Whale Protest Boat Cut In Half.
Tilly
been cut in half by a Japanese security vessel in the Antarctic today, the
group's leader Paul Watson said.
The $1.5 million high tech vessel's remains were sinking, but its six man
crew had been rescued and was uninjured, Captain Watson told The Age online.
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in waters near Commonwealth Bay
when it was suddenly approached and rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru,
which has been detailed to provide security to the fleet.
Earlier today the fleet was contacted for the first time by the Ady Gil, and
Sea Shepherd's surprise third vessel, the Bob Barker.
Captain Watson, aboard the Steve Irwin, said he was still 500 miles from the
scene.
"This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the
collision.
"According to the Institute of Cetacean Research, the Ady Gil's crew were
launching projectiles at the Nisshin Maru, and attempted to entangle its
propellors with rope.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3209484/Whale-protest-boat-cut-in-half
--
femai...@gmail.com
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the
> collision.
Of course you realize this means ... fuck off.
Robin Halligan
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of people, lets hope they
get the next two boats as well.
george
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <hi13pd$m9...@news.eternal-september.org>, Tilly wrote:
>
> > "This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the
> > collision.
>
> Of course you realize this means ... fuck off.
Reminds me of when I had to swot up the laws about the freedom of
passage on the high sea.
Only in the greenpeace minds is whaling illegal they are no better
than the Somali pirates.
Don Mackie
> BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil...
^^^^^^^
Irreparably damaged at first engagement, not so stealthy then... and
not agile/fast enough to get out of the way either.
Mostly poor tactics, why use an expensive specialised (fast and high
PR profile) vessel to do what you can do with an IRB?
george
Watching the video they actually put power on and went under the bow
of the whaler.
Looked deliberate..
And in another video the antiwhalers scraped down the side of a
whaling vessel and got stuck on a piece of ice.
religionofpeas
> --
> femail1...@gmail.com
Hahahaha... good job!
SupergoofNZ
I think the law of the sea sez that small boats give way to bigger boats
pretty much always, since they're more manoeuvrable. So even if
Greenpeace didn't do it deliberately, they were still in the wrong.
While I disagree with hunting endangered species, I do think Greenpeace
go too far with their anti-whaling tactics.
Rachel
Dave Doe
thunderbi...@penelope.net says...
>
> george wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 8:30 am, Don Mackie <don...@iconz.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 5:32 pm, "Tilly" <paul1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil...
> >> ^^^^^^^
> >> Irreparably damaged at first engagement, not so stealthy then... and
> >> not agile/fast enough to get out of the way either.
> >> Mostly poor tactics, why use an expensive specialised (fast and high
> >> PR profile) vessel to do what you can do with an IRB?
> >
> > Watching the video they actually put power on and went under the bow
> > of the whaler.
> > Looked deliberate..
> > And in another video the antiwhalers scraped down the side of a
> > whaling vessel and got stuck on a piece of ice.
>
> I think the law of the sea sez that small boats give way to bigger boats
> pretty much always, since they're more manoeuvrable. So even if
> Greenpeace didn't do it deliberately, they were still in the wrong.
How do you work that one out?
Sure, when a collision occurs, both boats are considered in the wrong
(it should not have happenned - and the stand-on vessel *must* take
steps to avoid a collision, regardless of not being the give-way
vessel).
The give-way vessel is the whaler. The stand-on vessel is the ex-
Earthrace boat - so the whaler must give way.
--
Duncan.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Whence then is evil?
[Epicurus on God]
religionofpeas
> In article <hi3mgs$d2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> thunderbirds.ar...@penelope.net says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can bet the morons were putting themselves in the way. They
deserve all they got. In my opinion they deserve to perish out there.
Dave Doe
br.sc...@gmail.com says...
>
> On , , Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:12:20 +1300, Re: Whale Protest Boat Cut In Half., Dave
> Watch it and see your opinion change.
> The protest boat tried to obstruct the legitimately fishing whale boat.
> Someone has lost a great deal of money.
> There won't be any insurance after the insurers see the video and the Japanese
> won't be paying. They want recompense for the scratches and damage to their boat
> which was legally carrying out it's business on the high seas.
I've watched two videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=player_embedded
And disagree with you.
Where are the fishing signals on the whaler? (lights or bulbs)?
The stand-on vessel does not change direction. The whaler turns towards
the stand-on vessel - without any sign of slowing and or being able to
turn sufficiently to starboard to avoid collision.
If you could clearly spell out your evidence that would be good.
A _L_ P
A L P
be...@eex.neet
I used to be a sub-lieutenant in the RNR when I was in the UK. HMS
President to be exact.
We used to man mine sweepers, which from the looks of the video, are
about the same size, maybe slightly smaller than the japanese whaler.
Our sweeper had a standing crew of 27 or so and weighed in at around
300 tons. Mine sweeping's a tricky business. We were used to
manouvering in some tight spots.
These grey hulled ships can turn reasonably well, but not that fast.
About the best you can do is bear away from something like that little
tiddly greenpeace thing. However, if it keeps coming at you, I
imagine that the captain said, in Japanese of course, "Fuck this, let
the little tossers come across my bows, if they hit me then it's
their fault"
Couldn't blame him either.
Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket,
[very attractive commission I understand] asking if i would like to
join. I politely decline. WHen asked why, i simply reply that I
detest their organisation, as they seem to play the player, not the
ball. Sporting metaphors are never good, but it seems appropriate in
thier case.
Kind regards
Bill
george
> I used to be a sub-lieutenant in the RNR when I was in the UK. HMS
> President to be exact.
Another matelot eh. :-)
Tilly
news:hi443v$191$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
No they are Sea Shepherd .
ChristianKnight
> >BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil has
> >been cut in half by a Japanese security vessel in the Antarctic today, the
> >group's leader Paul Watson said.
>
> >The $1.5 million high tech vessel's remains were sinking, but its six man
> >crew had been rescued and was uninjured, Captain Watson told The Age online.
>
> >Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in waters near Commonwealth Bay
> >when it was suddenly approached and rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru,
> >which has been detailed to provide security to the fleet.
>
> >Earlier today the fleet was contacted for the first time by the Ady Gil, and
> >Sea Shepherd's surprise third vessel, the Bob Barker.
>
> >Captain Watson, aboard the Steve Irwin, said he was still 500 miles from the
> >scene.
>
> >"This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the
> >collision.
>
> >"According to the Institute of Cetacean Research, the Ady Gil's crew were
> >launching projectiles at the Nisshin Maru, and attempted to entangle its
> >propellors with rope.
>
>
> I used to be a sub-lieutenant in the RNR when I was in the UK. HMS
> President to be exact.
>
> We used to man mine sweepers, which from the looks of the video, are
> about the same size, maybe slightly smaller than the japanese whaler.
> Our sweeper had a standing crew of 27 or so and weighed in at around
> 300 tons. Mine sweeping's a tricky business. We were used to
> manouvering in some tight spots.
>
> These grey hulled ships can turn reasonably well, but not that fast.
> About the best you can do is bear away from something like that little
> tiddly greenpeace thing. However, if it keeps coming at you, I
> imagine that the captain said, in Japanese of course, "Fuck this, let
> the little tossers come across my bows, if they hit me then it's
> their fault"
>
> Couldn't blame him either.
>
> Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket,
> [very attractive commission I understand] asking if i would like to
> join. I politely decline. WHen asked why, i simply reply that I
> detest their organisation, as they seem to play the player, not the
> ball. Sporting metaphors are never good, but it seems appropriate in
> thier case.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A very brave adventurous life. Christ's love
Dave Doe
hay.he...@gmail.com says...
Effectively, yes. They are an offshoot of Greenpeace - some folk that
weren't happy with the way Greenpeace was doing things (or not doing
them). So they're a splinter group, and way more radical.
Dave Doe
ha...@work.ok says...
Oops, forgot the link - Sea Shepard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society
Max Burke
>>> BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil...
>>> Irreparably damaged at first engagement, not so stealthy then... and
>>> not agile/fast enough to get out of the way either.
>>> Mostly poor tactics, why use an expensive specialised (fast and high
>>> PR profile) vessel to do what you can do with an IRB?
