Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?
Au contraire. Arms on merchant vessels is more of a historical exception than rule; the period you speak of refers to the brief period in which piracy was pretty much officially sanctioned extension of state navies -- and even then, as far as Dutch merchant ships go, it was prohibited for the crew to actually carry arms, with weapons and munition locked away until actually engaging an enemy. Sometimes the ships would include a military detachment, more often than not ships would simply convoy relying on numbers for their safety.My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?
As soon as the European powers no longer needed the pirates when their own navies were sufficiently well developed to do battle on their own they moved swiftly to crush this threat to their mercantile interests; restoring things back to normal.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Frenchmen love their women in boots
So they wear boots after all? Frenchmen love their women in boots
Why can't you lock up an smg as well as a flintlock etc.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Many ports do not allow vessels in if they have arms. Why? Here's the fun part....to prevent piracy.
It's vital to keep an armed ship out of Goa so that they won't pirate anybody in the port. Oh wait, that doesn't work, they just jump the ship en route to Goa don't they?
This is gun control at sea. The logic runs thus: "if we ban guns at sea, the tools of violence will be unavailable and the violence will be lessened." Like other prohibition efforts, it has worked wonderfully....not.
My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?
1. If the pirates has weapons and the crew does not, there wont be a shoot out, no one will do anything stupid having people killed, and at large more lives will come out of the situation, you know, alive?Many ports do not allow vessels in if they have arms. Why? Here's the fun part....to prevent piracy.
It's vital to keep an armed ship out of Goa so that they won't pirate anybody in the port. Oh wait, that doesn't work, they just jump the ship en route to Goa don't they?
This is gun control at sea. The logic runs thus: "if we ban guns at sea, the tools of violence will be unavailable and the violence will be lessened." Like other prohibition efforts, it has worked wonderfully....not.
My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?
2. Maybe you havent heard, but national states dont really like when ships dock with a load of guns...
You are aware, that if 10+ men in uniform, in arms, step over a border, it is in fact an invasion (and can be met as such). We would have to rewrite a lot of international laws.
3. Isnt capitalism beautiful?
X thousands of companies have a 0,0005% chance to lose a ship. They could prevent it if all of the companies spend 0,005% of the income on protection... See where the math fails in a capitalistic society?
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
Au contraire. Arms on merchant vessels is more of a historical exception than rule; the period you speak of refers to the brief period in which piracy was pretty much officially sanctioned extension of state navies -- and even then, as far as Dutch merchant ships go, it was prohibited for the crew to actually carry arms, with weapons and munition locked away until actually engaging an enemy. Sometimes the ships would include a military detachment, more often than not ships would simply convoy relying on numbers for their safety.
As soon as the European powers no longer needed the pirates when their own navies were sufficiently well developed to do battle on their own they moved swiftly to crush this threat to their mercantile interests; restoring things back to normal.
I believe you are referring to Privateering, which is officially sanctioned by a state during times of peace. It is reffered to often as La Guerre de Course, or a way of a weaker nation attacking a stronger one during a war. Privateering was eventually denounced in modern times, but is quite different than Pirateering which is a criminal act by international law, a small point, but significant.Au contraire. Arms on merchant vessels is more of a historical exception than rule; the period you speak of refers to the brief period in which piracy was pretty much officially sanctioned extension of state navies -- and even then, as far as Dutch merchant ships go, it was prohibited for the crew to actually carry arms, with weapons and munition locked away until actually engaging an enemy. Sometimes the ships would include a military detachment, more often than not ships would simply convoy relying on numbers for their safety.
As soon as the European powers no longer needed the pirates when their own navies were sufficiently well developed to do battle on their own they moved swiftly to crush this threat to their mercantile interests; restoring things back to normal.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
* Pirates attack russian ship outside of Somalia
* Pirates gain ship.
* Russian navy intercepts.
* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
* Russian navy has no way to charge the pirates in a legal court.
* Russian navy sets the pirates "free". <- and this is where the problem starts.
You know, freeing someone in the middle of the ocean isn't "all that cool" by some. Basicly, the pirates were left without navigational equipment on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The world at large has condemned Russia for the "inhuman treatment".
I think the Western superpowers of the 20th century have dominated the world for such a long time that they are now being blamed by the same Western superpowers while feeling sympathy for everyone else. Everyone likes the underdog.* Pirates attack russian ship outside of Somalia
* Pirates gain ship.
* Russian navy intercepts.
* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
* Russian navy has no way to charge the pirates in a legal court.
* Russian navy sets the pirates "free". <- and this is where the problem starts.
You know, freeing someone in the middle of the ocean isn't "all that cool" by some. Basicly, the pirates were left without navigational equipment on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The world at large has condemned Russia for the "inhuman treatment".
Criminals should be punished accordingly. To take a cargo vessel or the like, full of unarmed civilians, for fiscal profit (despite seemingly benign intentions), is moraly wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to leave comfortably or be rewarded with asylum when so many of their contrymen suffer for hope at home. The 'compassionate' decision not to execute the pirates and let them find their way home in the open ocean with that sense of 'direction' that led them to hijack the frieghter in the first place is good and just in my opinion. That idic Russian thinking was absolutely brilliant in my opinion.
