Pirates seize U.S. freighter, hold captain for ransom [Archive]

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 00:47

:thumbsdown:

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/08/ship.hijacked/index.html.

So what will our reaction be? My guess is another "Vote present" maneuver by our president. Thus far, his big answer has been "we're reviewing our options". Then, a destroyer was dispatched from over 400 nautical miles away. Should get there in about 12 hours. I'm sure the pirates will be considerate and wait around for the destroyer to arrive.

Seriously, I think Obama will take one of two approaches. He's not about to confront anybody. So he'll either do nothing, and quietly pay ransom to get the sailors back, then talk about the need for new oversight by the government of the shipping industry. Or, he'll actually come out and negotiate with these clowns, elevating them to sovereign nation status. He may even issue an apology for whatever sins the U.S has committed in the past.

The one thing I'm certain he won't do is exactly what we need to do.... stage 2 or 3 SEAL team raids on a couple of known operating bases in Somalia. No, he won't even allow U.S. merchant marines to use firearms to defend themselves. While the pirates attack the crew with AK-47's and RPGs, Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.:wall::wall::wall:

Disgusting. It will provoke and accelerate and embolden further aggression against the United States around the world. Why doesn't Rahm Emmanuel loan his concrete cojones to Obama in moments like these? :thumbsdown:

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 01:05

The pirates are a symptom of a bigger problem occurring. Wiping out these pirates will remove the symptom...for a time, before more rise to take their place, learning from the mistakes of those before them.

Husar

04-09-2009, 01:59

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-09-2009, 02:01

The sailors have retaken control of the ship of their own accord.

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 02:09

Yes, many of them are pirates because it's a job, and there are no other jobs.
Attacking them now might mean all the sailors die, and sailors of other countries as well, countries that will then hate the US.

Putting armed men onto ships means you aren't allowed into many ports around the globe, this was discussed before.

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this. You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-09-2009, 02:24

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 02:39

Anyone here ready for the Third Barbary War?

In all seriousness, this is nothing surprising. The problem is, I don't think there's any one pirate port or base that can just be tooken out and the pirates die. This is a problem that will need to be addressed ship by ship, and possibly seaborne interdictions into Somalia. It would require a lot of manpower and money, but I have confidence a strategy like this would work. However, in light of the stretching of the U.S. Military and the economic situation, this is unlikely in the near future.

And I think Husar is right that these pirates are simply in it for the money, and not trying to push some ideological or political agenda. An offensive against piracy will undoubtedly turn them even more hostile against Western ships, but again, I think it's necessary we address the problem with gun boat diplomacy and force of arms.

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 02:42

I'm going to ghast your flabber a bit more Don. :yes:

The point about varying ports not allowing armed guards on ships is a truism. How can I put it? Imagine an Iranian container ship docking in, say, New York. The port authorities board her to examine the manifest. On board they find 50 Iranian Revolutionary Guards armed to the teeth. What do you think would be the attitude of New York Port Authority? Never mind the CIA/FBI.

Husar also has a point about no jobs. I read somewhere that since the country disolved into anarchy, foreign fishing fleets, EU, Indian, Chinese etc. have moved into the vacuum and basically raped the ocean of fish. Many of these pirates are former fishermen. So the article said. Now I don't know if that's true or not but it would seem to make sense.

If it is true, then we in the west bear some culpability for this. Things are often not as black and white as they first appear.

I'll try to dig up the article, it may take some time. I'm a prolific reader of the t'interwebs. :sweatdrop:

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 02:44

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this. You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

This attitude seems highly pompous and arrogant. You are acting as if these pirates are not humans themselves, with a side to tell. Piracy is the only way for many in that region to live a decent quality of life, they are not to be looked as monsters.

As for telling countries to **** off because they refuse for others to bring guns into their ports...well I really don't know what to say to that.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 02:50

:thumbsdown:

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time:

Yeah, a shame we didn't solve this earlier when we had the chance.

The one thing I'm certain he won't do is exactly what we need to do.... stage 2 or 3 SEAL team raids on a couple of known operating bases in Somalia.

Remember the last time we sent a spec-ops unit into Somalia? This is a problem that can't be solved by simply blowing a few ports up.

No, he won't even allow U.S. merchant marines to use firearms to defend themselves. While the pirates attack the crew with AK-47's and RPGs, Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.:wall::wall::wall:

That's funny, I never read anything about Obama saying "Guns on ships are no-no's" (Which, according to Husar, is true in ports). Unless you're trying to make some anti-Obama point, which I hope to God you aren't.

Disgusting. It will provoke and accelerate and embolden further aggression against the United States around the world. Why doesn't Rahm Emmanuel loan his concrete cojones to Obama in moments like these? :thumbsdown:

Oh please, it's just now become a problem because it was an American flagged ship? Is it somehow now something we need to deal with because she flew the Stars and Stripes? Tell that to the crew of the MV Faina, who had to wait 5 months while a number of war vessels were right by to assist, but instead had to wait in fear for their lives for a ransom to be paid.

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 02:58

This attitude seems highly pompous and arrogant. You are acting as if these pirates are not humans themselves, with a side to tell. Piracy is the only way for many in that region to live a decent quality of life, they are not to be looked as monsters.

As for telling countries to **** off because they refuse for others to bring guns into their ports...well I really don't know what to say to that.

Defending yourself is highly pompous and arrogant?

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 03:03

Defending yourself is highly pompous and arrogant?

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

Asking someone how could they even think of supporting the pirates is a bit pompous, yes.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:05

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

No, it's always been a problem, for everyone. Unless you're fine with other ships being hijacked because they aren't American. I think that's shameful to just now consider piracy as a threat to the United States, and only the United States, without any regard to the numerous other nationalities who have suffered from it.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:06

Step 1: Behead pirates
Step 2: Put heads on USS Lexington.

There not only have we taken care of the problem but we look BA

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:08

Step 1: Behead pirates
Step 2: Put heads on USS Constitution.

There not only have we taken care of the problem but we look BA

Fixed. What better way to display the heads of pirates than on the ship that participated in pirate wars?

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:10

No, it's always been a problem, for everyone. Unless you're fine with other ships being hijacked because they aren't American. I think that's shameful to just now consider piracy as a threat to the United States, and only the United States, without any regard to the numerous other nationalities who have suffered from it.

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:15

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

This isn't about a nation's affairs. This is about international piracy.

but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited

Hasn't stopped us before.

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 03:16

Hasn't stopped us before.

That doesn't mean we should continue that policy.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:17

That doesn't mean we should continue that policy.

So are you pro or anti beheading?

a completely inoffensive name

04-09-2009, 03:25

So are you pro or anti beheading?

My stance on this is that since it is now our problem we should look on stopping pirates from appearing in the first place, not just killing them whenever they pop up. The fact that there is pirates plaguing the sea does not mean we should do something, we should not be the world's police.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:28

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:31

My stance on this is that since it is now our problem we should look on stopping pirates from appearing in the first place, not just killing them whenever they pop up. The fact that there is pirates plaguing the sea does not mean we should do something, we should not be the world's police.

It has always been our problem. Remember Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, of which the United States signed, that states an attack on one member is an attack on all members. It hasn't been an exclusively US problem, but it has been a US problem.

European tankers attacked (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/27/Somali_pirates_seize_two_European_tankers/)

Norwegians attacked. (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/28/Pirates_hijack_2_tankers/)

Unless you'd like to explain why the United States should not adhere to it's own signed treaties, then my point stands.

GeneralHankerchief

04-09-2009, 03:36

First of all, I have to hand it to the pirates for actually having the brass ones to attack a United States ship in the first place. Every single aspect of this story oozes awesome, including the US crewmen's retaking of the ship.

However, in all seriousness, I think it speaks more of the situation in Somalia than the state of US affairs. Throughout history, major powers have let minor flies buzz by without expending the resources necessary to swat them. The pirates' situation is just another example.

KukriKhan

04-09-2009, 03:37

The sailors have retaken control of the ship of their own accord.

Personally, I thought this was the most important part of the unfolding story. Very Flight 93, yanno?

When the chips are down, and the cavalry ain't coming any time soon, or the government, or the Navy, or the Marines, or the cops, or anybody else... the average groups of americans will take matters into their own hands, take charge and settle accounts... damn the outcome.

Samurai Waki

04-09-2009, 03:43

Well you know...we could have supported a relatively stable regime of their choosing... that would have been able to actually do something about this, but I guess Islamic Fundamentalism just isn't as good enough a choice as compared to rampant Warlord-ism, and Anarchy.

Jolt

04-09-2009, 05:32

European tankers attacked (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/27/Somali_pirates_seize_two_European_tankers/)

Norwegians attacked. (http://article.wn.com/view/2009/03/28/Pirates_hijack_2_tankers/)

...Are you saying Norwegians aren't European? :P

seireikhaan

04-09-2009, 06:28

Wanna fix the problem with Somali pirates? Fix the problems with Somalia. :juggle: Trying to blast them one at a time isn't going to stop them when the average pirate just needs one or two good hauls to set him for life. Humans are pretty easy to tempt, even when faced with terrible odds of survival, when they have little to nothing to lose.

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 07:01

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

It's the responsibility of all nations. Piracy is what is known as a universal crime. What's buggering it all up is what to do with them once you've captured them. Believe it or not, most times they are set free.

ajaxfetish

04-09-2009, 07:46

What's buggering it all up is what to do with them once you've captured them. Believe it or not, most times they are set free.
How about if they're set free a few miles out to sea?

Ajax

Tribesman

04-09-2009, 08:20

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this.
Is that because it makes sense ?

So with have two current examples , one followed the guidelines set out and one didn't , one ship is sailing on its way with crew and cargo safe and intact , one is missing its captain .
So who got it right ?
The Isreali crew who rigged water hoses , lights and barbed wire so they drove off the pirates or the American crew who fought back without ensuring that all crew were safe .

Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.
Leaving aside that those guidlines predate Obama by years.....
It worked for the Isrealis didn't it .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.
Its the international law of the sea and right of innocent passage Don , you know the same international law that makes Piracy illegal .

So I hope now that The American sailors efforts backfired that the US forces in the area to fight piracy under international law follow the French Navies example of how to do things and don't screw up badly like the Indian Navy did .

Pannonian

04-09-2009, 11:59

For some reason, the Pompey solution springs to mind. Scour the coasts and their hinterlands, then settle the pirates inland and provide them with a living that doesn't involve piracy. Reshape for modern realities and sensibilities.

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 13:08

O/T.

I see the early release scheme has kicked in Tribes. :laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

04-09-2009, 14:16

It's a danish ship I believeWhich allows me to combine this thread with several others. Denmark alone can not protect its economic interests globally. Two dozen small and medium sized countries, however, can when they have the political will to cooperate:

Deeply concerned by the outbreak of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast, the European Union launched military operation EU NAVFOR Somalia (operation "Atalanta"), which is conducted in support of UN Security Council Resolutions 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008), 1838 (2008) and 1846 (2008) in order to contribute to:
the protection of vessels of the WFP (World Food Programme) delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia; the protection of vulnerable vessels cruising off the Somali coast, and the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast.

Operation EU NAVFOR reached its Initial Operational Capability on 13 December 2008.

This operation, which is the first EU maritime operation, is conducted in the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).EU (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/showPage.aspx?id=1518&lang=en).

The US, Russia and China, and several others, are employing armed escorts as well. Which is excellent. Nonetheless, 'shoot them' is as much a complete solution to Somalian piracy as 'shoot them' is an answer to street muggins.

Video of French commandos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4VKe8KVJL0&feature=related) venturing deep inland to shoot pirate. :pirate2:

Husar

04-10-2009, 13:51

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this.
See Tribesey's response. ~;)

You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.
Bah, I wouldn't like eating bugs. Bugs are disgusting and small, unlike african men.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?
I'm not defending the kidnappers, I'm saying you should not carpet bomb villages because some people were kidnapped. It's not like the pirates are bloodthirsty monsters who eat bugs and then the kidnapped people after receiving the money. They're a bunch of guys who have no jobs but little boats so they think they can make some money off these rich westerners who come buy with expensive ships that they afforded by selling ressources they got out of the pirates' country. Yes, they do fumble around with sticks and shoot rockets but that just shows how insecure they are because they are afraid someone on the ship might use a water hose on them otherwise. They play big gorilla to scare their prey because otherwise they don't have a chance, that a bunch of sailor can overwhelm them or scare them away now and then just reinforces that.

Starting a bloody campaign of death and destruction over some hurt pride was never something I support, pride is a completely artificial(/superficial) idea that does not warrant bloodshed at all IMO.
It may hurt a bit to take a beating now and then but if you respond calmly you will grow on it, remember what Jesus did when Paul cut off the ear of a soldier who came to arrest Jesus.
You don't spread the love with carpet bombing and village raids.

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.
So you support a policy of complete isolation? ~;)

Well, I don't actually have any data at hand but I can imagine a lot of ports would not like a bunch of armed guys running around, especially not in Europe and IA also gave a good example.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 14:10

I'm not defending the kidnappers, I'm saying you should not carpet bomb villages because some people were kidnapped. It's not like the pirates are bloodthirsty monsters who eat bugs and then the kidnapped people after receiving the money. They're a bunch of guys who have no jobs but little boats so they think they can make some money off these rich westerners who come buy with expensive ships that they afforded by selling ressources they got out of the pirates' country. Yes, they do fumble around with sticks and shoot rockets but that just shows how insecure they are because they are afraid someone on the ship might use a water hose on them otherwise. They play big gorilla to scare their prey because otherwise they don't have a chance, that a bunch of sailor can overwhelm them or scare them away now and then just reinforces that.

Starting a bloody campaign of death and destruction over some hurt pride was never something I support, pride is a completely artificial(/superficial) idea that does not warrant bloodshed at all IMO.
It may hurt a bit to take a beating now and then but if you respond calmly you will grow on it, remember what Jesus did when Paul cut off the ear of a soldier who came to arrest Jesus.
You don't spread the love with carpet bombing and village raids.

So, we've taken all their resources and they have a right to try to take them back? :inquisitive:

Not buying into that. Not in favor of carpet bombing and the like, but focused violence probably IS part of the answer to curbing piracy a bit. I was never a fan of the "pay them off/appeasement" strategy, despite its historical tradition.

KukriKhan

04-10-2009, 14:23

If news reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5391BQ20090410) are accurate, things should be coming to a boil today or tomorrow. I wonder if the resolution will free any other hostages and vessels.

Phillips is one of about 270 hostages being held at the moment by Somali pirates, who have been plying the busy sea-lanes of the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean for years.

They are keeping 18 captured vessels at or near lairs on the Somali coast -- five of them taken since the weekend alone.

All I can say is: if I were Sergeant Major of the US Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_Major_of_the_Marine_Corps), which organization was founded to fight piracy - I'd be gnashing my teeth. Heck, I'm NOT Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Carlton Kent, and I'm still gnashing my teeth.

Husar

04-10-2009, 15:04

So, we've taken all their resources and they have a right to try to take them back? :inquisitive:

Well, a man from Texas apparently had the right to shoot some guys who took his neighbor's ressources, weren't even his own ressources.

rory_20_uk

04-10-2009, 15:37

Unlike on land where random groups with guns in some areas of the world are commonplace (Iraq, Afghanistan, LA), small ships miles off the coast with gangs of armed men aren't.

Even if the fishing boats used to extend the range are more ambiguous these can be searched, and the smaller boats hundreds of miles off the coast with no other reason than banditry should be sunk.

If retaliation is only on the water the message is clear: banditry in the sea = death. Trying to attack on land will only imply that you might as well attack the ships for human shields as if you don't Delta Force / SAS / hellfire drones are only a matter of time.

~:smoking:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2009, 18:44

Seamus Fermanagh

04-10-2009, 18:57

Husar:

My point was that sympathy for their condition should be irrelevant to the decision to stop piracy.

In our own countries, YOUR comparative poverty is not an acceptable excuse for you walking into some posh bloke's garage and driving off with his car. It may very well explain your motivation, it may spark some interest in reducing poverty in general, but it does not and cannot excuse the crime itself.

Piracy must be treated as a crime against all and must be pursued vigorously by all. Using electronic surveillance and other means, we need to identify pirate physical and personnel assets and remove them (not carpet bomb an 80% uninvolved fishing village for the actions of 3 families who live there) via destruction, confiscation or incarceration.

Husar

04-10-2009, 22:16

rory_20_uk

04-10-2009, 22:33

Seamus:

My point was not that they have a right to piracy but that there may be other solutions instead of bloodshed, like actually giving the people in that country other ways to earn money.
What they are doing is certainly not right but they usually do not kill anyone, yet everybody here wants to see them dead, that seems quite a harsh punishment to me in relation to the crime.
a kidnapper on land would not be shot on sight either, or would she? :inquisitive:

Rehabilitating everyone on the planet isn't economically possible.

They've chosen to break the law rather than sort out their cesspit of a country.

Call it a Darwin award or cleaning garbage, but the world is a slightly better place where they are fish food.

~:smoking:

Husar

04-10-2009, 22:50

Rehabilitating everyone on the planet isn't economically possible.

They've chosen to break the law rather than sort out their cesspit of a country.

Call it a Darwin award or cleaning garbage, but the world is a slightly better place where they are fish food.

~:smoking:

So you support the death penalty for thieves as well because they chose to become criminals rather than sorting out their cesspit of a life?

Louis VI the Fat

04-10-2009, 23:26

Just shoot them, you sissies. Third French attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7994201.stm) on pirates, happening as we speak.

French hostages freed off Somalia

The families on board the Tanit were warned of the danger of pirate attacks
One French hostage has died and four others have been freed in a rescue operation by French troops on a yacht off Somalia, French officials say.

Two pirates were killed in the operation and three were captured, the French presidency said. Officials said the rescue was launched when talks with the pirates broke down and threats became "more specific".

"With the threats becoming more and more specific, the pirates refusing the offers made to them and the [yacht] heading towards the coast, an operation to free the hostages was decided upon," the president's spokesman said.

Mr Morin said his country had shown determination to oppose piracy.

"France has shown its determination not to give in to blackmail, [to] prosecute the criminal acts and liberate the hostages every time that a ship under a French flag is captured," he said.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2009, 23:38

Rehabilitating everyone on the planet isn't economically possible.

They've chosen to break the law rather than sort out their cesspit of a country.

Call it a Darwin award or cleaning garbage, but the world is a slightly better place where they are fish food.

~:smoking:

This is very true. They can help fix their own country and be part of the solution instead of the problem.

Tribesman

04-11-2009, 00:35

My God, Tribesman
Yes my son ?

Even if the fishing boats used to extend the range are more ambiguous these can be searched, and the smaller boats hundreds of miles off the coast with no other reason than banditry should be sunk.

The problem there is that you are talking about a vast area with thousands of ships/boats in it only a minute proportion of which are engaged in illegal stuff .
There are very few warships to cover that huge area (and they are not co-ordinated in their operations) . They cannot board and search all the vessels and they can't really identify the dodgy ones until they do something dodgy .
Plus of course as the EU and US naval forces have said , modern navigation aids are benefitting the pirates , they only have to bother watching for vessels they might want to attack and vessels they really want to avoid being anywhere near , while the navies have to watch everything that floats .

Hosakawa Tito

04-11-2009, 00:50

Just shoot them, you sissies. Third French attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7994201.stm) on pirates, happening as we speak.

Good for the French.:bow: Enough of this "buns up kneeling" to a bunch of criminals. Confront them, catch them, demand their surrender...prosecute them, and if you must, kill them. They're in the pirate business strictly for the money not to kill people or make a political statement, so stop making this crime pay so well. Eventually most will seek a new career choice.

Tribesman

04-11-2009, 01:08

Florent Lemacon and his wife Chloe were "repeatedly warned" not to travel through the area.

Yet they did .

"It is difficult to understand why these warnings were not heeded,"
No it isn't , look....

We don't want our child to receive the sort of education that the government is concocting for us.
...they didn't like what the government had to say about things so obviously they woudn't listen if the government told them not to do something .

So the question is .....

It is unclear whether Mr Lemacon was killed by his captors, or by a stray French bullet.
Whats the opinion ? A French bullet for being an idiot ?~;)

ajaxfetish

04-11-2009, 01:53

Not in favor of carpet bombing and the like, but focused violence probably IS part of the answer to curbing piracy a bit.
Why is it always about curbing piracy? Am I the only one here who cares about the future of the earth?
We Need Moar Piratz!! (http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif)

Ajax

FactionHeir

04-11-2009, 01:59

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2009, 02:37

I was wondering, how accurate would snipers be if stationed on those destroyers? I mean 4 pirates in a boat and maybe 4 snipers on the ship would take care of the situation? Or is the wind too unpredictable for this?

That's 4 near-simultaneous shots, all of which must incapacitate their targets, from a moving object to another moving object at a considerable distance. I'm guessing the difficulty factor is pretty well up there. Moreover, the heavy sniper rifles that would provide the best stability of shot at the ranges in question are heavy enough to go through a target to hit the person -- maybe a merchie captain -- behind it.

Not undoable, but I think we're talking a very tough call and fairly steep difficulty factor.

KukriKhan

04-11-2009, 03:51

That's 4 near-simultaneous shots, all of which must incapacitate their targets, from a moving object to another moving object at a considerable distance. I'm guessing the difficulty factor is pretty well up there. Moreover, the heavy sniper rifles that would provide the best stability of shot at the ranges in question are heavy enough to go through a target to hit the person -- maybe a merchie captain -- behind it.

Not undoable, but I think we're talking a very tough call and fairly steep difficulty factor.

S.E.A.L.S. I've known (sounds like a memoir, don' it?:)) used to train rigorously for such up-close-and-personal contingencies on the water. I wonder what they're doing now?

A personal anecdote: at work today, the workroom floor (populated by about 20 formerly-active Marines, amongst we few Army, Navy & AF 'formers') were livid at the seeming inaction, LOUDLY. For once, management did not impose a gag order. Smart move, I thought, as I sorted mail to 3101 Clarence Street.

Shaka_Khan

04-11-2009, 04:16

Husar

04-11-2009, 14:28

I think he meant snipe them on the merchant ship but I think it would never work, too much movement and those ships are usually not glass pavillions with windows everywhere.

And even then I thought in hostage situations you usually negotiate first before you open fire, I don't know why a bunch of bank robbers get a negotiation but somehow when it all happens on a ship everybody goes around screaming kill, kill, we want blood! Or is it just because those guys are somalian sub-humans who don't deserve a negotiation or arrest? :inquisitive:

I agree with Hosakawa Tito here, try to arrest them, but only kill when necessary.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-11-2009, 14:55

Plus, there are big waves. And the pirates are riding a small ship, which makes it a difficult target from far away. Meanwhile, pirates could fire RPGs at large tankers.

You may be right about the waves, I haven't been assiduously tracking local sea conditions and such.

As to the RPG's, that's a non-starter. The USN will have warned all ships to steer clear of the situation AND an RPG wouldn't do a lot beyond scratching the paint on a VLCC. The RPG's are a threat to the crew of the vessel at close range, not to the vessel itself. The chances of a "golden bee-bee" shot from and RPG crippling a VLCC are almost incalcuable.

Hosakawa Tito

04-11-2009, 16:23

Here's another interesting development. (http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/636558.html)

Now they can bag the lot. There is technology out there *since the early 90's* that can disable a vehicle's engine using high voltage radio frequency, seems like a perfect use for it. Disable the ships, using the SEAL teams, and wait them out. Offer the pirates a turkey bologna sammich and a bottle of Dasani for each hostage released. When they get hungry & thirsty enough they will comply. Allowing them to leave the area is not an option. Stop the lucrative ransom merry-go-round and this type of criminal activity will wither on the vine.

Underscoring the high stakes involved, France’s navy freed a sailboat seized off Somalia last week by other pirates, but one of the hostages was killed, along with two of the bandits. Three pirates were captured. In Paris, Armed Forces Chief of Staff Jean-Louis Georgelin dismissed the notion of coordination between the French and Americans on the two incidents.

Hopefully, this is untrue or soon to be remedied. All the major nation's navies patrolling this area must coordinate their efforts to be truly effective.

Marshal Murat

04-11-2009, 16:26

So this argument boils down to either:
"We prevent piracy by inserting troops into Somalia to prevent them from launching ships to grab international ships" versus "We prevent piracy by reforming Somalia".

Either way we call in the Marines.

Furunculus

04-11-2009, 17:11

This attitude seems highly pompous and arrogant. You are acting as if these pirates are not humans themselves, with a side to tell. Piracy is the only way for many in that region to live a decent quality of life, they are not to be looked as monsters.

i don't care about their rights, sailors should have great leeway to use all necessary force to preserve themselves and their vessels from piracy.

rory_20_uk

04-11-2009, 18:03

I'm sure slave traders also had a story to tell about how the money helped pay off their son's gambling debts and secure their daughter's dowry... ~:mecry:

Some things to help:

Convoys. Group friendlies together.
Some sort of system that informs the "good ships where they are in the ocean"... GPS possibly? With unique ID tags. These days they can be dynamically changed by the hour.

This is one time when acting together would make life oh so much easier. All ships tell one repository the information that is then relayed to the taskforce.

You might have the occasional time a system malfunctions, but then what about calling the ship to ask?
You might get a time that the systems malfunction so much that all comms are dead. Then investigate.

Suddenly "suspicious" ships go from possibly all to the pirates plus maybe a couple. Cross reference the suspicious ones with known friendly signals that have suddenly gone dead and these are either under attack or need help in any case.

How hot are engines at night (or duringt he day for that matter) for an IR satellite?
How far can radar sweep for contacts?

With one lot of ships keeping the friendlies safe and the faster ones hunting with the aid of satellites and drones to extend the range you'd quickly cut down on those taken and also those that are killed.

Do we have to relearn the lessons every time there's a naval war? Last time the enemy was underwater and the area was the North Atlantic! SORT THIS OUT :wall:

~:smoking:

HoreTore

04-11-2009, 18:27

If I was a somali, I'd be a pirate! At least I have no moral qualms about being one. And why should I?

They're poor people who steal money from the rich at no risk to themselves. Who has moral issues with that?

The argument that we should arm ships is idiotic. Let's say I'm a captain of a merchant ship. The pirates never harm me. All they do is take money that isn't mine. Any reason why I should care about that? However, if I try shooting at them, they will of course shoot back and maybe kill me. So, for no gain, I put my life at risk. Lose-lose.

I work at a shop. There's no way I'll ever fight back if I get robbed. Honestly, they don't even need a weapon to rob me, all they need to say is that they want to register, and I'll hand it over in a second. It's not my money, so I see absolutely no reason to care. My life and my safety is worth more than a few bucks.

Louis VI the Fat

04-11-2009, 18:33

Underscoring the high stakes involved, France’s navy freed a sailboat seized off Somalia last week by other pirates, but one of the hostages was killed, along with two of the bandits. Three pirates were captured. In Paris, Armed Forces Chief of Staff Jean-Louis Georgelin dismissed the notion of coordination between the French and Americans on the two incidents.

