Comments:Protester says Japanese whalers shot him

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

This article[edit]

This article is totally biased.

How? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had written a full explaination on what points, but in the contributions tab, but that has since been deleted... which leads me to serious question the ethics and increasinly biased nature of wikinews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article totally lacks a NPOV... maybe that's just a wikipedia thing but its very biased in favor of the protesters.

"Two Sea Shepherd protesters were taken hostage in January after they boarded a Japanese harpoon ship, the Yushin Maru No. 2" - this statement actually made me laugh out loud, that's called detaining intruders, if it had been Texas, they would have been shot.

"If Watson's statements are proven to be true, the actions of the Japanese saliors represents a breach of international law." - this statement has been made but nothign simular about the protesters violations of law.

There is no mention to the acidic nature of the "stink bombs", which sounds playfully benign, and the actual chemical compounds used, which if memory serves me were dangerous to humans.

The chemical used is Butyric acid. "Butyric acid is found in butter, parmesan cheese, vomit, and as a product of anaerobic fermentation (including in the colon and as body odor)" 81.147.63.24 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

^Is what was deleted... like just google the definition of the word 'hostage' and look it up, this does not fit the situation and paints the whalers in a very negative light. I am slightly suprised they did not refer to them as Scientologist Whalers in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV / Bias[edit]

This article should be more neutral, as it does not question the claim made by Paul Watson. For a complete breakdown to the arguments against his claim (which should be included here), see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1195419/board/nest/125675508#125706113

I heard about the incident on the news, and it wasn't until I watched the 7th episode that I realized just how poorly they setup the incident.

If you closely follow the last 20 minutes of this episode, including the buildup to the shooting incident, you will find that there are a number of inconsistencies and evidence that points towards the incident being stages for the cameras and for the media - with the goal of attempting to further advance their cause by having the Australian government intervene.

1. The captain had previously never left the bridge. When the guys who boarded the Japanese ship were returned, he even commented that he can't go down and greet them because he 'never leaves the bridge'. Yet on this incident, he not only left the bridge, but he stood out on the side directly confronting the Japanese. These actions were completely outside of the norm for him.

2. They say that they wont be sending out the inflatables to attack the Japanese ship, and the reason being that the ship is too large to attempt a boarding from an inflatable. So the plan is, for the first time, to directly confront the ship head-on with the Steve Irwin.

Using the Steve Irwin would make an attempted boarding just as impossible as it was with an inflatable. Since all that their attack involved was throwing acid bombs on the Japanese ship, then they could have launched the attack from the inflatables. I think what becomes more obvious is that they don't use the inflatables on this occasion so that they can draw their captain, Paul Watson, into direct conflict with the Japanese, where the shooting incident can be played out as planned.

3. Watson stood out on the side of the Steve Irwin taunting and waving at the Japanese, inviting an attack on himself. He has not only left the bridge, but he is also, for the first time, directly confronting the Japanese himself.

4. There is no sight of anybody on the Japanese ship holding a gun. Watson claims that the shot came from a porthole - but if you look at video or photos of the Japanese ships, there are no portholes on that side of the boat. Also, with the rough seas and swell, with two moving ships, a shot like that would be near impossible to pull of, especially as accurate as it was. There was also no sound of gunfire captured on video.

5. Prior to the alleged shooting, it seems that Watson and his officers are building up the incident by distorting and over-reacting to what the Japanese say, and by suggesting that they are in bigger danger than what they really are.

After the first attack, the Steve Irwin receives a message from the Japanese ship where they say:

"If you approach any further, we will launch flash bomb or tear gas grenade"

This was distorted by the crew of the Sea Shepard as:

Peter Hammarstedt (First officer) said: "They threatened to fire on us if we come any closer" Camera operator, or director, off camera: "With firearms?" Peter Hammarstedt: "ahhh, with flashbangs I think"

and again:

Peter Hammarstedt (first officer): "We are throwing pretty much butter on their decks, and they have threatened to fire on us. We didn't think it would happen in our wildest dreams"

During the confrontation, the other officer, Peter Brown, makes a comment of 'I want to see if any of them pick up a gun'.

There was no reason to suspect that the Japanese would be carrying guns, as their warnings *only* mentioned flash bangs. This seems to form part of a planned build up to the faked shooting, where Watson and his two officers over-state the intentions of the Japanese by introducing the possibility of firearms being used. This is a gross distortion of what the Japanese actually said.

During the confrontation, but before the alleged shooting, Brown also says:

"No matter what happens stay calm, we still have to run this ship"

almost as if he knew what was going to happen and was re-assuring the crew.

Note that the other crew members, outside of Watson and the two officers, never over-state what the Japanese threatened with the flashbangs. It is only Watson and the two officers who exaggerated the threat to involving firearms and potentially a shooting.


6. It has already been mentioned before, but anybody with a basic knowledge of ballistics would know that all that a vest does is it disperses the energy from a bullet and slows it down by absorbing the impact. Wearing a vest does not mean that the person still doesn't receive the full force of the bullet, it just means that the force isn't as sudden nor as concentrated. He would still fall over juts as he would if he was shot without a vest, and he would still have massive bruising, and pain. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the average person wouldn't even be able to stay standing up with the force of a good punch (100-150 pounds/cuf of force), let alone a bullet (10-30 times that force).

