Do you think the ships that are taking FOOD to Africa near Somalia should be armed to protect themselves from pirates?
Printable View
Do you think the ships that are taking FOOD to Africa near Somalia should be armed to protect themselves from pirates?
What law prevents that?
Yep - sure do! We should've blown those pirates right out of the water! Then maybe they'd think twice about messing with the United States of America.
But it seems with this new administration, all we're going to do is talk to them and wait for the rest of the world to tell us what to do.
Do you people actually have an idea what you are talking about, or is this all brain stem twitching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
None. Thanks for answering the question.
Probably any cargo ship sailing in known pirate waters should think about some type of security.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Agreed.
This came from an article on msn.com
Fending off attacks
Ship owners often do not arm their crews, mainly because of the cargo. A Saudi supertanker hijacked last year was loaded with 2 million barrels of oil. The vapor from that cargo was highly flammable; a spark from firing a gun could cause an explosion.
There is also the problem of keeping the pirates off the ships — once they're on board, they will very likely fight back and people will die.
===============
Problem is - probably the pirates know this and that emboldens the attackers.
if only they didn't know this.
:sleepQuote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Is vapor from food highly flammable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
is that why these attackers were emboldened?
So if we blow the pirates out of the water, we will also blow up the cargo ships we are protecting.
You should have your own radio show.
The ships are a much bigger, slower target for the pirates, than the pirates are for any shooters on the ships.
If fired upon, the pirates could blow holes in the ships with shoulder rockets, RPGs, whatever, maybe even sink the ships. They certainly have the $Ms to buy heavy arms.
I'm sure with the amount of ship taking so far, the ship owners and operators have thought the arming question through thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that arms would risk loss of crew life, but I figure that's the PR. The real risk is loss of the ships.
Another case of asymmetrical warfare where military superiority is offset by much smaller forces.
Wow - Darrin, what a stupid fucking thread. If they want guns all they need to do is be armed. For some reason though, the companies themselves be guns to be more of a liablility than anything else and find it cheaper just to pay the ransoms.
I honestly woudln't be suprised to see much of the current crew fired for fighting back.
Aren't you going to tell me the free market always comes up with the best solutions ?
what does this have to do with Obama? did he order the crew to disarm? not getting the connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Solid post, as usual.
I heard the Captain made an escape attempt but was re-captured.
From Boston Herald
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...icleid=1164699
Quote:
Sailors aboard merchant vessels should be armed and free to blast away at high-seas bandits, including the bounty-hunting Somali pirates who overwhelmed an American crew and now hold the captain hostage, experts say.
Adm. Richard Gurnon, president of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay, said the hijacking and hostage drama could have been avoided if the pirates knew there would be deadly consequences.
“I think after this, the international community will recognize that arming crews makes sense,” Gurnon said.
His academy graduated Capt. Richard P. Phillips, 53, and Capt. Shane Murphy, 33 - the skipper and first officer of the 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama, which was seized Wednesday by pirates.
Phillips still was being held hostage last night, while Murphy became captain of the ship and was ordered out of the danger zone and on to Mombasa, Kenya.
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D-Quincy), whose district includes the academy’s campus, also called for arming merchant mariners to deter pirate attacks.
“If at any point they are fired upon by pirates, they would face the most severe consequences available,” Delahunt said.
U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is planning hearings to address the pirate scourge, including whether to arm merchant vessels crews.
Shipping companies don’t arm sailors because they’re concerned about liability, insurance and training costs, Gurnon said. They also believe arming sailors would escalate an already dangerous situation, he added.
A Maersk spokesman did not return calls or e-mails for comment.
Mass Maritime began firearms training this semester as it recognized “increasing threats” in the dangerous shipping lane off Somalia.
Arming merchant crews likely wouldn’t end Somali piracy, a plague arising from the country’s descent into lawlessness after the government collapsed in 1991, but it may be a necessary step.
Americans face a menu of unappetizing choices, said Charles Dunbar, a Boston University professor, including paying ransoms or sending in soldiers.
“Do you want to pursue this unsatisfying solution of limiting damages as much as you can or bear the prospect of long-term occupation?” Dunbar asked.
I do think they should be armed. Yes indeed.
Arm each ship with two .50cal snipers and the problem would be solved.
Pussy Americans like the drama though.
Place a few Marines on board and the problem is solved and :flipoff .Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Pirates are officially labeled by the world, enemies of the Human race. Something terrorists do not even have the distinct privilege of being :lol
I cannot even begin to comprehend why any country puts up with these impoverished "pirates" who can barely handle ak47 recoil with their malnourished arms.
How many troops sholuld we send over?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
It is kind of depressing to see America apparently does not have any delta force to find its way to this lifeboat and take care of business Rambo style :depressed
Where are the 7 Navy Seals popping up from beneath the waves and taking the tangos down :ihit
The stuff movies are made of..Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
And one bullet in the captains head ends it pretty horribly as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Some of you amaze me with your brilliance. No really.
The scary thing about these pricks is that if you do arm/train the crew of the ships, and kill some of them, the remaining bastards will probably take their RPGs and start blowing some holes in tankers at the waterline out of sheer spite.
Need to figure out a way to keep these scum from putting out to sea in the first place.
lmao @ people thinking military action on the lifeboat is a possibility
Ships have few options against Somali pirates
NAIROBI, Kenya – The 20,000 merchant ships that traverse the Gulf of Aden each year have few options to combat the scourge of piracy off Somalia's lawless coast.
Given their massive size, the ships can't always outrun the small, agile speedboats that the pirates use. If ships arm their crew, they risk escalating the situation or potentially igniting their flammable cargo.
Bypassing the Gulf of Aden to get between Asia and Europe also can rack up a massive costs and add as much as two weeks to the already long voyage.
And though Somalia's struggling government has pledged to combat piracy off its coast, the nascent government can barely secure the few square miles (kilometers) it controls in the capital, Mogadishu, much less along its 1,900-mile (3,100-kilometer) coast, the longest in Africa.
Noel Choong, who heads the Malaysia-based piracy watchdog group International Maritime Bureau, said the ships' best option is to keep a round-the-clock watch and take off at the first sign of trouble. This approach has worked for dozens of ships that have come under attack in Somali waters over the past year.
"It's very simple," Choong said. "The minute they notice small boats approaching their ship, they should take evasive measures, increase speed and at the same time radio for help. A lot of ships escape by doing this."
Ships also should install barbed wire or similar deterrents on the ship to prevent pirates from scaling the sides and boarding.
Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think-tank Chatham House, said ships also can travel at full speed, and take evasive procedures such as using water cannons and fire hoses to flood the engines of the pirates' skiffs.
Anti-piracy training courses, like the ones taken by some members of the U.S.-flagged ship briefly seized Wednesday before the crew took it back, also might help, Choong said.
The best solution, governments, piracy experts and ship companies agree, would be for Somalia to improve stability on land, luring desperate young men away from a life of crime on the high seas. But the country has been ravaged by nearly two decades of anarchy and violence, so a quick solution is not likely.
Choong said arming crews would only raise the stakes. Pirates do not normally harm their hostages, but adding guns to the equation could change that.
"We do not approve or support that crews be armed," Choong said. "Once you start arming the crew, then the pirates will start shooting the crew, even an unarmed crew. ... Once that is done you will have more problems because the crew will start shooting at other ships."
Avoiding the Gulf of Aden is neither time- nor cost-effective, he said, though two prominent shipping companies — including A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S — last year ordered slower ships to sail around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, a move that can lengthen routes by as much as 40 percent.
Three months into an international anti-piracy campaign, as many as 17 nations are participating in increased patrols and more are expected to join.
But according to the U.S. Navy, it would take 61 ships to control the shipping route in the Gulf of Aden, which is just a fraction of the 1.1 million square miles (2.85 million square kilometers) where the pirates have operated.
A U.S.-backed international anti-piracy coalition currently has 12 to 16 ships patrolling the region at any one time.
"The pirates are having a field day, attacking ships freely," Choong said. "At the moment, the risks are very small and the rewards are very high."