Hopefully, this is untrue or soon to be remedied. All the major nation's navies patrolling this area must coordinate their efforts to be truly effective.It is my understanding that there is plenty of international coordination between at least the EU and US navies. And probably with others as well.

I think Jean-Louis Georgelin is referring to the fact that the three French military actions over the past few months themselves have been French solo efforts, without foreign cooperation.

Do we have to relearn the lessons every time there's a naval war? Last time the enemy was underwater and the area was the North Atlantic! SORT THIS OUTIn a rare show of sanity, the EU placed its mission in the Somali waters under command of the British navy, headed by Phillips. It always pleases me when European nationalist sentiment is cast aside for sanity and reason. Let everybody do what they're good at. :2thumbsup:

We were kinda hoping you lot would know just what to do though...:sweatdrop:

To link this to another thread, Norway joined the EU for this mission. Excellent. More bizarrely, the Swiss navy joined as well...~:confused:

Tribesman

04-11-2009, 20:10

Hopefully, this is untrue or soon to be remedied.
Don't be silly , co-ordination is pretty much non existant and if France again publicises the opening of its local bases to the US then they will get the backlash .

Husar

04-11-2009, 20:23

:pirate2:

:7ninja: We could send ninjas to fight them! :7ninja:

:7pirate:

So on the next international talk like a pirate day, can I expect all of you to talk arabic? ~D

Tribesman

04-11-2009, 21:42

So on the next international talk like a pirate day, can I expect all of you to talk arabic?
Do you mean Somali , especially in the areas concerned and in the areas of Yemen where they run the financial side

Furunculus

04-11-2009, 22:19

If I was a somali, I'd be a pirate! At least I have no moral qualms about being one. And why should I?

and if i were a ship owner with a way to defend myself i would happily pull the trigger when your 'fishing' boat hove into view.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2009, 22:57

Somalia, like all maritime countries, has legal rights over an exclusive economic zone that extends 200 nautical miles to sea. And though it has no navy to enforce its control, it theoretically owns the fish and minerals in that area.

Many of Somalia's angry fishermen have picked up rifles and joined the pirate mafias that have seized more than two dozen vessels off the Somali coast so far this year, maritime security experts say.

"It's almost like a resource swap," said Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and the editor of "Violence at Sea: Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism." "Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts. And the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters."

Personally, I say good for the pirates :fishing:

Strike For The South

04-11-2009, 23:04

Personally, I say good for the pirates :fishing:

They're Africans, they should sit and do as there told. /some people

Although piracy is piracy and should be treated as such.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2009, 23:07

They're Africans, they should sit and do as there told. /some people

Although piracy is piracy and should be treated as such.

Well, should we sink all the poachers too? If you don't want to get pirated, sail around the other way.

Strike For The South

04-11-2009, 23:11

Well, should we sink all the poachers too? If you don't want to get pirated, sail around the other way.

I agree.

rory_20_uk

04-11-2009, 23:44

Are they poachers? There's no government, so who would they pay the money to?

Fairer would be to have a "pirate tax" to pay for the warships.

~:smoking:

Sasaki Kojiro

04-11-2009, 23:47

Are they poachers? There's no government, so who would they pay the money to?

Fairer would be to have a "pirate tax" to pay for the warships.

~:smoking:

So if you aren't near your car, and thus I can't pay you money for it, can I steal it?

Crazed Rabbit

04-12-2009, 02:55

I'm not defending the kidnappers, I'm saying you should not carpet bomb villages because some people were kidnapped. It's not like the pirates are bloodthirsty monsters who eat bugs and then the kidnapped people after receiving the money. They're a bunch of guys who have no jobs but little boats so they think they can make some money off these rich westerners who come buy with expensive ships that they afforded by selling ressources they got out of the pirates' country. Yes, they do fumble around with sticks and shoot rockets but that just shows how insecure they are because they are afraid someone on the ship might use a water hose on them otherwise. They play big gorilla to scare their prey because otherwise they don't have a chance, that a bunch of sailor can overwhelm them or scare them away now and then just reinforces that.

Do you really believe that?!

I work at a shop. There's no way I'll ever fight back if I get robbed. Honestly, they don't even need a weapon to rob me, all they need to say is that they want to register, and I'll hand it over in a second. It's not my money, so I see absolutely no reason to care. My life and my safety is worth more than a few bucks.

That money pays your wage.

The ports banning arms is frustrating, but not surprising, considering the governments around the world.

Even more frustrating is France being so much more proactive than the US. We've got a warship right next to the pirate ship - why not simply 'negotiate' the release of the hostage in exchange for allowing the pirates to live? Which is basically what happens at bank robberies.

This problem is just going to get worse. I'm decidedly in favor of gunboat diplomacy.

CR

HoreTore

04-12-2009, 03:15

and if i were a ship owner with a way to defend myself i would happily pull the trigger when your 'fishing' boat hove into view.

If you were a ship owner, you would been a thousand miles away from the ship and wouldn't do anything about it.

That money pays your wage.

If a boss expects his employees to risk their lives/safety to defend a couple of bucks, I would've quit instantly. Fortunately, I have a sane boss who expects me to hand over the cash as fast as possible, and leave the rest of the stuff to the proper authorities, ie. the police. He's insured anyway, and a couple of thousand NOK is nothing when the yearly turnover is 700 million....

Seamus Fermanagh

04-12-2009, 03:28

If a boss expects his employees to risk their lives/safety to defend a couple of bucks, I would've quit instantly. Fortunately, I have a sane boss who expects me to hand over the cash as fast as possible, and leave the rest of the stuff to the proper authorities, ie. the police. He's insured anyway, and a couple of thousand NOK is nothing when the yearly turnover is 700 million....

If your boss expects you to defend her property, she should compensate you appropriately to that level of risk. Fair's fair.

Lemur

04-12-2009, 03:51

Even more frustrating is France being so much more proactive than the US. We've got a warship right next to the pirate ship - why not simply 'negotiate' the release of the hostage in exchange for allowing the pirates to live?
The Founding Fathers faced exactly the same question, although on a much larger scale. Their solution? Pay the ransom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Oh, there was a lot more to it than that, but the upshot was hostages, failed rescue attempts (resulting in more hostages), bribes, treaty, payments.

We gonna party like it's 1805!

seireikhaan

04-12-2009, 03:55

To link this to another thread, Norway joined the EU for this mission. Excellent. More bizarrely, the Swiss navy joined as well...~:confused:
This I want to see.

Husar

04-12-2009, 08:33

Do you mean Somali , especially in the areas concerned and in the areas of Yemen where they run the financial side

I wanted to say that first but then I thought they probably just speak arabic and tried to be clever, but it was a lose/lose situation for an ignorant yuropeen like me anyway I guess.

Furunculus

04-12-2009, 09:12

If you were a ship owner, you would been a thousand miles away from the ship and wouldn't do anything about it.

pedantry. but if you wish me to rephrase it for you:
"and if i were a ships captain with a way to defend myself i would happily pull the trigger when your 'fishing' boat hove into view."

rory_20_uk

04-12-2009, 10:05

So if you aren't near your car, and thus I can't pay you money for it, can I steal it?

If I own a parking space, and there's an unlocked car present with keys in the ignition and no owner, you're free to drive off in it.

~:smoking:

HoreTore

04-12-2009, 12:01

If your boss expects you to defend her property, she should compensate you appropriately to that level of risk. Fair's fair.

There are better ways to defend property. Like avoid getting robbed in the first place ~;) The focus here in Norway is on avoiding robberies completely, if a robbery takes place anyway, then it's a FAIL, might as well hand over everything. Rule number 1 of the "not getting robbed"-school, is of course to never have any significant amount of cash. If people know we don't have any cash, they see no point in robbing us. And there's even less reason to play hero if you do get robbed.

pedantry. but if you wish me to rephrase it for you:
"and if i were a ships captain with a way to defend myself i would happily pull the trigger when your 'fishing' boat hove into view."

If you were a ships captain, why would you want to get shot in a situation where you're not going to suffer yourself?

Drop the tough guy-face, please. Let's see, you're a captain. You have a wife and children at home. Your employer won't care if he gets robbed, and will pay your ransom quickly. Why on earth would you turn a smooth situation into one where your kids might end up without a father?

rory_20_uk

04-12-2009, 12:49

I'm with HoreTore. The crews are not equipped nor trained to have a stand up fight with Pirates. Because it may be a fishing boat, but they're not carrying fishes. Unless there's a deck mounted minigun to hand - make that several as it's a big ship - with decent armour you're out gunned and out manned - you'll loose. I'd cheerfully shoot if I knew I'd win. But I'm sensible enough not to end up as a pathetic epitaph of how I "heroically

The skull and crossbones, so beloved of pirates was similarly a choice for the ship: we're pirates. Give up and escape with your lives. I imagine most did. If you resisted too much, the red flag came up, which meant no quarter given.

~:smoking:

Husar

04-12-2009, 13:01

If you were a ships captain, why would you want to get shot in a situation where you're not going to suffer yourself?
Well, he probably thinks he won't get shot but will shoot you instead.
And he may not think otherwise until your RPG has blown away his legs and lower intestines

Drop the tough guy-face, please. Let's see, you're a captain. You have a wife and children at home. Your employer won't care if he gets robbed, and will pay your ransom quickly. Why on earth would you turn a smooth situation into one where your kids might end up without a father?
Because some philosopher said it's better to die in your feet than wait for a ransom on your knees. A philosopher who has probably never seen violence I might add.

That's just my hypothetical answer of course , not like I'm actually trying to answer for someone else. ~;)

Furunculus

04-12-2009, 15:06

pirates are a scourge, and not to be tolerated by any civilised person.

they were rightly hunted down like vermin and hung from the yard-arm when caught.

i don't advocate that everyone has to act like 'rambo', but i do believe that every legal mechanism should support any measures a captain is willing to take in defence of his ship.

that amercian crew did an amazing job to defend their ship from the pirates, if they'd had one man with a barrat punching bloody great holes through the hulls of those 'fishing' vessels then they would have got away. equally they would have the option of punching great bloody holes in the chest of any excitable little fellow who started waving rpg's around. i cheer everything they have done.

KarlXII

04-12-2009, 18:46

Captain saved, 3 out of 4 pirates killed. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html)

rory_20_uk

04-12-2009, 19:11

So room for improvement there then. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Furunculus

04-12-2009, 20:20

nice work, better luck next time.

no wait, what am i saying, what about their rights..................?

oh yeah, they're vermin so i don't care. :idea2:

KarlXII

04-12-2009, 21:19

Captain took the initiative and dived off the lifeboat, allowing the SEAL team to shoot the 3 pirates. The other pirate was negotiating a ransom when this occured, and he was arrested on the spot.

Crazed Rabbit

04-12-2009, 21:24

Is that because it makes sense ?

So with have two current examples , one followed the guidelines set out and one didn't , one ship is sailing on its way with crew and cargo safe and intact , one is missing its captain .
So who got it right ?
The Isreali crew who rigged water hoses , lights and barbed wire so they drove off the pirates or the American crew who fought back without ensuring that all crew were safe .

Um, the way the American crew tells it, the Captain gave himself up so that the rest could be safe - rather different from what your version implies, isn't it? But then, letting the truth get in the way of a dig at the US is never fun, is it?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97H4B680&show_article=1

Crew members said their ordeal had begun with the Somali pirates hauling themselves up from a small boat bobbing on the surface of the Indian Ocean far below.

As the pirates shot in the air, Phillips told his crew to lock themselves in a cabin and surrendered himself to safeguard his men, crew members said.

Phillips was then held hostage in an enclosed lifeboat that was closely watched by U.S. warships and a helicopter in an increasingly tense standoff. On Friday, the French navy freed a sailboat seized off Somalia last week by other pirates, but one of the five hostages was killed.

Anyways, glad to hear this had a happy ending. Hurrah for the SEALs! Hopefully the pirates willthink twice before going after another American flagged vessel.

CR

KarlXII

04-12-2009, 21:29

Anyways, glad to hear this had a happy ending. Hurrah for the SEALs! Hopefully the pirates willthink twice before going after another American flagged vessel.

CR

Hopefully we'll make them think twice about going after any vessel.

Tribesman

04-12-2009, 22:24

Um, the way the American crew tells it, the Captain gave himself up so that the rest could be safe - rather different from what your version implies, isn't it? But then, letting the truth get in the way of a dig at the US is never fun, is it?

No Rabbit , the Captain had to stay behind while the rest of the crew locked themselves in the steering compartment .That put him in the hands of the pirates .
That was all well and good , following the correct proceedures .
It was once the crew captured one of the pirates that the situation became more complicated and put the Captain in a worse position , so they released the pirate to try and rectify the situation ....but that didn't work did it

Um , the way the crew tells it eh . :inquisitive: So have you read the way Quinn told it ?

Hosakawa Tito

04-13-2009, 00:26

The crew chose not to be victims and took advantage of the pirate's mistake, overconfidence and the false belief that fear would render them incapable of resistance. Sending one armed pirate with two unsecured/unfrisked crew members to the engine room was a big mistake. Oorah to the Chief & his mate for having the stones to disarm the pirate. Turned the tables on the rats and eventually led to short careers for 3 of them. Their choice. The FBI should make pirate number 4 a deal he can't refuse.

Brave men, the lot of them.:bow:

FactionHeir

04-13-2009, 01:18

Looks like it was indeed snipers that took the pirates out. Maybe they read the backroom? :grin2:

Lemur

04-13-2009, 01:31

Can we still blame Obama? If not for this, then for something else?

Seamus Fermanagh

04-13-2009, 01:48

Can we still blame Obama? If not for this, then for something else?

