Pirates seize U.S. freighter, hold captain for ransom

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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. ~;)

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.

Captain saved, 3 out of 4 pirates killed.

So room for improvement there then. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...show_article=1

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

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 ?

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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 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.

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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 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?

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

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.

---

Thats all well and good but we should still shoot them.

There are deadlines to maintain.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

---

Yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Pirate Hussein vows revenge against French and Americans

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Quote:

---

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

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:

Quote:

---

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}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

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:

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness 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.

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

:bow:

Quote:

---

What "links off it"?

---

The links .

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Now, if you've got such proof, why not show it here?

---

errrr .....because they are already on the article that was linked .

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

- 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

*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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

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

French also pursued and captured 11 more pirates today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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 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:

Sorry for the delayed response there, chief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Not sure if you all have seen this, 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

according to that article.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not sure if you all have seen this, 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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: