video leak on YouTube of Chinese trawler incident.

solarz said:

Interesting... so you're saying that the Japanese have a history of lying about these kinds of events?

(A heavily edited 2-3 minutes video of the incident is hardly proof of anything!)

Click to expand...

NO comment about lying, but they have certainly learnt a expensive lesson.

Actually stories have it that the whole escaped is videoed. WE are only seeing pars of it and its longer than 2-3 minutes if you watch the whole lot thats been made avaliable.

SteelBird said:

Vow, look like this is a very hot topic. There are four pages of posts after only one day.

As Airsuperiority suggested, we need somebody who is experienced in marine-time affair to give a fair comment about who crashed into who. As for who was right or wrong, I think this depends on their stands. If the Chinese think that the water belong to them then there were right to do everything, and if the Japanese think that it is their water, what they do is nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Glad I contributed to such lively discussion :nana:
If I were to hazard a guess it's probably due to the fact that this is a relatively political/sensitive subject by pro China vs neutral members of this forum. :china:

bd popeye said:

This is what the USCG regs say about stopping a vessel. Their regulations are based on international maritime law..

So in general >>>If your vessel is hailed to halt by a military/police/coast guard vessel your vessel must yield to the military vessel.

Click to expand...

The key point in your quote is the following, " high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction".

Problem with this incident is that the waters the incident took place is in dispute. Yes, the Japanese claims jurisdiction but neither China nor Taiwan acknowledge this. So to paint a similar scenario. You're an American fisherman fishing off the coast of Catalina Island. But let's say Mexico claim it and has Mexican patrol boats circling its waters. Now you have a pair of Mexican PBs ordering you to stop. Are you gonna be inclined to?

Mr T said:

...No, it's based on the fact that the Chinese crew deliberately twice rammed Japanese vessels. If they had shown no aggressive behaviour and just been detained for being there, there would be a fair argument that they should have been sent on their way fairly quickly. But they decided to use violence.

Click to expand...

There's a major problem with your statement. While the clip showed two collisions, one of them showed the Japanese PB cutting in front of the trawler. Not knowing the trawler's capabilities nor the level of distraction caused by the second PB, you can't say for certainty the trawler had the appropriate reaction time to avoid it. We also don't know the sequence, which collision occurred first? What other events may or may not have occurred leading right up to the collisions? Considering the leak of the clip is heavily edited, I'm not inclined to take the clip at face value. Ultimately, if the Japanese are so sure they are in the right, why not release the entire raw footage unedited?

joshuatree said:

There's a major problem with your statement. While the clip showed two collisions, one of them showed the Japanese PB cutting in front of the trawler. Not knowing the trawler's capabilities nor the level of distraction caused by the second PB, you can't say for certainty the trawler had the appropriate reaction time to avoid it. We also don't know the sequence, which collision occurred first? What other events may or may not have occurred leading right up to the collisions? Considering the leak of the clip is heavily edited, I'm not inclined to take the clip at face value. Ultimately, if the Japanese are so sure they are in the right, why not release the entire raw footage unedited?

Click to expand...

If you look at the wake of the CG in relation to the trawler it wasnt a surprise cutting in. In fact the running time of the video when we first see the trawler to the point of impact is 20secs. I think the helmsman had plenty of time to start turning the trawler to starboard which is what is required of him , under the rules of the sea.

I dont think the other CG was causing any immediate concern as everyone on deck were looking slightly to the port side in the direction in which the CG was heading

bladerunner said:

If you look at the wake of the CG in relation to the trawler it wasnt a surprise cutting in. In fact the running time of the video when we first see the trawler to the point of impact is 20secs. I think the helmsman had plenty of time to start turning the trawler to starboard which is what is required of him , under the rules of the sea.

I dont think the other CG was causing any immediate concern as everyone on deck were looking slightly to the port side in the direction in which the CG was heading

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, which collision are you referring to? The one where the CG cuts from right to left in front of the trawler? The camera only shows what's in front of its lens, it doesn't provide any details on what's happening in the bridge. It amuses me that with video proof that the CG cuts in front of the trawler, the accusation is that the trawler deliberately hit the CG. It's like I'm driving on the freeway and another car speeds ahead in the lane to my right, then cuts over, and I end up colliding with that car. Then people proceed to say I deliberately hit the car. That's actually a car insurance scam.

I still don't know which collision occurred first. I ask again, why not simply release the entire, raw footage if the Japanese are so certain it was the trawler's fault?

No, it's based on the fact that the Chinese crew deliberately twice rammed Japanese vessels. If they had shown no aggressive behaviour and just been detained for being there, there would be a fair argument that they should have been sent on their way fairly quickly. But they decided to use violence.

Click to expand...

Wow, what an insightful judgment of a 40+min event based on 3 min video. u even include a psychological breakdown of people involved, that's pretty impressive!

Mr T said:

If they had shown no aggressive behaviour and just been detained for being there, there would be a fair argument that they should have been sent on their way fairly quickly. But they decided to use violence.

Click to expand...

If you want to talk about aggressive behaviour, then take your comments to the Japanese first.
Also if some foreigner was trying to illegally restrain me, I'd use violence too and get away with it just fine, not to mention the typical American would probably take out his firearm and teach the aggressor a painful lesson.

xywdx said:

If you want to talk about aggressive behaviour, then take your comments to the Japanese first.
Also if some foreigner was trying to illegally restrain me, I'd use violence too and get away with it just fine, not to mention the typical American would probably take out his firearm and teach the aggressor a painful lesson.

Click to expand...

Actually, you are legally obligated to yield to a military or a coast guard vessel... and there is precedent for forcibly boarding a ship outside one's territorial waters; the Estai incident. In that incident, shots were fired as a warning from a Fisheries patrol vessel, with naval backup from the Navy.

Pointblank said:

Actually, you are legally obligated to yield to a military or a coast guard vessel... and there is precedent for forcibly boarding a ship outside one's territorial waters; the Estai incident. In that incident, shots were fired as a warning from a Fisheries patrol vessel, with naval backup from the Navy.

Click to expand...

The Estai incident is different in that the concerned parties did not share territorial water in such proximity, just imagine what would happen if this was to become standard practice in the Diaoyu island region.

We are talking about disputed waters here, if everyone just goes in head strong and enforce their own claims then the situation would quickly deteriorate beyond repair.