On your third attempt to make a point, you seem to be arguing that since the whaling is in international waters, it is therefore a lawless zone where anything goes. That is completely false, as while it is not part of a country, it is part of maritime agreements of which Japan and the U.S. are parties to. Those treaties that pertain to whaling, as I mention in the post, are under the guidance of the International Whaling Commission. According to that commission, which is the only legal body for that area of activity that I know of, Japan may be under a dark shadow but is still operating in accordance with the treaty.

Now, as I also said, I don’t believe Japan is operating under that treaty in good faith. Maybe they even bribed the whaling committee. However, the appropriate body to deal with that is the IWC or perhaps other international legal entities, not the Sea Shepherds.

Secondly, I wrote the article, and I’m a little disappointed by your logic skills, not to mention your grammar and spelling. I can’t hardly make sense of your point, but let me just reiterate that my original point was that “when 2 parties play risky games in the remote ocean, nobody except the people who were there know what really happened and they are both at fault anyway for putting themselves in that spot.” For you to argue that you have studied it and made some conclusion is irrelevant, because I have already argued that since you and I were not there, so we cannot say definitively. Get it? You have to argue against my point, not make a statement reiterating a point I already dismissed. That is, I can say I studied their tactics, and you can say you did. And so-and-so can say they did. How will we determine who is right? The point is, we cannot.

The Sea Shepard Conservation Society is a legitimate terrorist operation, undertaking missions that are dangerous to themselves and to the targets of their hatred, those who participate in whaling – that this is done LEGALLY does not deter the SSCS.

The SSCS has no jurisdiction and no legal authority to cause damage to property, life or limb. Arguing over whether the trivialities of the destruction of the Ady Gil is nonsensical. It does not matter – the Ady Gil was in the process of attempting a police action (similar to throwing spike strips in front of a car) that it was not authorized to perform, no matter what twisted interpretation of a UN resolution that Watson decides to cite.

With the constant threat of assault from earth-worshippers, whose zeal matches that of religious extremists, my opinion is that the Japanese should make the proposition of assailing one of their research ships as intolerable as possible.

Considering that SSCS members have attempted to board ships, disable ships, and and injure whaling ship crewpersons, the actions of this criminal enterprise could be construed as piracy itself. Considering that piracy on the seas still exists, the Japanese should begin using lethal weaponry to deter these eco-terrorists from striking again.

Or I could just be talking out of my rear. Who knows. I was bored.

How figure the boat is stationary? At the 1:00 mark in the clip you provided, I see a small wake coming from the Addy, which to me means to me the boat was under power. Not much, perhaps, but it is there.

At what point in a clip do you see a deliberate turn? I have never seen that in any clip, and I’m pretty sure I have seen them all. Remember, boats rocks and shift a little in the seas. Not all shifts of direction are intentional.