Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Killing whales is one of the greatest evils of the modern era. With a nation as advanced as the 'Nese, you?d think they shouldn't want to kill intelligent, graceful mammals like whales.
Advanced, or backwards? History will record it.
When it come right down to it, they aren?t much different than they were 6o+ years ago.
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Killing whales is one of the greatest evils of the modern era. With a nation as advanced as the 'Nese, you?d think they shouldn't want to kill intelligent, graceful mammals like whales.
Advanced, or backwards? History will record it.
When it come right down to it, they aren?t much different than they were 6o+ years ago.
yes, being one of the most industrious nations in the world, with an giant economy at a fraction of the size of most other major industrial nations, all the while maintaining their ancient dignity in most everyday life is certainly equal to raping and murdering several thousand people.
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Greenpeace...YATO (Yet Another Terrorist Organization)
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Why would they lie about it? The Japanese frequently claim there is no jurisdiction over the waters in which they whale. Greenpeace should have simply rammed the boat, and then claimed 'no jurisdiction'.
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Originally posted by: Duckzilla
Killing whales is one of the greatest evils of the modern era. With a nation as advanced as the 'Nese, you?d think they shouldn't want to kill intelligent, graceful mammals like whales.
Advanced, or backwards? History will record it.
When it come right down to it, they aren?t much different than they were 6o+ years ago.
yes, being one of the most industrious nations in the world, with an giant economy at a fraction of the size of most other major industrial nations, all the while maintaining their ancient dignity in most everyday life is certainly equal to raping and murdering several thousand people.
Killing whales is one of the greatest evils of the modern era.
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Why would they lie about it? The Japanese frequently claim there is no jurisdiction over the waters in which they whale. Greenpeace should have simply rammed the boat, and then claimed 'no jurisdiction'.
@conjur, a sizeable boat moving at speed could have its engines running full astern for some time before it even stopped, let alone moved backwards.
Originally posted by: Mickey Eye
Damnit, I so want to be able to support Greenpeace but then they go do ****** like this.
"We had right of way" a$$ holes. You only have right of way if you are ahead of the other vessel not..you know if your half way down it's starboard side about to ram it. It's an old Greenpeace tactic to get ahead of the opposing vessel and use maritime rules to try to make it turn. The longer you are forcing them to wander around in circles the longer they aren't doing whatever it was they wanted to be doing... the trick is to actually get ahead of them first. Morons!
I saw the Arctic Sunrise in the Hague, even exchanged a few shouted greetings when we sailed past. Shouldn't have bothered.
Originally posted by: Agrooreo
Hahahahaha. Thats a great video. The greenpeace guys deliberately ram another bigger boat and then say the Japanese rammed them. That greenpeace captian has some balls though. I dont think I would wanna take a small ship and ram a much larger ship out in international waters.
Action by stand-on vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: Agrooreo
Hahahahaha. Thats a great video. The greenpeace guys deliberately ram another bigger boat and then say the Japanese rammed them. That greenpeace captian has some balls though. I dont think I would wanna take a small ship and ram a much larger ship out in international waters.
Under both rule 15 and rule 13 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea the whaler was the 'give way' vessel which means it is her responsibility to avoid a collision. The Greenpeace ship was the stand on vessel and was correct to expect that the whaler would take such action. Her own action of going astern was taken under rule 17, (quoted below). These are standard rules followed by all ships. I have spent 24 years at sea as a ships officer and these rules apply in all situations. The whaler was clearly in the wrong.
As to Greenpeace ship going astern: 1. it takes up to a minute to stop the engine (for a ship of that size) and start it in the reverse direction, 2. Even with the engine going astern it takes some time for the ship to lose her headway and come to a stop. Which is why ships normally take action well in advance to avoid collisions.
The whaler could easily have turned the other way or even tried putting her engines astern. But as both videos show, apart from blasting on the loudspeaker she took no action EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS THE VESSEL REQUIRED TO DO SO.
If you notice the Japanese video the loudspeaker continues to blare the same message even after the collision. Obviously some tape running.
International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea
Action by stand-on vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.