Beck's point was about the extremists groups believing they can do anything they want, including terrorist activities, and consider themselves entitled to do so by claiming their "cause is just". He was mentioning several organizations and only briefly mentioned this incident as one of many by different groups. He simply had it backwards as to which ship was sunk, an error but not really relevant to the point he was making. Constantly claiming that "he lied" is a bit of a stretch. In past interviews Watson has personally claimed to have sunk a Japanese whaling ship, but there is no other evidence to support his claim. Watson has also made many, many, many claims about many things which are patently false, including his highly twisted “interpretation†about the whaling treaties and laws of the sea. He’s a self righteous narcissist who lives in his own fantasy world. He’s clearly far more concerned about drawing attention to himself than for any cause. This collision was absolutely the fault of the Sea Shepherd’s boat. There are right of way rules for ships at sea and smallcraft must ALWAYS yield to large ships (the tonnage rule). Watson is a terrorist, nothing more. His claims about the illegality of the Japanese whaling are absolute fabrications. Through diplomacy and negotiation the Japanese were actually reducing their whaling activities, but stunts like those of Watson and his like have made them resistant to additional concessions. There are many that oppose whaling who have worked for a permanent end to this practice through education and quiet diplomacy. The grandstanding methods of the Sea Shepherds have actually been severely detrimental to progress in this arena.
Watson named the ship “Steve Irwin†after requesting approval to use the name from Irwin’s widow, Terri (she was at the christening). I understand she has since greatly regretted doing so.
“Sea Shepherd Conservation Society†is the name of Watson’s organization, and they ARE radical extremists. Their actions are, by all legal definitions, acts of piracy and terrorism. All of their ships are Australian flagged and the fact that the Australian government provides them safe harbor is a major issue. The government is effectively condoning piracy, which is considered in international law to be a hostile act, bordering on an act of war.
Animal Planet conceived, developed, and produces the show which is presented from a singular and one sided point of view trying to glorify these terrorists. Since Animal Planet has full production control this indicates they support that organization and its practices in spite of the “disclaimer†they display at the start of that show. Since this show is really nothing more than a pro-terrorist propaganda piece I refuse to watch it and do not support the sponsors (including changing my cell phone provider since Verizon has been one of the major sponsors.)
I was merely trying to bump things back toward the OP.