This is a snippet from another article on Yahoo.
The Somali in contact with the pirates holding Phillips said they are trying to link up with colleagues who are holding Russian, German, Filipino and other hostages in ships near the coast. Their goal is to get Phillips to Somalia, where they could hide him in the lawless country and make a rescue difficult, the Somali said.
That would give the pirates a stronger negotiating position to discuss a ransom.
=========================
I heard that 66 ships have been hijacked this year alone!
Why not put some wire mesh on the sides of the ship and when the pirates are climbing it, run a decent amount of electrical current through the wire?
That would be a funny sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Saltwater isn't corrosive at all so that wire mesh is a great idea. Powering would be easy too. You should invent this, Darrin. Take advantadge of the free market and solve the piracy all in one fell swoop. Get Billy Mays to sell that shit while you're at it.
The French policy is to do everything to refuse the pirates from taking French citizens onto land, so a couple days ago French commandos (cheese-eating surrender monkeys, every one) boarded a pirated French yacht that was drifting towards land (they had already shot the main sail full of holes. For those of you who haven't sailed, no mainsail = no sailing). The yacht-captain/father and 2 pirates were killed were killed, other pirates captured and taken to France for trial, but the wife + kid and a couple friends were saved.
Is the (chance of a ) dead father (or ship crew members) a justified cost of the raid?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7994201.stm
Mr. Obama’s incessant abasement of America, Send in the FBI
Profiles in Cowardice: Obama Rolls Over Again
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10103
By Joy Tiz Thursday, April 9, 2009
When I was a little girl, my parents told me I was very lucky to be an American. They explained that I had the good fortune of being able to travel anywhere in the world that captured my interest when I grew up. Nobody, anywhere, would harass an American. We had proven our resolve in World War II; everyone knew Americans were unyielding.
For the first time in over 200 years, a United States merchant ship has been hijacked by pirates. The Maersk Alabama was seized by Somalis while on a mission to deliver relief supplies to Kenya. Such attacks are hardly a rare event on the high seas off of Somalia. The terrorists’ motivation is to extort ransom money in exchange for hostages. It’s been an enormously successful project for the terrorists. Our Commander in Chief responded by sending the FBI.
The Somali Republic, a Muslim country, gained independence from Britain in 1960 but has deteriorated into a hell hole of killing, enslavement, and starvation. With no functioning government, the Bush administration declared Somalia to be a terrorist haven. The United States sent troops in 1992, ordered by President George H.W. Bush, to send humanitarian aid in hopes of saving the Somalis from starvation. Bill Clinton’s disastrous superintendence of the Somali operation helped embolden radical Islam and dishonored the United States as well as the troops who lost their lives due to the former president’s ineffectuality. News of America’s newfound weakness was cheered by al Qaeda and other terrorist mobs.
The Maersk’s captain, Richard Phillips surrendered himself to the terrorists in exchange for the safe release of his crew. Nobody who knows the father of two seems surprised by Captain Phillips’ heroism. The valiant crew of a mere twenty men fought off the terrorists who were heavily armed. Barack Obama cannot even begin to understand this kind of American lion heartedness.
President Obama just returned from his degrading apology tour in Europe and Turkey, which has been hailed by the mainstream press as triumphant; but, during which he accomplished almost none of the items on his agenda. Unless his real agenda was to convince the world that America is no longer a super power, but has deteriorated into an effete socialist state.
Islamolunatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is celebrating Iran’s success in running 7000 uranium enrichment centrifuges. Nuclear weapons are central to Ahmedinejad’s plan to bring about the end of the world in a blazing conflagration which is, apparently, the correct protocol for summoning the 12th imam. Barack Obama wants to sit down and have a talk with these loons. Joe Biden has warned Israel not to consider an attack on Iran.
North Korea launched a missile over Japan, in utter defiance of the United States. Barack Obama called for nuclear disarmament, volunteering the US to go first. He is concerned that missile defense would offend our enemies and make them feel like we don’t trust them. Barack Obama is waiting for the UN to issue a resolution scolding North Korea.