Kenya is reasonably close to Somalia isn't it? Enough to drag Obama in somehow surely?

Don Corleone

04-13-2009, 01:52

Can we still blame Obama? If not for this, then for something else?

I can admit when I'm wrong. I've been gnashing my teeth over his "vote present" attitude and refusing to discuss the matter. I'm very happy to be proven wrong on his approach on this matter, and I'm happy to see that the captain escaped unharmed.

I agree that something needs to be done to rectify the overall situation in Somalia, but that in no way excuses the behavior of the pirates themselves. I'm sorry over the loss of life, but only in the general sense.

Hooahguy

04-13-2009, 01:56

good to hear that the sailors have been rescued!
:bow:

Lemur

04-13-2009, 05:15

I've been gnashing my teeth over his "vote present" attitude and refusing to discuss the matter.
Well, if it makes you feel any better, reports are that Obama merely "approved" a plan (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/04/obama-approved.html) presented by Gates and Special Forces command. You'll note that he didn't draw up the plan himself, and he didn't man any of the guns or shoot any of the pirates. Really, he's an ineffectual paper-pusher who wouldn't know John Rambo from John Holmes.

Between this and his half-bow to some Saudi princeling, I think it's still safe to yell "Obama!" like William Shatner in Wrath of Khan.

a completely inoffensive name

04-13-2009, 06:40

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

Banquo's Ghost

04-13-2009, 09:57

I'm pleased for the captain that this situation has been resolved, though saddened by the loss of life. I can't fathom why the Somalians didn't realise their number was up and surrender.

I can admit when I'm wrong. I've been gnashing my teeth over his "vote present" attitude and refusing to discuss the matter.

What is a "vote present" attitude, please?

I'm intrigued why you think the Commander in Chief should be discussing options in public. Wouldn't that rather compromise any operation, such as the one just completed?

I agree that something needs to be done to rectify the overall situation in Somalia, but that in no way excuses the behavior of the pirates themselves. I'm sorry over the loss of life, but only in the general sense.

Well, you will be pleased to know that the substantive solution is pretty much a European one. I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our toxic waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We won't act on those crimes – the only sane solution to this problem – but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 per cent of the world's oil supply, we swiftly send in the gunboats.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail – but who is the robber?

I wonder what Sir Francis Drake would have done?

Slyspy

04-13-2009, 10:52

That's easy, he would have attacked ships and looted towns in a rather bloody fashion. Only Spanish ones though, so that makes it ok. No need to be indiscriminate!

PershsNhpios

04-13-2009, 13:13

I think we are looking at this the wrong way.

Husar is right.
The Somalian people have very few means of actually maintaining an existence, and it is plunged in perpetual poverty.
Therefore the people must seek an alternative, international way to sustain their lives.
Imagine if you were an impoverished Somalian, and you could not find a job.
What would you do?

You are surrounded by a hostile and barbarous people and cannot seek assistance from the snotty 'civilised' world, you therefore must be self-dependent.
But the Somalian land is horrid for agriculture, so, being adaptable, you take to the sea.

We in the western world have so much wealth, and so much therefore to protect.
If we lose a bobble here and a bangle there because an african is starving, what harm do we really suffer, here at home?

Nothing at all.

No, indeed, if we are feeding them through this means, by allowing for some fodder to pass by that way and fall prey, indeed, we are doing no less good for Africa than the Red Cross and the U.N.

See, there are people who keep pet snakes, and they feed their snake young rats.

But there are people who keep pet rats too, and they would not feed their pet to a snake.

So you see, we need to stop being rat lovers, and start feeding them to the snake.

Pirates are people too.

Strike For The South

04-13-2009, 14:53

rory_20_uk

04-13-2009, 15:07

Assigning everything the right to life clearly isn't what I do. My actions on a daily basis kill billions of organisms which I assign a less worthy form of life than those I save. without assigning myself a snake or rat lover I am definitely a pirate despiser.

International waters are to what? 12 miles. So, unless Somalia is demanding ownership of waters up to and including the Indian ocean this is a threadbare justification.

What percentage of ships were captured in these waters?

How many were fishing boats? Possibly they thought the cargo boats and oil tankers were very advanced fishing boats...

I would also imagine that if Somalia had a functioning government, everyone was fed and fair, there'd still be pirates as what other job pays this well (assuming that the government turned a blind eye to the pirates).

So, catch 'em and shoot 'em. And if you're American , resist the urge to scalp them for bounty payments.

~:smoking:

Lemur

04-13-2009, 16:24

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against.
When did this meme take over? First Tribes uses it as a justification for never sourcing his arguments, and now you're saying it?

I love to read the articles. I post links to source constantly. I'm always amazed at how many Orgahs not only follow the links but find things in the articles that I missed.

Let's quash this thought before it goes completely viral. It is worthwhile to post sources and links, and people do read them. Sure, some don't, but that's hardly a reason to strip our debates of reference and resource.

seireikhaan

04-13-2009, 16:25

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!
Yes?

Crazed Rabbit

04-13-2009, 19:36

Well, you will be pleased to know that the substantive solution is pretty much a European one. I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.

Oh please. That's a good PR line that people like Hari will swallow because then they can bash the UK and not the Somali pirates.

The pirates are clearly not doing this as a reaction against alleged toxic waste dumping or overfishing, but for one reason; money. The evidence is clear in what ships the pirates are attacking; are they just fishing vessels? No, it's what gets them money.

CR

Banquo's Ghost

04-13-2009, 19:59

When did this meme take over? First Tribes uses it as a justification for never sourcing his arguments, and now you're saying it?

Maybe I'm just being over sensitive, but there's been several topics recently that went straight off the rails and it was evident that no-one bothered to read the article provided, just threw out their standard line.

That's always been the Backroom, but it seemed particularly prevalent of late. Apologies if it seemed like I was establishing a meme - I agree with your post as a whole.

Relaxes, believing that no-one has spotted the reality of my alt account...:sweatdrop:

Oh please. That's a good PR line that people like Hari will swallow because then they can bash the UK and not the Somali pirates.

Oh good. Now that we know the whole thing is merely the imagination of a writer you don't like, the problem can go back to being nicely black and white.

FactionHeir

04-13-2009, 19:59

Pirate Hussein vows revenge against French and Americans (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090413/twl-obama-urged-to-stamp-out-pirates-41f21e0.html)

Kind of expected, but I imagine that if they do start injuring/killing people rather than just kidnapping them (which is bad enough), there is likely to be an escalation of force on both sides.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 20:00

Banquo's Ghost

04-13-2009, 20:03

That article is amusing, in a way. First, we dump nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia, and people miles away begin to get sick and die at alarming rates. Next, we start overfishing in the same places. We seem to be alright.

Therefore, one of the above seems to be a lie...

OK, forget it. The whole thing is just about bad men with eye patches. Eradicate all those with the sign of Cain and we're fixed.

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 20:12

The pirates are clearly not doing this as a reaction against alleged toxic waste dumping
"alledged" ???? did you read the link and follow the links off it ?
You sound just like those people on the comments section talking about Hari making stuff up because they don't like what he said as it doesn't agree with their views and can't be arsed to find out if their views are actually wrong:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

When did this meme take over? First Tribes uses it as a justification for never sourcing his arguments, and now you're saying it?
See above :2thumbsup:

It is worthwhile to post sources and links,
No it isn't , it is worthwhile when you have someone stridently sticking to a position when you know they are not closed minded but just misinformed . For example if you had a disagreement with someone like Redleg and wanted to show a UN document or a theological interpretation of scripture by a respected Rabbi then you would provide a nice link as a last resort

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 20:18

OK, forget it. The whole thing is just about bad men with eye patches. Eradicate all those with the sign of Cain and we're fixed.

They're poor, we know. That might explain it, but it does not excuse it.

Lemur

04-13-2009, 20:22

No it isn't , it is worthwhile when you have someone stridently sticking to a position when you know they are not closed minded but just misinformed .
Two errors in this position:

You are assuming that you can accurately identify who is "closed minded" every time. This imputes omniscience on your part, and ignores your own capacity to make mistakes. Always a bad idea.
You are ignoring the fact that other people read the threads. So even if an ideologue ignores your sources, by linking to good, solid information you may give other Orgahs a basis on which to come to their own (perhaps less ideologically blinded) conclusions.

In fact, the refusal to post links and sources, even when you have them easily available, shows something bordering on contempt for your fellow Orgahs. Bad form, old chap.

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 20:32

That might explain it, but it does not excuse it.
There lies the problem , some people see an explaination as an excuse , others see it as an explaination for consideration in forming views .
Its kinda like people pointing out the rubbbish that was touted about Iraq getting labeled as Saddam apologists who wanted to excuse a dictator when all they was saying is that some people are talking rubbish without looking at the subject

rory_20_uk

04-13-2009, 20:35

How do the Somalis know this fishing is taking place? What technology do they have to monitor the waters 12 miles out to sea? American warships seem to be having difficulties.

They have very good eyesight. They can see ships 12 miles off the coast. Astonishing... :inquisitive:
If you're going to dump toxic materials, why bother going within 12 miles of the coast, when you can just as easily dump them anywhere - preferably in a deeper chasm.

A sieve holds more water. Even assuming utter avarice these charges of dumping make no sense; charges of fish theft are more plausible but only just.

And as Evil_Maniac From Mars points out we like our fish as far as possible free of heavy metals - especially when they're radioactive.

~:smoking:

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 20:43

You are assuming that you can accurately identify who is "closed minded" every time. This imputes omniscience on your part, and ignores your own capacity to make mistakes. Always a bad idea.
Not in the slightest , for starters in the main the strident repetition of factual errors when an opposing view has been put forward is generally a good indication , secondly posting a link on the open forum is not the only method of supplying linked information for a poster to view .
Besides which I often name easily identifiable and simply found sources so people can look for themselves (though I did get a ban for doing that once}

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 20:52

Not in the slightest , for starters in the main the strident repetition of factual errors when an opposing view has been put forward is generally a good indication , secondly posting a link on the open forum is not the only method of supplying linked information for a poster to view .

This is also presuming you are always right, or that there is only one version of the facts and that you possess it. On the other hand, I admit that this is a vice of every internet debater on the planet...

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 20:57

How do the Somalis know this fishing is taking place? What technology do they have to monitor the waters 12 miles out to sea? American warships seem to be having difficulties.

Keep up to date Rory , one complaint the Naval forces are using is that the pirates are using all the latest maritime technology so they not only know what all the vessels in the area are , what they are doing , what they are carrying and where they are going , but they also know where all the warships are and so avoiding them .
Its a problem the Navy has , all the pirtes have to do is look out for what is handy for them , while the navies have to watch every little thing that floats in case one little thing comes in handy for them .
BTW 12 miles :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

And as Evil_Maniac From Mars points out we like our fish as far as possible free of heavy metals - especially when they're radioactive.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Come off it , your fishmonger could be serving you scallops from dounreay and you would be none the wiser

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 21:08

This is also presuming you are always right, or that there is only one version of the facts and that you possess it.
Fair enough , I could for example link to amazing non existant legislation eh Mars:oops:

And then even after people posted other links that proved pretty comprehensively the legislation as non existant and for good measure post all the relevant actual existing legislation , I could still maintain that something was against the law when there was no law against it .:yes:

rory_20_uk

04-13-2009, 21:10

12 miles is international waters. I've not found any source that states otherwise.

Unless illegal fishing trawlers are broadcasting that they're illegally fishing I fail to see how the technology helps the Somalis.

"Handy for them"? They're stopping the fishing, right?

With all the tech they've got they must be pretty annoyed at the number of other ships they keep accidentally taking, and their GPS is way off if they're trying to protect their coastline...

EDIT: Sorry, rory, that map was hotlinked. Please host it yourself. BG

If you look closely if even helpfully shows where the 12 nautical mile line is...

There is such a concept as health and safety - of which this country has plenty. And even if the safety of the individuals isn't important, if a company got caught selling food with vastly increased levels of toxins the bad PR would cripple it.

~:smoking:

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 21:29

12 miles is international waters. I've not found any source that states otherwise.
So you can't find a source that states Somali territorial waters are extending to 370 kilometers from the water line (of cousre excluding the portions which would be the wrong side of their neighbours median line) ?
Have you tried looking ? It isn't hard to find , there are not that many African countries that share the same territorial limit .
BTW rory , if perhaps someone suggests that you havn't been keeping up to date , does posting a non up to date map reinforce that ?
Thanks for the link though , I usually go through the maritime union which has the UNOSAT stuff on it , but you went straight with an outdated link to UNOSAT

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 21:55

Fair enough , I could for example link to amazing non existant legislation eh Mars:oops:

And then even after people posted other links that proved pretty comprehensively the legislation as non existant and for good measure post all the relevant actual existing legislation , I could still maintain that something was against the law when there was no law against it .:yes:

:rolleyes:

Way to grasp at straws...

rory_20_uk

04-13-2009, 21:59

That's the exclusive economic zone, isn't it? Not territorial waters.

Has the boundary been ratified? They've got until May 13th. Could be tough with no government.

No, I'm not up to date with international laws concerning coastal waters. I'd hazard you aren't either.

~:smoking:

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 22:06

That's the exclusive economic zone, isn't it? Not territorial waters.

Nope , it just happens that Somalia is one of the 7 countries with a big claim when it comes to territorial waters .

I'd hazard you aren't either.
Would that be a maritime hazard ? As there are international laws concerning those .
Just out of interest Rory ,how many times has maritime legislation come up in topics here in the recent past . Say for example the fiaso in Iraq with the British navy , the ridiculuous propoganda in the straights of Hormuz, the french and later EU introduction of convoys to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden , arming civilian ships . Have you really not read up on maritime law ?

Way to grasp at straws...
Well I would have thought that clinging to non existant legislation to justify an arguement was by definition grasping at straws.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-13-2009, 22:08

Well I would have thought that clinging to non existant legislation to justify an arguement was by definition grasping at straws.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The Hague Conventions don't exist? :inquisitive:

Tribesman

04-13-2009, 22:54

The Hague Conventions don't exist?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
yes they exist , you had big trouble finding the relative clauses though and still coulndn't understand the applicable get out clauses that went with them .
However the proposed law which was never adopted which you kept harping on about as making the action illegal was never law .

rory_20_uk

04-13-2009, 23:01

Just out of interest Rory ,how many times has maritime legislation come up in topics here in the recent past . Say for example the fiasco in Iraq with the British navy , the ridiculous propaganda in the straights of Hormuz, the French and later EU introduction of convoys to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden, arming civilian ships. Have you really not read up on maritime law?

I've looked at bits but I would not class my self as up to date as I am aware that it is a large topic and it would be arrogant to appear to know everything whilst making errors.

My excuses would include an exam coming up in May which if I fail costs me not only £1300 but an extra year of training, and a relative who has had a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Getting her the care that the NHS theoretically provides also has taken up a lot of time and effort.

~:smoking:

PershsNhpios

04-13-2009, 23:34

Look at that map, you will note that all of the attacks are marked in a vibrant red, and all pirate engagements are shown with skulls and crossbones and all manner of foolishness.

That means that this is only a psychological problem; whoever made that map is trying to blow things way out of proportion.

Look at the capture in Mogadishu; the ship was taken 2007, ship was released, 2007.

I don't see what there is to worry about.

One can make the map of the tour de france look monstrous if you scribble all over it with cartoon pirates and dragons.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-14-2009, 02:39

Nope , it just happens that Somalia is one of the 7 countries with a big claim when it comes to territorial waters.

Does that mean we have to accept and respond to that territorial claim as though it were valid even if our nations have not accepted that claim?

Tribesman

04-14-2009, 07:59

Does that mean we have to accept and respond to that territorial claim as though it were valid even if our nations have not accepted that claim?

Well you had a small problem before when your government chose to demonstrate that it didn't recognise a territorial claim . It led to a fake claim of outrage that your "innocent" warships had been attacked in international waters..which ledto a war you couldn't win .
So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

Crazed Rabbit

04-14-2009, 09:50

"alledged" ???? did you read the link and follow the links off it ?
You sound just like those people on the comments section talking about Hari making stuff up because they don't like what he said as it doesn't agree with their views and can't be arsed to find out if their views are actually wrong

What "links off it"?

As for proof, Hari offered only this:

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."

So, yeah, I refer to it as alleged since I see allegations but no proof. No links or directions to any proof either.

Now, if you've got such proof, why not show it here? Oh wait, that would mean letting other people see what you're basing your posts on. And then you wouldn't have any advantage of information, now would you?

Your whole system here is based on hiding your sources. I have to think it's because you'd be rather irrelevant if you couldn't play your games by making snarky remarks based on sources only you've read.

Oh good. Now that we know the whole thing is merely the imagination of a writer you don't like, the problem can go back to being nicely black and white.
:strawman1:
Even if the whole toxic dumping thing is true, I don't see the pirates stopping if the dumping suddenly stopped.

CR

rory_20_uk

04-14-2009, 09:53

Well you had a small problem before when your government chose to demonstrate that it didn't recognise a territorial claim . It led to a fake claim of outrage that your "innocent" warships had been attacked in international waters..which ledto a war you couldn't win .
So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

Not really.

Sailing in the area is allowed. In your example, the country would be aggressively acting against the ships; the warships would be being aggressive if they used gunboat diplomacy and started bombarding the coast.
There is no recognised government in Somalia. Diplomicy? With who? Act of war. Against which country when there's no government?

~:smoking:

PershsNhpios

04-14-2009, 11:07

I think this thread is beginning to show that the pirates are actually the victims in this situation.

Furunculus

04-14-2009, 12:49

bizarre, that isn't the impression i am getting.................

Louis VI the Fat

04-14-2009, 17:24

I'm pleased for the captain that this situation has been resolved, though saddened by the loss of life. I can't fathom why the Somalians didn't realise their number was up and surrender.To answer that last question: they didn't realise their number was up because in many previous instances ransom was paid.

Somali /Yemenite kidnappings are perfectly rational. The stories so far have been ones of consistently rational, logical behaviour by the pirates. The hostages are never hurt, they have all been treated well, and the pirates have shown themselves perfectly reliable negotiation partners.

This is why their business came to be so lucrative. Their rationality meant that paying an (often insured) ransom was (in the short term) the most logical, certainly most reliable, course of action. However, because it proved to be so lucrative, it has gotten completely out of hand.

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.Some food for thought:

- South East Asia suffered heavy piracy a few years ago. West Africa* suffers heavy piracy too. Were their seas depleted of fish as well?

*Incidentally, the Security Council has adopted resolutions granting means to curb piracy along the Red Sea / Suez trade route.
However, a French Security Council resolution to grant similar means to curb West African piracy was veto'ed by China. Chinese trading only marginally runs along West Africa. Cynical Chinese power politics to sabotage other countries interests in Africa? Revenge for Sarkozy's remarks about the Dalai Lama?
Either way, a storm is still brewing on the other side of the African continent.

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

- Kidnapping originated as a land problem in the region. Kidnappings and the ransoming of foreigners are an ancient tradition. Especially in Yemen. The widespread practice has spread from land to sea.

So an explanation needs more than 'fish and toxic waste'. Depleted fishing grounds did not lead to piracy elsewhere, and much piracy elsewhere is not the result of depleted fishing grounds.

In my view, the missing explanation here is one of a failed state. This is the unique problem of Somalia. Somalia is not a country of starving fishermen. Of poor, suffering Africans - Africans usually do not comply with the stereotype of passive, poor victims. Somalia is instead a country of warlords. Of armed gangs. Actively seeking out their own fortunes.
At any rate, toxic waste dumping certainly wasn't a motivation for their armed acts of violence within Somalia.

I say Hari suffers from Western post-colonial superiority thinking. As ever, it is well-intended. Equally as ever, it reduces Africans from active agents to passive victims.
His line of reasoning fits the old mauld of a Western-centrist scheme of thinking: the West is all-powerful, the agent of everything good and bad in the Third World. As opposed to passive Africans, incapable of being the agent of their own course of action. Any event in Africa, whatsoever - to be traced to some evil Western act. Victimhood as the sole, inalieble state of being of Africans. Etc.

As a provocative piece of journalism, Hari's article has its value. There are more sides to the story than meets the eye at first sight. As an explanation, Hari is, at best, thoroughly incomplete. And at worst, more resembling of the Western Imperialist mind that he tries to overcome than he realises.

Banquo's Ghost

04-14-2009, 18:33

Thank you, Louis, for a thoughtful rebuttal. You make some excellent points, which I will have to ponder further.

:bow:

Tribesman

04-14-2009, 19:16

What "links off it"?

The links .

So, yeah, I refer to it as alleged since I see allegations but no proof. No links or directions to any proof either.

Perhaps you should follow the links .

Now, if you've got such proof, why not show it here?
errrr .....because they are already on the article that was linked .

Your whole system here is based on hiding your sources.
The links are on the link that was posted , why not try reading it again .

I have to think it's because you'd be rather irrelevant if you couldn't play your games by making snarky remarks based on sources only you've read.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The information is there for anyone to read , just go to the page that was linked and follow the links on that page .:yes:

There is no recognised government in Somalia. Diplomicy? With who? Act of war. Against which country when there's no government?

yes there is , the TNG is the internationally recognised government in Somalia . You are mixing up issues and events . The anti pollution and anti illegal fishing stuff was done under the other "government" , they also clamped down on piracy as well as other crime , that is because it was run by local business interests who wanted some sort of stability and progress , at that time the recognised government were busy sulking and doing nothing apart from arguing with each other over which warlord should get which job and which region as their own little fiefdom
Since the invasion the warlords (recognised government)are back and they have gone into the piracy again in a big way because all they are interested in is making a quick buck before they have to skulk off again .

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

Good point Louis , then again many traditional fishing communities are being paid by their governments to do less fishing or to change job entirely . Though you don't have to look far to find fishermen that have gone into other lucrative illegal enterprises with their boats

Seamus Fermanagh

04-14-2009, 20:30

So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

So we can dispute it diplomatically, where the likely result is a polite "get stuffed." [Not the only possible result of course, but probably the most likely]

OR

We can dispute it militarily, by "showing the flag" in waters they claim, in which case by so doing we are committing an act of war againt the Somalis.* I assume you would apply this equally to any foreign power so doing?

Bit of a lose-lose the way you frame it.

So, in your take Tribes, our only practical response is to -- at least de facto -- accept that they have full territorial control out to 200nm, keeping all warships outside that limit without express Somali permission. Am I summarizing correctly?

*Note: I would only acknowledge an act or war to have occurred if Somalis fire on us or we upon them, but that's my take on things.

Furunculus

04-14-2009, 21:58

To answer that last question: they didn't realise their number was up because in many previous instances ransom was paid.

Somali /Yemenite kidnappings are perfectly rational. The stories so far have been ones of consistently rational, logical behaviour by the pirates. The hostages are never hurt, they have all been treated well, and the pirates have shown themselves perfectly reliable negotiation partners.

This is why their business came to be so lucrative. Their rationality meant that paying an (often insured) ransom was (in the short term) the most logical, certainly most reliable, course of action. However, because it proved to be so lucrative, it has gotten completely out of hand.

Some food for thought:

- South East Asia suffered heavy piracy a few years ago. West Africa* suffers heavy piracy too. Were their seas depleted of fish as well?

*Incidentally, the Security Council has adopted resolutions granting means to curb piracy along the Red Sea / Suez trade route.
However, a French Security Council resolution to grant similar means to curb West African piracy was veto'ed by China. Chinese trading only marginally runs along West Africa. Cynical Chinese power politics to sabotage other countries interests in Africa? Revenge for Sarkozy's remarks about the Dalai Lama?
Either way, a storm is still brewing on the other side of the African continent.

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

- Kidnapping originated as a land problem in the region. Kidnappings and the ransoming of foreigners are an ancient tradition. Especially in Yemen. The widespread practice has spread from land to sea.

So an explanation needs more than 'fish and toxic waste'. Depleted fishing grounds did not lead to piracy elsewhere, and much piracy elsewhere is not the result of depleted fishing grounds.

In my view, the missing explanation here is one of a failed state. This is the unique problem of Somalia. Somalia is not a country of starving fishermen. Of poor, suffering Africans - Africans usually do not comply with the stereotype of passive, poor victims. Somalia is instead a country of warlords. Of armed gangs. Actively seeking out their own fortunes.
At any rate, toxic waste dumping certainly wasn't a motivation for their armed acts of violence within Somalia.

I say Hari suffers from Western post-colonial superiority thinking. As ever, it is well-intended. Equally as ever, it reduces Africans from active agents to passive victims.
His line of reasoning fits the old mauld of a Western-centrist scheme of thinking: the West is all-powerful, the agent of everything good and bad in the Third World. As opposed to passive Africans, incapable of being the agent of their own course of action. Any event in Africa, whatsoever - to be traced to some evil Western act. Victimhood as the sole, inalieble state of being of Africans. Etc.

As a provocative piece of journalism, Hari's article has its value. There are more sides to the story than meets the eye at first sight. As an explanation, Hari is, at best, thoroughly incomplete. And at worst, more resembling of the Western Imperialist mind that he tries to overcome than he realises.
excellent post louis, the best yet in response to the questions BG raised.

Tribesman

04-14-2009, 22:08

Bit of a lose-lose the way you frame it.

Yep , it is isn't it , and expect more of it , look at the recent Russian extensions of their claims , the Iran/Iraq Iran/UAE disputes , the ongoing crap about Rockall , or for a really complicated one the spratley islands .

*Note: I would only acknowledge an act or war to have occurred if Somalis fire on us or we upon them, but that's my take on things.
Well that depends , when the Maddox (among others) was ordered to operate inside the 12 mile limit to demonstrate that America only recognised the 3 mile limit then that was an act of agression to dispute a territorial claim which is an act of war .

So, in your take Tribes, our only practical response is to -- at least de facto -- accept that they have full territorial control out to 200nm, keeping all warships outside that limit without express Somali permission. Am I summarizing correctly?

No , warships still have the right of innocent passage , though the country which claims the waters can dispute the innocence of the vessels present . Just like Iran did with the British navy as the navy boats were not doing an innocent transit which is why the admiralty (and the UN whose mandate they were operating under) said they shouldn't enter the disputed area .
But since this concerns illegal fishing and waste dumping then somalia is in the right as it claims them as territorial waters and that gives them jurisdiction over exploition of resources and pollution incidents, piracy is different as that is a global crime where everyone has jurisdiction .

Tribesman

04-15-2009, 15:12

Hopefully the pirates willthink twice before going after another American flagged vessel.

Well you can always hope , but the pirates have attacked another US flagged vessel today .

Furunculus

04-15-2009, 15:32

i'm not surprised, there has been only one retaliation so far, but i guarentee that if the US makes a habit of killing pirates then pirates will make a habit of attacking non-US ships.

Tribesman

04-15-2009, 15:47

i'm not surprised, there has been only one retaliation so far, but i guarentee that if the US makes a habit of killing pirates then pirates will make a habit of attacking non-US ships.
The French have got a habit of killing pirates , the pirates still have a habit of attacking French ships

FactionHeir

04-15-2009, 16:32

French also pursued and captured 11 more pirates today.

Furunculus

04-15-2009, 17:00

The French have got a habit of killing pirates , the pirates still have a habit of attacking French ships

it takes time and comittment, no doubt about it. this isn't the first time pirates have been squashed after all.

rory_20_uk

04-15-2009, 17:13

Pirates are like vermin. Both need to be exterminated, both flourish in ruins and both reappear whenever due villigence is not maintained.

Not seen the news on the French, but pleased to see they're not cluttering up the courts with asylum seeking pleas.

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

04-15-2009, 17:23

A French warship has captured 11 pirates off the coast of Kenya, amid calls for the international community to deal with the problem of piracy.

The pirates were captured by a warship from an EU piracy patrol, French officials said, hours after a failed attack on a US ship. The latest attack involved pirates firing rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at a US-flagged cargo ship, the Liberty Sun, which was carrying food aid for Africa.Bless the EU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8000447.stm) for its pro-active stance. Nothing a voluntary association of two dozen democracies can't achieve.

And fear not, Americans! We got them - they already thoroughly regret their attack on an American ship earlier today.

:france: :eu:

Don Corleone

04-15-2009, 19:45

Sorry for the delayed response there, chief.

What is a "vote present" attitude, please?

Rather than taking an active position for or against particular legislation, President Obama set new records with recording a "present" vote (essentially abstaining) while serving as a legislator in the Illinois State House. He brought that trick with him to the Senate, and I was expressing dismay that it would guide his executive policies as well, and relief that early signs seem to point to my being mistaken in that belief.

I'm intrigued why you think the Commander in Chief should be discussing options in public. Wouldn't that rather compromise any operation, such as the one just completed?

Commenting on the planning of a response? Absolutely, he should keep quiet about it. Expressing outrage? Seems like a no-brainer. I would have thought he would have made a pretty loud saber rattling speech about the whole affair within the first couple of days.

Husar

04-15-2009, 20:37

Pirates are like vermin. Both need to be exterminated, both flourish in ruins and both reappear whenever due villigence is not maintained.

Yes, that's why we got SecuROM, StarForce and Steam. :mellow:
Oh, and why the RIAA is suing family people for thousands of dollars for being pirates.

Banquo's Ghost

04-15-2009, 21:00

Rather than taking an active position for or against particular legislation, President Obama set new records with recording a "present" vote (essentially abstaining) while serving as a legislator in the Illinois State House. He brought that trick with him to the Senate, and I was expressing dismay that it would guide his executive policies as well, and relief that early signs seem to point to my being mistaken in that belief.

Ah, thank you for explaining. :bow:

Commenting on the planning of a response? Absolutely, he should keep quiet about it. Expressing outrage? Seems like a no-brainer. I would have thought he would have made a pretty loud saber rattling speech about the whole affair within the first couple of days.

I think sabre-rattling speeches are over-blown and usually counter-productive. Sometimes (hostages being a very good example) the bluster backfires and you look a right fool. Speak softly and carry a big stick, which is what he seems to have done - and sent a useful message into the bargain.

Tribesman

04-16-2009, 00:03

I think sabre-rattling speeches are over-blown and usually counter-productive.
Don't be silly , we meed Obama to do a good old wanted dead or alive ,with us or against us, round up a posse and launch a crusade to head the pirates off at the pass sorta speech .
Thats what real leaders do , and Obamas refusing to do it is just him selfishly denying people the oppertunity to laugh at him for it .

Vuk

04-19-2009, 14:43

Vuk

04-19-2009, 14:47

Speak softly and carry a big stick, which is what he seems to have done - and sent a useful message into the bargain.

Yeah, a big, slow stick, being swung by an indecisive CiC it sounds like. Not the ideal message we want to be sending. A fast, hard, accurate and effective strike would have sent a much better message than the sloppy job he did according to that article.

Tribesman

04-19-2009, 15:14

according to that article.
WND is known for reliability :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Vuk

04-19-2009, 15:25

WND is known for reliability :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Would have been better if I linked to New York Times, huh? :P I do not visit WND, I got this article from a friend, so I do not know how reliable it is, but a quick google search did not bring up any reason for me to believe it is an unreliable site.

Strike For The South

04-19-2009, 17:40

Would have been better if I linked to New York Times, huh? :P I do not visit WND, I got this article from a friend, so I do not know how reliable it is, but a quick google search did not bring up any reason for me to believe it is an unreliable site.

Every time you link to WND God kills an infant

when this is the top headline (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95456)

Husar

04-20-2009, 00:46

Not sure if you all have seen this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95451), but it looks like our dear pres was playing political games with this man's life. If the SEALS could have taken them out with less risk to the captain, why the :daisy: was it not done? Why did it take Obama so long to make up his mind in a situation like this that could have gotten ugly in a split second. Sure, we don't want to rush into things like idiots, but at the same time, we need someone who can make logical and fully thought out decision in a very pressed time frame. That is one of the most important things that a Commander in Chief should be judged on. If he is this slow with a tiny situtation like this, how is he gonna be when he has something really serious, where the actions he takes could result in WWIII or in a peaceful resolution? If what this article says is true, I think Mr Obama is a pretty poor CiC indeed. :no:

So you really think the pirates would have shot the guy? And what would then have stopped the SEALs from shooting the pirates? So if the pirates where trying to get out alive, why would they shoot the guy? The only reason they could not get away alive and release the captain was that the US forces did not want them to, they endangered the captain by not allowing the pirates to escape in the first place.
The only reason to shoot the captain would have been to take him with them if they thought they'd die anyway. the pirates make mones with ransoms, once they start killing people they start destroying their own "business". :dizzy2:
I'd say the captain endangered himself when he jumped off the boat, the pirates could have shot him if his life hadn't been that important for their own.

Lemur

04-20-2009, 04:22

In other words, no matter what happens, we can still blame Obama. That's a relief.

Would have been better if I linked to New York Times, huh? :P
Yeah, why bother with any media outlet that even tries to be accurate? Everybody knows that sourced reporting has a liberal bias.

P.S.: Vuk, I have an article about how Obama bathes in the blood of virgins in a vain attempt to preserve his youth. You're gonna love it!

Furunculus

04-20-2009, 10:08

So you really think the pirates would have shot the guy? And what would then have stopped the SEALs from shooting the pirates? So if the pirates where trying to get out alive, why would they shoot the guy? The only reason they could not get away alive and release the captain was that the US forces did not want them to, they endangered the captain by not allowing the pirates to escape in the first place.
The only reason to shoot the captain would have been to take him with them if they thought they'd die anyway. the pirates make mones with ransoms, once they start killing people they start destroying their own "business". :dizzy2:
I'd say the captain endangered himself when he jumped off the boat, the pirates could have shot him if his life hadn't been that important for their own.

and of course people are perfectly rational when they are staring down the barrel of a warship whilst committing an illegal act which gives carte blanche to anybody to retaliate against you..............

Husar

04-20-2009, 16:29

and of course people are perfectly rational when they are staring down the barrel of a warship whilst committing an illegal act which gives carte blanche to anybody to retaliate against you..............

Yes, you're right, it would have been less dangerous for the captain without all those warships around... :idea2:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-20-2009, 17:10

Yes, you're right, it would have been less dangerous for the captain without all those warships around... :idea2:

Absolutely. And it would be far less dangerous if we just paid the ransom for the ship & crew promptly -- after all, the pirates have the primary rights to that property anyway. We should probably be thankful that they set the tolls so reasonably. :rolleyes3:

Furunculus

04-20-2009, 17:33

Yes, you're right, it would have been less dangerous for the captain without all those warships around... :idea2:

awesome idea, and when i'm being mugged the police shouldn't intervene either, as that may introduce additional risk to both myself, the mugger, and the police themselves.

it would be a brutal violation of all of our inalienable human right to personal safety, at all times, and in all circumstances, available to all, without discrimination of any kind (including common-sense), and supplied with a free bunny for all involved (not a living creature of course, that would be cruel).

Husar

04-20-2009, 17:38

Yes, protection is a good keyword, so where were those warships before the captain was taken hostage?
A sealane is not a big, busy city with millions of people, it should not be too hard to set up protected convoys but I guess it's easier to solve such hostage situations...

Swoosh So

04-21-2009, 17:11

Wow 6 pages and not 1 mention i can find of the reports that the reason behind the piracy is mainly due to illegal fishing and waste dumping in somali waters by the west.... Not saying i believe it but its the other side of the story not just theyre black and poor and have too which seems to be the position of many people on this thread, According to several news reports ive read most of these pirates were fishermen who can no longer make a living due to illegal fishing off their coast. I know that many of the pirates now are there for randsom money etc but from what i read it dident start out that way, many fishermen started doing it and the warlords got involved when they saw there was money to be made.

Some links if anyone interested

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/583781.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4312553.stm

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-02/2005-02-23-voa23.cfm

rory_20_uk

04-21-2009, 17:18

Yeah, we had those mentioned.

Amazing eyesight those chaps have to see hundreds of kilometers to those fishing.
And of course to illegally dump off someone's coast when there's deeper trenches further from land is just spiteful - and illogical.

~:smoking:

Swoosh So

04-21-2009, 17:29

And yet there was a un report about somalis falling sick from the waste that dredged up after the tsunami.. Its cheaper to dump there than in other waters of course as theres no active goverment.

Tribesman

04-21-2009, 17:47

Amazing eyesight those chaps have to see hundreds of kilometers to those fishing.

Yes amazing , like those cornish fishermen being able to see the morrocan based spanish boats all the way over in Africa .
Oh but they don't see that far do they , they see them when they are out on the fishing grounds:yes:

Vuk

04-21-2009, 17:48

Yeah, why bother with any media outlet that even tries to be accurate? Everybody knows that sourced reporting has a liberal bias.

P.S.: Vuk, I have an article about how Obama bathes in the blood of virgins in a vain attempt to preserve his youth. You're gonna love it!

lol Lemur...come on. Are you seriously denying that the New York Times is biased toward the left? That would be like me denying that Fox is biased toward the right. Give me a break, please.

Swoosh So

04-21-2009, 18:07

Id be more worried that you have such biased media, thats not true news and reporting your getting in such a case.

Lemur

04-21-2009, 18:34

lol Lemur...come on. Are you seriously denying that the New York Times is biased toward the left? That would be like me denying that Fox is biased toward the right. Give me a break, please.
Why the name change, Vuk?

I would argue that news sources that attempt to be accurate are more reliable than news sources that don't even bother, in much the same way that a man who attempts to be virtuous is superior to a man who doesn't try. They may both fail, but they fail in different ways, and one is objectively superior to the other.

Vuk

04-21-2009, 18:51

Why the name change, Vuk?

I would argue that news sources that attempt to be accurate are more reliable than news sources that don't even bother, in much the same way that a man who attempts to be virtuous is superior to a man who doesn't try. They may both fail, but they fail in different ways, and one is objectively superior to the other.

I changed my name as joke :P. I am gonna change it back when I get to, but I am imitating Pevergreen now. :P

I disagree with you there for two intertwined yet seperate reasons:

A: I believe not that the people at the NYT think they are being objective, but simply that they want readers to think that they are so more people will by their paper and so that they will have greater credibility. I think it is hypocracy that borders on dishonesty.
B: EVERYONE is biased, and every media outlet is biased. When when fools itself and tries to fool others into thinking that they are not, it is harder to take anything they say seriously when they are not upfront about where they are coming from. Think of it this way. A drug addict starts lobbying for legalised pot. Would you trust him more if you knew he was a drug addict and he denied it, or he was honest and said "Yeah, I am addicted to pot and I think it should be legalised because of..."
When someone is not honest about where they come from, you cannot trust them at all. It would be like me arguing for the right to carry and saying "I am completely unbiased, I do not own any guns". There is absolutely nothing wrong with bias, people's opinions are their biases and they should not lie about what they are.

EDIT: What you said about name change just made me think of something. Think of me comming onto a gun control thread with a new name and saying, "Well I am totally unbiased on this issue, but it looks to me like there is a better argument against gun control". It is dishonest to NOT admit your biases. They exist, and it does not make you dishonest to have them, it makes you dishonest to deny them.

Lemur

04-21-2009, 18:58

A: I believe not that the people at the NYT think they are being objective, but simply that they want readers to think that they are so more people will by their paper and so that they will have greater credibility.
Actually, if you know anything about the history of NYT, you'll know that this was exactly their marketing angle when they were founded in the middle of the Yellow Kid tabloid wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_kid). (Hence the phrase "yellow journalism.")

EVERYONE is biased, and every media outlet is biased. When when fools itself and tries to fool others into thinking that they are not, it is harder to take anything they say seriously when they are not upfront about where they are coming from.
I've heard of moral relativism, but this is the first case for factual relativism I've seen laid out. A question: From your perspective, is there any difference in credibility between a pure blog/opinion site (such as Daily Kos or WorldNewsDaily) and a site that attempts to perform actual reporting (such as The Economist or AP)?

Vuk

04-21-2009, 19:12

I've heard of moral relativism, but this is the first case for factual relativism I've seen laid out. A question: From your perspective, is there any difference in credibility between a pure blog/opinion site (such as Daily Kos or WorldNewsDaily) and a site that attempts to perform actual reporting (such as The Economist or AP)?

As far as bias? Usually not. What makes them different? Methodology.
It is like the historical method. You can have people arguing about history face to face and the conversation that unfolds would not be half as credible as if they sat down, did deep research, used the historical method to Analise their data, explained their prejudices and why they chose the sources they did, and then explain why they think the sources mean what they think they mean. Also, there ARE some good bloggers out there use good method and do more than rave. (some who may be a lot better than professional contributers to such publications such as the Economist) That does not mean that they are any less biased, it just means that they use good method.

EDIT: And I think an important (be it oft overlooked) part of good method is honesty about biases. A good historian never tries to hide their biases, but instead will seek to explain them and leave you to judge. I think the same goes for journalists and newspeople.

EDIT 2: Sorry, I am too tired tonight, I missed that about relavitism. :P That is not at all what I said. Two people can look at the same data and interpret it two different ways. Two opinions can exist without dishonesty. I was not talking about honesty at all.

Husar

04-22-2009, 12:36

Vuk

04-22-2009, 13:12

So how do you know the historical method to analyze data is not biased?

I also don't see what good the news of an openly biased news source are. Well, you can watch news from both sides and then you have two completely different stories and still no idea which parts of which story are true, so you use your "intellect" and go with whatever supports your prejudices on the subject. :dizzy2:

At least with a news agency that tries to be objective you get somewhat reliable news.

Biased does NOT equal untrue. Everyone is biased, that does not mean that everything everyone says is a lie. A credible person used good sources, cites their sources, explains their sources (which are there for everyone to see), and explains why they made him reach the conclusions he did. You can then disagree with his conclusions or not. Think of a Serb historian writing on the Bosnian war. Which way would you trust him more? When he doesn't tell you who he is or what his obvious biases are, and then goes on give his opinion, or when he honestly tells you who he is, explains his biases, then goes on to use evidence to support them. All you have to do is examine his evidence to tell whether he is right or wrong. It is dishonest to claim that you are unbiased when you are not.
News does not use the same methodology, but it is similar. Many times (I did not say most, cause I know I would not be able to find a credible source to back it up, but I truely believe) it is not the facts that are wrong in the News, it is how they are presented. Neither Fox News or NYT tries to present the facts in an unbiased way. What makes those facts anymore important than any others after all? It is what it means to you, the reporter. As such, almost every news story (esp political ones) HAS to have a bias. The bias usually does not affect the 'facts', but the presentation. Since the entire point of a presentation is to prove a point, it would be impossible for it to be unbiased. You want to know what biases the people have, because it explains their presentation. When someone claims to be unbiased then writes about a speech and takes everything the speaker did out of context and fails to mention thousands of people cheering for him, and instead writes only about the protester, then anyone who believes that he is unbiased will be tricked into seeing things his way, and his presentation will not be judged. When you have two people from different sides giving their own presentations about the same facts though, not only is it comforting that they are not lying about their biases, but now you can better understand what is happening by comparing the two accounts of the same thing. When someone hears a Fox News story critical of Obama, first thing they think is "I know Fox wants to make Obama look bad, I should try to find the other side of this". (Yeah, we closed minded conservatives do that too :P) When someone believes that the NYT is unbiased or at least tries to be and reads something critical about Bush in it though, they are going to be far less critical as to the story and much more readily accept the NYT account.
Any news source that actively denies their bias (I am not talking about the manditory front-page "We are an unbiased News source"), is dihonest and has the potential to be dangerous. If I am gonna defend the American Capitalis system to someone, I am gonna tell em I am an American, not say...yeah, I was raised by wolves in the uninhabited regions of the Canadian wasteland :beam:, I am completely unbiased"... At least then you know where I am coming from, and if I give you a source you know is true, you will not also believe my argument that comes with it. Whereas if you think I am unbiased and I present you with an argument and accompanying sources, you will be much more likely to swallow my argument with the source.

Furunculus

04-22-2009, 13:30

I also don't see what good the news of an openly biased news source are.

as opposed to those news sources which are biased and yet refuse to admit it, like the BBC?

oh for a glimpse of that heavily suppressed internal report into beeb bias................

Swoosh So

04-22-2009, 16:42

And who do u say the bbc is biased too? remember we were discussing political affiliation.

Furunculus

04-23-2009, 13:07

the beeb is left-wing, it hires almost exclusively from the guardian, and has done for nearly several decades.

Swoosh So

04-25-2009, 09:59

Well i guess some people can see right or left in anything to give them something to argue about, ive never felt the bbc to have a heavy bias to one side, ofc there will be slight bias in everything in life but hardly worth discusssing, nowhere near on the level of what ive seen from fox and msnbc thats just a complete joke anyone watching that tripe must have porrige for brains.

Furunculus

04-25-2009, 11:47

excellent post that demonstrates the obvious truth that it is far easier to recognise the difference from afar than the similarity that is close.

Louis VI the Fat

05-05-2009, 00:17

From a distance the large ship on the horizon looked like the perfect target, ripe for a successful spot of piracy.

But as the Somali pirates sped toward the vessel sailing near the Seychelles, they were horrified to see two boats and a helicopter set off from their target and launch their own counter-attack.

They had failed to spot, in the dazzling sun, that the 'merchant ship' they thought they were intercepting was, in fact, a French naval ship bristling with cannons, radar technology and armed commandos.Quoted just for the coolness (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6218274.ece) of it. :pirate2:

the three pirate boats were spotted heading toward the frigate Nivose, one of the ships patrolling the region as part of the European Union anti-piracy missionQuoted to make the point that the EU is the means by which European nations defend their interests and their liberties. There are EU elections next month, and odds are that the lunatic fringes and the hard right will win big. So I will not tire of insisting that the EU is not about replacing national sovereignty with commie-fascism. Nor is it about undermining your national pride by allowing pink horse urine to be sold as rosé - as some infantile nationalists on this forum seem to think. [/schizophrenia]

"The guys we catch are getting younger and younger," said one navy soldier. "Look at this one, he can't be 17." A French navy spokesman confirmed the capture of 11 pirates. "The pirates are currently on the Nivose," he said. "For the moment don't have any indication of what the European Union forces want to do with these pirates."

The world's naval powers are dispatching an ever-growing fleet of warships in response to a scourge which is threatening to disrupt one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes.
This is quoted because we are now running into several problems. The Indian Ocean is turning into an 'Afghanistan of the Sea'. (You read the metahore here first). Like the hills of Afghanistan, we can't patrol the seas indefinitely. We can't kill them all either - we don't do that stuff. We can't lock them all up. State building does not seem to work. What to do with the pirates we catch? And what are we dealing with anyway, when we are fishing out teenage kids?

Kadagar_AV

05-05-2009, 04:12

Swedish media mention that the pirates got released... what's up with that?

So what should be done?

I'd say we take the pirates as hostage until their home-villages has paid up, they should have some cash from former piracy, no?

Xiahou

05-05-2009, 07:16

Quoted just for the coolness (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6218274.ece) of it. :pirate2:That is cool. I can't help but think there's an idea in there somewhere too... I wonder what sort of deterrent effect it would have if we started floating juicy looking freighters or cruise liners along the Somali coast that were actually loaded with armed marines. Maybe after a few dozen hijackings gone wrong, they might start to be a little more reticent about attacking ships. I'm sure there's a stack of reasons why that's not at all practical though. :shame:

Swedish media mention that the pirates got released... what's up with that?

So what should be done?

I'd say we take the pirates as hostage until their home-villages has paid up, they should have some cash from former piracy, no? Didn't we used to hang pirates?

Husar

05-05-2009, 10:02

Quoted just for the coolness (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6218274.ece) of it. :pirate2:
:laugh4:

That was pretty cool indeed.

Didn't we used to hang pirates?

We also used to burn "witches" and heretics, you want all that back? Do you believe in the one and only true god and the holy roman catholic church then? If not, there's your haystack already prepared. :inquisitive:

I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.

Well, and this (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/113/article_3665.asp) shows that rescue operations are perhaps not always the best option.

rory_20_uk

05-05-2009, 11:54

Strike For The South

05-05-2009, 12:18

The French military once agian strikes fear into the hearts of rag tag underfed groups of pirates from the third wrold

A force to be reckoned with for sure

Is there no stopping them?

Will they take away our deoderant and ungodly portion sizes?

This American watches in suspense.

~:) ~:) ~:) ~:) ~:) ~:)

Hosakawa Tito

05-05-2009, 12:36

That is cool. I can't help but think there's an idea in there somewhere too... I wonder what sort of deterrent effect it would have if we started floating juicy looking freighters or cruise liners along the Somali coast that were actually loaded with armed marines. Maybe after a few dozen hijackings gone wrong, they might start to be a little more reticent about attacking ships. I'm sure there's a stack of reasons why that's not at all practical though. :shame:

Didn't we used to hang pirates?

I was thinking the same thing. Decoy target ships would certainly make the pirates more cautious and selective. However, a program I watched last week about this revived pirate problem claimed that the more organized groups use an extensive intelligence network to scout and choose their targets. The program described China's problem in the early 1990's with piracy. A high ranking official of the harbor security *and those he supervised* in their largest commercial port was found to be in league with the main pirate organization. They got their trial, were convicted and shot. The pirate's crime syndicate moved on to safer areas of operation.

Here's an interesting article on piracy & international law (http://www.globallawforum.org/ViewPublication.aspx?ArticleId=96), and the current problems and reluctance of some nations in prosecuting those that are caught. Seems the agreement between the UK and Kenya could be the basis for a solution.

Universal jurisdiction only applies to pirates. Based on past experience, captured Somalis are likely to insist in court that they are not pirates, but rather simple fishermen erroneously seized by a foreign Navy.60 Moreover, most Somali pirates are, in fact, fishermen;61 piracy is not a full-time job.6263 Indeed, given that error is not out of the question, such challenges must be taken seriously, but greatly impede prosecution and detention. Numerous foreign nationals captured by the U.S. in Afghanistan claimed that they were not members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but rather foreign tourists, aid workers, or other innocent bystanders who happen to find themselves in Afghanistan.64 Moreover, U.S. courts have held that because the power to detain depends on the foreigner’s status as a combatant, detainees can appear before tribunals to challenge the factual basis for being classified as a combatant even before a full trial for their alleged crimes.65 Establishing the very identity of captured individuals will be difficult, as they are unlikely to carry identification or other indicators of nationality.
Every aspect of the prosecution would raise serious logistical problems. Providing counsel and translation services into the defendants’ native language would be extraordinarily difficult, even in neighboring Kenya.66 Transporting prosecution witnesses and evidence to a foreign court would be burdensome. Naval officers in active service would be called upon to testify.67 Identification by victims would be made even more problematic by the fact that multinational crews of foreign-flagged vessels would have returned to their homes around the world.68 Defense witnesses would present an even greater problem. Any provision for the defendants to be able to present evidence in their favor would require ongoing access to Somalia and Somali waters.

In the two cases brought in Kenyan courts at the behest of Western powers so far, the defendants claimed alleged torture and denial of religious privileges by their captors.69 Given that the Somalis are Muslim, the last charge could potentially be seized upon by Islamic countries to incite anti-western sentiment along the lines of incident in Guantánamo where a Koran was allegedly “disrespected.”70 Indeed, it appears the pirates have read the Guantanamo detainees’ playbook.
Other human rights rules of Western countries discourage arresting pirates in the first place, and certainly militate against trying them in Europe. Britain had reportedly affirmatively instructed its ships not to capture pirates they may come across.71 The Foreign Office feared the Somali pirates could claim asylum under European union human rights law once on board a British vessel, and certainly if brought to Britain for trial.72 Because of the routine nonexistence and brutality of the Somali government, the pirates could quite plausibly claim they would be subject to unfair trials, torture and extrajudicial killing if they are repatriated to their home country. Thus the pirates might be able to stay in Britain indefinitely if acquitted or once released. Obtaining European residency would doubtless be seen as a benefit to many Somalis, and the perceived reward for piracy might only increase the piracy problem.

In the face of such problems, it's not surprising that Britain in December took the unusual step of signing a memorandum of understanding with Kenya creating a framework whereby pirates captured by the former would be tried by the latter.73 For Britain this has numerous advantages. It escapes the embarrassment of having to release capture pirates, as Denmark has repeatedly done. In Kenya, the pirates do not benefit from European asylum law or the other expensive protections of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proceedings are relatively speedy and informal, with accusations of torture brushed away by the judge with the observation that the defendants don't appear to be bleeding.74 It is less obvious what Mombasa benefits from this. One might speculate that Britain has promised some sort of foreign aid or other benefits in exchange for the prosecutorial assistance.

Vuk

05-05-2009, 12:40

:laugh4:

That was pretty cool indeed.

We also used to burn "witches" and heretics, you want all that back? Do you believe in the one and only true god and the holy roman catholic church then? If not, there's your haystack already prepared. :inquisitive:

I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.

Well, and this (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/113/article_3665.asp) shows that rescue operations are perhaps not always the best option.

Sure, people did bad things in history, that means that everything people did in history is bad...heck, the logic makes sense to me! No more breathing, eating, walking, etc!

Tribesman

05-05-2009, 14:34

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
logic eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Vuk

05-05-2009, 14:38

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
logic eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

My point exactly Tribesy.

Tribesman

05-05-2009, 14:40

your point ?????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Husar

05-06-2009, 15:15

I feel that being on a small boat, loaded with guns, with no attempt to contact the ship to explain one's friendly actions heading for another ship is frankly all the proof one needs.

Don't bog down our courts with this drivel.

~:smoking:
Do you want the same stuff at home? Just shoot someone who put something in his pocket in a shop? Don't bog down the courts with that drivel, yanno. They did something similar when they shot a harmless guy in the London subway, didn't they? Maybe they should shoot you if they find illegal software or music on your Pc as well, don't bog down the courts with so many processes. :dizzy2:

Really Rory, your attitude might be more similar to that of the pirates than you'd ever admit.

Sure, people did bad things in history, that means that everything people did in history is bad...heck, the logic makes sense to me! No more breathing, eating, walking, etc!

Tribesman is right(again ~D ), your post contains no logic and has absolutely no connection to my post that you quoted.

rory_20_uk

05-06-2009, 15:28

Vuk

05-06-2009, 15:30

Tribesman is right(again ~D ), your post contains no logic and has absolutely no connection to my post that you quoted.

Not at all. I was sarcastically commenting on the lack of logic in your insinuation that everything done in the past was ignorant and evil. Tribesman needs to pay better attention, as do you sir. :bow:

Husar

05-06-2009, 16:08

That's the whole point! :wall:

Cause and effect linked in the minds of the pirates. To get caught = death.

Here in the UK we have a functioning government and a functioning courts system. Somalia has nothing. Different rules are therefore in effect.

The aim is to cut down on pirate attacks.

Capture and release does nothing.
Capture and take to West means you've got an asylum case on your hands.
Interdict and sink does work, as it's an economic decision, not a ideological one.

~:smoking:
Well, some countries were giving the pirates to other african states who lack the navy to hunt the pirates themselves, consider it option four in your list, option five could be making sure that somalia does get a working justicve system, for a start, some villagers in Somalia are trying to fight the pirates themselves I heard.
I see what you mean, I just generally oppose causing bloodshed when it's not necessary at all.

Not at all. I was sarcastically commenting on the lack of logic in your insinuation that everything done in the past was ignorant and evil. Tribesman needs to pay better attention, as do you sir. :bow:

Exactly, you completely missed my point, just like Tribesman and I tried to tell you...

Vuk

05-06-2009, 16:13

Exactly, you completely missed my point, just like Tribesman and I tried to tell you...

We also used to burn "witches" and heretics, you want all that back? Do you believe in the one and only true god and the holy roman catholic church then? If not, there's your haystack already prepared.

I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.
hmmm...

rory_20_uk

05-06-2009, 16:27

Well, some countries were giving the pirates to other african states who lack the navy to hunt the pirates themselves, consider it option four in your list, option five could be making sure that somalia does get a working justicve system, for a start, some villagers in Somalia are trying to fight the pirates themselves I heard.

If there is a watertight deal to drop them off at another state that is an option I'd not considered. Evidence would be a problem... although of course many African states wouldn't be overly troubled by such things, especially if they get money for taking them.
Getting a working justace system is more "ideal" but far far harder and basically not a realistic option IMO. Without clear aims and a clear will - neither are present - it'd go nowhere.
How to enourage the villagers without it turning into scalping 'em for money / a slave trade where people are captured, money is paid by the West and they are thrown in jail down the coast. I guess you probably can't.

~:smoking:

Jolt

05-07-2009, 20:33

We also used to burn "witches" and heretics, you want all that back? Do you believe in the one and only true god and the holy roman catholic church then? If not, there's your haystack already prepared. :inquisitive:

I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.

Witches were innocent and didn't do any harm. Pirates were not, and steal, kill and threaten people. Very different. As for my sollution, simply let them take a dive in the Indian Ocean. And leave them there. An alternative would be to create a real life version of the movie Saw, with the pirates as playtoys. Those who would be smart enough to survive, would be shipped off to Somalia and they would certainly never attempt to do such a thing again.

Husar

05-08-2009, 00:52

Witches were innocent and didn't do any harm. Pirates were not, and steal, kill and threaten people. Very different. As for my sollution, simply let them take a dive in the Indian Ocean. And leave them there. An alternative would be to create a real life version of the movie Saw, with the pirates as playtoys. Those who would be smart enough to survive, would be shipped off to Somalia and they would certainly never attempt to do such a thing again.

How many people have the somalian pirates killed so far and since when do we hand out death sentences to thieves? Or do we just do it when they're poor and dark-skinned?
Nowhere did I say do nothing, I just said don't start to massacre them on sight like they're somehow subhumans. As I pointed out above, when the french commandos stormed some yacht, it was one of the frenchies who shot the hostage, so how many people have the pirates killed so far and how many have the various commandos killed(including pirates)?

For the pirates, killing people is somewhat stupid since they want money to hand them back alive. If you make it a life or death game for them, they may be more likely to kill just trying to get out alive themselves. Yes, they do abductions and blackmail but as long as they do not really harm people, I don't really see why they should be shot on sight instead of arrested.

Or maybe someone can provide some links about what kind of bloodthirsty monsters they are, if you got a pic of one eating a baby I will change my mind on the issue. :inquisitive:

Tribesman

05-08-2009, 00:59

For the pirates, killing people is somewhat stupid since they want money to hand them back alive.
Yep , killing people is bad for their business , wheras the French and Indians have both screwed up by killing the people they were there to protect .

Jolt

05-08-2009, 04:42

How many people have the somalian pirates killed so far and since when do we
hand out death sentences to thieves?

Thieves who abduct people in exchange for money and are armed, are frequently killed by the police provided they get a chance, taking into account those that they don't surrender unless they recieve the money.

Nowhere did I say do nothing, I just said don't start to massacre them on sight like they're somehow subhumans. As I pointed out above, when the french commandos stormed some yacht, it was one of the frenchies who shot the hostage, so how many people have the pirates killed so far and how many have the various commandos killed(including pirates)?

It's not about rascism as you are trying to spin it, they could be british or american for all I care, if we start "massacring" them, I'm sure many prospect pirates will think twice and thrice before putting their lives at risk.

Its actually the leniency that has led the pirate problem to grow. Since captured pirates know they'll be released or at the very worse serve a couple of years in some prison, more and more people will attack ships throughout the Indian Sea. A death sentence is a much greater incentive to stop attacks, then arrests, releases or fulfilling their ransom demands. The innevitable consequence will be the plummetting of pirate attacks in Somalia and in the Indian Ocean.

Tribesman

05-08-2009, 05:05

Its actually the leniency that has led the pirate problem to grow. Since captured pirates know they'll be released or at the very worse serve a couple of years in some prison, more and more people will attack ships throughout the Indian Sea. A death sentence is a much greater incentive to stop attacks, then arrests, releases or fulfilling their ransom demands. The innevitable consequence will be the plummetting of pirate attacks in Somalia and in the Indian Ocean.

Bollox , unless you can show where piracy has decreased off Africa S.America or Asia due to the death penalty?

A death sentence is a much greater incentive to stop attacks, then arrests, releases or fulfilling their ransom demands.
Not really , operating a tower crane is usually a death sentence , the pay makes up for that , so that is the short term incentive for taking the job with the risks...so the answer to piracy is either remove the incentive or offer alternative viable employment, since the former means leaving hostages unpaid to either be released as useless assets or eradicated as inconvenient witnesses in any future case means its really a simple question .

Husar

05-08-2009, 12:59

Thieves who abduct people in exchange for money and are armed, are frequently killed by the police provided they get a chance, taking into account those that they don't surrender unless they recieve the money.

http://www.ehow.com/how_2093481_be-police-negotiator.html

Usually the objective of the police is to get everyone out alive for similar reasons that they try to prevent suicides, shooting the criminals is usually a means to save their potential victims when other options are exhausted and there is a real chance that the criminal will actually kill people. The latter chance is rather slim here.

Andres

05-08-2009, 13:24

I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.

What's the fun in that? You're civilised boring, Husar :mean:

Not really , operating a tower crane is usually a death sentence , the pay makes up for that , so that is the short term incentive for taking the job with the risks...so the answer to piracy is either remove the incentive or offer alternative viable employment, since the former means leaving hostages unpaid to either be released as useless assets or eradicated as inconvenient witnesses in any future case means its really a simple question .

I concur.

On the other hand, if no longer paying for the hostages is not an option, then what would you do to take away the underlying causes, i.e. how would you bring stability to the country, a stable, strong government, create enough employment, etc.?

And even if you would manage to come with a workable solution (not likely in the near or even distant future), it's probably going to take a very long time.

In the meanwhile, we have the current, accute problem.

The pirates are there and now, causing alot of damage. How to stop that in a relatively short amount of time without resorting to shooting them? Capture them and put them in jail? All of them? For how long? Where are you going to put them in jail? Or just send them back to Somalia? Who's going to pay for all that? Are people willing to pay for it (bullets are cheaper)?

Jolt

05-08-2009, 13:37

I propose you take a look at a myriad of cases which happened in Brazil (One of the worse countries in terms of kidnapping). The fact that you are given a choice between a sniper putting a bullet to the head of a armed and barricaded kidnapper and ending the situation right there, or prolonging what could be increasingly potentially dangerous, the choice they take is (Obviously) not to take any risks and kill the kidnapper. But that's beside the point.

In any way, as for proof that the death penalty works in stopping piracy, I can't give you proof since according to my knowledge, killing pirates is not practiced anywhere in the world, because there are hardly any piracy problems in the world, and these are not so huge as to demand an international fleet to protect the merchant ships.

Many of those poor pirates are already filthy rich from the millions they blackmailed, but I'm not defending not saving hostages. I'm defending certain death for the pirates captured. From my point of view, I wouldn't mind assaulting merchant ships where the potential price is millions of dollars in ransoms, if the ultimate drawback would be say, 2 to 5 years in a prison. Now if I knew that if I was captured I'd be killed, I doubt I would ever attempt doing such a thing, no matter how poor I was. I would be trying to survive, not die. But that's just my opinion.

Andres

05-08-2009, 13:51

Now if I knew that if I was captured I'd be killed, I doubt I would ever attempt doing such a thing, no matter how poor I was. I would be trying to survive, not die. But that's just my opinion.

I've never been poor nor living in completely desperate circumstances, so I don't know what I would do :shrug:

Also, are the guys in those small boats, waving guns and jumping on board of big ships the leaders, the big fishes?

If you kill them, wouldn't the real leaders just recruit other desperate guys to try again? Guys who probably don't even know they might get killed? Or maybe the pirate leaders could just put a gun against the heads of desperate people and tell them to either take their chances or die immediately?

Somalia is not exactly a country filled with hard working, middle class citizens and just a small minority of poor and desperate people.

Plenty of recruits and plenty of opportunities to force unwilling potential recruits for a smart, rich, ruthless and hardened criminal.

Anyway, that's how I would run my pirate business (if I would be evil). I wouldn't jump on those (guarded) ships myself, I'd force a few poor chaps to do it for me and let the ransom money be transferred to my bankaccounts. As a pirate leader, I would not care about the couple of hundreds poor guys that would get shot.

Banquo's Ghost

05-08-2009, 15:21

Anyway, that's how I would run my pirate business (if I would be evil). I wouldn't jump on those (guarded) ships myself, I'd force a few poor chaps to do it for me and let the ransom money be transferred to my bankaccounts. As a pirate leader, I would not care about the couple of hundreds poor guys that would get shot.

Otherwise known as being an Arab sheikh, bosom friend to Western arms dealers and politicians.

Andres

05-08-2009, 16:17

Otherwise known as being an Arab sheikh, bosom friend to Western arms dealers and politicians.

That's a likely possibility. I think it would be wrong to assume that you are dealing with a few random criminals, this is probably international organised crime at a high level and there's a lot of money involved.

After the money has been transferred to accounts at some probably dubious banks, the money laundry machine will make it almost impossible to trace.

Shooting a few desperate Somalians won't bring a solution to your problem.

Of course, something must be done against the guys waving guns and jumping on ships and protection should be offered to those merchant ships, but if you want to deal with this problem, you'll have to hunt down the leaders of the organisation, who are probably not only almost impossible to trace, but also rich, influential and with close ties to both corrupt African regimes and some western politicians.

But that won't stop others to try it again or to try something similar. A country with no strong government, unsafety, chaos, poverty and desperation is an ideal climate for anyone interested in starting a career in organised crime: plenty of cheap employees willing to do (voluntarily or forced) what you want them to do.

If you have the guts, have some money to "invest", know some people, are a bit handy and have some knowledge of corporate, tax and financial law, then you can have a bright future in Somalia or any other desperately poor and unstable country, without much risk of getting caught.

Welcome to the world of organised international crime :shrug:

Husar

05-09-2009, 00:26

The pirates are there and now, causing alot of damage. How to stop that in a relatively short amount of time without resorting to shooting them? Capture them and put them in jail? All of them? For how long? Where are you going to put them in jail? Or just send them back to Somalia? Who's going to pay for all that? Are people willing to pay for it (bullets are cheaper)?
I heard Kenia took some of them already, gave them a legal process and all that and probably liked the international attention it got. The problem with Kenia etc. is that they have almost no functioning navy or coast guard so they cannot hunt pirates themselves, i remember reading a statement from an african coast guard officer who said their boats would sink out in the open sea so they could not even follow the pirates out there. Maybe giving the africans some nice ships to patrol the sea there and paying them a bit for it might help. should be cheaper than doing it ourselves and maybe if we pump money into the region that way they can afford more weapons to kill eachother actually develop some sort of economy and government etc in somalia somehow. Alternatively we could reestablish the islamic courts under the condition that they treat women better or something, offer them a nice deal that we all benefit from.

I propose you take a look at a myriad of cases which happened in Brazil (One of the worse countries in terms of kidnapping). The fact that you are given a choice between a sniper putting a bullet to the head of a armed and barricaded kidnapper and ending the situation right there, or prolonging what could be increasingly potentially dangerous, the choice they take is (Obviously) not to take any risks and kill the kidnapper.

Brazil is a great example, Brazil also has police death squads, huge crime rates, local vigilante militias and is generally seen as one of the more dangerous countries of the world, obviously their tactics are working great. ~:rolleyes: