Paul Watson Shot? Nope, Just Another Lie
March 5th, 2010
|
| Share |
Paul Watson is many things: a pathological liar, a terrorist (and I don’t use that word lightly), an attempted murderer, a coward, an attention whore, a criminal, an attempted murderer and someone who generally is not to be trusted. Watson likes to play pirate and pretend he’s at war on a ship that was bought by the money from those stupid enough to donate money to his group. If he really was at war, he’d have been blown to pieces a long time ago. In his warped mind, ramming other ships, throwing glass bottles and trying to entangle their props is legitimate “law enforcement” activity.
Now that his organization has a television deal, they’ve been trying to outdo themselves for dramatic footage and news stories that will grab headlines and get some more donations. Ratings, news coverage, donations – after all, it’s all about the money.
One notorious incident includes Watson claiming he was shot by the Japanese Coast Guard, who were tasked with protecting the whalers. The situation was as follows: after repeatedly coming dangerously close to the whaling vessels, the Sea Shepherd crew began hurling glass bottles of butyric acid at the crew of the Nisshin Maru. It is claimed that this was only because butyric acid smells bad, but one should consider that these glass bottles could still have caused injury and the contents were not known to the Japanese.
The Japanese Coast Guard responded with the use of “flash bang” grenades. These are little more than firecrackers and are typically designed to create an unpleasantly loud sound and otherwise stun or confuse. They’re not very effective at repelling an attack, but the Japanese Coast Guard seems to have been under orders not to use lethal force (which I stress, they would have been justified in using.)
At this point, Watson claims he was shot and survived only because of a bullet proof vest and a badge, which just happened to catch the bullet.
This seems a bit strange, even at first glance. Normally being shot is not a small event, even with a bullet proof vest. Soft body armor will stop a bullet, but much of the force is still distributed over a small area. Typically, a person wearing a vest receives a large bruise or welt from the shot, and occasionally may even suffer a cracked rib. They may be knocked down by the shot, not only because of the force, but because of the sudden and unexpected hit that can knock the wind right out of them.
Police officers who have been shot in their vest often describe the experience as “a swift hard punch” or even “being hit with a hammer.” This does not seem to be at all what happened to Watson. The fragment which he pulls from the vest also does not appear to be a bullet, although he doesn’t let the camera get much of a look at it.
Watson described the incident:
I felt an impact on my chest at one point and didn’t think too much of it at the time and then when I opened up my survival suit – I had a bulletproof vest (on) – and there was a bullet lodged in it.
…
If I wasn’t wearing the vest it would have been pretty serious
Consider the greater context as well: why would the Japanese Coast Guard fire one and only one round at the ship? No reports exist of other bullet holes on the vessel, and even a sniper would have trouble hitting the mark on when shooting from one moving vessel to another on the rolling seas. Yet this one, solitary bullet, fired amid an attack managed to hit Watson right in the chest, and also happened to hit his badge.
The Japanese government claims that no shots were fired and that an investigation of the incident found no Coast Guard members drew their arms and no bullets were missing. They also stated that the grenades used could not account for the projectile, as these grenades were designed for use in crowd control or other non-lethal applications and therefore had no potential to produce shrapnel. At worst, the concussion of these grenades could cause a mild bruise, if they were very close to a person. A total of seven of the non-lethal devices were fired at the Sea Shepperd ship.
Sea Shepperd’s story has been less than consistent. Initially they claimed Watson was shot. Later they seemed to indicate that it was either a bullet or some kind of explosive fragment. They’ve never given much in the way of details that could confirm the incident, but later they did release this dramatic photo. The new “bullet” seems to be part of their slightly toned-down story that the bullet was actually part of a grenade or some other potentially lethal assault on their ship.
The photo is really the icing on the cake of an over the top and ridiculous story. It hearkens to a cliche tale common in old Western movies and legends of war heroes. A bullet cuts down the hero of a story, but he’s miraculously saved when it strikes directly in the center of a badge, lucky coin, pocket bible or other item.
Oh puh-lease!
This lie just keeps getting better and better!
This entry was posted on Friday, March 5th, 2010 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, Politics, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 6th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
All I see Liz is that you cannot answer the legitimate points others have made in this thread, and now you are flailing out with random accusations, and spouting nonsense. That is because you are now becoming dimly aware that maybe this is a multidimensional issue, and your hero might not be doing as much to solve it as you thought.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that because we think Paul Watson is a mountebank, that we are for hunting whales, frankly I oppose it except when done by indigenous people as a part of their traditional way of life. However. that doesn’t blind me to the fact that actions like those of Watson are counter-productive.
A similar thing is happening in the Harp seal hunt, that market for pelts would have disappeared on its own long ago, if it were not for the protesters. They are the ones keeping the hunt going, by making sure that the various governments will never be able to shut it down without being accused of bowing down to foreigners against their own citizens.
You reap what you sow
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The hands of the Australian Judge were tied by the Australian Parliment. The Judge knew he had no jurisdiction in international waters; but because his Parliment has declared those waters to be Australian, that is the premise he is forced to begin with. About that predicament, the judge said that “this is not a matter for this court to decide.” The whalers do not violate Australian law and they do not violate any international law either.
It is Sea Shepherd that violates laws. They do so in a part of the world out of easy reach of law enforcement. Paul Watson does not need to “personally gain” in order for it to meet the definition of Piracy. The definition says that acts of violence or depradation for “private ends” constitute piracy. Watson is not authorized to act on behalf of any government, i.e. “public end”. Anything he does is therefore done for a non-governmental or ‘private end’. He is a pirate.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I am curious Liz what UN resolution are you referring to? Could you link it, I have been unable to find any UN resolutions concerning whaling.
I personally hate whaling, I think its ridiculous how Japan is side stepping the IWC. Its rules lawyering, legal rules lawyering, but still rules lawyering intent on violating the spirit of the IWC.