In 1975, just nine months into his administration, the late President Gerald Ford took military action to resolve a hostage crisis. Less than two weeks after the fall of Saigon, Naval forces of the Khmer Rouge hijacked the US merchant ship, SS Mayaguez off of Cambodia’s southern coast and captured the 40 man crew. When the UN, strangely enough, failed to act, President Ford sent in the Marines. “It’s a strong naval tradition in the United States that when a ship comes under attack, that you’re really attacking the United States”, said marine General James L. Jones.
Our current president sent law enforcement. The US Navy is standing watch as the Captain and hostages are adrift in a lifeboat. It quickly became obvious that this administration, learning nothing from Clinton’s failures, is going to treat this act of terrorism as a law enforcement matter. In fact, Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that he has not yet decided whether to “prosecute” the pirates.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, displaying yet again her legendary incompetence, laughed about the incident when asked about it in Morocco, along with providing the traditional leftist blather about the world having to work together to solve the pirate problem. One can only imagine how Captain Phillips’ family and friends felt hearing Hillary cackle about their loved one’s ordeal. The administration’s cowardly message is unambiguous: this depraved act of terror against United States citizens is to be treated as a criminal act
Lapdog reporter, Steve Holland at Reuters called the hostage crisis an “annoying distraction for Obama.”
Barack Hussein Obama’s friends in the UAE have concocted their own theory as to why Obama is so incompetent: he’s just too talented! Obama is just too smart, too introspective and too talented to be a good crisis manager. It’s all falling into place now.
John Kerry, in his never ending struggle to be relevant, came up with the inane idea of holding Pirate Hearings. Can’t see how that could fail. I vote we let Senator Kerry serve the Pirate Subpoenas.
When asked by reporters about the terrorist act, the current president responded with the plainspoken courage we expect: hey guys, we’re talking about housing now. Translation: the pirate stuff wasn’t downloaded into his teleprompter.
A family member of Captain Phillips told Fox News that the family has no objection to the use of military force and that the government has failed to be tough enough with pirates; ransoms should never have been paid.
Confirming that a blind squirrel really does find an acorn now and then, Vice President Joe Biden would appear to have been right when he admonished us to gird our loins because the world would test the new president. Rather than a single incident, we are seeing an endless series of tests and the president is failing every one.
When attacked, a dog will sometimes roll over and offer up his throat to the more dominant dog in hopes of fending off a serious attack. The weaker dog is signaling a willingness to be dominated which sometimes diffuses the stronger dog’s need to prove his mettle. It works with dogs who are socialized and are not hard core dog fighters. It won’t work with genetically defective dogs, or dogs afflicted with rabies, which should clarify why Obama’s foreign policy can’t succeed.
Mr. Obama’s incessant abasement of America, along with his bowing and scraping to our enemies is coming precariously close to the exemplification of offering aid and comfort to our enemies.
Joy Tiz Most recent columns
Joy Tiz was born in Chicago long ago enough to recall when many democrats were actually normal people who were just wrong about everything. Joy holds a Master of Science degree in psychology and a JD in law. She practiced law briefly in the 1990s but quickly grew weary of having to constantly explain the Constitution to unelected judges.
Joy has written extensively on a wide range of topics including the legal aspects of self defense, canine behavior and politics. Her book I Love My Dog, But . . . (Avon 1999) received excellent reviews. Joy’s next book, Obamanutz: A Cult Leader takes the White House is due out later this spring.
An unapologetic capitalist, Joy currently owns a small real estate brokerage. She is also the proud owner of three magnificent and staunchly conservative German Shepherds, a Quarter Horse mare lacking in work ethic and Zirc the Wonder Colt.
How is this an act of terrorism ???Quote:
It quickly became obvious that this administration, learning nothing from Clinton’s failures, is going to treat this act of terrorism as a law enforcement matter.
Joy should stick to writing dog love books. It's pretty clear she doesn't know what the fuck she is talking about in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Wow. You really thought I was serious?
You are a mental giant.
