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

[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.

[Vuk]

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

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

[Tribesman]

according to that article.

WND is known for reliability

[Vuk]

WND is known for reliability

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[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!

[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..............

[Husar]

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...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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.

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

[Swoosh So]

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Swoosh So]

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

[Tribesman]

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

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

[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.

[Swoosh So]

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

[Lemur]

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

Why the name change, Vuk?

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

[Vuk]

Why the name change, Vuk?

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

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

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

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

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

[Lemur]

A: I believe not that the people at the NYT think they are being objective, but simply that they want readers to think that they are so more people will by their paper and so that they will have greater credibility.

Actually, if you know anything about the history of NYT, you'll know that this was exactly their marketing angle when they were founded in the middle of the Yellow Kid tabloid wars. (Hence the phrase "yellow journalism.")

EVERYONE is biased, and every media outlet is biased. When when fools itself and tries to fool others into thinking that they are not, it is harder to take anything they say seriously when they are not upfront about where they are coming from.

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

[Vuk]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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.

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

[Vuk]

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.

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Swoosh So]

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

[Furunculus]

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

[Swoosh So]

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

[Furunculus]

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