That said, Sea Shepard is a bunch of media whores, and I’m being kind leaving it at that. For the last 50 years the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) Japan’s center-right conservative party, has had a strangle hold on the Japanese political processes. In 2009 it lost to the opposing left, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). There was hope that with the shift in power(many of the environmental partys had attached them selves to the DPJ majority) changes, such as a phase-out or even an immediate ending of whaling might be politically possible. However Sea Shepard has made the issue so emotionally, politically, and nationally charged that changing the whaling policy is politically unsupportable, politicians don’t want their citizens to think they are collaborators, weak or toadies to some other countries agenda.
Another aspect to the whole issue as seen by the Japanese people is that anti-whaling groups are sometimes seen as being secretly racist, in that Iceland(They just call it commercial whaling) and Norway(“Scientific Whaling”) both whale yet receive so little press about the issue, comparatively.
I’m not sure it’s really racism, but one does wonder. I personally think its Japan’s lack of a firm stance concerning these groups that has made them a target. Norway and Iceland have taken firm stands against these groups(Sea Shepard, etc), and given the groups’ modus operandi they will tread lightly in those countries, after all Sea Shepard would never antagonize a country that they thought might actually call them to account for their actions.
To summarize: Sea Shepard and “Whale Wars” have set any useful/meaningful progress back at least a decade.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Samuel said:
Interestingly can video of their actions constitute “loot” if it is subsequently then purchased. I mean the “Video” has value if some one wants to buy it and it was obtained during piratical activities. If so would some one paying for such video, before it was in fact recorded, be guilty of subsidizing piracy?
Just an interesting legal quandary.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Liz45 said:
Not advocating lethal weapons so much as pointing out that they are a legitimate response to being attacked in the manner he has.
I am of the belief that an unprovoked attack must be answered in force because not doing so invites more attack. Yes, I do advocate that terrorists be dispatched with, but in the case of Watson, truth be told, I’d rather see him answer for his crimes before a jury and be put in prison for the rest of his life.
Liz45 said:
I don’t know if you knew this, but Australia also was part of the Iraqi invasion and continues to provide support in Afgahnistan. Anyway, as far as Afghanistan goes, no infrastructure was really destroyed. There was no infrastructure to destroy. Hell, it was hardly a country to begin with.
But that’s just a strawman anyway.
Liz45 said:
Really? I’m a bit surprised, to be honest. You rant and rave more like a naive youngster than a stupid granny, but I guess it’s all the same. If nothing else, it’s worse.
There’s no fool like an old fool.
Liz45 said:
Wow. I didn’t know I could roll my eyes that far back in my head. Now we’re doing that whole ‘men are the reason the world is so bad’ crap?
Liz45 said:
Yeah, I know… it’s pretty horrible. You know in the US we have a big system of internet filters that restricts what people can view in the name of protecting people from smut. We also teach religion in public primary schools.
Oh wait… that’s not us… that’s you.
Liz45 said:
Yep, we’ve got nuclear weapons. They’re doing exactly what they’ve been doing for the past 50 years – gathering dust in silos and storage bunkers. Oh the horror!
Liz45 said:
And what would be the point of that? Depleted uranium doesn’t improve the effectiveness of bombs. Sure, it’s great for armor penitrators, but why would you make a bomb out of depleted uranium? That’s just silly!
Liz45 said:
Get over yourself. This is not a gender issue. I talk down to idiots regardless of their sex chromosome configuration.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 12:25 am
About the only reason I read these comments is because they are so damned amusing. That being said, they are embarrassing not only for Australians, but feminists and environmentalists abroad. ‘Liz45′ jumps in, guns blazing with ad hominem attacks, all while missing the whole point of the article completely that is, Sea Shepard are liars. Evidently, they are. And now confronted by all the many flaws in her little arguement, ‘little missy’ is now going off in a tangent about how women are better at multitasking, how the war in Iraq apparently proves that Americans have no morals thus their opinions are irrelevant (while conveniently ignoring the previous Australian presence). Now she’s screaming ‘SEXISM’ which is only to cover up her own intellectual flaws which are readily apparent in almost all of her posts (e.g. not understanding Australian law vs international law). Liz, maybe if you stopped acting like a little child with an axe to grind, we wouldn’t call you ‘little missy’. FYI, if you hadn’t revealed that you were a feminist we would call called you a ‘little prepubescent boy’, or perhaps ‘mentally challenged’. Why? Simply because it’s so hard to take you seriously, but of course, that doesn’t mean hate men or the mentally challenged. By the way, if you go around calling people ’sunshine’ (etc..) then that’s what you can expect. You deserve it. Apparently in your universe it’s OK for you to insult other people, but it suddently becomes SEXISM when they bite back. Have I got that right, moron?
I’m beginning to think you’re deliberately trying to make feminists, Australians, anti-whalers look as absolutely stupid as possible. If that was not your intention, then congratulations, that is what you are acheiving. Do you know what the stereotype of feminists, Australians,and anti-whalers are? Feminists are perceived my many to hate men, to be angry, and to be whiny. Congratulations, you are the perfect stereotype. Anti-whalers are perceived to be eco-terrorists. And Australians are thought to be slack jawed, closed minded bogans. You’re a perfect match. And further, you’re not exactly helping perceptions given the way you speak of Americans and Japanese. Think about what you’re saying and how it will be perceived by other parties. Please don’t embarrass other Australians and environmentalists with your BS. Now go leave like you said you would.
Toodles.
- Scott (an Australian)
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Liz45 said:
Reminds me of a pamphlet-environmentalist who called in to a radio show to add her two cents to a conversation about some PETA-esque goons having thrown rocks at two school-aged kids who were fishing from a canoe on a lake. (Sorry ’bout the run-on sentence) She said that there was no reason for those boys to be violently ripping the poor fish from their habitat, as fish have no nutritional value… they don’t have any dietary fiber.
