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

[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.

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

What is a "vote present" attitude, please?

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

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

Well, you will be pleased to know that the substantive solution is pretty much a European one. I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.

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

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

I wonder what Sir Francis Drake would have done?

[Slyspy]

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

[PershsNhpios]

I think we are looking at this the wrong way.

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

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

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

Nothing at all.

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

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

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

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

Pirates are people too.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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...

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[FactionHeir]

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.

[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...

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Tribesman]

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

[Tribesman]

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}

[Tribesman]

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

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

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

[Lemur]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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...
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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

What "links off it"?

As for proof, Hari offered only this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even if the whole toxic dumping thing is true, I don't see the pirates stopping if the dumping suddenly stopped.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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

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

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.

Some food for thought:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

[Tribesman]

What "links off it"?

The links .

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

Perhaps you should follow the links .

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

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

Your whole system here is based on hiding your sources.

The links are on the link that was posted , why not try reading it again .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry for the delayed response there, chief.

What is a "vote present" attitude, please?

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

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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

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

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

[Tribesman]

I think sabre-rattling speeches are over-blown and usually counter-productive.

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

[Vuk]

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 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.

[Husar]

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 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.

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".
I'd say the captain endangered himself when he jumped off the boat, the pirates could have shot him if his life hadn't been that important for their own.

[Lemur]

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

Would have been better if I linked to New York Times, huh? :P

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

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

[Vuk]

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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".
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..............