>> Have you not seen the video?
>> Watch it and see your opinion change.
>> The protest boat tried to obstruct the legitimately fishing whale boat.
>> Someone has lost a great deal of money.
>> There won't be any insurance after the insurers see the video and the Japanese
>> won't be paying. They want recompense for the scratches and damage to their boat
>> which was legally carrying out it's business on the high seas.
> I've watched two videos...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=player_embedded
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=player_embedded
>
> And disagree with you.
> Where are the fishing signals on the whaler? (lights or bulbs)?
What are the signals you are referring to that are required under
international maritime laws?
> The stand-on vessel does not change direction. The whaler turns towards
> the stand-on vessel - without any sign of slowing and or being able to
> turn sufficiently to starboard to avoid collision.
That's what it looks like from the Sea Sheppard support boat. What a
surprise that is.
> If you could clearly spell out your evidence that would be good.
However the video from the whaling boat tells a different story...
That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
Max Burke
Much as I disagree with Green Peace and their 'eco religion' they were
entirely innocent in this case.
The 'idiots' claiming to be protecting whales in this case is the Sea
Shepperd organisation... Nothing to do with Green peace at all.
Jason Rumney
wrote:
> george wrote:
> > Watching the video they actually put power on and went under the bow
> > of the whaler.
> > Looked deliberate..
> I think the law of the sea sez that small boats give way to bigger boats
> pretty much always, since they're more manoeuvrable.
Only in restricted shipping channels. Having looked at both videos
(the whalers' and the protestors'), the Japanese patrol boat was
clearly veering towards the protestors' almost stationary boat, and
when the protestors gave the engine some power at the last minute,
they were most likely taking evasive action rather than deliberately
getting under the bow as an expensive and dangerous publicity stunt.
> So even if
> Greenpeace didn't do it deliberately, they were still in the wrong.
Greenpeace strategy now is to work on public opinion within Japan.
This boat belonged to the more radical Sea Shepards.
george
> Only in restricted shipping channels. Having looked at both videos
> (the whalers' and the protestors'), the Japanese patrol boat was
> clearly veering towards the protestors' almost stationary boat, and
> when the protestors gave the engine some power at the last minute,
> they were most likely taking evasive action rather than deliberately
> getting under the bow as an expensive and dangerous publicity stunt.
>
Watch the video from the Japanese boat.
Watch when the boats near how suddenly there is a lot of white water
at the stern of the protesters boat.
This means that they have applied power to go ahead and the white
water is a sign of cavitation.
This one act put them under the bow of the larger boat that was moving
(according to the wake) straight ahead
Had the protesters gone astern (as they should have) that white water
would have come up amidships of the protesters boat.
Dave Doe
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>
> On 7/01/2010 7:14 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
>
> >>> BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil...
> >>> Irreparably damaged at first engagement, not so stealthy then... and
> >>> not agile/fast enough to get out of the way either.
> >>> Mostly poor tactics, why use an expensive specialised (fast and high
> >>> PR profile) vessel to do what you can do with an IRB?
>
> >> Have you not seen the video?
> >> Watch it and see your opinion change.
> >> The protest boat tried to obstruct the legitimately fishing whale boat.
> >> Someone has lost a great deal of money.
> >> There won't be any insurance after the insurers see the video and the Japanese
> >> won't be paying. They want recompense for the scratches and damage to their boat
> >> which was legally carrying out it's business on the high seas.
>
> > I've watched two videos...
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=player_embedded
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=player_embedded
> >
> > And disagree with you.
>
> > Where are the fishing signals on the whaler? (lights or bulbs)?
>
> What are the signals you are referring to that are required under
> international maritime laws?
Obviously you're no mariner...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colregs#Part_C_-_Lights_and_shapes
For a more proper definition - or an exact definition ("the" regs), see
the IMO's laws (ColRegs they're called - stands for Collision
Regulations (basically the navigation rules for the sea)), of which I
have a printed copy on my yacht (though I believe I downloaded my copy
from yachingnz or somethin'):
http://www.imo.org/
> > The stand-on vessel does not change direction. The whaler turns
towards
> > the stand-on vessel - without any sign of slowing and or being able to
> > turn sufficiently to starboard to avoid collision.