Not exactly a convincing argument.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 2:25 am
52 Scott
GO BACK AND READ!
If you go back and really read some of the other posts, you’ll find, that it was someone else who raised the issue of “Al Queada” – “terrorists” and “little missy”?
I just had the audacity to say I supported what Sea Shepherd is doing, and I know I’m not alone – not by a long way! ‘They’ resorted to either bringing up or using patronising language, and advocating the use of lethal weapons – what a bunch of hypocrites?
I think you’ll also find, that the patronising attitude came from someone else – a male. These are the facts. I responded to them. If that makes me all the names you called me, tough! If you educated yourself about the world’s realities, you’ll find that feminists do have much to ‘whinge’ or ‘whine’ about.
51
drbuzz0 Says: The matter of religious instruction is by choice. My chn didn’t go – their choice! I don’t agree with it, but as we claim to be a democracy, that’s the reality. I don’t agree with Govt money going to religious schools either, but???As for the internet filters, they’re not in operation yet, and I’m against them too. I’ve been active in letting the govt know that I object to this – I don’t believe it will stop those sick bastards who peddle child pornography, as I understand they communicate from one commuter to another – they don’t advertise their filth on the net – thank goodness. So, it’s fultile to put on filter/s – some smart kid will hack it, as one did before during the trial a few yrs ago – took him less than 5 or 10 minutes from memory? Smart kid!
I know Australia is a member of the Coalition of the (W)Killing – I don’t support the troops or the killing/s. NOT AT ALL! Should NOT be there. Those people didn’t do anything to anyone or anything in this country – now they’ll hate us for ever, and I don’t blame them! My grandkids kids will still be dealing with the residue from Bush/Blair/Howard and their thuggish mates!
AFGHANISTAN – “Hell, it was hardly a country to begin with.”
Not true! Prior to the invasion by the Russians, Afghanistan was a thriving country with one of the best reputations re University(College) education for both men and women. The Taliban, War Lords, Northern Alliance are all as bad as each other – representatives of each lot of thugs are in the Parliament, with the US stooge Karzai(his interests in the US was in OIL) as president – planted by the US!
Iraq also had a great level of education – their universities were reputed to be among the best in the Middle East. Men and women went to Uni, in fact they were paid while studying, unlike the US & Australia where it costs heaps! I don’t agree with that either! Health care and education should be paid for by all of us via our tax – not education just for the rich!(and health care for the rich in the US?)
There were Depleted Uranium bombs used in Iraq in the 1990-91 war, and more in 2003 – an increase of about 300%. So much of Iraq has radioactive residue from the use of these. If you chose not to read about what’s really happening, that’s your choice – doesn’t change the reality though!
Nuclear weapons? – I read an article the other day, where Obama has allocated $$$Billions for more
research/development etc of nuclear weapons. Why would that be?
“why would you make a bomb out of depleted uranium?” I don’t know! Pretty stupid! Make a horrible mess of humans, as it ignites on impact – charred remains in vehicles are proof of their use? There’s always the chance that nuclear weapons can be used even by accident? The US carries on about Iran, but doesn’t have any ‘inspections’ done on their silos, reactors etc – doesn’t demand that Israel allow inspectors in either? Why is that do you think? Dismantle the lot of them, that’s what I want! One is enough to destroy the planet, why do they need hundreds of them? Imagine the money that could go into the peoples’ future, not their possible demise! Damned stupid at best! I call it criminal!
Not much good having a great Constitution if an evil little bastard of a president can make “executive orders” that threatens everyone’s safety! My country hasn’t invaded or interfered with over 50 countries (some like Iraq more than once)since the end of WW2? Makes having the option of religious teaching in schools look pretty harmless by comparison doesn’t it – of which I’ve already said I’m against? In fact, I’d like the whole Constitution re-written as it’s inadequate for the times – it doesn’t even recognise aboriginal people for example, or women either for that matter? It was written by men for a male dominated Australia! That’s the reality. If you disagree, perhaps you could show me where I’m wrong!
Well, neither Japan or recently, the Australian Federal Police have succeeded in having Paul Watson charged with any crimes – so? The Australian navy has used physical violence against asylum seekers on several occasions, both under Howard and now Rudd- makes Paul Watson look like a **** cat by comparison! Nobody has even been castigated for that – govt orders????
There’s lots of things successive Australian govts have done/are doing, that I don’t agree with, but the difference is that I don’t take the high moral ground and use selective memory! I’ve written many emails/letters etc on many issues, including censorship of the Internet; mistreatment of asylum seekers, illegal wars to name just a few! I joined the 20 odd million around the world to protest against invading Iraq – I’ve done it several times, and on other issues too!
Amnesty International didn’t support Nelson Mandela(who said armed struggle was justified if nothing else worked? succeeded) in his fight against Apartheid, that didn’t make the struggle unworthy of support!
I’ve said many times that I abhor violence, and I meant it, although I understand why Mandela was frustrated in his fight against cruel injustices, which included mass murder by police and military.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 2:46 am
I’m not going to even bother with most of the comments, except for a few which are in my department.
Liz45 said:
The radioactivity from DU munitions is pretty negligible. Anyways, even if you took then all and spread them equally over iraq it would result in only a slight increase in the uranium content of the ground. Uranium is a good 4 ppm in the earth’s crust and iraq already has some uranium deposits that are much higher than that. That’s more than 40x more than silver and has twice the crustal content of tin.
Liz45 said:
Well okay, let me correct this for you. Depleted uranium is not generally used in bombs. If it is at all, it would be used either for ballast or possibly for the penitration head.
It’s used in armor penitrator munitions. It’s not stupid at all, actually. It’s the best material avaliable for that use. For one thing, it’s very very dense and very hard. Those are two important aspects of any kinetic energy weapon. The thing that makes uranium better than tungsten is two fold. First, the hardness and the molecular structure makes it “self sharpening” it also is slightly pyromatic.
When the munition hits armor, it burrows in and as it does, the friction atomizes some of the uranium in the round. It turns it into an aerosol which burns. The round ends up being pushed through the armor while being enveloped in a self-generated cloud of superheated burning aerosol.
If the vehicle burns or explodes as a result, that’s actually because of the fuel or ammunition. The uranium will go through in a manner that is described sometimes as being “like a laser” it punches a hole clean through like a hot knife through butter.
Obviously tank crews get killed in the process, but that’s the whole point of an anti-tank weapon. We could also kill them with other types of rounds, it just would not work as well on the first try and probably cause more collateral damage too.
Saying that depleted uranium is cruel because it kills tank crews is idiotic. It’s an anti-tank weapon for Christ sake. We don’t fire marshmallows on the battlefield.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 2:55 am
Liz45 said:
Probably because it’s a lot more expensive to preform the stockpile stewardship functions with hydrodynamic tests, pulsed power and sub-critical experiments than it is to just do full scale tests.
I know that those are big words and I don’t expect you to understand them.
Liz45 said:
Wow. Just wow. The idiocy is so bad I almost fell out of my chair.
FYI: In addition to the support for the Iraq Invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan, Australia was part of the Vietnam and the Korean Wars. Jesus, you’d think you’d realize that. Christ!
BTW: I’m not even going to say that most of those actions were even wrong. The Gulf war was by necessity. There was a treaty obligation to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, although that’s a much longer story there. I mean, that goes back to the whole issue of the Iran/Iraq war and everything. Anyway, the Korean war was certainly justified (it was actually a UN resolution)
Liz45 said:
Now that’s where I actually get offended. Paul Watson doesn’t deserve to smell Nelson Madella’s ****. Nor does he compare to Gandhi, Martin Luther King or even Rosa Parks. He’s a coward and a sick man, not a pillar of strength and a fighter for justice. Don’t you dare compare him to those who showed real courage.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 3:01 am
Liz45 said:
But apparently you don’t have the courage to respond to the valid criticisms being raised in this thread, and instead you are trying to drag a number of red herrings through the discussion, in the hope that no one will notice.
You cannot defend his actions in regard to the subject of this post; faking being shot at, so you hope to pull the conversation away from it.
Well, I will always be here to pull it back.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 3:29 am
Can you all prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was faked? Have you examined the evidence? I don’t mean via this video, I mean in the flesh? NO? Well, you’re all talking through a hole in your head? No proof! Amateur CSI people – done no tests, reached no proved assumptions based on evidence. I’d hate to be charged with a serious crime and have you lot influenced by a video that may or may not be the truth, but on the jury panel! Kangaroo court!
There are people in Africa who protect tigers, elephants etc, whose lives are in danger, who shoot poachers who only want ivory from the elephant or skins from the big cats etc and many of those who do this have also been shot – they keep on because they’re committed. I can’t see any difference between them and Paul Watson? I think it’s just as obscene to brutally kill whales – you don’t, OK! I think it’s OK to use extreme measures to protect them – he hasn’t killed anyone – or hurt anyone! In 6 yrs!
As for Depleted Uranium. There’s an American called Donald Roorque? who was the bloke called upon by the Military to clean up the heavy vehicles etc used in the Gulf War. He was awarded medals etc until he started to speak out about the dangers of DU – then he got death threats etc. He’s currently being treated for several cancers – he has no doubt about the danger to the people exposed to it, particularly children and pregnant women.
Then, there’s the doctor who went back to Iraq after the Gulf war – he’d been there years before, and stayed for about 20. Samples were taken etc some close to where a bloke was selling tea, coffee etc. There’s no doubt. Go and do your own research. Watch ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’?(Donald Rorque’s doco) ‘The Doctor, Depleted Uranium & the dying children of Iraq’? Find out about the genetic mutations, miscarriages, deformed babies – including those of service personnel who served in Iraq.
Just put ‘Depleted Uranium’ into your search engine, and go from there. Or Donald Rorque! There’s heaps of information! I’d place more import in the Paediatrician who is dealing with this horror, and a man who’se literally been affected by it – I’m not interested in the BS put out by the apologists who don’t want to admit to the truth! Lies from the Pentagon or wherever don’t change the reality!
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 3:35 am
Just put ‘Depleted Uranium’ into your search engine, and go from there.
Have you, perchance, noted the name of this website?
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 3:38 am
drbuzz0 said:
FYI: In addition to the support for the Iraq Invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan, Australia was part of the Vietnam and the Korean Wars.
Not to mention East Timor. Hell, we didn’t even “need the yanks to force us” into that one, we went in under our own free will.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 3:39 am
drbuzz0 said:
I thought it was ‘pyrophoric’?
Sorry for the double post, but I ****ed that last one something good trying to quote multiple people.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 5:32 am
Liz has completed the transition into a common troll with her last comment. She is no longer interested in discussing anything, but is now using this forum as a soapbox to vent her private paranoid views on the world.
I suggest we now treat her as such
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 6:52 am
The person who wrote this garbage didn’t even have the guts to use their name? What sort of credibility does he/she have? Simply NONE!
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Liz45, my name is Markus Gålfalk and I live in Stockholm, Sweden.
And you are a drivelling buffoon who cannot stay on topic, any topic, for longer than 5 seconds because you keep getting your arse handed to you.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Liz45 said:
So are you saying you have seen the evidence? Or are you just faithfully believing what the TV reports, cause we all know it never lies.
Liz45 said:
So you do support violence?