:wakeup
I have trouble seeing this as an act of terra for obvious reasons. The Mayaguez incident isn't the most perfect comparison either. Yes, the Marines were sent in to take that ship, but the Maersk Alabama was already back under the control of the crew by the time the Navy reached them. Furthermore at least three marines were needlessly killed when they assaulted an island where they thought the crew of the Mayaguez was being held. The crew had actually never been on that island and had been released earlier.
I saw no real call to action in that commentary. I suppose she wishes for some kind of a military attack on a lifeboat to release one hostage (that I know of -- correct me if I'm wrong). Seems rather unnecessary.
Because your jokes sound any different from your real posts? Maybe if you didn't post stupid drivel non stop we'd be able to tell when the stupid drivel was intentional.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
These aren't acts of terrorism. They just want money. Terrorists want to kill and become martyrs.
Well, not just that -- but I agree with the basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Not terra.
He's free. Three dead pirates. One captive.
No fucking shit. Not even the dumbest, most ideologically ridged graduates of Freedom U would try to call this terrorism with a straight face. Jesus, that's one of the more ass ignorant things I've recently seen bandied about by conservatives, which is saying a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby
US commandos just freed the captain and killed three pirates. So much for the fecklessness of the USA under Obama.
Bad call for Joy Tiz, worthless post for shelshor.
So much for the "liberal pussy" Obama meme...
America... Fuck yeah!
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=375&h=500Quote:
Originally Posted by shelshor
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=500&h=425Quote:
Originally Posted by shelshor
Wow. I'm surprised they could pull that off successfully. I was wrong. Glad the captain is safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelshor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=500&h=384Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
SEALSQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
+
scuba gear
+
advanced thermal imaging
=
3 second fire-fight
=
WIN
Professional negotiators like the FBI made for a good delaying tactic while the SEALS prepped. If the negotiators worked, great, if not, they bought time.
The article posted by sayshor criticised the use of the FBI, but that simply goes to show a lack of situational awareness on the part of a real estate agent who probably doesn't realize that professional hostage negotiators aren't issued to every US destroyer and have their uses in say... hostage situations.
So it turns out that the pirates were out of ammo, water and food. They offered the capt. in exchange for their freedom and the US turned it down. So more or less, these fuckers got got when they were entirely defenseless and we took as hard a line as possible in the negotiations. Which IMO is cool.
Anyways, these details further solidify this idiot's right-wing position as even more retarded than it originally appeared.
aren't those life boats loaded for food for 10 people for a week?
Technically, terrorism is usually performed as a the means of furthering a political or ideological goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Huge victory for America, and therefore for Obama.
Eat shit, shelshor and similar ilk.
Yeah, the initial reports in the moments after it was announced he was free, I read something saying they were out of everything, but I subsequently haven't seen much along those lines. So it was misreported and thus misreported by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100
But check this shit out:
Awesome.Quote:
CNN is reporting that Navy sharpshooters were secretly parachuted onto the fantail of the USS Bainbridge and hid there, out of view of the pirates. When their commanders determined that Captain Phillips was "in imminent danger," the snipers went into action. At the moment that two of the pirates came into view with one aiming an AK-47 at Phillips, the sharpshooters shot each of them in the head. The USS Bainbridge was about 25-30 meters away from the 18-foot lifeboat holding the pirates and Phillips, according to the Armed Forces Press Service.
During a Pentagon briefing in Bahrain, Vice Adm. William Gortney, head of the U.S. Naval Central Command, said:
"The snipers positioned on the fantail of the Bainbridge observed one of the pirates in the pilot house -- and two pirates with their head and shoulders exposed -- and one of the pirates had the AK47 (assault rifle) leveled at the captain's back."
will crookshanks retract the bullshit she spewed about obama in this thread?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...logo153x23.gif
April 13, 2009
Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming Crews
By KEITH BRADSHER
HONG KONG — A spate of attacks on ships off Somalia and the rescue Sunday of an American captain held hostage by pirates have reinvigorated a long-simmering debate over whether the crews of commercial vessels should be armed.