Edit: Freud's (sp.) Id (idic). I like to make up words and have often thought Russians think in this manner.
Edit: Freud's (sp.) Id (idic). I like to make up words and have often thought Russians think in this manner.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Swedish source: the source is not much to go by.
But I (as of yet) havent found it reported elsewhere...
From Swedish media:
* Pirates attack russian ship outside of Somalia
* Pirates gain ship.
* Russian navy intercepts.
* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
* Russian navy has no way to charge the pirates in a legal court.
* Russian navy sets the pirates "free". <- and this is where the problem starts.
You know, freeing someone in the middle of the ocean isn't "all that cool" by some. Basicly, the pirates were left without navigational equipment on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The world at large has condemned Russia for the "inhuman treatment".
C'MON
Ok, so my 2 gc.
1. No. OF COURSE it can not be ok for anyone to just do anything they want. So YES, russia has no right to do anything on international/territorial waters.
2. Yes, OF COURSE it can not be ok for anyone to attack one of Russias ships and think they can get away with it.
So, the Russian navy, the Russian state... were they right or wrong?
The problem here is rather complex, or to translate it:
1. Pirates are scum and should be fought at any time no matter what..
2. XXXXX are scum and should be fought at any time no matter what..
I have no problem what so ever agreeing with post 1. I def do not cry when some drugged up somalis get taken down by russian forces.
So in this case, i would def give russia teh thumbs up.
However... If you elaborate a bit... If Russia can attack pirates, what stops the US from attacking, say... ... ... ... ... ... ...
PS: I could navigate a boat to land with the terms set by the russians. Yes, they had no navigational hardware left... But so what? There IS still a sky. and I am not even navy... I mean, if a poor army sergeant would feel confident about navigating (this) at sea... Then PIRATES should have no problems, right?
It would be like a NINJA asking me to teach him how to throw ninja-stars (shuriken).
i don't agree with your fetish for the precautionary principle where anything that could be abused in a dangerous manner should be disallowed, in case anyone chooses to abuse it so.Swedish source: the source is not much to go by.
But I (as of yet) havent found it reported elsewhere...
From Swedish media:
* Pirates attack russian ship outside of Somalia
* Pirates gain ship.
* Russian navy intercepts.
* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
* Russian navy has no way to charge the pirates in a legal court.
* Russian navy sets the pirates "free". <- and this is where the problem starts.
You know, freeing someone in the middle of the ocean isn't "all that cool" by some. Basicly, the pirates were left without navigational equipment on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The world at large has condemned Russia for the "inhuman treatment".
C'MON
Ok, so my 2 gc.
1. No. OF COURSE it can not be ok for anyone to just do anything they want. So YES, russia has no right to do anything on international/territorial waters.
2. Yes, OF COURSE it can not be ok for anyone to attack one of Russias ships and think they can get away with it.
So, the Russian navy, the Russian state... were they right or wrong?
The problem here is rather complex, or to translate it:
1. Pirates are scum and should be fought at any time no matter what..
2. XXXXX are scum and should be fought at any time no matter what..
I have no problem what so ever agreeing with post 1. I def do not cry when some drugged up somalis get taken down by russian forces.
So in this case, i would def give russia teh thumbs up.
However... If you elaborate a bit... If Russia can attack pirates, what stops the US from attacking, say... ... ... ... ... ... ...
PS: I could navigate a boat to land with the terms set by the russians. Yes, they had no navigational hardware left... But so what? There IS still a sky. and I am not even navy... I mean, if a poor army sergeant would feel confident about navigating (this) at sea... Then PIRATES should have no problems, right?
It would be like a NINJA asking me to teach him how to throw ninja-stars (shuriken).
pirates dead, congrats to russia. *heads of for a quiet and peaceful slumber untroubled by a dark consciousness*
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i don't agree with your fetish for the precautionary principle where anything that could be abused in a dangerous manner should be disallowed, in case anyone chooses to abuse it so.
pirates dead, congrats to russia. *heads of for a quiet and peaceful slumber untroubled by a dark consciousness*
How did what you say relate to anything I said?i don't agree with your fetish for the precautionary principle where anything that could be abused in a dangerous manner should be disallowed, in case anyone chooses to abuse it so.
pirates dead, congrats to russia. *heads of for a quiet and peaceful slumber untroubled by a dark consciousness*
there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary moralising with the usual reference to a what-if situation where the US is bad, once again, with some apparent dilemma about whether it is right that russia could act with impunity to deal with a wrong as it saw fit on the assumption that it might be seen as license by baddies (america, no?) to act as they saw fit (like invade another country).
way too much moralising.
pirate = dead .'. good
KISS
way too much moralising.
pirate = dead .'. good
KISS
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary moralising with the usual reference to a what-if situation where the US is bad, once again, with some apparent dilemma about whether it is right that russia could act with impunity to deal with a wrong as it saw fit on the assumption that it might be seen as license by baddies (america, no?) to act as they saw fit (like invade another country).
way too much moralising.
pirate = dead .'. good
KISS
Thank you for your insights, that was deep.there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary moralising with the usual reference to a what-if situation where the US is bad, once again, with some apparent dilemma about whether it is right that russia could act with impunity to deal with a wrong as it saw fit on the assumption that it might be seen as license by baddies (america, no?) to act as they saw fit (like invade another country).
way too much moralising.
pirate = dead .'. good
KISS
I talked about this topic a few days ago with a retired Senior Master Chief of the US Navy. He told me that when he was serving in the area, the usual procedure for the Navy was to turn over all captured Somalian pirates to Nairobi. He said that they could be prosecuted there in some sort of political agreement. Unfortunately, due to corruption of the process, that many were released to go back to Somalia after officials on the take were paid off by the warlords. While aboard US Navy vessels, these pirates were accorded POW status, something that is denied to insurgents captured in the so called war on terror. That is another topic alas.
About the problem of jurisdiction... I think this is something that could be handled by an international court.
If only important countries like the US and Russia would become members of the International Criminal Court and recognise its' authority, then perhaps the International Criminal Court could be given the jurisdiction to try crimes committed on international waters, like piracy.
But no, for some unclear reasons, said states avoid the ICC like the plague.
If only important countries like the US and Russia would become members of the International Criminal Court and recognise its' authority, then perhaps the International Criminal Court could be given the jurisdiction to try crimes committed on international waters, like piracy.
But no, for some unclear reasons, said states avoid the ICC like the plague.
Originally Posted by Andres:
About the problem of jurisdiction... I think this is something that could be handled by an international court.
If only important countries like the US and Russia would become members of the International Criminal Court and recognise its' authority, then perhaps the International Criminal Court could be given the jurisdiction to try crimes committed on international waters, like piracy.
But no, for some unclear reasons, said states avoid the ICC like the plague.
Even being trialed on an International Court, the fact is that the criminals would have shelter, adequate food (To say the very least) and safety for years to come, while honest Somalians would continue to live in a poverty ridden land, scavenging for food and work, and with uncertain safety due to the civil war still going on.About the problem of jurisdiction... I think this is something that could be handled by an international court.
If only important countries like the US and Russia would become members of the International Criminal Court and recognise its' authority, then perhaps the International Criminal Court could be given the jurisdiction to try crimes committed on international waters, like piracy.
But no, for some unclear reasons, said states avoid the ICC like the plague.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
Being a pirate isn´t the same as being a terrorist. Or was Captain Blackbeard an evil terrorist trying to sail his ships in some buildings?* Russian navy free the russian hostages and kill one terrorist while capturing 10.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Thank you for your insights, that was deep.
Not as deep as our impending invasion of Sweeden.Thank you for your insights, that was deep.
Oops, did I say that out loud?
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq:
Being a pirate isn´t the same as being a terrorist. Or was Captain Blackbeard an evil terrorist trying to sail his ships in some buildings?
Well then, I guess pointing a cutlass at my abdomen isn't quite the same as threatening a building, but it sure would terrify me. It's all about your point (pun intended) of view, isn't it?Being a pirate isn´t the same as being a terrorist. Or was Captain Blackbeard an evil terrorist trying to sail his ships in some buildings?
Originally Posted by rotorgun:
Well then, I guess pointing a cutlass at my abdomen isn't quite the same as threatening a building, but it sure would terrify me. It's all about your point (pun intended) of view, isn't it?
So that woman who ran away from me one night (I was just walking home from work, happened to be the same road) should have shot me dead for terrifying her?Well then, I guess pointing a cutlass at my abdomen isn't quite the same as threatening a building, but it sure would terrify me. It's all about your point (pun intended) of view, isn't it?
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq:
Being a pirate isn´t the same as being a terrorist. Or was Captain Blackbeard an evil terrorist trying to sail his ships in some buildings?
You are absolutely right, I stand corrected. Dont know what I was thinking... I would have reacted too, so thanks :)Being a pirate isn´t the same as being a terrorist. Or was Captain Blackbeard an evil terrorist trying to sail his ships in some buildings?
Originally Posted by Husar:
So that woman who ran away from me one night (I was just walking home from work, happened to be the same road) should have shot me dead for terrifying her?
Are you that terrifying Husar? So that woman who ran away from me one night (I was just walking home from work, happened to be the same road) should have shot me dead for terrifying her?
Just kidding. I think if you came at her with a weapon, demanding her jewelry and money, she might just have a legitimate reason to defend herself, no? You didn't do this, did you?Bumping this for fun :)
Cross-read with the Israeli-murder-spree-on-international-waters-thread for a laugh...
Cross-read with the Israeli-murder-spree-on-international-waters-thread for a laugh...
since your going to bump it, make it relevant by explaining the fun............
If anyone has a legitimate reason to want this thread re-opened to discuss further developments in the Somali piracy news, please PM me or any member of the team.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO