Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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).
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...
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/archi...2-23-voa23.cfm
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:
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.
Yes amazing , like those cornish fishermen being able to see the morrocan based spanish boats all the way over in Africa .Quote:
Amazing eyesight those chaps have to see hundreds of kilometers to those fishing.
Oh but they don't see that far do they , they see them when they are out on the fishing grounds:yes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Id be more worried that you have such biased media, thats not true news and reporting your getting in such a case.
Why the name change, Vuk?Quote:
Originally Posted by peverblue
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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. (Hence the phrase "yellow journalism.")Quote:
Originally Posted by peverblue
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)?Quote:
Originally Posted by peverblue
As far as bias? Usually not. What makes them different? Methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.
as opposed to those news sources which are biased and yet refuse to admit it, like the BBC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
oh for a glimpse of that heavily suppressed internal report into beeb bias................
And who do u say the bbc is biased too? remember we were discussing political affiliation.
the beeb is left-wing, it hires almost exclusively from the guardian, and has done for nearly several decades.
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.
excellent post that demonstrates the obvious truth that it is far easier to recognise the difference from afar than the similarity that is close.
Quoted just for the coolness of it. :pirate2:Quote:
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 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]Quote:
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 mission
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?Quote:
"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.
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?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Didn't we used to hang pirates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I say shoot them if they resist arrest, otherwise put them in a prison for some time.
Well, and this shows that rescue operations are perhaps not always the best option.
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:
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.
~:) ~:) ~:) ~:) ~:) ~:)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Here's an interesting article on piracy & international law, 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.Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
logic eh :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
My point exactly Tribesy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
your point ?????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Really Rory, your attitude might be more similar to that of the pirates than you'd ever admit.
Tribesman is right(again ~D ), your post contains no logic and has absolutely no connection to my post that you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I see what you mean, I just generally oppose causing bloodshed when it's not necessary at all.
Exactly, you completely missed my point, just like Tribesman and I tried to tell you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
hmmm...Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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:
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 .Quote:
For the pirates, killing people is somewhat stupid since they want money to hand them back alive.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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?Quote:
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.
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 .Quote:
A death sentence is a much greater incentive to stop attacks, then arrests, releases or fulfilling their ransom demands.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2093481_be-p...egotiator.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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.
What's the fun in that? You'reQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
civilisedboring, Husar :mean:
I concur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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)?
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.
I've never been poor nor living in completely desperate circumstances, so I don't know what I would do :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
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.
Otherwise known as being an Arab sheikh, bosom friend to Western arms dealers and politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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:
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 canQuote:
Originally Posted by Andres
afford more weapons to kill eachotheractually 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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt
Talked of Brazil in regards to the situation about police behaviour. Trying to compare the situation in Brazil to Somalia is like comparing a chocolate cake with a supernova.
And I just said that the police behaviour in Brazil does not really improve the situation. If the comparison is so bad, then why did you make it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jolt