you that the Ady gil was powering forward into the whaler, it clearly has wake from it powering forward and was not dead in the water.

No it wasn't powering INTO the whaler, see, you need to pick your words correctly, it was powering forward IN FRONT of the whaler, but it wasn't going to be exactly IN FRONT of the whaler had said whaler NOT veered into said ship.

Tunnel Vision and selective vision? No, you're just ignorant to what i'm saying. The bigger boat DID PURPOSELY hit the smaller boat, I don't care what you believe, I don't care what you think. That IS what happened, there is IRREFUTABLE proof to this, and if you deny this, you again show your will full ignorance on pure nationalism.

 

[FrustratedDave]

Okay, tell me where these "attacks" were coming from, on a boat one third the size of the victim. What, a little laser? Give me a break, some kid pinches you, does that mean you can put on brass knuckles and straight out deck the guy? No, no it doesn't, also, "All they can do is run over them" There was nothing in it's path had it continued going its course, or turned. You're wrong, accept it and move on.

Wow the ignorance flows thick here. Most of the attacks by pirates are done will boats much smaller than the one being attacked, so size has nothing to do with acts of piracy and if you think it does you are much , much more misinformed than I suspected. This is from the link to give you an example so you can't use that tunnel vision of yours. Intership Navigation Training Center

27.11.2004 at 0910 UTC in posn: 05:02N - 098:28E, Malacca straits. Pirates armed with machine guns in a fishing boat opened fire and boarded a tug towing a barge. They kidnapped captain and C/O and stole ships property and escaped in their boat.

In almost all accounts of piracy that has been recorded thus far, the attackers use small and fast boats to maintain maneuverability, and in most cases are smaller than the Ady Gill. How does that play in your little story?

That was on a different boat, your inane logic isn't going to work on me. If you notice in those videos that you give as evidence to support your argument of "Snagging props" or "throwing dangerous objects" that was done by different people on a different boat. NOT the Ady Gil, so you're wrong again, yes they were going in front of the boat, but at a reasonable distance it was NOT necessary to ram into the smaller boat.

Regardless if it the videos were of different boats, it goes to supporting the evidence that the Ady Gil and the Bob Barker was engaging the Japanese vessel in the forms of attacks as the Japanese crewman have testified to.

As it stands, on that day the Ady gil was conducting illegal acts and engaging the Whaler. How ever harmless you may think the green laser is, it is against the law to point lasers in that fashion and can be interpreted as an attack on the ship and the captain should should have been detained and charged for that. What evidence do you have that they didn't try to foul the prop and fire lasers at them or throw other dangerous projectiles? I could post articles in Japanese of what the Japanese sailors have testified to , but I doubt you could read them as much as you can see what is happening in this situation.

No it wasn't powering INTO the whaler, see, you need to pick your words correctly, it was powering forward IN FRONT of the whaler, but it wasn't going to be exactly IN FRONT of the whaler had said whaler NOT veered into said ship.
Tunnel Vision and selective vision? No, you're just ignorant to what i'm saying.

The law clearly does not allow smaller boats to cut across the front of larger vessels, nor does it allow for any boat to drag a 'snag-line' behind it (as the videos for that day clearly shows the Andy Gil doing so)to foul a propeller or even a rudder, so I would say that it is you who needs to pick your words carefully. The Japanese whaler clearly turned at the last minute to try to avoid the Ady gil but the Ady gil was already going the same speed and moving forward which contradicts the captains words of "it was dead in the water" and the video supports that the Ady Gill was moving forward due to the engine wake and wake from the Ady gil. Wasn't it amazing how quick the Ady Gill was able to reverse away from the Whaler after they were hit... What a joke.

I will post this video for you again, b/c that tunnel vision of your seems to be getting worse, so I will try not to confuse you too much.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

The bigger boat DID PURPOSELY hit the smaller boat, I don't care what you believe, I don't care what you think. That IS what happened, there is IRREFUTABLE proof to this, and if you deny this, you again show your will full ignorance on pure nationalism.

Blah, blah ,blah... Go and cry foul somewhere else, If you are to blind to see what really is happening then so be it. The fact remains that the whalers are not the ones going out of there way to sabotage these ships , but the Sea Shepherd organisation is and on that intent alone makes these incidents even more dubious to whether they are in fact innocent.

 

[Ainokeato]

Wow the ignorance flows thick here. Most of the attacks by pirates are done will boats much smaller than the one being attacked, so size has nothing to do with acts of piracy and if you think it does you are much , much more misinformed than I suspected. This is from the link to give you an example so you can't use that tunnel vision of yours.
In almost all accounts of piracy that has been recorded thus far, the attackers use small and fast boats to maintain maneuverability, and in most cases are smaller than the Ady Gill. How does that play in your little story?

Okay fine, I'll give you that, give me a video showing the Ady Gil actually engaging in the activity leading up to the ramming. Yes they do use small boats, they also use machine guns and actual weapons to attack ships, neither of which you've proven the Ady Gil of doing.

Regardless if it the videos were of different boats, it goes to supporting the evidence that the Ady Gil and the Bob Barker was engaging the Japanese vessel in the forms of attacks as the Japanese crewman have testified to.

What forms of attacks? A green laser? That's all you've shown, you say they've thrown all these things at this ship, you say they've sabotaged props whatever the hell that means. And yet, it wasn't the Ady Gil in the evidential video's you provided, it was a larger boat with different people doing it, therefore your evidence means nothing and your accusations mean nothing.

As it stands, on that day the Ady gil was conducting illegal acts and engaging the Whaler. How ever harmless you may think the green laser is, it is against the law to point lasers in that fashion and can be interpreted as an attack on the ship and the captain should should have been detained and charged for that. What evidence do you have that they didn't try to foul the prop and fire lasers at them or throw other dangerous projectiles?

Fire lasers at them? What is this? Star Wars? What evidence do you have that they did do it? You have the burden of proof as you made the accusation. "Interpreted as an attack" I think they defended themselves very well with their water cannons against said attack, ramming into a boat that hasn't done anything but run around in front of you with the defense of "they pointed a laser beam at us" is incredibly inane.

The law clearly does not allow smaller boats to cut across the front of larger vessels, nor does it allow for any boat to drag a ﾂ'snag-line' behind it (as the videos for that day clearly shows the Andy Gil doing so)to foul a propeller or even a rudder, so I would say that it is you who needs to pick your words carefully. The Japanese whaler clearly turned at the last minute to try to avoid the Ady gil but the Ady gil was already going the same speed and moving forward which contradicts the captains words of "it was dead in the water" and the video supports that the Ady Gill was moving forward due to the engine wake and wake from the Ady gil. Wasn't it amazing how quick the Ady Gill was able to reverse away from the Whaler after they were hit... What a joke.

Yeah, the law also states you aren't allowed to ******* ram any boat. The Japanese Whaler turned INTO the boat, THAT is what the video shows THAT is what happened, it COULD have been avoided had the boat turned LEFT NOT right, it turned RIGHT and hit the boat. You don't seem to be comprehending that.

Blah, blah ,blah... Go and cry foul somewhere else, If you are to blind to see what really is happening then so be it. The fact remains that the whalers are not the ones going out of there way to sabotage these ships , but the Sea Shepherd organisation is and on that intent alone makes these incidents even more dubious to whether they are in fact innocent.

Learn how to read, I said I don't care, I said what exactly happened, go play with your japanese pride somewhere else, your inane logic and attempts at insulting me are pathetic. Contrary to the other people who don't agree with you but don't feel like expressing what they feel or think. I will make you look as stupid as you do, just like how you attempt to make these people think. You. Are. Wrong. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

 

[FrustratedDave]

Okay fine, I'll give you that, give me a video showing the Ady Gil actually engaging in the activity leading up to the ramming. Yes they do use small boats, they also use machine guns and actual weapons to attack ships, neither of which you've proven the Ady Gil of doing.
What forms of attacks? A green laser? That's all you've shown, you say they've thrown all these things at this ship, you say they've sabotaged props whatever the hell that means. And yet, it wasn't the Ady Gil in the evidential video's you provided, it was a larger boat with different people doing it, therefore your evidence means nothing and your accusations mean nothing.
Fire lasers at them? What is this? Star Wars? What evidence do you have that they did do it? You have the burden of proof as you made the accusation. "Interpreted as an attack" I think they defended themselves very well with their water cannons against said attack, ramming into a boat that hasn't done anything but run around in front of you with the defense of "they pointed a laser beam at us" is incredibly inane.

Here you go numbnuts, this is a video on the same day, the below text is taken from Youtube. You can check you "inane" comments at the door.

「（財）日本鯨類研究所 提供」
2010.01.06
調査母船日新丸に対し、ロープを曳航するアディ・ギル号
Ady Gil tows from its stern a rope aiming the Nisshin Maru rudder and propeller

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]


You can clearly see them towing the rope behind the Ady Gil and then running across its bow. #1, it is against the law for a smaller boat to cut off a bigger vessel and #2 it is also illegal to try to snag a prop or rudder. Not only that it is down right dangerous to both vessels involved. This can be considered an act of piracy in the form of sabotage. This is on the same day and they did this several times to the whalers, plus throw chemical bombs and use lasers.

As for you snide star war remarks on the laser, I will just take them as you trying to dismiss the fact that it is against the law and that you have nothing but d!ck in the wind and nothing else to go on. In any case I want to hear what you have to say about the video above with the tow ropes and snaging they were trying to do all that morning, you did say it was up to me to provide evidence of attacks that day and I have done so. So they did have every right to try escape those attacks as this was just another one of their ploys, on top of that this video has some interesting data on the fact that the Ady Gil may have planned this.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Yeah, the law also states you aren't allowed to ******* ram any boat. The Japanese Whaler turned INTO the boat, THAT is what the video shows THAT is what happened, it COULD have been avoided had the boat turned LEFT NOT right, it turned RIGHT and hit the boat. You don't seem to be comprehending that.
Learn how to read, I said I don't care, I said what exactly happened, go play with your japanese pride somewhere else, your inane logic and attempts at insulting me are pathetic. Contrary to the other people who don't agree with you but don't feel like expressing what they feel or think. I will make you look as stupid as you do, just like how you attempt to make these people think. You. Are. Wrong. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

Again, Blah, blah, Blah... Your hurting my heart with those comments. I have shown you that the Ady Gill was attacking the Whaler on that very same day and there were many more attacks like that all morning that the crew of the Whaler has testified to, so it was in there best intrest to protect themselves from a potential pirate ship that could mount another attack on the vessel at any time. So when you get done eating crow let me know how it tastes.

Oh and as for my Japanese pride, it is called common sense, something you don't seem to have. Cheers.

 

[Ainokeato]

Here you go numbnuts, this is a video on the same day, the below text is taken from Youtube. You can check you "inane" comments at the door.

ﾂ「ﾂ（ﾂ催?ﾂ）窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ蓄窶氾槐陳､窶ｹ窶?ﾂ焦? 窶凖ｱ窶ｹﾅｸﾂ」
2010.01.06
窶卍ｲﾂ債ｸ窶｢ﾃｪ窶魯窶愿ｺﾂ新ﾅ?ﾃ帚?堙俄?佚寂?堋ｵﾂ、ﾆ陳債ーﾆ致窶堙ｰ窶ｰgﾂ航窶堋ｷ窶堙ｩﾆ但ﾆ断ﾆ達ﾂ・ﾆ樽ﾆ停?ｹﾂ坂??
Ady Gil tows from its stern a rope aiming the Nisshin Maru rudder and propeller

You can clearly see them towing the rope behind the Ady Gil and then running across its bow. #1, it is against the law for a smaller boat to cut off a bigger vessel and #2 it is also illegal to try to snag a prop or rudder. Not only that it is down right dangerous to both vessels involved. This can be considered an act of piracy in the form of sabotage. This is on the same day and they did this several times, plus throw chemical bombs and use lasers.

1. Did it actually do what it intended, the act was illegal but that's not the point. Like I said in my original post had you been paying attention, you don't break a law because someone is breaking the law, you stop and call the police, the whalers didn't do this or attempt to stop their operations in order to report the incident. Instead they continued on and ended up committing a crime, not an act of self defense.

2. You didn't show chemical bombs being used, you showed a few laser shows and a net that didn't work.

As for you snide star war remarks on the laser, I will just take them as you trying to dismiss the fact that it is against the law and that you have nothing but d!ck in the wind and nothing else to go on. In any case I want to hear what you have to say about the video above with the tow ropes and snaging they were trying to do all that morning, you did say it was up to me to provide evidence of attacks that day and I have done so. So they did have every right to try escape those attacks as this was just another one of their ploys, on top of that this video has some interesting data on the fact that the Ady Gil may have planned this.

You see, the important part of all of that is just one word "TRYING" it didn't work, it didn't do anything, yes it was illegal, but again I said many times, I really don't care. ALL I commented on was the FACT that the whaling boat did indeed purposely run into the boat. Had you had the intelligence to COMPREHEND any and all of my posts, you would understand nothing beforehand matters in my observation of the video that clearly shows the larger boat veering into the smaller boat.

Again, Blah, blah, Blah... Your hurting my heart with those comments. I have shown you that the Ady Gill was attacking the Whaler on that very same day and there were many more attacks like that all morning that the crew of the Whaler has testified to, so it was in there best intrest to protect themselves from a potential pirate ship that could mount another attack on the vessel at any time. So when you get done eating crow let me know how it tastes.

Attacking and Attempting to attack, are two different things, you have no idea what you're talking about. They threw a net off the back of their boat, in an attempt to sabotage the boat, did they actually sabotage it? Nope. Did they try to? No ****. I mean ****, someone throws a ball at your car and misses, does that mean you can go and run his *** over? Hell no. Unless, apparently, you live in Japan, where by your own logic, this is allowed.

Oh and as for my Japanese pride, it is called common sense, something you don't seem to have. Cheers.

LOL Common sense? I think you mean intelligence, which you clearly don't have, as you can't even correctly read my posts, not only that, you're trying to turn my argument into something it isn't and failing miserably at it.

 

[FrustratedDave]

1. Did it actually do what it intended, the act was illegal but that's not the point.

Re-read what you just wrote. And you think I fail a comprehension. LOL "The act was illegal , but that was not the point"... That is a good one, you should be a lawyer, you could tell your client to tell the court that b/c he failed to break into the house and tell the the judge that he should let him go.LOL What was the point again? LOL

Like I said in my original post had you been paying attention, you don't break a law because someone is breaking the law, you stop and call the police, the whalers didn't do this or attempt to stop their operations in order to report the incident. Instead they continued on and ended up committing a crime, not an act of self defense.
2. You didn't show chemical bombs being used, you showed a few laser shows and a net that didn't work.

LOL, you are funny. Even if they didn't use chemical bombs (which they did) they were engaged in illegal acts of piracy with them trying to snag the props, do I have to prove anything more? This then allows the whalers to defend themselves(read the wiki quote below on protection and international waters) which means, you guessed it, they were not breaking the law. I know it is hard for you to grasp this. And before you make any more retarded comments, I suggest you read about piracy and what it entails.

You see, the important part of all of that is just one word "TRYING" it didn't work, it didn't do anything, yes it was illegal, but again I said many times, I really don't care. ALL I commented on was the FACT that the whaling boat did indeed purposely run into the boat. Had you had the intelligence to COMPREHEND any and all of my posts, you would understand nothing beforehand matters in my observation of the video that clearly shows the larger boat veering into the smaller boat.
Attacking and Attempting to attack, are two different things, you have no idea what you're talking about. They threw a net off the back of their boat, in an attempt to sabotage the boat, did they actually sabotage it? Nope. Did they try to? No ****. I mean ****, someone throws a ball at your car and misses, does that mean you can go and run his *** over? Hell no. Unless, apparently, you live in Japan, where by your own logic, this is allowed..

Ahh... I see , lets take your logic, attempted murder is ok b/c you failed at the act of actually murdering someone so it must be ok. LOL Where did you get your schooling, with comments like those above it must have been a special school, or are you just a few grapes short of a bunch? It is the act that makes it piracy , it dosen't matter if they succeeded or not, I can't believe the stupidity here. So they had every right to try to flee from the Ady Gil and if was in its path.

N o w, f o l l o w m e c l o s e l y h e r e , I t r y n o t t o u s e t o o c o m p l i c a t e d w o r d s,
If you are being attacked in international waters you can defend yourself, Piracy - Wikipedia

Self protection measures and increased patrol

First and foremost, the best protection against piracy is simply to avoid encountering them. This can be done using the regular radar, as well as by using more advanced forms thereof (e.g., BAE Systems HF SWR, BAE Systems PRISM).[95]

In addition, while the non-wartime 20th century tradition has been for merchant vessels not to be armed, the U.S. Government has recently changed the rules so that it is now "best practice" for vessels to embark a team of armed private security guards.[96][97] In addition, the crew themselves can be given a weapons training,[98] and warning shots, less-lethal ammunition, ... can be fired legally in international waters and/or when sailing under Israeli or Russian flag[dubious – discuss]. Finally, similar to weapons training, remote weapon systems can be implemented to a vessel.[99]

Other measures vessels can take to protect themselves against piracy are implementing a high freewall [100] and vessel boarding protection systems (e.g. hot water wall, electricity-charged water wall, automated fire monitor, slippery foam).[101] Finally, in emergency situations, warships can be called upon. In some areas such as near Somalia, naval vessels from different nations are present that are able to intercept vessels attacking merchant vessels. For patrolling dangerous coastal waters (and/or keeping financial expenses down), robotic or remote-controlled USV's are also sometimes used.[102] Also, both shore-launched and vessel-launched UAV's are also used by the army.[103][104]

Environmental action groups such as Sea Shepherd have been accused of engaging in piracy and terrorism, when they ram and throw butyric acid on the decks of ships engaged in commercial fishing, shark poaching and finning, seal hunting, and whaling. In two instances they boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. While non-lethal weapons are used by the Sea Shepherd ships, their tactics and methods are considered acts of piracy by some.

So using the boat as to get away by any means is perfectly legal if your are in a situation where acts of piracy are being commited.

LOL Common sense? I think you mean intelligence, which you clearly don't have, as you can't even correctly read my posts, not only that, you're trying to turn my argument into something it isn't and failing miserably at it.

Hmmm.... I think you just showed us your intelligence with those earlier statements lol, so there really is no need for me to make any derogatory remarks to that , as you have already shot yourself in the foot. Good luck in your endeavors there pal...

 

[Ainokeato]

Re-read what you just wrote. And you think I fail a comprehension. LOL "The act was illegal , but that was not the point"... That is a good one, you should be a lawyer, you could tell your client to tell the court that b/c he failed to break into the house that the judge should let him go.LOL What was the point again? LOL

Lol Yes it was illegal, but had you read my original post, dipshit, I don't care what was illegal and what wasn't. I wasn't defending anyone, rather, stating what actually happened, that you tried to dodge by bringing up useless arguments.

LOL, you are funny. Even if they didn't use chemical bombs (which they did) they were engaged in illegal acts of piracy with them trying to snag the props, do I have to prove anything more? This then allows the whalers to defend themselves(read the wiki quote below on protection and international waters) which means, you guessed it, they were not breaking the law. I know it is hard for you to grasp this. And before you make any more retarded comments, I suggest you read about piracy and what it entails.

Okay, what were they defending themselves from? And why are water cannons not enough as a self defense, you do understand the difference between Self-Defense and Attacking, right?

Ahh... I see , lets take your logic, attempted murder is ok b/c you failed at the act of actually murdering someone so it must be ok. LOL Where did you get your schooling, with comments like those above it must have been a special school, or are you just a few grapes short of a bunch? It is the act that makes it piracy , it dosen't matter if they succeeded or not, I can't believe the stupidity here. So they had every right to try to flee from the Ady Gil and if was in its path.

1. You can't even logically defend your argument as it's being picked apart so please don't try to use mine because you're failing at it.

2. TURNING INTO SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAVE MISSED DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING IN YOUR PATH. You seriously can't be trying to call me stupid, when you believe something far on the right was in the boats way.

So using the boat as to get away by any means is perfectly legal if your are in a situation where acts of piracy are being commited.

Lol, really, japanese education at it's finest.

1. Did they try to get away? Nope.
2. Did they defend themselves? Unless you think god was shooting those streams of water from their boat I'm pretty sure they were doing that.

