The Ady Gil and Bob Barker had only been with the fleet a few hours. Not days or weeks, But the Japanese were desperate to lose them. I dont blame them at all. The Ady should have stayed well clear of an oncoming Harpoon ship. Its no game yet Pete and his crew seemed to think it was with all their high fives and laughing. They kind of looked stupid mocking the Japanese then getting their asses run down.
at 4:00 u can clearly see the ady gill accelerates to be hit on purpose this was purposley set up by the fat liar everyone has come to no as paul watson. he told pete bethune to do it.
Feb. 6 2009: "A boat with anti-whaling activists collides with a japanese whaling vessel in the Antarctic Ocean. No one was injured. Japan is condemning the clash, calling it unforgivable."
Jan. 6 2010: "A japanese whaling vessel collided with the anti-whaling powerboat Ady Gil. The vessel sunk. There was one injury reported. The japanese officials have since repeatedly refused to cooperate with investigations over this collision."
Well if you choose to take your own actions against the Japanese whaling ships, this is bound to happen, Don't sit there and expect sympathy when you basically asked for it ! Your lucky you are not following Navy ships around and protesting them for being ships of war, you would be dealt with a lot harder than this.
Each year, roughly 3,000,000 children die before their 5th birthday as a result of hunger and malnutrition. 16,000 children die EVERY day. That's about one child every 5 seconds. Paul Watson said Sea Shepherd recently recieved $850,000 in donations to get The Steve Irwin out of impound in the U.K. For that amount of money a school could feed lunch to 500 children every day for 5 years. Do want to donate money to a worthy cause? Save the Children. Donate to UNICEF.
"Japan’s tsunami seems to have succeeded, where years of boycotts and protests & high-seas chases by Western environmentalists had failed, in knocking out a pillar of the nation’s whaling industry. Ayukawahama was 1 of only 4 communities in Japan that defiantly carried on whaling and eating whales as a part of the 'local culture', even as the rest of the nation loses interest in whale meat. Two of their vessels were scheduled to participate in Japan's research whaling in April." japanprobe. com
If Sea Shepherd had any integrity, it would stop wasting money crashing boats and fabricating drama for TV shows and use that money to get laws changed. Sea Shepherd doesn't want Japan to stop whaling because the conflict is the best thing that has ever happened them. No whaling = no TV show = No money.
On July 15th, 2011, the Sea Shepherd flag-ship "Steve Irwin" was seized and is currently being held by the United Kingdom due to a legal action against them by a Maltese fishing company Paul Watson is pleading for supporters to donate 1.4 million dollars to negotiate it's release (scam). He said " unless we get our ship back soon, whales will die tragic deaths...After 30 days, the government can sell the ship. I hope it is sold to a fishing company!! Countdown to August 15th, 2011 !!!!!!!!
Sea Shepard hit the Japanese on purpose. At 4:50 you can see them gun the engines(the wake behind their ship). The Japanese would have passed to their left if they had not gunned their engines. These people are terrorists and I have no sympathy for them.
You are either stoned,blind or just a fucktard if you think the ady gil is the one who caused the collision the whaling ship came right up to them and swerved at the last second its obvious when you watch the video.Genocidal people like the whalers should be brought to justice they not only do they prove they have no respect for whales, dolphins and other marine animals alike they prove they have no respect for human life, naions like Australia, U.S.A., U.K. etc should be stopping this slaughter
these sea shepherds are doing a disservice to anyone serious about stopping whaling.
because of them, anti-whalers are going to be labelled eco-terorrist left wing hippies who resort to violence and fake being shot for tv ratings and sponsor money. even the captain of SS is wanted by the FBI as an eco-terrorist.
more and more people will not take the SS seriously and nobody would want to be associated with the SS.
@uberaustin777 I never thought I would ever say this, but. Your right! Those assclowns earned that bitch slap. Unmarked, blackened vessel, with people dressed in all black, in international waters, directing acoustic devices at my ship, and shining lasers (hinting the possibility of being in the crosshairs of a firearm) I would have hit them REPEATEDLY! If I had a firearm, I would have exhausted most of my ammunition into it. I want the whales to be left alone but that is a STUPID way to protest
They aren't simply "playing pranks". As we all know by now, Whales are very susceptible to toxins (just like mercury). Well, when the japanese kill a whale, the Shepherds use the legally harmless "stink bombs" to taint the meat so the whalers can't profit from it. So now they've spent the costs of fuel, salaries for their men, food & supplies, whatever licenses, and bribes... and have nothing to show for it but bankruptcy.
This, plus the court battles, will bring it all to an end eventually
Someone has to do something until the governments wake up and take action to avoid the potential crash of our ecosystem. Until then, the Sea Shepherds are the only ones brave enough to be out there raising awareness. The public will see and act too... like Martin Sheen, Bob Barker, Michelle Rodriguez, Sean Penn, Isabel Lucas, Ady Gil, Gojira, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the entire Steve Irwin Foundation
@info145 They are not the only ones. There are international groups that involve scientists and activists that have international conventions and things passed to protect animals, such as banning of the trade of ivory. The sea shepherds are rebels that don't want to play by the rules and do things the legitimate way, but at the same time they do it in the most lame way imaginable. Teenage pranks from a multi million dollar boat by a bunch of hippies. There are better ways.
@info145 ".. the only out there brave enough to cause awerness.." haha. Thanks for writig that. Ihad a bad day at work, and this made me laugh. Thanks
i guess it's because you're so simple minded... (i can tell by YOUR writing).
Jonaszk95 said: ".. the only out there brave enough to cause awerness.." haha. Thanks for writig that. Ihad a bad day at work, and this made me laugh. Thanks
@info145 that the funding they get to go throw flaming sacks of dog shit at japanese ships can go to people who would actually make a difference with an intelligent strategy. All they are, are hippies looking for publicity and funding to back their juvenille pranks when there are scientists and activists out there actually making a real difference.
@info145 Of course you would use burning trees as an example. You're so far up your own ass it's just silly. Nobody burns trees for fun, most companies that do logging replant he forests they cut down and then go back 20 years later and cut more, so there is always forest actively growing besides what they're currently cutting. As far as the Ady Gil and other associated morons they are wasting massive amounts of money and accomplishing nothing but annoyance. I hope they all get run over so
@hzuiel If the Sea Shepherds were criminals, they'd have been long arrested. They are not in jail because they do not break laws. "Bend" and "push", but not break. Do you think that Bob Barker and Ady Gil and the entire Steve Irwin Foundation have done no research into the Sea Shepherds before donating millions of dollars to them? That's insane to call them a criminals. The japanese exploit loopholes, and Shepherds fight fire with fire and keep their activities on TV for everyone to see!
@info145 They haven't been arrested because they are in international waters so it takes a pretty major action to get anyone to do anything about it. If they were within the jurisdiction of any country in the world when doing that nonsense they'd have had their boats confiscated and they'd likely be fined or imprisoned. If you tried to ram a semi-truck carrying animal furs with another semi, your butt would be in jail. If you went to a construction site and threw shit at them, they'd arrest you.
@hzuiel ===>" They haven't been arrested because they are in international waters so it takes a pretty major action to get anyone to do anything about it."
True, however the same could be said about the Japanese whalers. They are also ignoring international law and simply using the weight of a powerful but corrupt nation to back them. They would certainly be arrested if they were in USA waters doing "scientific research" in one of our marine parks.
@Fongfongmc because they are trying to impose their morals on others does not mean they have the moral high ground. Both captains were found to be at fault
@rorycalhoun27 Gee seeing how you can't address any issues and just wanna act like a violent child thinking assault and raping a man with a broom handle (which you probably enjoy having done on yourself considering how open you are to the idea) only shows how petty, uneducated, and a sad individual you are.
I watched this video several times and I have to wonder on a few things.
1) If the Japanese ship had no intention of ramming the ady gil then why when they were so far off did they come charging at it while it was idle in the sea?
2) How could the Ady Gil have charged at them when all the crew were on top?
3) I heard people say a wave pushedthe japanese but the Japanese boats can make those sharp turns.
From what I've seen the japanese ship did it on purpose.
Whaling should be stopped but you Shepherds look like untrained nerds trying to score with the hippie chicks being led by a totalitarian dictator who doesn't seem to know jack shit about command. If somebody would actually shoot Paul and y'all looked like professionals (instead of college kids who know dick about sailing) I'd be more supportive. As it is, I can't believe none of y'all have died from stupidity yet...
The Ady Gill is making way see the wake. They either left their engines idoling ebgaged auto or intentionally steered into the course of the Japanese BIGGER ship. I smell insurance job for sympathy and fund raiser. If you people think this shows you as being "enlightened" you need to close your eyes again and really see the truth. SHIP OF FOOLS
forgive me if im wrong but the ag on the video is NOT DEAD IN THE WATER....look @ the back of there craft there motors are running and as the japs ship comes close theres a hell of a rip curl from the back of the ag..........!!!!
@hippiRus at 3:55, from the Japanese video, you can clearly see they are just sitting there. There is no wake behind the Ady Gil. Then at 5:19 in the video you can see how they are just idle in the water. What you see behind the Ady Gil is not their wake, it's the water hitting the ocean from the Japanese water hoses. I don't think they were moving. When they are all sitting on top of the Ady Gil, you clearly see the Japanese come back at them full speed. Then hit them with water hoses.
while I am NOT pro-whaling, Sea Shepherd supporters only make themselves look stupid by listening to their propaganda and not using their own eyes! AT 4:00 there is no wake from the engines on the AG, then at 4:12 there is and they run right into the SM! Same thing at 5:23, the AG moves across the screen and the SM turns to port to try to miss it. The AG CLEARLY moves in front of the SM. SS would have so much more support if they didn't treat ppl like they are all idiots.
Japs rounded up to get them... No doubt at all. Ady was almost stationary most of the time skipper of that jap boat should be punished... Conduct deliberately endangering life. He could have easily avoided them. Overall though... Let's make the panda our national dish.
Canucks, you are dumb, they are not hunting endangered whales. They are hunting Minke whales. There are an estimated half million of them in the wild and the japs will harvest about 1000 of them.
@HolySheet101 You should check your facts. The Japanese DO target endangered whales, namely Fin, Grey, and Humpback.