>
> That's what it looks like from the Sea Sheppard support boat. What a
> surprise that is.
>
> > If you could clearly spell out your evidence that would be good.
>
> However the video from the whaling boat tells a different story...
>
> That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
> Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
> the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
> Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
> deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
That video does nothing of the sort. It's actually hard to tell what's
going on from that video, mainly due of course, to parallax errors -
that's a no-brainer IMO. What you *can* tell, is that the whaler is
turning to starboard (and towards the stand-on vessel).
It seems to me (obviously not you), that the stand-on vessel attempts to
power up to pass past the whaler (it's not the sort of vessel (like most
vessels actually) that perform well in reverse - lack of directional
control and speed) - and operating in reverse puts one at a considerable
dissadvantage, should any tricky moves need to be made. So I'm not
surprised they did not try that - I wouldn't either.
Dave Doe
@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
I disagree.
*Any* boat - and I'd say the ex-Earthrace boat is even worse - will
perform poorly in reverse. They lack directional control, and speed and
acceleration. It is far better to go forwards. IMO, they probably
attempted to pass the whaler by powering up forwards, when they realised
they were going to be rammed.
In short, *reverse* is a *bad* option in a boat - you'll then be in a
severly restricted position to move or turn.
Dave Doe
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
They have quite a lot to do with Greenpeace actually. They're nearly
all ex-Greenpeace! - folk that worked in Greenpeace that were
disillusioned with the impotency of the organisation.
Max Burke
> In article<hi4ife$nrg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>>>>> BREAKING NEWS: Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd's stealth boat Ady Gil...
>>>>> Irreparably damaged at first engagement, not so stealthy then... and
>>>>> not agile/fast enough to get out of the way either.
>>>>> Mostly poor tactics, why use an expensive specialised (fast and high
>>>>> PR profile) vessel to do what you can do with an IRB?
>>>> Have you not seen the video?
>>>> Watch it and see your opinion change.
>>>> The protest boat tried to obstruct the legitimately fishing whale boat.
>>>> Someone has lost a great deal of money.
>>>> There won't be any insurance after the insurers see the video and the Japanese
>>>> won't be paying. They want recompense for the scratches and damage to their boat
>>>> which was legally carrying out it's business on the high seas.
>>> I've watched two videos...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU&feature=player_embedded
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=player_embedded
>>> And disagree with you.
>>> Where are the fishing signals on the whaler? (lights or bulbs)?
>> What are the signals you are referring to that are required under
>> international maritime laws?
> Obviously you're no mariner...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colregs#Part_C_-_Lights_and_shapes
The Japanese boat wasn't *TOWING* anything. It's a whaler remember. No
need for it to showing or trawling lights at all.
Just standard navigaton lights which it would have been showing,
considering the conditions at the time would have been very hard to see
from the Sea Shepperd boats, and useless what with it being broad daylight.
> For a more proper definition - or an exact definition ("the" regs), see
> the IMO's laws (ColRegs they're called - stands for Collision
> Regulations (basically the navigation rules for the sea)), of which I
> have a printed copy on my yacht (though I believe I downloaded my copy
> from yachingnz or somethin'):
> http://www.imo.org/
>>> The stand-on vessel does not change direction. The whaler turns
> towards
>>> the stand-on vessel - without any sign of slowing and or being able to
>>> turn sufficiently to starboard to avoid collision.
>> That's what it looks like from the Sea Sheppard support boat. What a
>> surprise that is.
>>> If you could clearly spell out your evidence that would be good.
>> However the video from the whaling boat tells a different story...
>> That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
>> Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
>> the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
>> Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
>> deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
> That video does nothing of the sort.
Yes it does.
They stationary in the water right until the 20 second mark in the video
then apply power from that point and deliberately run under the bow of
the Japanese whaler.
It's actually hard to tell what's
> going on from that video, mainly due of course, to parallax errors -
> that's a no-brainer IMO. What you *can* tell, is that the whaler is
> turning to starboard (and towards the stand-on vessel).
> It seems to me (obviously not you), that the stand-on vessel attempts to
> power up to pass past the whaler (it's not the sort of vessel (like most
> vessels actually) that perform well in reverse - lack of directional
> control and speed) - and operating in reverse puts one at a considerable
> dissadvantage, should any tricky moves need to be made. So I'm not
> surprised they did not try that - I wouldn't either.
It's (as you say) hard to tell whats going on from the Sea Shepperd
support boat due to the parallax 'errors' but the video from the
Japanese whaler very clearly shows the Sea Sheppard boat deliberately
ran itself under the bow of the whaler. They waited until whaler had no
way of avoiding the collision...
Max Burke
> mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>>> While I disagree with hunting endangered species, I do think Greenpeace
>>> go too far with their anti-whaling tactics.
>> Much as I disagree with Green Peace and their 'eco religion' they were
>> entirely innocent in this case.
>> The 'idiots' claiming to be protecting whales in this case is the Sea
>> Shepperd organisation... Nothing to do with Green peace at all.
> They have quite a lot to do with Greenpeace actually. They're nearly
> all ex-Greenpeace! - folk that worked in Greenpeace that were
> disillusioned with the impotency of the organisation.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Greenpeace-vs-Sea-Shepherd-Conflict-Deepens-100342.shtml
http://rewilding.org/rewildit/12/greenpeace-denounces-sea-shepherd-society-paul-watson-replies/
Dave Doe
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
You just don't get it. If it's engaged in fishing, it must display
appropriate signals - during day, they won't be lights. The type of
fishing maybe also be shown - but that's not the point.
Towing? - dunno where you get that from. Is it relevant?
You clearly no nothing about maritime rules.
>
> > For a more proper definition - or an exact definition ("the" regs), see
> > the IMO's laws (ColRegs they're called - stands for Collision
> > Regulations (basically the navigation rules for the sea)), of which I
> > have a printed copy on my yacht (though I believe I downloaded my copy
> > from yachingnz or somethin'):
> > http://www.imo.org/
>
>
> >>> The stand-on vessel does not change direction. The whaler turns
> > towards
> >>> the stand-on vessel - without any sign of slowing and or being able to
> >>> turn sufficiently to starboard to avoid collision.
>
> >> That's what it looks like from the Sea Sheppard support boat. What a
> >> surprise that is.
>
> >>> If you could clearly spell out your evidence that would be good.
>
> >> However the video from the whaling boat tells a different story...
>
> >> That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
> >> Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
> >> the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
> >> Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
> >> deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
>
> > That video does nothing of the sort.
>
> Yes it does.
> They stationary in the water right until the 20 second mark in the video
> then apply power from that point and deliberately run under the bow of
> the Japanese whaler.
Nope.
>
> It's actually hard to tell what's
> > going on from that video, mainly due of course, to parallax errors -
> > that's a no-brainer IMO. What you *can* tell, is that the whaler is
> > turning to starboard (and towards the stand-on vessel).
>
> > It seems to me (obviously not you), that the stand-on vessel attempts to
> > power up to pass past the whaler (it's not the sort of vessel (like most
> > vessels actually) that perform well in reverse - lack of directional
> > control and speed) - and operating in reverse puts one at a considerable
> > dissadvantage, should any tricky moves need to be made. So I'm not
> > surprised they did not try that - I wouldn't either.
>
> It's (as you say) hard to tell whats going on from the Sea Shepperd
> support boat due to the parallax 'errors' but the video from the
> Japanese whaler very clearly shows the Sea Sheppard boat deliberately
> ran itself under the bow of the whaler. They waited until whaler had no
> way of avoiding the collision...
Nope.
Dave Doe
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
Thanks - the links backup my point nicely.
Max Burke
> mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>>>> What are the signals you are referring to that are required under
>>>> international maritime laws?
>>> Obviously you're no mariner...
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colregs#Part_C_-_Lights_and_shapes
>> The Japanese boat wasn't *TOWING* anything. It's a whaler remember. No
>> need for it to showing or trawling lights at all.
>> Just standard navigaton lights which it would have been showing,
>> considering the conditions at the time would have been very hard to see
>> from the Sea Shepperd boats, and useless what with it being broad daylight.
> You just don't get it.
Naa you dont get it.
> If it's engaged in fishing, it must display
> appropriate signals - during day, they won't be lights. The type of
> fishing maybe also be shown - but that's not the point.
It wasn't engaged in fishing. It's a *WHALER*
You're the one claiming it should showing the appropriate maritime
signals, you're the one trying to make that a point, not me.
> Towing? - dunno where you get that from. Is it relevant?
Your wiki reference. You thought it relevant otherwise why would you
cite it?
> You clearly no nothing about maritime rules.
I know as much as you do about them, obviously...
>>>> That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
>>>> Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
>>>> the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
>>>> Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
>>>> deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
>>> That video does nothing of the sort.
>> Yes it does.
>> They stationary in the water right until the 20 second mark in the video
>> then apply power from that point and deliberately run under the bow of
>> the Japanese whaler.
> Nope.
Yes it does.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
> Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket ...
Just a note that the folks who were running the Ady Gil are the “Sea
Shepherds”, not Greenpeace.
In terms of fundamentalism, it seems a bit like comparing Iran to the
Taliban.
timbochov
> On 8/01/2010 2:51 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
>
>
> Found Imageshttp://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
The Japanese whaling ships are clearly showing their hands as
aggressors- as far as I am concerned the protestors should load up
some dummy ships with TNT and blow the lying fucks into the cold
blue. Once a species becomes extinct, that it. Theres still plenty of
japanese crammed into Tokyo to make up for any losses from Whaling
misadventures.
WorkHard
It's not like the whales are a matter of survival for the
Japanese, now is it?
I see them as murderers.
be...@eex.neet
I sit corrected. However as I understand it, Sea Shepards are
ex-greenpeace activists.
ChristianKnight
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lets get real about it. Whales are not a food source because although
they have fins they don't have scales do they.
That does not stop Kiwis gathering shell fish when they are not
suppose to.
No one makes much fuss about lobsters.
They wait until the numbers are unastainable then let them recuperate.
Pigs are mean't to be the most intelligent farm animal yet we still
eat that.
Monkeys are eaten in Africa and Asia.
Who gives a Toss even though we could be decended from them making
eating them near cannibilisim.
What do whales have worth saving?
Size and song. Greenpeace were run over the Jap ship veered into them
on purpose.
The Greens shouls have been more alert though less trusting of their
target.A good lesson is look before you leap.
WorkHard
Eh?
Dave Doe
mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>
> On 8/01/2010 2:51 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
>
> > mlvb...@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx says...
>
> >>>> What are the signals you are referring to that are required under
> >>>> international maritime laws?
>
> >>> Obviously you're no mariner...
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colregs#Part_C_-_Lights_and_shapes
>
> >> The Japanese boat wasn't *TOWING* anything. It's a whaler remember. No
> >> need for it to showing or trawling lights at all.
> >> Just standard navigaton lights which it would have been showing,
> >> considering the conditions at the time would have been very hard to see
> >> from the Sea Shepperd boats, and useless what with it being broad daylight.
>
> > You just don't get it.
>
> Naa you dont get it.
>
> > If it's engaged in fishing, it must display
> > appropriate signals - during day, they won't be lights. The type of
> > fishing maybe also be shown - but that's not the point.
>
> It wasn't engaged in fishing. It's a *WHALER*
Cool - I have no problem with that.
>
> You're the one claiming it should showing the appropriate maritime
> signals, you're the one trying to make that a point, not me.
Nope, I am not. I am making this point:
* if it is not a fishing boat and/or not displaying fishing signage THEN
standard ColRegs apply.
(Otherwise, the boat could maintain it was fishing, and therefore other
vessels should stay clear).
I therefore maintain that standard ColRegs apply.
So lets start from there.
Yer with me now?
>
> > Towing? - dunno where you get that from. Is it relevant?
>
> Your wiki reference. You thought it relevant otherwise why would you
> cite it?
>
> > You clearly no nothing about maritime rules.
>
> I know as much as you do about them, obviously...
See above - my point. Standard ColRegs apply - have a looksee for
ColRegs, section 22 - that's the important stuff.
>
> >>>> That video clearly shows that the whaling boat was not trying to ram the
> >>>> Sea Shepperd and that the Sea Shepperd boat was deliberately crossing
> >>>> the course of the whaling boat which is illegal and dangerous.
> >>>> Then at 20 seconds into the whaling boat video the Sea Shepperd boat
> >>>> deliberately powers up their engines and deliberately cause the collision...
>
> >>> That video does nothing of the sort.
>
> >> Yes it does.
> >> They stationary in the water right until the 20 second mark in the video
> >> then apply power from that point and deliberately run under the bow of
> >> the Japanese whaler.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yes it does.
Clearly we disagree on that - no point in going further is there.
Dave Doe
says...
>
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:39:10 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> >In message <ej4bk51b45997pra1...@4ax.com>, be...@eex.neet
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket ...
> >
> >Shepherds?, not Greenpeace.
> >
> >In terms of fundamentalism, it seems a bit like comparing Iran to the
> >Taliban.
>
> I sit corrected. However as I understand it, Sea Shepards are
> ex-greenpeace activists.
That's the one - founded by one indeed.
There are two crocks of shit as I see it.
1. there's a "moratorium" on whaling.
2. the japs can take though, 1200 whales are year, "in the name of
science".
timbochov
wrote:
Flawless logic there Koncerned Kristian Knight.
timbochov
> In article <661ek51t41vkvigp130tt4okvagrnu8...@4ax.com>, b...@eex.neet
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:39:10 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket ...
>
> > >Just a note that the folks who were running the Ady Gil are the ?Sea
> > >Shepherds?, not Greenpeace.
>
> > >In terms of fundamentalism, it seems a bit like comparing Iran to the
> > >Taliban.
>
> > I sit corrected. However as I understand it, Sea Shepards are
> > ex-greenpeace activists.
>
> That's the one - founded by one indeed.
>
> There are two crocks of shit as I see it.
>
> 1. there's a "moratorium" on whaling.
>
> 2. the japs can take though, 1200 whales are year, "in the name of
> science".
>
> --
> Duncan.
> Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is impotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing?
> Whence then is evil?
> [Epicurus on God]
The 1200 whales a year is a con to keep the 2nd/3rd richest nation
happy- all diplomacy crap.
Jason Rumney
> In article <661ek51t41vkvigp130tt4okvagrnu8...@4ax.com>, b...@eex.neet
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:39:10 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> > <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> Generally speaking when i get the greenpeace salesmen in Newmarket ...
>
> > >Just a note that the folks who were running the Ady Gil are the ?Sea
> > >Shepherds?, not Greenpeace.
>
> > >In terms of fundamentalism, it seems a bit like comparing Iran to the
> > >Taliban.
>
> > I sit corrected. However as I understand it, Sea Shepards are
> > ex-greenpeace activists.
>
> That's the one - founded by one indeed.
>
> There are two crocks of shit as I see it.
>
> 1. there's a "moratorium" on whaling.
>
> 2. the japs can take though, 1200 whales are year, "in the name of
> science".
3. Norway and Iceland can take as many as they want, as they refused
to agree to the moratorium.
ChristianKnight
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am writing when I watched the video the Japaneese Whaling vessel
seemed to swerve into the protest vessel..
But then again that boat was like a sitting duck and they had been
there awhile provoking anger from the Japanese.
My belief is no conviction is warranted as basically Green peace had
declared war on Japan having previously indeed rammed into whaling
vessels themselve side on.
Little fish that hang around big hungry fish are pretty quikly going
to get gobbled up one way or another.
Christ's love
WorkHard
They are NOT 'Green Peace' for starters.
retro
> been cut in half by a Japanese security vessel in the Antarctic today, the
> group's leader Paul Watson said.
>
> The $1.5 million high tech vessel's remains were sinking, but its six man
> crew had been rescued and was uninjured, Captain Watson told The Age online.
>
> Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in waters near Commonwealth Bay
> when it was suddenly approached and rammed by the Japanese ship Shonan Maru,
> which has been detailed to provide security to the fleet.