Furthermore, and I quote:

I don't agree with either side, other than "if you're going to kill something, kill it, don't torture it" I have no stance on either side. What I saw, was the boat jerk to the left (right if you were facing the way the boat was) at last minute far enough to hit the black boat. Did they do it on purpose? Most likely, I would say so. Did they have it coming? Yeah I would say so as well. But is that what happened? That the big boat intentionally hit the black one? Without a doubt, I don't care why they did it, they did do it, is what I was getting at essentially, after seeing multiple people deny that they did it on purpose.

My second post, showing the blatant lack of interest in your stupid opinions on who's wrong, what's illegal and what's not illegal, I saw a TV show, went to look for more information, saw this post, and was disgusted by you and Astroboy's nationalism. Of which, was so bad as to deny blatant video IRREFUTABLE evidence of the purposeful ramming of the japanese boat into the Ady Gil. So, unless you're going to try and say that the video doesn't show the japanese boat making a hard right into the smaller boat, stick a tampon, or whatever the crap you have in japan, and shut the **** up.

 

[FrustratedDave]

Lol Yes it was illegal, but had you read my original post, dipshit, I don't care what was illegal and what wasn't. I wasn't defending anyone, rather, stating what actually happened, that you tried to dodge by bringing up useless arguments.

LOL, Thats right, you said " the important part of all of that is just one word "TRYING" it didn't work" . So if you ever get the chance to give someone legal advise, just tell them to tell the judge they were only "trying" to kill that person, then they won't be labeled a murderer, just the Ady Gil won't be labeled pirates. Way to go sherlock!:homer:

Okay, what were they defending themselves from? And why are water cannons not enough as a self defense, you do understand the difference between Self-Defense and Attacking, right?

From , um , boats engaged in piracy. You didn't read those links did you? Shame on you.
And Yes I do understand the difference between self defence and having a boat running lines to try an foul your prop means you have a reason to defend your self. Like I said earlier, if they were not even there trying to do these things to the whalers there would be no reason for them to defend themselves would there genius? You you condone what Sea shepherd is doing then?

1. You can't even logically defend your argument as it's being picked apart so please don't try to use mine because you're failing at it.

Thanks for the update. And you do know what logic means don't you? I am just getting the feeling that you don't.

2. TURNING INTO SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAVE MISSED DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING IN YOUR PATH. You seriously can't be trying to call me stupid, when you believe something far on the right was in the boats way.

When they are engaged in piracy, yes I do. Why was Sea Shepherd there BTW? I would love to hear your ideas? Fishing maybe? Sightseeing?

Lol, really, japanese education at it's finest.

I was not educated in Japan. You really are doing great, keep it up.

1. Did they try to get away? Nope.

Traveling at the ships top speed, that pretty much means they were not trying stick around. How did you see it?

2. Did they defend themselves? Unless you think god was shooting those streams of water from their boat I'm pretty sure they were doing that.

I am not sure, tell me, is there more than one way to defend ones self? I would be supprised if there wasn't. LOL And you are missing the fact that it looks like the Ady actually ramed the Japanese vessel.

Furthermore, and I quote:
My second post, showing the blatant lack of interest in your stupid opinions on who's wrong, what's illegal and what's not illegal, I saw a TV show, went to look for more information, saw this post, and was disgusted by you and Astroboy's nationalism. Of which, was so bad as to deny blatant video IRREFUTABLE evidence of the purposeful ramming of the japanese boat into the Ady Gil. So, unless you're going to try and say that the video doesn't show the japanese boat making a hard right into the smaller boat, stick a tampon, or whatever the crap you have in japan, and shut the **** up.

And we all so glad you joined just for this and thank you for you invaluable contribution, you have shown everyone that you are one of the great minds of the 21st century. LOL

 

[Nuala]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ainokeato]

LOL, Thats right, you said " the important part of all of that is just one word "TRYING" it didn't work" . So if you ever get the chance to give someone legal advise, just tell them to tell the judge they were only "trying" to kill that person, then they won't be labeled a murderer, just the Ady Gil won't be labeled pirates. Way to go sherlock!:homer:

So then what do you do if someone tries to hit your car and fails? Run them over? So what would you tell that judge? They almost hit your car so you were defending yourself by running them over? REALLY?

From , um , boats engaged in piracy. You didn't read those links did you? Shame on you.
And Yes I do understand the difference between self defence and having a boat running lines to try an foul your prop means you have a reason to defend your self. Like I said earlier, if they were not even there trying to do these things to the whalers there would be no reason for them to defend themselves would there genius? You you condone what Sea shepherd is doing then?