The least you could do is try to be consistent in your position.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Curtains said:
Yeah, but of course, that’s neither here nor there. I mean we could sit around debating the forign policy of the US and Australia for the past century and we could start the America-hating, Australia-hating, self-loathing crap and the issue of things like preemptive strives, the containment hypothesis, the issues involved with intervention in a foreign war etc etc etc.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Paul Watson or Sea Shepard and it’s all just a lot of smoke to avoid dealing with that.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
To get back on topic:
I have had some experience with the modern Japanese culture and I believe that part of the reason for not using deadly force (which they would be justified in doing) is that the Japanese really don’t want to kill these guys. They know it’s an illegal and harmful operation, but Japan has become a society that is really looking more for civil order than violence and they probably just want these idiots to stop. I don’t think the average Japanese person thinks that it would be a good thing to see any (human) blood spilled over this. In fact, if someone did die, the Japanese response might be to accuse the government of failing to take the appropriate action to settle this matter in a better way. I do not think they want to see a bunch of naive western college students and overly privileged yuppies shot dead because of this.
My suggestion for a solution that would end this completely and show that Japan is the more civilized nation and takes this very seriously would be to seize the ship and arrest all on board. They should stop fooling around with flash-bangs and sonic weapons. Go after them with some real power. Box the ship in with a couple of full sized cruisers and have a couple dozen special forces in riot gear storm the ship. They could even board them by helicopter with several of their most bad-ass marine special forces.
They should do it quickly and orderly. Don’t let them make a scene or statement, just put them all in cuffs and bring them back to Japan. Then once they bring them back, throw the book at them. I don’t mean give them anything unfair. I’d say give them all a trial that meets all international standards for justice. Appoint them all good competent Japanese defense lawyers or let them bring in their own lawyers and give them the chance to present a defense and everything. However I believe in a Japanese court, even with an impartial judge and jury, their justification claims won’t fly. Also, I think that a trial should be strict about allowing a defense but not grandstanding.
Once it’s all said and done, the crew should be given stern but fair and just sentences like a few years to ten years maybe, depending on how many of these things they did and their support. Leave that up to a well respected Japanese judge. Paul Watson, however, is the kind of person whose dedicated his life to being a criminal and will never do anything else. He needs to spend the rest of his life in a Japanese prison. They can just tally up all the attacks he’s been a part of and charge him with every infraction they can, so that he has dozens of counts of assault, vandalism, piracy or whatever else they can level at him. If the sentences are made to run consecutively it’ll amount to life in prison. [Paul Watson is 59 years old. Ordering him to serve 50 years in prison without early release is, for all intents and purposes, a life sentence. It's pretty unlikely he'll live to 109 years old. 70 years without early release guarantees he won't get out.]
Then they can take the ships and helicopters and everything and do something useful with them. Perhaps they could repaint and refit them and donate them to a marine sciences program at a university or something. (not a scientific whaling program but just a general marine science program) Maybe they could do something else useful with them, like a program that takes disadvantaged students out to learn about the ocean or something. It would give them the moral high ground.
I think that solution would end this insanity and also show that they were committed to law and order and not vigilantism or vengeance.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
@67
Gordon your right on about the Japanese cultural issues, on a societal level(not necessarily the personal level) there is a strong aversion to killing and violence in general. There are many books on the subject and it’s way too involved for me to want to get into it here, but the result/effect is that no Japanese politician wants to be see as the guy that got a bunch of foreign college kids killed/severely injured. They are more concerned about domestic backlash on any action taken than an international one.
At least that’s my read on the situation, Japanese culture has a lot of nuances that are very difficult for outsiders to understand, myself included
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 5:27 am
“There are people in Africa who protect tigers, elephants etc, whose lives are in danger, who shoot poachers who only want ivory from the elephant or skins from the big cats etc and many of those who do this have also been shot – they keep on because they’re committed. I can’t see any difference between them and Paul Watson? I think it’s just as obscene to brutally kill whales – you don’t, OK!”
The difference is that the game wardens have the law on their side, and are appointed by the state to uphold it. Basically, they are specialized wilderness policemen, not vigilantes.
“The person who wrote this garbage didn’t even have the guts to use their name? What sort of credibility does he/she have? Simply NONE!”
I use my real name, though just my last name for convenience. If you wonder, my full name is Anders Troberg (there is only one person with that name, as far as I know) and live in Borlänge, Sweden. Feel free to drop by for a chat.
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Not true! Prior to the invasion by the Russians, Afghanistan was a thriving country with one of the best reputations re University(College) education for both men and women.
That’s very debatable. Most of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has been unchanged for centuries. The various wars (the Soviets were not the first to invade) did not change this; they just smashed things and made people have to rebuild. It has vacillated between religious ascetism (i.e. the Taliban) and liberal renaissance constantly since medieval times. You really can’t blame the Soviets for it all. If you have to blame something, perhaps blame it on the fact that it’s a cultural crossroads — the center of the Silk Road. I would, however, be interested to read your reference for Afghanistan having “one of the best reputations re University education”, given that the majority of its population has been illiterate for a long time.
“why would you make a bomb out of depleted uranium?” I don’t know! Pretty stupid! Make a horrible mess of humans, as it ignites on impact – charred remains in vehicles are proof of their use?
Depleted uranium is a terrible choice for a bomb, but it makes a great projectile. Its main advantage is its density, but the fact that it is, in certain circumstances, flammable is also a bonus. DU rounds are intended for destroying tanks. It’s actually preferable to using old-school tank killers (rocket-propelled grenades, for instance) because it’s less likely to cause collateral damage since it’s basically just a big dense bullet. One notable platform is the A-10 Thunderbolt II (affectionately known as the Warthog), which is basically built around a freakin’ huge machine gun designed to fire DU rounds. It’s the best tank killer we’ve got.
As for Depleted Uranium. There’s an American called Donald Roorque? who was the bloke called upon by the Military to clean up the heavy vehicles etc used in the Gulf War. He was awarded medals etc until he started to speak out about the dangers of DU – then he got death threats etc. He’s currently being treated for several cancers – he has no doubt about the danger to the people exposed to it, particularly children and pregnant women.