>
> Earlier today the fleet was contacted for the first time by the Ady Gil, and
> Sea Shepherd's surprise third vessel, the Bob Barker.
>
> Captain Watson, aboard the Steve Irwin, said he was still 500 miles from the
> scene.
>
> "This seriously escalates the whole situation," Captain Watson said of the
> collision.
>
> "According to the Institute of Cetacean Research, the Ady Gil's crew were
> launching projectiles at the Nisshin Maru, and attempted to entangle its
> propellors with rope.
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3209484/Whale-protest-boat-cut...
> --
> femail1...@gmail.com
yeah and the pricks kept water bombing the little boat after the
damage was done, they should at least be prosecuted for that, bombing
a boat when it's in trouble
a bit of earth song for ya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqeADZgjtpY
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
a770-44a6-8b1...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Jason Rumney
wrote:
> Having looked at both videos
> (the whalers' and the protestors'), the Japanese patrol boat was
> clearly veering towards the protestors' almost stationary boat, and
> when the protestors gave the engine some power at the last minute,
> they were most likely taking evasive action rather than deliberately
> getting under the bow as an expensive and dangerous publicity stunt.
I have the feeling the two videos aren’t showing the same incident.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
a65a3a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, timbochov wrote:
> Once a species becomes extinct, that[’s] it.
What is “it”, exactly?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
b45f-69c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, ChristianKnight wrote:
> I am writing when I watched the video the Japaneese Whaling vessel
> seemed to swerve into the protest vessel..
One video shows the Shonen Maru coming really close past, the other one
doesn’t.
That’s why I think they don’t show the same incident.
Jason Rumney
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <22223ee7-
> a770-44a6-8b10-0d9cc70e7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Jason Rumney
They look like the same incident to me. The whalers' boat is seen
veering towards the protestors' boat in both videos, and the
protestors' boat is seen almost stationary and moving off to avoid
collision too late in both videos. At the start of the whalers' video,
the boat from which the protestors' video is taken can be seen, but
quickly moves out of shot as the whalers' boat turns towards its
target.
What I don't understand is why the Japanese released that video, and
not one taken moments earlier, which might show what provocation
caused them to react so utterly stupidly, or might show the protest
boat approaching at speed and suddenly stopping dead, causing their
evasive action to inadvertently hit the protesters (though it does
look like they had plenty of time to correct their evasive action, so
that one is unlikely).
misanthropic_curmudgeon
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/3209484/Whale-protest-boat-cut...
It is all a bit of a yawn, really: neither party has the moral
highground and yet paints themself as noble and the other as the arch-
sinner, and both have esclated and manipulated events into a media-
storm, from which they both benefit by.
Either way, they both win.
timbochov
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <da16356c-a9cf-4d16-a3a5-
>
> a65a3a8d8...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, timbochov wrote:
> > Once a species becomes extinct, that[’s] it.
>
> What is “it”, exactly?
You are such a fucking twat.
At least sailor sam knew how to correct my English with a level of
intellect. You are just a knob.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Jan 10, 3:19 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>
>> In message <22223ee7-
>> a770-44a6-8b10-0d9cc70e7...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Jason Rumney
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Having looked at both videos
>> > (the whalers' and the protestors'), the Japanese patrol boat was
>> > clearly veering towards the protestors' almost stationary boat, and
>> > when the protestors gave the engine some power at the last minute,
>> > they were most likely taking evasive action rather than deliberately
>> > getting under the bow as an expensive and dangerous publicity stunt.
>>
>> I have the feeling the two videos aren’t showing the same incident.
>
> They look like the same incident to me. The whalers' boat is seen
> veering towards the protestors' boat in both videos, and the
> protestors' boat is seen almost stationary and moving off to avoid
> collision too late in both videos.
In the first video that was released, the Ady Gil puts on a burst of power
which actually puts it in the path of the Shonen Maru, leading to the
collision.
In the video taken from the Ady Gil, the Japanese boat is shown coming very
close, right alongside, and then the clip ends. There is no sign of the
protestors putting on power. So the collision would have happened about a
second later, but it looks like the whalers would have been well past by
then.
That’s the basic discrepancy I’m having trouble with.