While the arming of merchant vessels was commonplace for centuries, it faded in recent decades because of ship owners’ concerns about liability and the safety of their sailors.
Despite repeated problems with pirates in the Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia and now in the waters of the Arabian Sea, ship owners worried that their crews would be killed instead of held for ransom if the crews tried to defend themselves and failed.
But the expanding range and seafaring skills of Somali pirates are prompting some experts to start calling for changes. The killing by United States Navy sharpshooters of three Somali pirates during the rescue on Sunday of Richard Phillips, the American captain of the container ship Maersk Alabama, has further raised the stakes, with at least one Somali pirate on shore threatening vengeance on the next American seafarer captured.
Barry Parker, a shipping consultant in New York and former ship broker, predicted that an international agreement would be drafted to allow captains to keep firearms and distribute them to crew members during times of potential danger from pirates. International rules pushed through by the United States after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, authorized captains to monitor maritime security in their vicinity and maintain their vessels at elevated levels of vigilance in response to dangers.
If that antiterrorism system were expanded to include piracy and ships were armed, Mr. Parker said, captains could be authorized to take greater measures. “The captain declares there’s some elevated level and they open up the gun locker,” he said.
But many ship owners, including those with vessels that regularly ply the waters off East Africa, remain deeply reluctant to allow any weapons on their ships, said Matthew Flynn, a shipping consultant in Hong Kong who works closely with ship owners in Asia and East Africa.
“I’m not sure people are convinced at all it’s going to make ships or crews safer,” he said.
Arthur Bowring, the managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners Association, said that if ships carried weapons, they might draw attacks around the world from people seeking to steal the weapons.
Ship owners also do not want crews to be armed because few merchant sailors have combat training and because pirates with deep pockets from ransom payments will always be able to buy larger weapons than ship owners in any maritime arms race, said Mr. Bowring, who is also the chairman of the labor affairs committee of the International Shipping Federation, a trade group representing employers.
“If we arm our crews with light machine guns, they can probably buy heavy machine guns,” Mr. Bowring said. “And if we buy light rocket launchers, they can buy heavy ones.” The answer to piracy, he said, was better law enforcement ashore.
Most ports severely restrict vessels from having weapons on board, and changing those regulations in each country would be difficult, Mr. Flynn said. The United States Coast Guard has been especially wary, fearing that the weapons could be used for terrorist attacks.
Because a commercial vessel might stop in a dozen countries during a voyage, it would be hard for it to carry weapons if any port along the route forbade that, Mr. Flynn said.
International regulation of shipping has shifted heavily away from the countries that register vessels and toward the local and national governments at the ships’ ports of call. This has made it even more complicated to come up with common international standards, because so many countries are involved.
Protecting tankers from pirates is especially difficult. They are a favorite target in Asia and Africa because they are relatively slow moving and may carry valuable cargo like gasoline and diesel, which are easily unloaded and resold.
Accidental fires are a constant worry for tanker crews, which train for them constantly. A tanker crew that is exchanging gunfire with pirates could run the risk of igniting vapors from the cargo, or the cargo itself, shipping executives have said.
Several safety features that have become widespread during the past decade could help lessen the danger from pirate attacks, ship security experts said.
For instance, large freighters are now required to carry devices that continuously transmit their position, a precaution that may reduce the risk of collision as well as make it easier for naval forces to keep track of the ships. Also, many commercial vessels are equipped with a panic button on the bridge that the officer on duty can hit at any time to start automatically broadcasting a distress call with the vessel’s location and description.
Sailing through the Strait of Malacca on a moonless night aboard a small tanker six years ago, Fong Chung-chen, the tanker’s chief officer, recalled how he had hit the panic button and watched as pirates giving chase in a small boat left immediately, having heard the call on their radio. “All of them were squatting, coming very close in masks and full black body suits” until the distress call went out, he said.
Because it is often easiest to board a vessel from the stern, where the wake provides relatively calm water for a pirate boat, crews in piracy-prone waters have also for many years sprayed water from fire hoses down the stern and kept fire axes at hand to sever any grappling hooks used by the pirates.