Also, the Japanese have killed over 10,000 whales under the guise of "research." Lastly, Antarctic stocks of Minke whales may soon be listed as endangered because their numbers have dropped significantly over the past 10 years.
They had it coming for driving in front of a larger vessel. You can see that SSCS Ady Gil go forward. So don't blame the Japanese for what happened. So this film is only propaganda. To bad that they wanted to sacrifice a nice boat.
@HolySheet101 terrorists insight terror among ordinary people, these people are not terrorists because they do not insight terror among the citizens of japan as far as i know.
Truly I hope you Drown Terrorists is a word used out of context all to often today What a bad thing to try and help an endangered whales from being wiped off the Earth over money. I would like for my grandkids to be able to see Whales when there born When your kids look at you and say Daddy of Mommy why is there no Whales make sure to tell them you backed the people who killed them
Personally, I think Pete had it right when he stated that the SM captain did mean to hit the Ady Gil and cause enough damage to "take it out" from further harassment of the whaling fleet. I don't think that the SM captain meant to kill anyone, but when you're operating a big ship like that at a high rate of speed in close quarters, you just never know what's going to happen--and therefore I find his actions to be reckless and I think he should have his ticket yanked. 6 people almost died.
@ORNonprophet What is your opinion (with all your experience) about Pete B. taking the AG in so close to these big ships with the sole intention of attacking them? Do you find all the times the AG crossed the bow of the SM#2 dangerously close to be reckless on the part of Pete B.
@USDAChuckSteak "What is your opinion (with all your experience) about Pete B. taking the AG in so close to these big ships with the sole intention of attacking them?"
It's clearly a violation of maritime law when the Japanese vessels have the ROW. It's worth noting however that Bethune never hit any of the Japanese vessels--he was trying to annoy them not kill them.
Furthermore, the SM captain has never even been interviewed to know for sure what his intent was. How can you assign blame without knowing the intent of the master who steered the collision course to begin with?
So, if the SM captain admitted that yes, he intended to ram and sink the AG, would you still think that a 50-50 shared blame is appropriate when the Ag had the right of way and the SM intentionally hunted them down with the intent of damaging them?
@ORNonprophet You are right, we can't prove intent. Yet, you already claim to know the intent.
If the captain of the SM#2 admitted he intended to ram the AG then I would say blame lies with the SM#2. But he hasn't said that now has he? Yet, you are here claiming to know what his intentions are on that day.
What is your maritime experience? And your experience as a lawyer as well?
I have a 200 Ton Master's and 500 Ton Mate's (any oceans) w/Sail and Tow endorsements, a current STCW '95, Marine Radio Operator's license, over 150,000 blue water sea miles, and 25+ years at sea.
He asked me that too! LMAO While I am an engineer instead of a Captain I think it is very telling that most the trolls here have no clue. ChuckSteak isn't that bad a guy, just annoying in his style. He understands the collision fairly well. He simply plays devils advocate. Pretty much anyone who really has maritime experience understands what happened, even if every tiny detail can't be proved 100%. The SM2 got pissed off and went for payback
@rosepetal108 "I think it is very telling that most the trolls here have no clue." Agreed. It is widely accepted in maritime circles that regardless of the MNZ report, the SM caused this collision--and this is a group of people who for the most part do not like the SSCs nor do they condone Paul Watson's actions. There was no legal, or other justifiable reason for the SM to have created the close quarters situation, and, they did not maintain a safe speed and distance so as to avoid a collision.
@ORNonprophet "SM caused this collision--and this is a group of people who for the most part do not like the SSCs nor do they condone Paul Watson's actions."
I don't particularly like the SSCS crowd nor do I condone Paul Watson's actions either. I certainly am no Vegan by a long stretch! But you are right. The SM2 most certainly was the primary cause of the collision. It couldn't be more obvious.
@ORNonprophet Then why were you claiming it's results before it was released as if it was going to prove what you think? Then when it does come out now you are claiming the whole thing is a joke. I don't care if your opinion of the collision is the same, I am simply pointing out how you are a hypocrite concerning the report.
You WANTED it to back your opinion and when you thought it would you touted it as the be all end all....then when it is released and doesn't back your opinion it's a joke?
@USDAChuckSteak "Then why were you claiming it's results before it was released as if it was going to prove what you think?"
Because it did. The first draft claimed 60% fault for the SM, 40% for the Ady Gil. Even that was a stretch, but at least it gave the most blame to the SM where it belongs. It should have been 70-30 in my mind....
When the final draft came out 50-50 while admitting that the SM captain had never been interviewed, well, that IS a joke of a report....
@ORNonprophet PLEASE PM a link to this "first draft". Or do you just expect me to take your word?
And in any official report are they not allowed to add more information and adjust it accordingly? Or in your mind what ever the first draft of any report says should just automatically be the final report regardless if any new information is discovered? A yes or no answer will do.
@USDAChuckSteak The 1st draft was only sent out to the involved parties. There was no new information discovered between the release of the first draft which placed 60% of the blame on the SM and the final draft that only placed 50% of the blame on the SM.
Given that, and the fact that the SM captain was never even interviewed, a logical person would surmise that political pressure had a lot to do with the final report, yes?
@USDAChuckSteak At least the Aussies had the decency to state in their AMSA report that they couldn't assess blame either way because the Japanese refused to cooperate with the AMSA investigation. The Japanese refused to provide the Aussies with GPS and data recorder information from the SM and they refused to let AMSA investigators interview any of the crew from the SM
The SSCS on the other hand, cooperated fully with the AMSA investigation.
@ORNonprophet I completely agree with this. While I know political pressure would get Japan the results they "want" if they pushed it, but what would compel them to cooperate? You have the two loudest and most voal countries against the Japanese whaling investigating a collision. If you think that bias would be included in the reports you are crazy. Again, Japan could use it's political weight to get the results it wanted, but why do that?
@USDAChuckSteak To me what is most telling is that the Japanese never even bothered to do their own investigation. One of their licensed captain's was involved in a serious collision that nearly killed six people, it's well documented that the SM captain violated numerous intl maritime laws during it's approach towards the AG, and yet NO ONE ever bothered to interview the SM captain. Meanwhile, ALL of the SSCS crew cooperated fully.......very telling indeed.....
@ORNonprophet Are you sure no interviewed the SM#2 Capt.? Oh, I know an official interview or investigation wasn't done by Japan...but can you really say no one from Japan had a discussion with the SM#2 Capt.?
Do you really think no one asked him a question or two?
@USDAChuckSteak So tell me something Chuck. What if MNZ had interviewed the SM captain and he'd said: "Yes, they had been harassing us for days and I saw a chance to hit them so I did." Or, "I was ordered by my superiors to hit and damage the AG because it was interfering with our whaling."
If the SM captain admitted that he intentionally hit the AG, then what ratio do you think the blame for this collision should be assessed at?
@ORNonprophet If the SM#2 Captain admitted his intention was to sink the AG then I would say the blame would completely be on the SM#2. At worst I would say it would be 90-10. I would assign at most 10% of the blame on the AG for not setting a proper watch and keeping a safe distance to begine with. That would be worst case in my opinion IF (<--- A BIIIGGGG if) the SM#2 Capt. Admitted his intentent was to sink the AG.
@USDAChuckSteak "If the SM#2 Captain admitted his intention was to sink the AG then I would say the blame would completely be on the SM#2. At worst I would say it would be 90-10. I would assign at most 10% of the blame on the AG for not setting a proper watch and keeping a safe distance to begine with."
Well, at least we agree on something!
This is the reason that the final MNZ report was flawed--they never interviewed the SM captain! How can you assign blame% when you don't know his motives?
@ORNonprophet Agreed. But the report is all we have officially. Claiming it's "gold" one day then calling it a "joke" when it doesn't say what you want is a bit dishonest.
@rosepetal108 Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better? Something you could do well to do yourself...if you weren't so full of yourself.
And you don't know for a fact the "SM#2 got pissed". In all your time at sea how much time have you spent with the captain of the SM#2? We both know the answer and your statement is just more BS opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact.
@USDAChuckSteak "Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better?"
Then why, after you asked my about my qualifications and I told you that I am a licensed Captain with 25+ years at sea, did you ask: "Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
@USDAChuckSteak "Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better?"
Huh??
Then why, after I told you I had a Captain's license and 25+ years at sea did you quip:
"Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
In some respects my statements are opinions. However, they are not BS. I was very careful to base my analysis on observable facts and reasonable deductions. Until we see some kind of statement or evidence showing otherwise, I make reasonable deductions based on the actions of both parties.
It is POSSIBLE the SM2 captain is some kind of emotionless psychopath, but I don't believe it. He got angry like anyone else would, including me.
@rosepetal108 You didn't answer my entore question. Now why is that?
Do you know the SM#2 Captain and know for a fact he was pissed? Or are you basing your opinion off of statements made by the SSCS? The SSCS crew saying they saw "angry faces" and then taking that and claiming the Captain of teh SM#2 was pissed so he did what ever is NOTHING but hearsay. And you bought it hook, line and sinker. Right along with the "rotten butter" bombs. Sad really.
I know the Japanese Captain was angry. I know it based on his aggressive actions. I know it based on the previous actions of the Ady Gil to provoke him. I know it based on my sea experience. I know it based on the general Japanese attitude to Sea Shepherds. I know it based on Bethune's testimony. I know it based on my experience with human nature having lived 50 years. It is called preponderance of the evidence.
Is it possible I am wrong? Sure. but I'm not this time.
@rosepetal108 No, you think the Japanese Capt. was angry. It's nothing more then supposition.
Without any actual hard evidence all you have is a guess. Maybe it's an educated guess but it's nothing that would hold up in a court of law now is it?
It's possible you could be wrong....but your not? That's quite a bit of arrogance right there.
@USDAChuckSteak "Maybe it's an educated guess but it's nothing that would hold up in a court of law now is it?"
Actually it is. Preponderance of the evidence is used all the time in courts. I don't know about your country, but in USA if you have one person testifying, combined with corroborating circumstantial evidence, it is enough.This is especially true if the defendant refuses to testify on his own behalf. If the SM2 Captain testifies, I reserve the right to change my opinion, but he hasn't
@rosepetal108 Very true. If the SM32 Capt. testified what do you think he would say though? And as you just said...it's your opinion the SM32 Capt. was angry. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a "good" reason to believe that, but it's not hard evidence. The evidence you do have? "Testimony" from people who are proven liars who had attacked the SM#2 for days. How do you think a court would take their say so?