I’m sure he has no doubt. I know a guy who has no doubt whatsoever that aliens are sending messages via structures only visible through extreme magnification and false colorization of Hubble pictures. That doesn’t mean he’s right. Personally, I think a lot of the cases attributed to “depleted uranium” are actually undiagnosed PTSD combined with the normal everyday sort of “**** happens”. (People do get cancer, you know. It’s not exactly unusual.)
The person who wrote this garbage didn’t even have the guts to use their name? What sort of credibility does he/she have? Simply NONE!
And I’m sure your parents named you Liz45, and that this has some sort of relevance to the content of what is being said. (Hint: you should judge people by their words and deeds, not the other way around.)
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
On the actual topic….
I think the Japanese scientific whaling program is ridiculous. It’s just a front for commercial whaling, and it’s not like they actually need whale meat to survive. (Unlike remote Inupiat communities.) I have no idea why they go through the sham of “research”. They’ve never been especially clear on what sort of information they expect to get out of the research either. They should either be honest about their intentions, or at least tone down the take to something reasonable. (What researcher needs a thousand bowheads? What could possibly be gained from that that justifies further imperilling these animals?)
But the way Sea Shepard goes about protesting the Japanese is entirely wrong. They are cowards, they are liars, and I think they’re really just in it for the glamor and excitement. They have a Hollywood perception of reality. In the end, their actions will only worsen the situation for the whales, by turning it into an “us versus them” situation. Even Greenpeace figured that out. The real answer is to change the hearts of the Japanese people so that they no longer want whale meat and call upon their government to cease the scientific whaling program. That will be a hell of a lot harder than taunting a bunch of whalers.
I am not at all surprised that Paul Watson lied about being shot. He’s already chosen the lazy, but glamorous route, and this is perfectly consistent with that.
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Calli Arcale said:
Well, as some have mentioned, most Japanese are now supporters of whaling simply because they feel so insulted and incensed by the Sea Shepherd activities and are not going to relent on this.
I agree with you, the research whaling is a sham, but it’s now entrenched in nationalism and it’s going to be more difficult to have a rational dialog about it. At this point, proposing that the program stops would be seen as a concession or a validation of the statements and actions by Sea Shepard.
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Calli Arcale said:
I was of the understanding that the “scientific whaling” clause of the 1986 Moratorium was left in so that countries like Japan could continue whaling, but with very strict quota. If they didn’t allow this small concession, they would never have joined the IWC and just carried on with full scale commercial whaling (I believe the US also applied some economic pressure to get Japan to sign onto the ban on commercial whaling.
Quote Comment
March 8th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Curtains, a minor correction or two if you don’t mind. The IWC was formed in 1946 and the provision for scientific permit whaling can be found in Article VIII. That provision along with a provision for member states to “lodge objection” to rules of the IWC has been there from the very beginning. Japan was a member of the IWC long before the moratorium was implemented.
Talk of the moratorium began in the early 70’s but there were never enough votes to swing it until the early 80’s. Some say that Greenpeace and other NGOs, with help from the US in the form of foreign aid $ promises, packed the IWC with countries having little interest in whaling. These countries provided the necessary votes to swing the deal and the moratorium was passed. Initially several countries lodged objection to the moratorium and were not to be bound by it. These countries included Norway, Iceland, and Japan. After making an economic deal with the US for Alaskan fishing rights, Japan withdrew their objection to the moratorium. The US later broke that deal and within a year or so, the Japanese began whaling under scientific permit. Details of that deal and betrayal by the US can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6659401.stm
Under the rules of scientific permit whaling, the member (Japan in this case) sets their own quota. They present it to the IWC as a courtesy, but Japan has freedom to pretty much do as they wish under the rules. Over the last 25 years, they have shown restraint in the species they take from the Southern Ocean. A list of what they have taken by species and total numbers can be found here:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_permit.htm
You can see that minke whales are the predominant species taken. Japan does not take bowheads at all despite what poster ‘Arcale’ asserts. That distinction goes to the US, who take endangered bowhead whales under the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling provision of the IWC.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_aboriginal.htm
I apologize for drifting a bit from the shooting topic, but I wanted to correct a few things. I agree with the author in regards to the shooting being a staged media event. No bullet or slug looks like that hunk of whatever with the badge. Looks like someone flattened out a 1/2 oz fishing sinker and used a needle nose pliers to bend it to a shape they thought a bullet might look like.
Quote Comment
March 9th, 2010 at 2:41 am
Soylent said:
You know I was looking at the traffic reports recently, and it seems that for the past two to three months I’ve been getting a lot of traffic from Sweden. Sweden is not the most over-represented country for this site (meaning, that the number of hits from Sweden is disproportionately high for the number of hits for an average English language site from that country.) It’s considerably overrepresented. It’s pushed Australia to a distant second.
Also, of regular commenter, I have like four individuals who have left three or more comments and are from Sweden. That’s the highest of any European country except the UK.
Sweden is the highest ranking traffic source of all countries that do not have English as the primary language. (the highest in order are: The United States, Canada, The UK, Australia and Sweden)
I appreciate it, but is there a reason why you guys are so drawn here? Am I like David Hastlehoff is to Germany?
I’ve never been to Sweden, but my first car was a Saab. Served me well. I had some significant experiences in that car. Front and back seats. Er…I buy furniture at Ikea on a semi-regular basis.
Maybe I should go there, it seems like a place worth visiting, especially if I’m popular there.
Quote Comment
March 9th, 2010 at 6:22 am
Calli Arcale, the Japanese have produced well over 200 papers and reports since they started research whaling in the late 80’s and they don’t try to hide the fact that the main purpose behind their research is to prove that Minke whales can be sustainably hunted.