7. When he noticed that he was shot, the Steve Irwin had already turned away from the Japanese ship and was some way away from it already. With a real shot, he would have acted immediately. It seems that he waited for the cameraman to step down to the platform he was standing on before reaching down to check if he had been shot. Judging by where the Steve Irwin was relative to the Japanese ship at the time he checked to see if he had been shot, it would have been at least 80-120 seconds after the ships had been alongside each other.

8. He looks down into his jacket, and straight up looks directly at where he claimed the shot was, and remarks 'holy *beep* He enters the bridge, casually stating 'I got hit'. First of all, with a vest dispersing the energy of a shot, somebody who has been shot often finds it very difficult to pinpoint the exact location - he seemed to know exactly where it was. Further, a near death situation would have seen a sudden and great release of adrenalin, as the body pumps it out, raises the heart rate, breathing rate and does a lot more in response to a near death experience. Watson shows no signs of experiencing any of these very common symptoms, and is remarkably calm and placid.

9. The 'bullet' is not a bullet. Simple as that. He mustn't have had any idea of what a fired bullet slug looks like, because he used a piece of metal arranged in a hemisphere as the bullet.

10. He says 'I felt a pricking on my chest'. The *exact opposite* of what one who was really shot would feel. (it actually feels like being hit by a truck).

11. Watson is obviously well attuned to playing the media to further his cause. He is constantly sending out press releases and is on the phone with the media. After every incident at sea, Watson would run to his computer and put out a press release - very often over-stating the facts or flat out lying. After all, the Australian media only has their word to work from, as the Japanese would often respond later via official government channels. Watson plans and justifies all the attacks based on what the media impact would be, and plans based on what actions would have maximum media impact.

The planning behind the earlier boarding by the Australian and English crew members of the Steve Irwin were specifically planned with the media impact in mind. When that incident didn't cause the stir that he expected, the captain obviously thought that he would require a more dramatic incident to have the Australian government intervene - hence his shooting plan.

An obvious part of this media campaign is the Whale Wars documentary series itself, where throughout the season Watson and his officers have downplayed the negatives and over-emphasized their positive spin to every aspect of their campaign. At no point during the series is the viewer presented with the Japanese perspective, despite the disclaimers about international law.

In summary we have:

  • A captain who is media savvy, and who plans all his actions around media response.
  • Acting outside of his normal behavior when the incident took place (both by being on the bridge, and using the Steve Irwin in place of the usual inflatable attack so that he could position himself for the setup)
  • No video footage (from any of the 5-6 cameras on both ships) of any gun, or anybody holding a gun. Also no signs of portholes, and the very slim chance a shooter would have of hitting his target considering the conditions
  • A concerted campaign between Watson and his two officers to distort what the Japanese said in an effort to build up the incident and exaggerated the level of danger that they were about to face.
  • Numerous comments by Watson and the officers suggesting that they were in grave danger and there was the possibility of an incident taking place.
  • The shot completely defying the laws of physics
  • Not noticing he had been shot till sometime after the two ships separated
  • The bullet not being a bullet.

So in summary, we have a case of a very sad man, desperate for media attention and frustrated that his earlier bold plans had not succeeded in their aims, has reduced himself to planning and staging and incident where he would be shot by the Japanese. We have a very clear motive (supported by the earlier attacks that were done with media impact in mind), and more then enough direct and clear evidence from the show. From the Japanese perspective, their claims in the media directly after the incident are all completely corroborated with what we see during Whale Wars - that is, they threw three flashbangs as 'warning devices', and that nobody on the ship was carrying a firearm.

The Australian police, nor any other federal regulatory body, took the incident further than a brief investigation of the claim. If a real shot had been fired, there would have been at least some evidence to support the claim and some action taken. But instead, the Australian government did not even condemn the Japanese for their actions, and instead sought to have the two sides separate from each other and for the Sea Shephard organization to show restraint in their actions.

In total, the evidence against the claims that were made by Paul Watson is overwhelming, to the point where the last episode of Whale Wars is a complete embarrassment to not only Captain Watson, but his entire crew and the supporters of the Sea Shepard organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.160.233 (talkcontribs)

You're wasting your time. This is an archived article and it will not be changed. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Whale Wars[edit]

I respect the cause of the Steve Irwin but how far is to far. They themselves throw stink bombs which prevent the whalers from working and don't expect a rebuttal. I don't think we should be holding these incompetent people on such a high pedestal when they themselves seem to also be the criminals.

Bias[edit]

The article reports that the attacking SSCS crew members were “taken hostage” by the Japanese. That makes the Japanese sound like criminals and implies ill will on their part. That’s absurd. They captured and detained them. NRen2k5 (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[1]. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

japanese act a shame[edit]

This article is a matter of shame to every human being.........specially japanese people. finding loopholes in Lethal Research Law-1986 and huntingwhales is unacceptable on anybody's part. the japanese official saying "its not good to hurt human to save whales" sounds a sick mentality and thoughtlessness. kudos to Mr.Watson and his group members for fighting for Natural balance and natural justice. also Australian government should be firm and should take concrete steps to curb japanese nails over oceans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.121.102 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time aim for his fat head

Comments from feedback form - "this is verry boring and has n..."[edit]

this is verry boring and has no help th my project and has nothing to do with whalers —153.107.97.156 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)