FYI...you can look at a persons channel and usually see what country they are from.
@USDAChuckSteak =====> ""Testimony" from people who are proven liars .... How do you think a court would take their say so?"
Actually I believe Bethune. While both Bethune and Watson are both very passionate about the anti whaling issue, Bethune strikes me as having 100 times the integrity of lying Watson. Bethune has publicly admitted many thing Watson lied about. The rift between the two is most likely on the issue of integrity. Watson will say anything including lies, Bethune won't.
@rosepetal108 I agree that Bethune is far more honest then Watson. But it wouldn't just be Bethunes testimony. You have long time (and lying) SSCS crew on the AG as well. Wasn't it that crew that said they saw "angry faces"? Is it that crews statement of "angry faces" that you used as evidence that teh SM#2 Capt. was angry? That is more so my point.
Again, I agree that Bethune is "better" then Watson, but it doesn't mean he isn't lying too. He is associated with the SSCS.
@USDAChuckSteak Actually Bethune primarily had his own crew. Anyway until you have contradictory testimony, you can't just dismiss the AG crews testimony so easily. That was one of the things I closely looked at in the NZ report. I wanted to see how Bethune stood up and testified about the collision, especially while official. (under oath?) I also closely looked at Bethune's statements after he got back from Japan.
All taken into account, I see facts lining up with testimony.
@rosepetal108 Understood, and you are right about the crew on the AG. I believe the only "die hard" SSCS member was DaGroot.
And very true that there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say? They have ALL the proof on video that the crew of the AG went out of their way (including violating maritime law OVER and OVER) to attack, with anger, the crew of the SM#2. There's 2 sides to teh story and we only have 1. That doesn't mean the 1 side is right.
@USDAChuckSteak Yes thats true. The AG did provoke the Japanese whalers. That is the purpose of the SSCS. They provoke the Whalers and then have footage to recruit volunteers, public opinion, and raise funds.
Pretty much all direct action type protests use this technique. Just look at the "piracy" of the Boston tea party! Boarding a ship illegally, destruction of property, and provoked the British to retaliate! Which cause public opinion to squarely move to independence for the colonies.
@rosepetal108 I thought the SSCS "purpose" was conservation? In this case specifically to stop whaling they disagree with. Their purpose is not to attack, that is there tactic of choice to serve their purpose.
Trying to compare the SSCS to the Boston Tea Party is fairly weak and depending how you go a possible strawman argument.
@USDAChuckSteak "there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
I don't think we will ever hear that testimony. Bethune screwed that opportunity up. When the SM2 volunteered to "rescue" the AG crew he should have let them, instead of boarding illegally. Then he would have full rights to take the matter to international court. By boarding illegally to handle it, he allowed Japan to settle it in Japans courts. Japan didn't allow the issue at all.
@rosepetal108 Agreed. Now makes you wonder if the Japanese whaling would have ended sooner had the SSCS not attacked for all these last years? It's pretty well documented that there are tons of whale meat in freezers and the demand in Japan is quite low. Japanese whaling was dying anyway. Did the SSCS attacks end it sooner or prolong it?
@USDAChuckSteak "Agreed. Now makes you wonder if the Japanese whaling would have ended sooner had the SSCS not attacked for all these last years?"
Some Japanese scholars believe that. I don't know enough about Japan to say one way or another.
"I thought the SSCS "purpose" was conservation?"
SSCS are not conservationists. They are radical Vegan preservationists. Huge difference. They are only using the tactics of the Boston Tea Party. Otherwise they have no similarity.
@rosepetal108 The SSCS do not use teh tactics of the Boston Tea Party. If they DID use the Boston Tea Party tactics they would board the Japanese whaling ships and throw the whale meat overboard. (see it was dubbed the Tea Party because they threw the item in question overboard.)
Throwing shit at another ship is HARDLY the tactics of the Boston Tea Party.
@USDAChuckSteak "Throwing shit at another ship is HARDLY the tactics of the Boston Tea Party."
They are not exactly the same obviously, but both come under the heading of destruction of property and illegal boarding of ships to protest an issue. The issues were different but all these types of protests are under the heading of "direct action" protests.
@rosepetal108 It's a stretch and you know it. The differences FAR out weigh the similarities. And in trying to compair the two shows a lack of character. Just because the root tactics are similar doesn't mean they are anything alike. The Canadian Coast Gard rammed and boarded an SSCS ship years ago. Did the CCG use the tactics of the BTP as well?
SSCS was the protesters. CCG took the role of the law enforcement. I really don't get that a thoughtful man like yourself doesn't understand "direct action" protests strategy. It has been used countless times by countless protest groups all over the world. Yes the specifics are always different but the idea of direct action protest is always the same.
I don't even agree that the SSCS should be using this tactic but I am smart enough to recognize it when I see it.
@rosepetal108 If we are going to talk 'action" then let's talk action. What the CCG did as far as tactics and "action" is what the SSCS do. Yes they are LE, but as you said, the specifics are different but the tactics are the same. Right?
I understand "direct action" protest. But I think equating the SSCS to the BTP is a discredit to the BTP and a weak attempt to legitimize the SSCS. Just because 10% of what the two groups do are similar doesn't mean it's a good compairson.
@USDAChuckSteak See that is what I mean. You have no idea what a "direct action" protest is. It has no bearing on whether you agree with the protest, or if you see merit in the protesters. That is a whole other issue. The CCG isn't protesting the SSCS. LMAO Your whole way of looking at it is skewed at every level.
CCG can't possibly ever be a "direct action" protest unless the become mutineers, LOL since they have the whole weight and power of Canada behind their actions.
@rosepetal108 I know exactly what direct action protest is. It's protesting via directly taking action on those you are protesting. In other words attacking or interfering with them. As opposed to just holding signs.
My use of the CCG wasn't good. But I was equating the ACTIONS and not the reason for the action. The CCG were not protesting the SSCS, however the ACTIONS (ramming and boarding) are similar. Yes they are done for different reasons but the ACTIONS are similar....right?
@USDAChuckSteak When the Marine Patrol, Police, Coast Guard, Navy etc... board a ship in the process of enforcement of a countries laws, it in no way resembles SSCS actions of ramming and/or boarding Japanese ships to "enforce" IWC regulations in SOWS.
There have been times when SSCS did have authority and were asked to help "enforce" various marine laws. However, that is not the case in the SOWS right now.
@rosepetal108 ACTIONS = ramming and boarding. THAT is all I'm comparing. You compared the ACTIONS of the BTP and SSCS. I threw the CCG's ACTIONS in there to show you that it's not just the ACTIONS that matter. S-I-M-P-L-E as that. The ACTIONS are indeed THE SAME. The reason behind the action is different but ramming and boarding are the same. How can you not get that?
I know all about the SSCS "official" actions in the Galapagos.
@USDAChuckSteak ""there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
Well like I said,. I sincerely doubt we will ever hear it. Japan is diplomatically stonewalling. However, there must be a reason for them stonewalling. I suspect that they have internally heard the SM2 Captains testimony and have found it too embarrassing to Japanese interests. If the testimony was beneficial to Japans interests, they would have went public long ago.
@rosepetal108 I personally think that Japan had 2 routes they could have went. They could not cooperate and let the report (MNZ) come out and say it was a 50/50 fault issue. Or they could cooperate and more then likely use political pressure to get the same results. By not cooperating they got a favorable result without having to use any political pressure or favors.
Just my opinion.
Do you think the Capt. of the SM#2 would admit he was mad and wanted the AG sunk? If he actually was "mad".
@USDAChuckSteak "Do you think the Capt. of the SM#2 would admit he was mad and wanted the AG sunk?"
As I just stated I don't think he was trying to sink the AG. Just trying to "attack" back with water canons and LRAD. But yes he was angry and that probably clouded his judgement during the maneuver.
"If the SM#2 Capt. was forced to testify do you really think he would admit to any of that?"
I just said 3 times I doubt he would testify, but there is no reason to assume he would lie under oath.
@rosepetal108 There you go with the "he was angry". You can't prove that and you know it. YOU weren't there so YOU can't say it like it's fact. NO one from the SSCS even saw the Capt. of the SM#2 at teh time of the collision. You can speculate he was angry, but you can't claim it as fact. Doing so is a blaten lie and you know it.
And there is no reason to claim he was angry as a matter of FACT when it's speculation.
@USDAChuckSteak "And there is no reason to claim he was angry as a matter of FACT when it's speculation."
There is testimony and circumstantial corroborating evidence. You may not believe the testimony and evidence by actions, but I do.
If it looks like a frog, hops like a frog and croaks like a frog, chances are it is a frog. Could it be a toad? Sure! It is possible. But until I see evidence otherwise I am sticking to where the evidence takes me now. He was angry and screwed up.
@rosepetal108 What is the testimony and circumstantial corroborating evidence specifically on the Capt. Of the SM#2 again? Not the crew that was out on the deck. Sorry if you already mentioned this, but all I recall your evidence being is some of the crew on the AG testified to seeing "angry faces" on the SM#2. Can you point me to where the Capt. of teh SM#2 is called out specifically as looking "angry"? Or any other evidence specifically about the SM#2 Capt.?
@USDAChuckSteak "there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
Assuming there was a way to force the testimony. (which I doubt could happen), I highly suspect the SM2 Captain would be forced to admit he went in for a payback "attack" with LRADs and water canons and screwed up the maneuver accidentally. That single screw ship is too big and not agile enough to be pulling stunts like that, especially at those speeds. Either way it is highly illegal!
@rosepetal108 If the SM#2 Capt. was forced to testify do you really think he would admit to any of that?
Just like the SSCS claim to break no laws, yet you and I both know they damn well do. It would (and is) just a big he said/she said and official tesimony wouldn't change that.
You do know people lie under oath right? Hell, people lie even though there's video tape evidence of their crime (with out any gray area).
@ORNonprophet I don't hold any license. Props to you for having yours. Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?
And why don't you try responding to the rest of my post? What's the matter....you afraid of replying to EVERYTHING? Or do you just like to pick and choose and avoid the rest?
"Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
Apparently you do, or you wouldn't have asked me if I'm licensed. Now that I've answered your question with a response you don't like, you question the relevance of your own question??
Yes, I think being licensed and having 25 years at sea gives me a sound basis on which to speak about maritime law and the rules of the road--don't you?
@ORNonprophet I don't necessarily think holding a license makes your opinion more valid. But I will weigh your words more then someone without your experience in this area. Why don't I? Because this issue, at it's root, is about whaling and that is emotional for many and regardless of any license or experience their emotion will sway their opinion over their experience.
Where did you give me an answer I didn't like? Or is that just you making an assumption?
@USDAChuckSteak "You are right, we can't prove intent. Yet, you already claim to know the intent."
I've never claimed to "know" intent, I've merely stated my beliefs. Why do YOU think that the SM headed right towards the AG at a high rate of speed? Where they just going to ask if they could borrow a cup of sugar??
@ORNonprophet I agree there really can't be an official finding when all parties have not been fully interviewed. However you show your bias with your statement that the SM#2 steered the collision course. BOTH vessels steered (or failed to steer) into a collision course.
IF (<---- BIG if there partner) the SM#2 captain admitted his intent was to sink the AG and that is why he ordered the SM#2 course altered I would lay the bulk, and most likely all, of the blame on the SM#2.
@USDAChuckSteak "However you show your bias with your statement that the SM#2 steered the collision course. BOTH vessels steered (or failed to steer) into a collision course."
You're wrong.
The AG was nearly at a full stop over 2 miles away from the SM and was NOT on a collision course with the SM. The SM suddenly engaged their engines at or near full thrust and steered a course right towards the AG at a high rate of speed, even turning 20 degrees or so to stbd 6 seconds before impact.
ADY GIL WAS STATIC. THAT'S AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK. NO ARGUMENT HERE. THEY WERE AT LEAST 1KM OFF WHEN THE WAILERS TURNED TO STARBOARD INTO THE COURSE OF ADY GILL.
@matdelta1 The New Zealand maritime report says it was both parties fault. I'll take an official report from an official maritime organization over your opinion any day of the week.
@USDAChuckSteak I couldn't give a fuck what you think you dick! We can all see it with our own eyes! your one of them pricks that just has to raise your opinion. U know what, your opinion means NOTHING to me.
Sea-Shepherd are only just getting started & when I'm part of the crew, Japanese lives will be lost. keep you opinion to yourself you irritating piece of shit or I'll swat u like a fucking Fly.
@matdelta1 If you taut you want to end Japanese lives you will never be a part of the SSCS crew.
And it's not my opinion who's fault the collision is. It was the official finding of the New Zealand government that it was both ships fault. An official report from the government of the ship that was sunk hold more precedence then your silly emo opinion.
@USDAChuckSteak Because you dislike the SSCS so much, even if the MNZ report said the fault was 70 SM and 30 AG, you'd STILL be saying that it was the SS's fault and the investigation was biased because NZ is against whaling.....
The bottom line is that you don't like the SS, and you enjoy bad-mouthing them. Your "facts" are little more than biased opinion.
@ORNonprophet I said it was both parties fault BEFORE the MNZ report came out. What did you say? That's right, you said (and still say) it's the fault of the SM#2. You THOUGHT you know what the MNZ report would say so you posted you OPINION as fact. You just got called on it. Grow a pair and admit it.
My facts are facts. You are the one trying to pass your opinion and wishes off as fact. you just got caught doing so. Man up butter cup.
@USDAChuckSteak I never, ever said that this collision was solely the fault of the SM. You can try and put words in my mouth all you want and act like a petulant child--I could really care less.
What I DID say is that the SM caused this collision by failing to yield to the stand on vessel, and by recklessly operating at an unsafe speed and distance in a close quarters situation. Get it?
@ORNonprophet I never said you said it was solely the SM#2's fault. My bad if it came out that way. My point is that you ran around tauting the MNZ report as if it was the gospel. Why did you do that? Because you THOUGHT the official release was going to claim the SM#2 more at fault. And when the official report was released and it DIDN'T meet your expectations you pass it off as a joke. It shows your hypocracy and that is my point on calling you on this.
@USDAChuckSteak The final report is a joke because they never interviewed the SM captain. How can you claim to assign blame for an accident initiated by one vessel when you have no idea why the captain took the actions he did?
At least with the MNZ first draft version of 60-40 SM-AG, most of the blame went were it should--to the SM. But to try and share blame for this collision when you have no idea of the reason(s) the SM captain violated intl law and steered right towards the AG--it's a joke
@ORNonprophet So again, when it say's what you want it to is was a damn good report. Then when the blame shits away from your liking then it's a joke? I don't mind your reasons for claiming the final report isn't complete, but you claimed the report was this "smoking gun" when you THOUGHT it would say the SM#2 was mostly at fault.
Your flipflop show clear bias. If you wouldn't have claimed the report to be such "gold" early on it wouldn't be a big deal. But you did.
@USDAChuckSteak You're a hoot! As I've stated several times, the original draft of the MNZ report had the majority of the blame on the SM captain where it belonged at 60% SM-40% AG. Personally, I think it should have been at least 70-30, but 60-40 was acceptable.
The final report citing 50-50 IS a joke, and really anyone with any maritime experience knows this regardless of their personal feelings about the SSCS or the whalers. It's pretty obvious that you are biased against the SSCS.
@ORNonprophet You know what, I can see where you are coming from. I just tend to look at the entire situation, including all the illegal stuff the SSCS did leading up to the collision. They PUT themselves there over and over. Maybe I'm wrong in including the DAYS of attacks priorto the collision.
Not that I have much faith in governments, but I could easily say that an official goverment report is more accurate then your personal opinion because you are clearly biased against the Whalers.
@USDAChuckSteak It's funny that you'd claim I'm biased against the whalers. I'm not. In fact the only reason I ever came to YT to begin with was to see video and discussion about this well-known maritime collision. I'm neither pro nor anti-whaling or SSCS.
In looking at your channel however, it becomes quite obvious that you don't much care for a vegan/activist group like the SSCS, and in the numerous comments you've made you ALWAYS pick the side against the SSCS....
@ORNonprophet Well let's look at your channel. Says you joined in 2007. And you say the only reason you EVER came to YT is to view the AG collision? Really? That happened in 2010. You joined almost 3 years before the collision to discuss the collision? Interesting. So I guess all we can deduce from this is...well...you just lied.
I take issue with the SSCS. It has nothing to do with /activist group(s). I appriciate their drive for their cause, but can't support their tactics. Get it?
i jerked off to the first 30 seconds of this video over a hundered times. fuck dolphins, fuck seals, fuck whales, and fuck sea shepherd. i would say if you don't like it you can come kick my ass, but judging by the soundtrack to this video i'm not sure you have it in you anyway. of coarse, its ok if you're a 16 year old japanese girl or an anime fan, but neither of those really worry me... i'm just saying i know a lot of tough motherfuckers, and they wouldn't be caught dead listenning to this :D
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ady Gil and Bob Barker had only been with the fleet a few hours. Not days or weeks, But the Japanese were desperate to lose them. I dont blame them at all. The Ady should have stayed well clear of an oncoming Harpoon ship. Its no game yet Pete and his crew seemed to think it was with all their high fives and laughing. They kind of looked stupid mocking the Japanese then getting their asses run down.
Stopthegreed 3 months ago
Anyone can see the prop wash behind the boat and see it head directly into the Japanese boats path.
TheMILVET 3 months ago
at 4:00 u can clearly see the ady gill accelerates to be hit on purpose this was purposley set up by the fat liar everyone has come to no as paul watson. he told pete bethune to do it.
matt6312matt 4 months ago
First rule of news objectivity: NEVER use music
El8888888888 4 months ago
uh..I'm going to call bullshit. Pete Bethune admitted that he was ordered to ram the Gil into the ship by paul
TheChoujinVirus 5 months ago
I really love Japan... but as a whole country.
This is why the "green boats" should have torpedos :).
tarkurius 5 months ago in playlist Další videa uživatele animalpolice
Put into perspective:
Feb. 6 2009: "A boat with anti-whaling activists collides with a japanese whaling vessel in the Antarctic Ocean. No one was injured. Japan is condemning the clash, calling it unforgivable."
Jan. 6 2010: "A japanese whaling vessel collided with the anti-whaling powerboat Ady Gil. The vessel sunk. There was one injury reported. The japanese officials have since repeatedly refused to cooperate with investigations over this collision."
Does anyone smell a rat?
info145 6 months ago 8
@info145
Crikey mate more than a rat, most of the dole bludging druggos of the Ady Mull probobly have not had a tub for 6 months!
Inconvenientruths 4 months ago
@Inconvenientruths
What is so inconvenient about people being named Ruth? It's their right...
info145 4 months ago
@info145
You would be an academic/ lefty right?
Inconvenientruths 4 months ago
I wish Michael Moore was on that bow. That's a whale I would LOVE to see slaughtered.
tripleheshy 6 months ago
If you want to call someone an idiot, at least use proper grammar so you don't look like one yourself. It should be YOU'RE an idiot.
bearbon2 6 months ago
@fallbrookchristopher your an idiot
critchu 6 months ago
Well if you choose to take your own actions against the Japanese whaling ships, this is bound to happen, Don't sit there and expect sympathy when you basically asked for it ! Your lucky you are not following Navy ships around and protesting them for being ships of war, you would be dealt with a lot harder than this.
lucerod69 6 months ago
Each year, roughly 3,000,000 children die before their 5th birthday as a result of hunger and malnutrition. 16,000 children die EVERY day. That's about one child every 5 seconds. Paul Watson said Sea Shepherd recently recieved $850,000 in donations to get The Steve Irwin out of impound in the U.K. For that amount of money a school could feed lunch to 500 children every day for 5 years. Do want to donate money to a worthy cause? Save the Children. Donate to UNICEF.
The6sicksikhs 6 months ago
@The6sicksikhs
Naaahhh. UNICEF is a quiet achiever. The Drug Addicts get more screen play doing this shit.
Most people sing thier sad songs and have public cry ins because it MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD as well as other people seeing HOW NICE THEY ARE!
A bit like Masterbation really.
Inconvenientruths 6 months ago
"Japan’s tsunami seems to have succeeded, where years of boycotts and protests & high-seas chases by Western environmentalists had failed, in knocking out a pillar of the nation’s whaling industry. Ayukawahama was 1 of only 4 communities in Japan that defiantly carried on whaling and eating whales as a part of the 'local culture', even as the rest of the nation loses interest in whale meat. Two of their vessels were scheduled to participate in Japan's research whaling in April." japanprobe. com
info145 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Sea Shepherd had any integrity, it would stop wasting money crashing boats and fabricating drama for TV shows and use that money to get laws changed. Sea Shepherd doesn't want Japan to stop whaling because the conflict is the best thing that has ever happened them. No whaling = no TV show = No money.
The6sicksikhs 6 months ago
On July 15th, 2011, the Sea Shepherd flag-ship "Steve Irwin" was seized and is currently being held by the United Kingdom due to a legal action against them by a Maltese fishing company Paul Watson is pleading for supporters to donate 1.4 million dollars to negotiate it's release (scam). He said " unless we get our ship back soon, whales will die tragic deaths...After 30 days, the government can sell the ship. I hope it is sold to a fishing company!! Countdown to August 15th, 2011 !!!!!!!!
The6sicksikhs 6 months ago
@The6sicksikhs
Matey that is fantastic news, altho the drug addicts will come up with the money to get the Sea Psychos out again.
Not that I like the crap that the Japs come out with but at least they are not Psychos!
Inconvenientruths 6 months ago
@The6sicksikhs wtf that sucks
dday1999FTW 6 months ago
@dday1999FTW...Yes, it does.
The6sicksikhs 6 months ago
Sea Shepard hit the Japanese on purpose. At 4:50 you can see them gun the engines(the wake behind their ship). The Japanese would have passed to their left if they had not gunned their engines. These people are terrorists and I have no sympathy for them.
ArmorPeacockGO 6 months ago
You are either stoned,blind or just a fucktard if you think the ady gil is the one who caused the collision the whaling ship came right up to them and swerved at the last second its obvious when you watch the video.Genocidal people like the whalers should be brought to justice they not only do they prove they have no respect for whales, dolphins and other marine animals alike they prove they have no respect for human life, naions like Australia, U.S.A., U.K. etc should be stopping this slaughter
stuey310 7 months ago
these sea shepherds are doing a disservice to anyone serious about stopping whaling.
because of them, anti-whalers are going to be labelled eco-terorrist left wing hippies who resort to violence and fake being shot for tv ratings and sponsor money. even the captain of SS is wanted by the FBI as an eco-terrorist.
more and more people will not take the SS seriously and nobody would want to be associated with the SS.
Thegus0 7 months ago
@uberaustin777 I never thought I would ever say this, but. Your right! Those assclowns earned that bitch slap. Unmarked, blackened vessel, with people dressed in all black, in international waters, directing acoustic devices at my ship, and shining lasers (hinting the possibility of being in the crosshairs of a firearm) I would have hit them REPEATEDLY! If I had a firearm, I would have exhausted most of my ammunition into it. I want the whales to be left alone but that is a STUPID way to protest
xinecallaw 7 months ago
Ady Gil is obliviously on the gas
PoliticalSmackdown 7 months ago
Ady Gil rammed the wailer it is obvious
sad
PoliticalSmackdown 7 months ago
Americans knew they were doing the right thing when they nuked the Arrogant Japs
theindianrebel 7 months ago
They aren't simply "playing pranks". As we all know by now, Whales are very susceptible to toxins (just like mercury). Well, when the japanese kill a whale, the Shepherds use the legally harmless "stink bombs" to taint the meat so the whalers can't profit from it. So now they've spent the costs of fuel, salaries for their men, food & supplies, whatever licenses, and bribes... and have nothing to show for it but bankruptcy.
This, plus the court battles, will bring it all to an end eventually
info145 8 months ago
Someone has to do something until the governments wake up and take action to avoid the potential crash of our ecosystem. Until then, the Sea Shepherds are the only ones brave enough to be out there raising awareness. The public will see and act too... like Martin Sheen, Bob Barker, Michelle Rodriguez, Sean Penn, Isabel Lucas, Ady Gil, Gojira, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the entire Steve Irwin Foundation
And special thanks to Brigitte Bardot
info145 8 months ago 2
@info145 They are not the only ones. There are international groups that involve scientists and activists that have international conventions and things passed to protect animals, such as banning of the trade of ivory. The sea shepherds are rebels that don't want to play by the rules and do things the legitimate way, but at the same time they do it in the most lame way imaginable. Teenage pranks from a multi million dollar boat by a bunch of hippies. There are better ways.
hzuiel 8 months ago
@info145 ".. the only out there brave enough to cause awerness.." haha. Thanks for writig that. Ihad a bad day at work, and this made me laugh. Thanks
Jonaszk95 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jonaszk95
THAT made you laugh?
i guess it's because you're so simple minded... (i can tell by YOUR writing).
Jonaszk95 said: ".. the only out there brave enough to cause awerness.." haha. Thanks for writig that. Ihad a bad day at work, and this made me laugh. Thanks
info145 1 month ago
Comment removed
info145 8 months ago
Comment removed
info145 8 months ago
@info145 that the funding they get to go throw flaming sacks of dog shit at japanese ships can go to people who would actually make a difference with an intelligent strategy. All they are, are hippies looking for publicity and funding to back their juvenille pranks when there are scientists and activists out there actually making a real difference.
hzuiel 8 months ago
The Sea Shepherds are ECO-WARRIORS, not eco-terrorists!
They're not eco-terrorists if they're the ones trying to assist in the ecology's preservation.
It's like having two people: one is burning trees, the other is trying to put the fires out.
Which is the "eco-terrorist"?
Who indeed is committing a crime here? Who leaves the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary with "plunder"? (Plunder without replenish!)
info145 8 months ago
@info145 Of course you would use burning trees as an example. You're so far up your own ass it's just silly. Nobody burns trees for fun, most companies that do logging replant he forests they cut down and then go back 20 years later and cut more, so there is always forest actively growing besides what they're currently cutting. As far as the Ady Gil and other associated morons they are wasting massive amounts of money and accomplishing nothing but annoyance. I hope they all get run over so
hzuiel 8 months ago
@hzuiel If the Sea Shepherds were criminals, they'd have been long arrested. They are not in jail because they do not break laws. "Bend" and "push", but not break. Do you think that Bob Barker and Ady Gil and the entire Steve Irwin Foundation have done no research into the Sea Shepherds before donating millions of dollars to them? That's insane to call them a criminals. The japanese exploit loopholes, and Shepherds fight fire with fire and keep their activities on TV for everyone to see!
info145 8 months ago
@info145 They haven't been arrested because they are in international waters so it takes a pretty major action to get anyone to do anything about it. If they were within the jurisdiction of any country in the world when doing that nonsense they'd have had their boats confiscated and they'd likely be fined or imprisoned. If you tried to ram a semi-truck carrying animal furs with another semi, your butt would be in jail. If you went to a construction site and threw shit at them, they'd arrest you.
hzuiel 8 months ago
@hzuiel ===>" They haven't been arrested because they are in international waters so it takes a pretty major action to get anyone to do anything about it."
True, however the same could be said about the Japanese whalers. They are also ignoring international law and simply using the weight of a powerful but corrupt nation to back them. They would certainly be arrested if they were in USA waters doing "scientific research" in one of our marine parks.
rosepetal108 7 months ago
FUCK YOU FUCKING LAW BREAKERS STUPID HIPPIE PIRATES FUCK YOU GO DIE
rct096 8 months ago
Both parties were found responsible for this. That means both are at fault.
openblue07 8 months ago
@openblue07 ady gil has the moral high ground
Fongfongmc 8 months ago
@Fongfongmc because they are trying to impose their morals on others does not mean they have the moral high ground. Both captains were found to be at fault
openblue07 8 months ago
@rorycalhoun27 Gee seeing how you can't address any issues and just wanna act like a violent child thinking assault and raping a man with a broom handle (which you probably enjoy having done on yourself considering how open you are to the idea) only shows how petty, uneducated, and a sad individual you are.
zellince 8 months ago
I watched this video several times and I have to wonder on a few things.
1) If the Japanese ship had no intention of ramming the ady gil then why when they were so far off did they come charging at it while it was idle in the sea?
2) How could the Ady Gil have charged at them when all the crew were on top?
3) I heard people say a wave pushedthe japanese but the Japanese boats can make those sharp turns.
From what I've seen the japanese ship did it on purpose.
zellince 8 months ago
Whaling should be stopped but you Shepherds look like untrained nerds trying to score with the hippie chicks being led by a totalitarian dictator who doesn't seem to know jack shit about command. If somebody would actually shoot Paul and y'all looked like professionals (instead of college kids who know dick about sailing) I'd be more supportive. As it is, I can't believe none of y'all have died from stupidity yet...
Theresnoiinfuckyou 8 months ago
The Ady Gill is making way see the wake. They either left their engines idoling ebgaged auto or intentionally steered into the course of the Japanese BIGGER ship. I smell insurance job for sympathy and fund raiser. If you people think this shows you as being "enlightened" you need to close your eyes again and really see the truth. SHIP OF FOOLS
mfcobb1 8 months ago
Sink the Sea Shepard with a big ass torpedo.. You people say save the whale but kill human babies. Something is wrong with your brain.
mfcobb1 8 months ago
Comment removed
mfcobb1 8 months ago
forgive me if im wrong but the ag on the video is NOT DEAD IN THE WATER....look @ the back of there craft there motors are running and as the japs ship comes close theres a hell of a rip curl from the back of the ag..........!!!!
hippiRus 9 months ago
@hippiRus at 3:55, from the Japanese video, you can clearly see they are just sitting there. There is no wake behind the Ady Gil. Then at 5:19 in the video you can see how they are just idle in the water. What you see behind the Ady Gil is not their wake, it's the water hitting the ocean from the Japanese water hoses. I don't think they were moving. When they are all sitting on top of the Ady Gil, you clearly see the Japanese come back at them full speed. Then hit them with water hoses.
BeccaAS 8 months ago
now i know tsunami is good ofr japan they destroy the sea
music666able 9 months ago
lol whatever boat these white fags bring the superior japanese shall destroy it again
xdroon3 9 months ago
while I am NOT pro-whaling, Sea Shepherd supporters only make themselves look stupid by listening to their propaganda and not using their own eyes! AT 4:00 there is no wake from the engines on the AG, then at 4:12 there is and they run right into the SM! Same thing at 5:23, the AG moves across the screen and the SM turns to port to try to miss it. The AG CLEARLY moves in front of the SM. SS would have so much more support if they didn't treat ppl like they are all idiots.
rshurack 9 months ago
Japs rounded up to get them... No doubt at all. Ady was almost stationary most of the time skipper of that jap boat should be punished... Conduct deliberately endangering life. He could have easily avoided them. Overall though... Let's make the panda our national dish.
kumasatra 9 months ago
Ady Gil still in "Auto Pilot" mode....
Microxen6383 9 months ago
I like how after the Japanese ship hit the little boat in its path they blasted them with the water cannon on the way by. I LOL'd
NorthsideBill 9 months ago
its pritty clear that Adi Gil is speeding up and the Jap is maintaining speed and corse so it seems the terrorists are offering a boat for the press
ThePeturhm 9 months ago
ANDY GIL RULZ!
tokitattoo 10 months ago
at 5:25 to 5:35 it sure looks like Ady Gil is sailing in front of the whaling boat.
Jesus45U 10 months ago
Canucks, you are dumb, they are not hunting endangered whales. They are hunting Minke whales. There are an estimated half million of them in the wild and the japs will harvest about 1000 of them.
HolySheet101 11 months ago
@HolySheet101 You should check your facts. The Japanese DO target endangered whales, namely Fin, Grey, and Humpback.
Also, the Japanese have killed over 10,000 whales under the guise of "research." Lastly, Antarctic stocks of Minke whales may soon be listed as endangered because their numbers have dropped significantly over the past 10 years.
ORNonprophet 10 months ago
They had it coming for driving in front of a larger vessel. You can see that SSCS Ady Gil go forward. So don't blame the Japanese for what happened. So this film is only propaganda. To bad that they wanted to sacrifice a nice boat.
TJ76no 11 months ago
@TJ76no Bullshit.
Telling more propaganda doesn't defeat the propaganda of this vid.
The Shonan Maru 2 was not attempting murder. I am convinced of it. On the other hand Bethune was not trying to sacrifice his boat either.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
the japanese throw flashbangs and collide with the sea sheperds allthe sea sheperds dois throw stink bombs
dumbblonde537 11 months ago
@dumbblonde537 Sea Shepherds also ram whaling ships. And now this year they are throwing flares and smoke "bombs" onto the whaling ships.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
It's a shame the terrorists on the Ady Gil didn't drown. That would have been a more fitting ending.
HolySheet101 11 months ago
@HolySheet101 terrorists insight terror among ordinary people, these people are not terrorists because they do not insight terror among the citizens of japan as far as i know.
aliveconartist 11 months ago
@HolySheet101
Truly I hope you Drown Terrorists is a word used out of context all to often today What a bad thing to try and help an endangered whales from being wiped off the Earth over money. I would like for my grandkids to be able to see Whales when there born When your kids look at you and say Daddy of Mommy why is there no Whales make sure to tell them you backed the people who killed them
CanucksCup2010 11 months ago
Personally, I think Pete had it right when he stated that the SM captain did mean to hit the Ady Gil and cause enough damage to "take it out" from further harassment of the whaling fleet. I don't think that the SM captain meant to kill anyone, but when you're operating a big ship like that at a high rate of speed in close quarters, you just never know what's going to happen--and therefore I find his actions to be reckless and I think he should have his ticket yanked. 6 people almost died.
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet What is your opinion (with all your experience) about Pete B. taking the AG in so close to these big ships with the sole intention of attacking them? Do you find all the times the AG crossed the bow of the SM#2 dangerously close to be reckless on the part of Pete B.
Carefully, your hypocrassy may show.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "What is your opinion (with all your experience) about Pete B. taking the AG in so close to these big ships with the sole intention of attacking them?"
It's clearly a violation of maritime law when the Japanese vessels have the ROW. It's worth noting however that Bethune never hit any of the Japanese vessels--he was trying to annoy them not kill them.
"Carefully, your hypocrassy may show."
BTW, it's "hypocrisy."
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
Furthermore, the SM captain has never even been interviewed to know for sure what his intent was. How can you assign blame without knowing the intent of the master who steered the collision course to begin with?
So, if the SM captain admitted that yes, he intended to ram and sink the AG, would you still think that a 50-50 shared blame is appropriate when the Ag had the right of way and the SM intentionally hunted them down with the intent of damaging them?
What is your maritime experience?
ORNonprophet 1 year ago 2
@ORNonprophet You are right, we can't prove intent. Yet, you already claim to know the intent.
If the captain of the SM#2 admitted he intended to ram the AG then I would say blame lies with the SM#2. But he hasn't said that now has he? Yet, you are here claiming to know what his intentions are on that day.
What is your maritime experience? And your experience as a lawyer as well?
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak "What is your maritime experience?"
I have a 200 Ton Master's and 500 Ton Mate's (any oceans) w/Sail and Tow endorsements, a current STCW '95, Marine Radio Operator's license, over 150,000 blue water sea miles, and 25+ years at sea.
And you??
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet "What is your maritime experience?"
He asked me that too! LMAO While I am an engineer instead of a Captain I think it is very telling that most the trolls here have no clue. ChuckSteak isn't that bad a guy, just annoying in his style. He understands the collision fairly well. He simply plays devils advocate. Pretty much anyone who really has maritime experience understands what happened, even if every tiny detail can't be proved 100%. The SM2 got pissed off and went for payback
rosepetal108 1 year ago
@rosepetal108 "I think it is very telling that most the trolls here have no clue." Agreed. It is widely accepted in maritime circles that regardless of the MNZ report, the SM caused this collision--and this is a group of people who for the most part do not like the SSCs nor do they condone Paul Watson's actions. There was no legal, or other justifiable reason for the SM to have created the close quarters situation, and, they did not maintain a safe speed and distance so as to avoid a collision.
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet "SM caused this collision--and this is a group of people who for the most part do not like the SSCs nor do they condone Paul Watson's actions."
I don't particularly like the SSCS crowd nor do I condone Paul Watson's actions either. I certainly am no Vegan by a long stretch! But you are right. The SM2 most certainly was the primary cause of the collision. It couldn't be more obvious.
rosepetal108 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet Then why were you claiming it's results before it was released as if it was going to prove what you think? Then when it does come out now you are claiming the whole thing is a joke. I don't care if your opinion of the collision is the same, I am simply pointing out how you are a hypocrite concerning the report.
You WANTED it to back your opinion and when you thought it would you touted it as the be all end all....then when it is released and doesn't back your opinion it's a joke?
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak "Then why were you claiming it's results before it was released as if it was going to prove what you think?"
Because it did. The first draft claimed 60% fault for the SM, 40% for the Ady Gil. Even that was a stretch, but at least it gave the most blame to the SM where it belongs. It should have been 70-30 in my mind....
When the final draft came out 50-50 while admitting that the SM captain had never been interviewed, well, that IS a joke of a report....
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet PLEASE PM a link to this "first draft". Or do you just expect me to take your word?
And in any official report are they not allowed to add more information and adjust it accordingly? Or in your mind what ever the first draft of any report says should just automatically be the final report regardless if any new information is discovered? A yes or no answer will do.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak The 1st draft was only sent out to the involved parties. There was no new information discovered between the release of the first draft which placed 60% of the blame on the SM and the final draft that only placed 50% of the blame on the SM.
Given that, and the fact that the SM captain was never even interviewed, a logical person would surmise that political pressure had a lot to do with the final report, yes?
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet Could they have reviewed the data more throughly after the 1st draft and reassigned the % to be 50/50?
Or is the ONLY possibility what you claim?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak At least the Aussies had the decency to state in their AMSA report that they couldn't assess blame either way because the Japanese refused to cooperate with the AMSA investigation. The Japanese refused to provide the Aussies with GPS and data recorder information from the SM and they refused to let AMSA investigators interview any of the crew from the SM
The SSCS on the other hand, cooperated fully with the AMSA investigation.
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet I completely agree with this. While I know political pressure would get Japan the results they "want" if they pushed it, but what would compel them to cooperate? You have the two loudest and most voal countries against the Japanese whaling investigating a collision. If you think that bias would be included in the reports you are crazy. Again, Japan could use it's political weight to get the results it wanted, but why do that?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak To me what is most telling is that the Japanese never even bothered to do their own investigation. One of their licensed captain's was involved in a serious collision that nearly killed six people, it's well documented that the SM captain violated numerous intl maritime laws during it's approach towards the AG, and yet NO ONE ever bothered to interview the SM captain. Meanwhile, ALL of the SSCS crew cooperated fully.......very telling indeed.....
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet Are you sure no interviewed the SM#2 Capt.? Oh, I know an official interview or investigation wasn't done by Japan...but can you really say no one from Japan had a discussion with the SM#2 Capt.?
Do you really think no one asked him a question or two?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak So tell me something Chuck. What if MNZ had interviewed the SM captain and he'd said: "Yes, they had been harassing us for days and I saw a chance to hit them so I did." Or, "I was ordered by my superiors to hit and damage the AG because it was interfering with our whaling."
If the SM captain admitted that he intentionally hit the AG, then what ratio do you think the blame for this collision should be assessed at?
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet If the SM#2 Captain admitted his intention was to sink the AG then I would say the blame would completely be on the SM#2. At worst I would say it would be 90-10. I would assign at most 10% of the blame on the AG for not setting a proper watch and keeping a safe distance to begine with. That would be worst case in my opinion IF (<--- A BIIIGGGG if) the SM#2 Capt. Admitted his intentent was to sink the AG.
Now, has that happened?
Did you get the answer you wanted?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "If the SM#2 Captain admitted his intention was to sink the AG then I would say the blame would completely be on the SM#2. At worst I would say it would be 90-10. I would assign at most 10% of the blame on the AG for not setting a proper watch and keeping a safe distance to begine with."
Well, at least we agree on something!
This is the reason that the final MNZ report was flawed--they never interviewed the SM captain! How can you assign blame% when you don't know his motives?
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet Agreed. But the report is all we have officially. Claiming it's "gold" one day then calling it a "joke" when it doesn't say what you want is a bit dishonest.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better? Something you could do well to do yourself...if you weren't so full of yourself.
And you don't know for a fact the "SM#2 got pissed". In all your time at sea how much time have you spent with the captain of the SM#2? We both know the answer and your statement is just more BS opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact.
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USDAChuckSteak "Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better?"
Then why, after you asked my about my qualifications and I told you that I am a licensed Captain with 25+ years at sea, did you ask: "Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
You continually contradict yourself...
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet Where did I contradict myself? Do tell.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USDAChuckSteak "Perhaps I ask because I value the opinions of those with more experience in this area and hope to learn something more to form my opinion better?"
Huh??
Then why, after I told you I had a Captain's license and 25+ years at sea did you quip:
"Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
You keep contradicting yourself.....
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak "your statement is just more BS opinion."
In some respects my statements are opinions. However, they are not BS. I was very careful to base my analysis on observable facts and reasonable deductions. Until we see some kind of statement or evidence showing otherwise, I make reasonable deductions based on the actions of both parties.
It is POSSIBLE the SM2 captain is some kind of emotionless psychopath, but I don't believe it. He got angry like anyone else would, including me.
rosepetal108 1 year ago
@rosepetal108 You didn't answer my entore question. Now why is that?
Do you know the SM#2 Captain and know for a fact he was pissed? Or are you basing your opinion off of statements made by the SSCS? The SSCS crew saying they saw "angry faces" and then taking that and claiming the Captain of teh SM#2 was pissed so he did what ever is NOTHING but hearsay. And you bought it hook, line and sinker. Right along with the "rotten butter" bombs. Sad really.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak hahahahaha
I know the Japanese Captain was angry. I know it based on his aggressive actions. I know it based on the previous actions of the Ady Gil to provoke him. I know it based on my sea experience. I know it based on the general Japanese attitude to Sea Shepherds. I know it based on Bethune's testimony. I know it based on my experience with human nature having lived 50 years. It is called preponderance of the evidence.
Is it possible I am wrong? Sure. but I'm not this time.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 No, you think the Japanese Capt. was angry. It's nothing more then supposition.
Without any actual hard evidence all you have is a guess. Maybe it's an educated guess but it's nothing that would hold up in a court of law now is it?
It's possible you could be wrong....but your not? That's quite a bit of arrogance right there.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "Maybe it's an educated guess but it's nothing that would hold up in a court of law now is it?"
Actually it is. Preponderance of the evidence is used all the time in courts. I don't know about your country, but in USA if you have one person testifying, combined with corroborating circumstantial evidence, it is enough.This is especially true if the defendant refuses to testify on his own behalf. If the SM2 Captain testifies, I reserve the right to change my opinion, but he hasn't
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 Very true. If the SM32 Capt. testified what do you think he would say though? And as you just said...it's your opinion the SM32 Capt. was angry. Nothing more, nothing less. You have a "good" reason to believe that, but it's not hard evidence. The evidence you do have? "Testimony" from people who are proven liars who had attacked the SM#2 for days. How do you think a court would take their say so?
FYI...you can look at a persons channel and usually see what country they are from.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak =====> ""Testimony" from people who are proven liars .... How do you think a court would take their say so?"
Actually I believe Bethune. While both Bethune and Watson are both very passionate about the anti whaling issue, Bethune strikes me as having 100 times the integrity of lying Watson. Bethune has publicly admitted many thing Watson lied about. The rift between the two is most likely on the issue of integrity. Watson will say anything including lies, Bethune won't.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 I agree that Bethune is far more honest then Watson. But it wouldn't just be Bethunes testimony. You have long time (and lying) SSCS crew on the AG as well. Wasn't it that crew that said they saw "angry faces"? Is it that crews statement of "angry faces" that you used as evidence that teh SM#2 Capt. was angry? That is more so my point.
Again, I agree that Bethune is "better" then Watson, but it doesn't mean he isn't lying too. He is associated with the SSCS.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak Actually Bethune primarily had his own crew. Anyway until you have contradictory testimony, you can't just dismiss the AG crews testimony so easily. That was one of the things I closely looked at in the NZ report. I wanted to see how Bethune stood up and testified about the collision, especially while official. (under oath?) I also closely looked at Bethune's statements after he got back from Japan.
All taken into account, I see facts lining up with testimony.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 Understood, and you are right about the crew on the AG. I believe the only "die hard" SSCS member was DaGroot.
And very true that there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say? They have ALL the proof on video that the crew of the AG went out of their way (including violating maritime law OVER and OVER) to attack, with anger, the crew of the SM#2. There's 2 sides to teh story and we only have 1. That doesn't mean the 1 side is right.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak Yes thats true. The AG did provoke the Japanese whalers. That is the purpose of the SSCS. They provoke the Whalers and then have footage to recruit volunteers, public opinion, and raise funds.
Pretty much all direct action type protests use this technique. Just look at the "piracy" of the Boston tea party! Boarding a ship illegally, destruction of property, and provoked the British to retaliate! Which cause public opinion to squarely move to independence for the colonies.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 I thought the SSCS "purpose" was conservation? In this case specifically to stop whaling they disagree with. Their purpose is not to attack, that is there tactic of choice to serve their purpose.
Trying to compare the SSCS to the Boston Tea Party is fairly weak and depending how you go a possible strawman argument.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
I don't think we will ever hear that testimony. Bethune screwed that opportunity up. When the SM2 volunteered to "rescue" the AG crew he should have let them, instead of boarding illegally. Then he would have full rights to take the matter to international court. By boarding illegally to handle it, he allowed Japan to settle it in Japans courts. Japan didn't allow the issue at all.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 Agreed. Now makes you wonder if the Japanese whaling would have ended sooner had the SSCS not attacked for all these last years? It's pretty well documented that there are tons of whale meat in freezers and the demand in Japan is quite low. Japanese whaling was dying anyway. Did the SSCS attacks end it sooner or prolong it?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "Agreed. Now makes you wonder if the Japanese whaling would have ended sooner had the SSCS not attacked for all these last years?"
Some Japanese scholars believe that. I don't know enough about Japan to say one way or another.
"I thought the SSCS "purpose" was conservation?"
SSCS are not conservationists. They are radical Vegan preservationists. Huge difference. They are only using the tactics of the Boston Tea Party. Otherwise they have no similarity.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 The SSCS do not use teh tactics of the Boston Tea Party. If they DID use the Boston Tea Party tactics they would board the Japanese whaling ships and throw the whale meat overboard. (see it was dubbed the Tea Party because they threw the item in question overboard.)
Throwing shit at another ship is HARDLY the tactics of the Boston Tea Party.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "Throwing shit at another ship is HARDLY the tactics of the Boston Tea Party."
They are not exactly the same obviously, but both come under the heading of destruction of property and illegal boarding of ships to protest an issue. The issues were different but all these types of protests are under the heading of "direct action" protests.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 It's a stretch and you know it. The differences FAR out weigh the similarities. And in trying to compair the two shows a lack of character. Just because the root tactics are similar doesn't mean they are anything alike. The Canadian Coast Gard rammed and boarded an SSCS ship years ago. Did the CCG use the tactics of the BTP as well?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak NO
SSCS was the protesters. CCG took the role of the law enforcement. I really don't get that a thoughtful man like yourself doesn't understand "direct action" protests strategy. It has been used countless times by countless protest groups all over the world. Yes the specifics are always different but the idea of direct action protest is always the same.
I don't even agree that the SSCS should be using this tactic but I am smart enough to recognize it when I see it.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 If we are going to talk 'action" then let's talk action. What the CCG did as far as tactics and "action" is what the SSCS do. Yes they are LE, but as you said, the specifics are different but the tactics are the same. Right?
I understand "direct action" protest. But I think equating the SSCS to the BTP is a discredit to the BTP and a weak attempt to legitimize the SSCS. Just because 10% of what the two groups do are similar doesn't mean it's a good compairson.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak See that is what I mean. You have no idea what a "direct action" protest is. It has no bearing on whether you agree with the protest, or if you see merit in the protesters. That is a whole other issue. The CCG isn't protesting the SSCS. LMAO Your whole way of looking at it is skewed at every level.
CCG can't possibly ever be a "direct action" protest unless the become mutineers, LOL since they have the whole weight and power of Canada behind their actions.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 I know exactly what direct action protest is. It's protesting via directly taking action on those you are protesting. In other words attacking or interfering with them. As opposed to just holding signs.
My use of the CCG wasn't good. But I was equating the ACTIONS and not the reason for the action. The CCG were not protesting the SSCS, however the ACTIONS (ramming and boarding) are similar. Yes they are done for different reasons but the ACTIONS are similar....right?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak When the Marine Patrol, Police, Coast Guard, Navy etc... board a ship in the process of enforcement of a countries laws, it in no way resembles SSCS actions of ramming and/or boarding Japanese ships to "enforce" IWC regulations in SOWS.
There have been times when SSCS did have authority and were asked to help "enforce" various marine laws. However, that is not the case in the SOWS right now.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 ACTIONS = ramming and boarding. THAT is all I'm comparing. You compared the ACTIONS of the BTP and SSCS. I threw the CCG's ACTIONS in there to show you that it's not just the ACTIONS that matter. S-I-M-P-L-E as that. The ACTIONS are indeed THE SAME. The reason behind the action is different but ramming and boarding are the same. How can you not get that?
I know all about the SSCS "official" actions in the Galapagos.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak ""there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
Well like I said,. I sincerely doubt we will ever hear it. Japan is diplomatically stonewalling. However, there must be a reason for them stonewalling. I suspect that they have internally heard the SM2 Captains testimony and have found it too embarrassing to Japanese interests. If the testimony was beneficial to Japans interests, they would have went public long ago.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 I personally think that Japan had 2 routes they could have went. They could not cooperate and let the report (MNZ) come out and say it was a 50/50 fault issue. Or they could cooperate and more then likely use political pressure to get the same results. By not cooperating they got a favorable result without having to use any political pressure or favors.
Just my opinion.
Do you think the Capt. of the SM#2 would admit he was mad and wanted the AG sunk? If he actually was "mad".
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "Do you think the Capt. of the SM#2 would admit he was mad and wanted the AG sunk?"
As I just stated I don't think he was trying to sink the AG. Just trying to "attack" back with water canons and LRAD. But yes he was angry and that probably clouded his judgement during the maneuver.
"If the SM#2 Capt. was forced to testify do you really think he would admit to any of that?"
I just said 3 times I doubt he would testify, but there is no reason to assume he would lie under oath.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 There you go with the "he was angry". You can't prove that and you know it. YOU weren't there so YOU can't say it like it's fact. NO one from the SSCS even saw the Capt. of the SM#2 at teh time of the collision. You can speculate he was angry, but you can't claim it as fact. Doing so is a blaten lie and you know it.
And there is no reason to claim he was angry as a matter of FACT when it's speculation.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "And there is no reason to claim he was angry as a matter of FACT when it's speculation."
There is testimony and circumstantial corroborating evidence. You may not believe the testimony and evidence by actions, but I do.
If it looks like a frog, hops like a frog and croaks like a frog, chances are it is a frog. Could it be a toad? Sure! It is possible. But until I see evidence otherwise I am sticking to where the evidence takes me now. He was angry and screwed up.
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 What is the testimony and circumstantial corroborating evidence specifically on the Capt. Of the SM#2 again? Not the crew that was out on the deck. Sorry if you already mentioned this, but all I recall your evidence being is some of the crew on the AG testified to seeing "angry faces" on the SM#2. Can you point me to where the Capt. of teh SM#2 is called out specifically as looking "angry"? Or any other evidence specifically about the SM#2 Capt.?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "there isn't contradictory testimony. But if there was.....what do you think it would say?"
Assuming there was a way to force the testimony. (which I doubt could happen), I highly suspect the SM2 Captain would be forced to admit he went in for a payback "attack" with LRADs and water canons and screwed up the maneuver accidentally. That single screw ship is too big and not agile enough to be pulling stunts like that, especially at those speeds. Either way it is highly illegal!
rosepetal108 11 months ago
@rosepetal108 If the SM#2 Capt. was forced to testify do you really think he would admit to any of that?
Just like the SSCS claim to break no laws, yet you and I both know they damn well do. It would (and is) just a big he said/she said and official tesimony wouldn't change that.
You do know people lie under oath right? Hell, people lie even though there's video tape evidence of their crime (with out any gray area).
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet I don't hold any license. Props to you for having yours. Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?
And why don't you try responding to the rest of my post? What's the matter....you afraid of replying to EVERYTHING? Or do you just like to pick and choose and avoid the rest?
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak "I don't hold any license."
Yes, that's obvious.
"Props to you for having yours."
Thanks.
"Do you think that makes your opinion more valid?"
Apparently you do, or you wouldn't have asked me if I'm licensed. Now that I've answered your question with a response you don't like, you question the relevance of your own question??
Yes, I think being licensed and having 25 years at sea gives me a sound basis on which to speak about maritime law and the rules of the road--don't you?
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet I don't necessarily think holding a license makes your opinion more valid. But I will weigh your words more then someone without your experience in this area. Why don't I? Because this issue, at it's root, is about whaling and that is emotional for many and regardless of any license or experience their emotion will sway their opinion over their experience.
Where did you give me an answer I didn't like? Or is that just you making an assumption?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "I don't necessarily think holding a license makes your opinion more valid."
Then why did you ask me the question?
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet Because I'm looking for many opinions on the matter to help myself understand the issue and make my own opinion solid.
Is that OK with you?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USDAChuckSteak "You are right, we can't prove intent. Yet, you already claim to know the intent."
I've never claimed to "know" intent, I've merely stated my beliefs. Why do YOU think that the SM headed right towards the AG at a high rate of speed? Where they just going to ask if they could borrow a cup of sugar??
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet I agree there really can't be an official finding when all parties have not been fully interviewed. However you show your bias with your statement that the SM#2 steered the collision course. BOTH vessels steered (or failed to steer) into a collision course.
IF (<---- BIG if there partner) the SM#2 captain admitted his intent was to sink the AG and that is why he ordered the SM#2 course altered I would lay the bulk, and most likely all, of the blame on the SM#2.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak "However you show your bias with your statement that the SM#2 steered the collision course. BOTH vessels steered (or failed to steer) into a collision course."
You're wrong.
The AG was nearly at a full stop over 2 miles away from the SM and was NOT on a collision course with the SM. The SM suddenly engaged their engines at or near full thrust and steered a course right towards the AG at a high rate of speed, even turning 20 degrees or so to stbd 6 seconds before impact.
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet So violations only matter when a collision happens?
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error. Very adult of you.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
THUMBS UP IF YOU THINK @USDAChuckSteak IS A TOTAL CUNT!
matdelta1 1 year ago
ADY GIL WAS STATIC. THAT'S AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK. NO ARGUMENT HERE. THEY WERE AT LEAST 1KM OFF WHEN THE WAILERS TURNED TO STARBOARD INTO THE COURSE OF ADY GILL.
matdelta1 1 year ago
@matdelta1 The New Zealand maritime report says it was both parties fault. I'll take an official report from an official maritime organization over your opinion any day of the week.
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak I couldn't give a fuck what you think you dick! We can all see it with our own eyes! your one of them pricks that just has to raise your opinion. U know what, your opinion means NOTHING to me.
Sea-Shepherd are only just getting started & when I'm part of the crew, Japanese lives will be lost. keep you opinion to yourself you irritating piece of shit or I'll swat u like a fucking Fly.
matdelta1 1 year ago
@matdelta1 If you taut you want to end Japanese lives you will never be a part of the SSCS crew.
And it's not my opinion who's fault the collision is. It was the official finding of the New Zealand government that it was both ships fault. An official report from the government of the ship that was sunk hold more precedence then your silly emo opinion.
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak Because you dislike the SSCS so much, even if the MNZ report said the fault was 70 SM and 30 AG, you'd STILL be saying that it was the SS's fault and the investigation was biased because NZ is against whaling.....
The bottom line is that you don't like the SS, and you enjoy bad-mouthing them. Your "facts" are little more than biased opinion.
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet I said it was both parties fault BEFORE the MNZ report came out. What did you say? That's right, you said (and still say) it's the fault of the SM#2. You THOUGHT you know what the MNZ report would say so you posted you OPINION as fact. You just got called on it. Grow a pair and admit it.
My facts are facts. You are the one trying to pass your opinion and wishes off as fact. you just got caught doing so. Man up butter cup.
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
@USDAChuckSteak I never, ever said that this collision was solely the fault of the SM. You can try and put words in my mouth all you want and act like a petulant child--I could really care less.
What I DID say is that the SM caused this collision by failing to yield to the stand on vessel, and by recklessly operating at an unsafe speed and distance in a close quarters situation. Get it?
ORNonprophet 1 year ago
@ORNonprophet I never said you said it was solely the SM#2's fault. My bad if it came out that way. My point is that you ran around tauting the MNZ report as if it was the gospel. Why did you do that? Because you THOUGHT the official release was going to claim the SM#2 more at fault. And when the official report was released and it DIDN'T meet your expectations you pass it off as a joke. It shows your hypocracy and that is my point on calling you on this.
Do you get it?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak The final report is a joke because they never interviewed the SM captain. How can you claim to assign blame for an accident initiated by one vessel when you have no idea why the captain took the actions he did?
At least with the MNZ first draft version of 60-40 SM-AG, most of the blame went were it should--to the SM. But to try and share blame for this collision when you have no idea of the reason(s) the SM captain violated intl law and steered right towards the AG--it's a joke
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet So again, when it say's what you want it to is was a damn good report. Then when the blame shits away from your liking then it's a joke? I don't mind your reasons for claiming the final report isn't complete, but you claimed the report was this "smoking gun" when you THOUGHT it would say the SM#2 was mostly at fault.
Your flipflop show clear bias. If you wouldn't have claimed the report to be such "gold" early on it wouldn't be a big deal. But you did.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak You're a hoot! As I've stated several times, the original draft of the MNZ report had the majority of the blame on the SM captain where it belonged at 60% SM-40% AG. Personally, I think it should have been at least 70-30, but 60-40 was acceptable.
The final report citing 50-50 IS a joke, and really anyone with any maritime experience knows this regardless of their personal feelings about the SSCS or the whalers. It's pretty obvious that you are biased against the SSCS.
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet You know what, I can see where you are coming from. I just tend to look at the entire situation, including all the illegal stuff the SSCS did leading up to the collision. They PUT themselves there over and over. Maybe I'm wrong in including the DAYS of attacks priorto the collision.
Not that I have much faith in governments, but I could easily say that an official goverment report is more accurate then your personal opinion because you are clearly biased against the Whalers.
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak It's funny that you'd claim I'm biased against the whalers. I'm not. In fact the only reason I ever came to YT to begin with was to see video and discussion about this well-known maritime collision. I'm neither pro nor anti-whaling or SSCS.
In looking at your channel however, it becomes quite obvious that you don't much care for a vegan/activist group like the SSCS, and in the numerous comments you've made you ALWAYS pick the side against the SSCS....
ORNonprophet 11 months ago
@ORNonprophet Well let's look at your channel. Says you joined in 2007. And you say the only reason you EVER came to YT is to view the AG collision? Really? That happened in 2010. You joined almost 3 years before the collision to discuss the collision? Interesting. So I guess all we can deduce from this is...well...you just lied.
I take issue with the SSCS. It has nothing to do with /activist group(s). I appriciate their drive for their cause, but can't support their tactics. Get it?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@USDAChuckSteak fucking yanks. we all hate you. keep your opinions to yourself because were all sick the shit coming out of your mouth. prick
matdelta1 1 year ago
@matdelta1 When you can't debate and/or lose the debate there's always the weak minded that resort to childish attacks and name calling.
Thaks for showing us all just how childish you are. Isn't it time for your nap now?
USDAChuckSteak 11 months ago
@matdelta1 Tell me what static means then get back to me. Because if you thing the AG was just sitting still and not moving then you are a dolt.
Do you think all caps makes you right or something?
USDAChuckSteak 1 year ago
i jerked off to the first 30 seconds of this video over a hundered times. fuck dolphins, fuck seals, fuck whales, and fuck sea shepherd. i would say if you don't like it you can come kick my ass, but judging by the soundtrack to this video i'm not sure you have it in you anyway. of coarse, its ok if you're a 16 year old japanese girl or an anime fan, but neither of those really worry me... i'm just saying i know a lot of tough motherfuckers, and they wouldn't be caught dead listenning to this :D
imstillalive0331 1 year ago
wooh Hippie Pussies! Yeah!
chandler49 1 year ago