As to the numbers that they take. With the estimated Minke population of over 500,000 (the most recent est. from Stanford Univ. is 670,000) to get a statistically representative sample requires around 800 individuals. So the number they take is at least defensible from a mathematical perspective.
Quote Comment
March 9th, 2010 at 7:33 am
drbuzz,
I may not be from Sweden but I think I can take a stab at it. I believe that Swedes are drawn here the same way I was drawn here which was from other pro-nuclear sites such as Rod Adam’s atomic insights. Sweden has a pro nuclear stance and is the base for several groups of nuclear engineers. The company I work for, a nuclear company, has a location in Sweden.
Your site tends to appeal to the mind that gets fed up with hypocrisies in the name of ’science’ and any nuclear advocate will almost certainly be aware of such hypocrisies throughout history (i.e. the defamation of nuclear power in the US and world wide) and take delight in your analysis and debunking of outrageous claims. Possibly there is something about Sweden’s culture that draws them specifically to your content.
I personally also enjoy your outright emotional response to such problems as the Greenpeace and their ilk along with the NRC. The majority of pro-nuclear advocates are almost too polite in their dealings with ignorance. Although I am speaking strictly for myself, I am sure that this contributes to your popularity as well as to your controversy.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 5:17 am
I think part of the reason Sweden is overrepresented is that we have a very strong pro-science contingent, and, as some kind of average, has a very low tolerance for superstitions and quackery. The number of academics are also unproportionally large in Sweden.
We also have very influential bloggers (in a recent survey, something like 60% (iirc) of the most important political influences in Sweden were bloggers), which has increased the status of the blog as a serious medium.
We have also shown that it’s possible to combine heavy industry with a good environment. We have two large industries in my home town, a paper mill and a steel mill, which, on their own, use 4% of the total power consumption of Sweden. Both are just by the river, and I could fish right downstream of them, and the fish would be perfectly edible and qualify for any food norms. When people see that it doesn’t have to be either industry or a clean environment, they tend to be less afraid of sensible solutions.
Add to that that I shamelessly link to your articles all the time to win discussions against people who believe in various non-scientific idiocies.
And, of course, most important of all: Swedish people value quality (Watch out for SAAB, though, they are really just Volvos that failed the quality control!
)!
If you go to Sweden, feel free to drop by. I have a nice porch by a small river, which is a perfect place for some cold beers and good discussions during the summer.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2010 at 7:02 am
One more thing: While we don’t have English as our first language in Sweden, it’s so widespread that it’s more like our 1.1th language than our 2nd language. You can walk up to just about anyone (except possibly some people over 60) and they’ll be able to talk English.
This is partly because we have mandatory English classes through out the entire school system, except university level (though a lot of the literature there is in English), partly because we subtitle movies, never any voiceovers (exception: movies for very young children).
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Thank you for the correction, Samuel, that it’s mainly minkes they’re taking, not bowheads. Either way, I think the quantity is excessive for scientific research. While ddpalmer (interesting name, BTW) is probably right that 800 individuals would represent a statistically significant fraction of the population, I’d like to note two things: 1) 1,000 is greater than 800, and 2) the Japanese aren’t taking 800 whales but rather at least that number annually.
It makes sense if indeed the point is to prove the whales can be sustainably hunted, but this seems to contradict the entire point of of the IWC. I reiterate: why bother signing it if there is no real intention to carry out its mission? Obviously “diplomacy” is the answer, but I tend to think that’s a pretty bad answer.
I’d also like to note that the Japanese are not the only nation to whale. Other than the subsistence hunts mentioned above, there are commercial hunts. Iceland has been far more honest about their attitude towards whaling; they ceased whaling in 1989 and then tried to persuade the IWC to allow commercial hunts. In 1992, they gave up, and backed out of the IWC entirely. They hunt whales commercially today. They take far fewer than Japan (probably largely because they are far smaller) but it is a purely commercial hunt. Norway, which never signed on to the IWC (instead filing an objection), hunts whales commercially as well.
Truthfully, I have no problems with this. It’s the pretense of science for the purpose of international diplomacy that bothers me, because it is an impediment to full understanding. And full understanding is needed if we are to hunt sustainably.
Besides all that, whaling is actually not the biggest threat facing whales. Fishermen kill more whales than whalers do, yet Sea Shepherd doesn’t attack them, perhaps because it lacks the drama of standing between a whale and a harpoon. I also note that Sea Shepherd doesn’t attack Icelanders or Norwegians, at least as far as I’ve heard. Afraid of going after Vikings at sea, perhaps? This may be wise; I suspect an Icelander would be far more likely to retaliate with force, especially given their current financial desperation.
Quote Comment
March 11th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Calli Arcale, I sense from several things in your comments that you seem to think the IWC began at the time of implementation of the moratorium. If my perception is inaccurate, I’ll apologize in advance. In case there is some confusion, maybe this will help. Norway and Iceland are both current members of the IWC and both currently whale under objection to the moratorium under rules of the IWC. The IWC was created in 1946. Norway has been a constant member since 1948; threatened to leave several times, but not carried out the threat. At the time of the moratorium, Norway filed an objection to it that allowed them to continue to whale within the IWC rules. Your quote: “Norway, which never signed on to the IWC (instead filing an objection), hunts whales commercially as well”; gives the impression that Norway is not an IWC member, when in fact they are a member and always have been. Perhaps you meant for the word moratorium to follow “IWC” in your sentence?
Iceland is a different case. They were early members of the IWC and actually quit in protest of the IWC drifting from its original purpose, which is to regulate the whaling industry. When Iceland re-joined the IWC in 2002, they made no secret that they intended to join with an objection to the moratorium and eventually commence commercial whaling operations. The commission allowed Iceland to re-join with the understanding that Iceland would wait for a period of two years before officially lodging the objection to the moratorium that would allow resumption of whaling for Iceland. Here is a link for current IWC members with their join dates; in the case of Iceland, it is their re-join date. I’ll also add the table for historical catches of whales taken under objection to the moratorium (legal commercial whaling under IWC)
http://iwcoffice.org/commission/members.htm
http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/table_objection.htm
Another of your statements; ” It makes sense if indeed the point is to prove the whales can be sustainably hunted, but this seems to contradict the entire point of of the IWC. I reiterate: why bother signing it if there is no real intention to carry out its mission?” also seems to lead one to believe that in your view the moratorium is the prime reason for the IWC’s existence. This is false. Again, the IWC was formed in 1946 and the moratorium implemented in 1985 for what was to be a ten year period. After ten years, an assement was to be made to see if continuation of the moratorium was warranted. It should be noted that there was not a universal belief that ALL whale species across the board were to be reduced to zero catch limits. The politics of the IWC members has overridden the scientific recommendations of committees whose sole purpose is to advise the IWC on such matters. Again, the purpose of the IWC is to promote the orderly, sustainable use of whale stocks. Here is a video that may help explain the history and original intent of the IWC. It also chronicles some of the IWC’s mis-steps along the way and how the IWC has been subverted by politics.
http://jojjes.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/a-greener-shade-of-whale/
Quote Comment
March 12th, 2010 at 9:46 am
ddpalmer said:
I have to admit I take some satisfaction in hearing that. The Norwegians are proud; they wouldn’t put up with somebody trying to tell them how to run their country and use their natural resources, unless forced to do so.
Still, I have to think that the Japanese should by now have enough data to make their scientific case. Have they attempted to make a case before the IWC that the minke population can support whaling? If not, why not? Surely they have enough data by now. If it’s because they don’t expect to win, they should back out of the IWC. I’m sure the answer is political, though.
Quote Comment
March 14th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Off topic — I think you’d be interested in recent Sea Shepherd news:
Sea Shepherd activist arrested
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100313a2.html
and
Sea Shepherd’s Peter Bethune could face prison
http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherds-Peter-Bethune-could-face-prison/tabid/417/articleID/145139/Default.aspx
and also
Australian police search anti-whaling ships
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilg9rNpH9Mx6EiYVgorZlxWe-icAD9E901T80
Look’s like the game is over.
Quote Comment
March 14th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
NOTE: The above comment was on another post. I moved it to this one as it was totally off topic for the post it was on.
Quote Comment
March 15th, 2010 at 5:33 am
Calli Arcale said:
They have submitted there data to the IWC every year. And every year the IWC says thank you but we don’t think we have enough data yet. So the Japanese go and collect more data, and the IWC says they still don’t have enough data.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2010 at 9:24 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA9EMQAvsJg
A nice brief summary of Paul Watson dodgy past.
Quote Comment
April 8th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Curtains said:
Hey, thanks a lot for that! It will need to have a post of its own. I’ll try to get it up in the next couple hours, as I’m out at the moment.
Excellent, though!
Quote Comment
April 9th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
[...] may be changing, however. This excellent video was brought to my attention by the commenter “curtains.” It clearly deserves its own [...]
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Too bad the fat bastard didn’t get a bullet in his empty skull, the world needs to be rid of his stupidity. The only reason I’d be sad is because I didn’t get to pull the trigger myself.
Quote Comment
May 4th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Death2Watson said:
Oh, FFS! What a ridiculously silly thing to say on an internet forum! You shouldn’t make threats, even if you are just kidding. Wouldn’t you take greater satisfaction seeing Watson endure the embarrassment of arrest, trial , conviction and a nice little quiet cell of his very own? Lighten up on the death threat bs, okay?
Quote Comment
May 7th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Liz45 said: There are people in Africa who protect tigers, elephants etc, …
Tigers in Africa? You wanna try again? Maybe look at some range maps first?
This is just more evidence of the intelligence level of the Sea Sheep.
Quote Comment
May 9th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Samuel said:
He didn’t actually make a threat. He said he wants to see Wattson dead and would feel sad he didn’t pull the trigger. He didn’t say he actually intends to pull the trigger or is planning on doing so or anything. \
Jeff said:
Well, there could be a couple tigers in Africa. Have you looked to see if there are any at the Capetown zoo? Or possibly a zoo in one of the other reasonably developed cities in Africa… which, granted, there are not too many of.
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2010 at 6:22 am
Shafe said:
Reminds me, too, that the ‘don’t eat mercury-contaminated whale meat’ advocates sound like ‘it’s ok to contaminate whales and dolphins with mercury but not ok to eat them.’ Sounds upside-down logics. Why aren’t they outraged about whales and dolphins are being poisoned with organic mercury, horror, it’s ORGANIC mercury that’s more poisonous than metal mercury, too much so we can’t eat them. Did I get it right?
Quote Comment
July 8th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Quote Comment
July 27th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
It is amazing that there are still people that believe Paul Watson’s lies. Obviously those people have not read Paul’s own words from one of his books that says “make up any story you want and then be convincing to the media about it”. I am opposed to Japanese whaling but I am even more opposed to the Sea Shepherds. They are nothing more than a group of incompetent, bumbling thugs. I’m amazed they have accidently killed themselves from some of the stupid things they have done in the Southern Ocean.
The Sea Shepherds injured one of the Japanese during their last illegal boarding of a Japanese vessel and yet Paul Watson continues to lie and say that they have never harmed anyone. That is typical Paul Watson – He will tell his story exactly the way he wants it to be told; the truth is not necessary for a good story from Paul. Illegally boarding a vessel that is underway is a serious crime; the Sea Shepherds treat as though it is akin to jaywalking. The Japanese are well within their right to shoot any Sea Shepherd that attempts to board their vessels. The restraint the Japanese have demonstrated is amazing considering the constant provoking they have had to endure from the Sea Shepherds.
Quote Comment