And firing streams of water on them, is doing, what? How are they defending themselves by ramming into a boat a third of it's size? Again, if you had read the post you would have had the understanding that I really don't care about either side. But if you want to pull that out, you condone the slaughtering of animals?

Thanks for the update.

Anytime.

When they are engaged in piracy, yes I do. Why were they there BTW? I would love to hear your ideas? Fishing maybe? Sightseeing?

Again, like I said in every single post towards you, I don't care what they were doing there, my comments, all of my comments, were specifically on the ramming of the Ady Gil, nothing before or after that.

Traveling at the ships top speed, that pretty much means they were not trying stick around. How did you see it?

Yeah, because when I try to get away from a situation, I veer right into it. Don't know what planet that makes sense on, but send me a post card, must be nice.

LOL And you are missing the fact that it looks like the Ady actually ramed the Japanese vessel.

LOL So, your sick sense of nationalism actually does spread that far, just to let you know, out here, outside of your silly little country, the rest of the world see's a destroyed black boat, and an unscathed whaling vessel.

Like I said multiple times, I don't care about the legalities, I don't care about the Sea Shepards, I don't care about the other side, what happened is on tape, trying to refute hard evidence then blame it on the other side is pretty stupid, then defending this action is disgusting.

 

[FrustratedDave]

So then what do you do if someone tries to hit your car and fails? Run them over? So what would you tell that judge? They almost hit your car so you were defending yourself by running them over? REALLY?

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? Piracy - Wikipedia

First and foremost, the best protection against piracy is simply to avoid encountering them. This can be done using the regular radar, as well as by using more advanced forms thereof (e.g., BAE Systems HF SWR, BAE Systems PRISM).[95]
In addition, while the non-wartime 20th century tradition has been for merchant vessels not to be armed, the U.S. Government has recently changed the rules so that it is now "best practice" for vessels to embark a team of armed private security guards.[96][97] In addition, the crew themselves can be given a weapons training,[98] and warning shots, less-lethal ammunition, ... can be fired legally in international waters and/or when sailing under Israeli or Russian flag[dubious – discuss]. Finally, similar to weapons training, remote weapon systems can be implemented to a vessel.[99]
Other measures vessels can take to protect themselves against piracy are implementing a high freewall [100] and vessel boarding protection systems (e.g. hot water wall, electricity-charged water wall, automated fire monitor, slippery foam).[101] Finally, in emergency situations, warships can be called upon. In some areas such as near Somalia, naval vessels from different nations are present that are able to intercept vessels attacking merchant vessels. For patrolling dangerous coastal waters (and/or keeping financial expenses down), robotic or remote-controlled USV's are also sometimes used.[102] Also, both shore-launched and vessel-launched UAV's are also used by the army.

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.

And firing streams of water on them, is doing, what? How are they defending themselves by ramming into a boat a third of it's size?

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.

Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).

Again, if you had read the post you would have had the understanding that I really don't care about either side. But if you want to pull that out, you condone the slaughtering of animals?

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.

Anytime.
Again, like I said in every single post towards you, I don't care what they were doing there, my comments, all of my comments, were specifically on the ramming of the Ady Gil, nothing before or after that.

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

Yeah, because when I try to get away from a situation, I veer right into it. Don't know what planet that makes sense on, but send me a post card, must be nice.

Ok, just let me know the address.

LOL So, your sick sense of nationalism actually does spread that far, just to let you know, out here, outside of your silly little country, the rest of the world see's a destroyed black boat, and an unscathed whaling vessel.
Like I said multiple times, I don't care about the legalities, I don't care about the Sea Shepards, I don't care about the other side, what happened is on tape, trying to refute hard evidence then blame it on the other side is pretty stupid, then defending this action is disgusting.

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. And the legalities is what defines this incident. It is impossible to dismiss them as it is a mutual product of any incident and if you can't see that then there really is no need for discussion, as you are effectively saying you don't want to look at the situation with non bias. But I already knew that you were showing bias without taking in all the facts.
BTW, Don't forget to give that address so I can send you that postcard. LOL

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?

[YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Nuala]

You are a deluded, FrustratedDave. I pity you.