John S. Burnett, who was himself attacked by pirates in 1992 and wrote the book “Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas,” said piracy currently poses an irresistible economic temptation to Somali fishermen, increasing their earnings from perhaps $50 a month to many thousands of dollars.
“Poor fishermen know now that hijacking ships is far more lucrative than hauling up a half-empty fishing net,” Mr. Burnett said in a telephone interview from Zurich. The Internet, he said, has ensured that word of the success of some pirates in collecting large ransoms has spread to the entire fishing community, whose livelihood has already been threatened by overfishing.
Preventing commercial shippers from paying ransoms is almost impossible, he said, because shipping officials are determined to avoid violence. “The ship companies don’t want blood on the decks, so they pay,” Mr. Burnett said.
He said the rash of piracy in the strait near Indonesia in the 1990s had been ended by a combination of measures. They included increased patrols, partly by an Indonesian fleet modernized with American and Japanese financial support, a crackdown on piracy by the Indonesian government and the use of technology like radar and
drones, he said.
He said he hoped the attention given to Captain Phillips would cause more attention to be focused on piracy and other crew members being held, but warned against the use of military force. Because of Somalis’ resentment of foreign incursions, Mr. Burnett said, “any boots on the ground would be a fight to the death.”
Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington.
Home
- World
- U.S.
- N.Y. / Region
- Business
- Technology
- Science
- Health
- Sports
- Opinion
- Arts
- Style
- Travel
- Jobs
- Real Estate
- Automobiles
- Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
http://up.nytimes.com/?d=0//&t=&s=2&...wanted%3dprint http://wt.o.nytimes.com/dcsym57yw100...No&WT.tv=1.0.7
http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/clien...KQ3FAU0jsMsI0k
http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/noscott.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
For further reading, including the origins of piracy in Somalia:
Pirates Holding Saudi Tanker Dismiss Islamist Threats Nov 2008
Very basic background briefing from globalsecurity.org
Somali Pirates Target New Area, Adopt Tougher Tactics for Hijackings
Interesting bit of personal background, and some insight into the "world" of the pirates from Vanity Fair. Apr 2009 (long article, but worth reading)
There is a lot out there.
Way to go Seals. Ballsy decision, but it worked out. Obama would've roasted if it didn't work out, but it did, so everyone's happy.
The Navy pulled some Hollywood moves with the three simultaneous head shots. Impressive doesnt do the situation justice. The targets were on a boat that is rising and falling, the snipers on a boat that is rising and falling and the three targets are moving.
Thats just sick...I dont think the article I read gave a distance, but regardless, just the conditions I named say youre going to miss at least one of the three shots. Amazing.
Why is there even a discussion about arming crews? Just go back 200 years ago and think about how those ship captains had to defend themselves. Not much has changed since then right? Just mount a few 50 calibur machine gun on board and problem solved. Give the crew some AR-15's.
To bad the same cant be done with thread hijackers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballijuana
NYT:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
Quote:
Acting with President Obama’s authorization and in the belief that the hostage, Capt. Richard Phillips, was in imminent danger of being killed by captors armed with pistols and AK-47s, snipers on the fantail of the destroyer Bainbridge, which was towing the lifeboat on a 100-foot line, opened fire and picked off the three captors.
Two of the captors had poked their heads out of a rear hatch of the lifeboat, exposing themselves to clear shots, and the third could be seen through a window in the bow, pointing an automatic rifle at the captain, who was tied up inside the 18-foot lifeboat, senior Navy officials said.
It took only three remarkable shots — one each by snipers firing from a distance at dusk, using night-vision scopes, the officials said. Within minutes, rescuers slid down ropes from the Bainbridge, climbed aboard the lifeboat and found the three pirates dead. They then untied Captain Phillips, ending the contretemps at sea that had riveted much of the world’s attention. A fourth pirate had surrendered earlier.
Are you happy now?Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Do you like how *pussy Americans* handled the drama?
Reconsider, in light of actual events?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Man - why is it that I'm the one getting all the criticism? That's the ONLY critical thing I posted in this thread. Hilary was the one who said they were waiting on the international community to help them resolve the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
And let's get the facts straight - Obama never even made a statement about the situation. Everytime he was asked about it, he refused to answer.
But I will say I'm very pleased that Obama realized he couldn't negotiate with them and gave the order to take them out. However, all the credit goes to the Navy - way to go guys!!! All Obama did was give the authorization - he's no hero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
In the midst of an ongoing operation, this may have been the prudent thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Defense asked for and received the authorization. Lion's share of the credit goes to the Navy for the amazing rescue, but they wouldn't have done it without the go-ahead from the President. Obama gave them the authority they needed to do the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Because you were so obviously and entertainingly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Mind boggling hateful that woman is.
I always thought Captain had a secret stash for emergencies......at least a taser or something.
But you and many others specifically said he wouldn't give such an authorization, and would simply do the wishy washy thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
You aren't the only one being criticized either. :p:
Personally, it rubs me the wrong way to see myths like "Democratic presidents are wussies" be repeated in the face of a lot of contravening evidence.
When it comes to a lot of foreign policy there is much less difference between the parties than many, including you it seems, think.
yeah, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
how very wild cobra of you
Just heard about this.
Unbelievable sharp-shooting skills.
Just goes to show you what can happen when only the criminals are armed.
EDIT> And kudos to Obama for putting his rubber stamp to good use.
Are you packing right now, Darrin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I don't own a gun.
Thats a pretty short distance for even recreational rifle work, but the roll and lull of the sea between two vessels, with three separate shooters in conjunction is still amazing to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
BTW, that info wasnt in the article I read this morning. Detnews article, as it were.
you gotta figure they had those infared laser red dot sights if they were using NVGs
Go back and read my post again. I said IT SEEMS with this administration. I never said Obama wouldn't do anything. And when I made that comment, we had yet to hear anything from Obama and all we got from Hilary was that she was waiting for the international community to weigh in on the situation and help them decide what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
And today, I said I was very pleased that Obama decided to give the authorization to take them out. What more do you want? But geez, the media is acting like Obama just saved the world!
If you could just say "I was wrong" without making excuses and starting to bitch about something else, there would be less reason to mock you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Its the same story the world 'round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
When the team is losing, coach gets all the blame.
When the team is winning, coach gets too much credit.
Meh...somebody needs to get fired when things go wrong because you cant replace your entire roster.
No, just one man's world. There's just always something wrong - no matter what - with you.
When all you libs admit you were wrong about President Bush - then maybe I'll think about it. But I have 7 more years to bitch until I'll be even with you Bush bashers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Wrong about what? He destroyed Earth. As we said he was doing all along. Perhaps you think things were just peachy when he left office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Fuck the 22 percenters are insane.
What were we wrong about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballijuana
lmfao
Of course. They're not used to a president making decisions that actually turn out good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
I love the idea that you will only admit that one person is correct if someone else admits that YOUR guy was correct too. Because that's not partisan at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
Can you see how ridiculous that sounds Crookshanks? "Tell me how much you liked my guy, or I won't tell you I like YOUR guy!"
That doesn't seem very Christian of you.
I was not wrong about Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshanks
He was incompetant, and that incompetance, when it came to the first 3 years of post-war Iraq occupation got thousands of our servicemembers killed.
Anybody who doesn't hold him accountable for that is guilty of putting party over the lives of our soldiers.
Bush did start doing some things right in Iraq, and in other foreign policy areas towards the end of his term, the damage done from the first 5 or 6 years SEVERELY limited the positive effects.
Let me re-state that in case anybody missed it:
Bush's administration started getting things right towards the end of his administration. He did quite a few things in the foreign policy arena well.
I might have bashed Bush for a lot of things, but I was, and am able to give him credit when he did things right.
Will you do the same for Obama?
:lmao crookshanks - You actually wonder why you get shit?
yeah. that was a head scratcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
the new burden of truth-telling for republicans is "I thought it was true at the time, so regardless of new evidence I'll stand by my original assertion or at least forgive myself for being so far off the mark because I was only working with the faulty intel available to me at the time."Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper