PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues People who illegally detain ships at sea (pirates) Vow Revenge


HonestChieffan
04-12-2009, 07:52 PM
Love this from the full story (link)..

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53A1LP20090412

"Somali pirates were quick to vow revenge over the shooting of their comrades, as well as a French military assault to rescue a yacht on Friday.

"The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now," Hussein, a pirate, told Reuters by satellite phone."

Keep SEALS ready to go, put them on the freighters. Game on.

BucEyedPea
04-12-2009, 08:49 PM
Well they do only take ransom BUT they hold people hostage with rocket launchers, guns and grenades too. What do they expect? All they had to do was give the guy up. He was in fear of his life. We just got 'em first.

googlegoogle
04-12-2009, 08:55 PM
The real test will be when they attack and kill an American crew. Then the real Obama test we will see.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2009, 11:06 PM
Tomorrow Obama and any other international leader with half a brain should say, "Henceforth, all ships will be equipped to defend themselves in a pre-emptive fashion when necessary. If these ships are under the threat of pirate attacks in the future, pirate ships will be blown out of the fuggin' water. Period. Any questions, if there are any will be asked afterward."

PERIOD.

wazu
04-12-2009, 11:19 PM
The real test will be when they attack and kill an American crew.

They won't. In fact I'd be very surprised if they hijack any more American vessels anytime soon. These pirates are businessmen, not fundamentalists. Attacking American ships is bad business, and brings all kinds of heat they don't want. This particular "franchise" learned the lesson the hard way, and others will hold it up as a cautionary tale, something every industry has plenty of.

The tough talk is out of fear for their business model and what all of this might mean. The result, though, will most likely be laying low, and sticking to hijacking vessels with flags of nations that don't have any significant naval presence in the area.

Bowser
04-12-2009, 11:44 PM
Arm all the ships with the Phalanx gun system they use on carriers for missile defense. The pirates will go back to hawking mp3 players in Mogadishu.

BigRedChief
04-12-2009, 11:57 PM
Love this from the full story (link)..

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53A1LP20090412

"Somali pirates were quick to vow revenge over the shooting of their comrades, as well as a French military assault to rescue a yacht on Friday.

"The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now," Hussein, a pirate, told Reuters by satellite phone."

Keep SEALS ready to go, put them on the freighters. Game on.
http://donhodges.com/images/bto3.jpg

Rain Man
04-13-2009, 09:44 AM
I still don't understand why ships don't carry guns if they're traveling in this area. They can't capture you if they can't board you.

BucEyedPea
04-13-2009, 10:11 AM
I still don't understand why ships don't carry guns if they're traveling in this area. They can't capture you if they can't board you.

Someone told me on another board that it's because of explosive cargo.
But the pirates have rocket launchers, automatic weapons and grenades so what's the difference here?

I don't know if the above is true but I'd like to know. Other reasons I read why they aren't armed is due to Int'l Maritime Law and/or the ports they have to visit don't allow them. I did read they are not allowed to be armed. I also read they are heavily taxed.

mikey23545
04-13-2009, 10:17 AM
Hopefully Obama has already apologized for America's transgressions against pirates throughout history....

blaise
04-13-2009, 10:21 AM
Someone told me on another board that it's because of explosive cargo.
But the pirates have rocket launchers, automatic weapons and grenades so what's the difference here?

I don't know if the above is true but I'd like to know. Other reasons I read why they aren't armed is due to Int'l Maritime Law and/or the ports they have to visit don't allow them. I did read they are not allowed to be armed. I also read they are heavily taxed.


I don't think they want to engage in a firefight. The company doesn't want their ships, full of cargo sinking.

patteeu
04-13-2009, 11:22 AM
The real test will be when they attack and kill an American crew. Then the real Obama test we will see.

I wouldn't even call that the real Obama test. A somewhat more significant test, maybe, but not THE test. I don't think the Somali people who illegally detain ships at sea (LOL, HonestChieffan) are capable of putting Obama to THE test.

Duck Dog
04-13-2009, 11:33 AM
Ships carrying hazardous materiel or sensitive materiel like oil and weapons should never be vulnerable to pirates.

Iowanian
04-13-2009, 11:36 AM
This sounds like an extra good time to make an example of this asshole.

Somalia is a wasteland. Find his location, have a predator drone or Tomahawk send him a certain message. Follow that explosion by dumping a couple of gallons of bacon grease on him and stuff his mouth full of pork rinds.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2009, 12:05 PM
.338 Lapua and a Duroc Boar.

Reaper16
04-13-2009, 12:14 PM
This sounds like an extra good time to make an example of this asshole.

Somalia is a wasteland. Find his location, have a predator drone or Tomahawk send him a certain message. Follow that explosion by dumping a couple of gallons of bacon grease on him and stuff his mouth full of pork rinds.
That sounds delicious. I wish I were a Somali person that illegally detains ships at sea.

raybec 4
04-13-2009, 12:32 PM
The funniest thing about the article is they want us to believe the French have a military and they actually defeated someone.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2009, 01:14 PM
The funniest thing about the article is they want us to believe the French have a military and they actually defeated someone.

You do not screw with the French Foreign Legion.

Hydrae
04-13-2009, 01:40 PM
I still don't understand why ships don't carry guns if they're traveling in this area. They can't capture you if they can't board you.

I heard something on the radio that it is against international maritime laws. :shrug:

WoodDraw
04-13-2009, 01:59 PM
I heard something on the radio that it is against international maritime laws. :shrug:

A lot of ports don't allow weapons to be brought in on non-military ships. If you lived in a major US port city, would you have problems with ships from everywhere - Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East - entering US ports armed? I know the US Coast Guard has noted their issue with it, and I'd assume other country's have similar hesitations.

HonestChieffan
04-13-2009, 02:05 PM
I fully support the shippers who are from countries we choose to have guns on their ships. Its stupid to say all cannot have them. If Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Canadian, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or a long list of others want to, I say do it. We can create a much smaller list of countries who would use our ports who would be restricted or denyed having weapons.

No to any Muslim nation, any nation who has a dictatorial leader/Communist like Venezuela, countries who we cannot trust for any number of reasons...

Its called drawing up sides. Pick your friends wisely.

WoodDraw
04-13-2009, 02:10 PM
I fully support the shippers who are from countries we choose to have guns on their ships. Its stupid to say all cannot have them. If Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Canadian, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or a long list of others want to, I say do it. We can create a much smaller list of countries who would use our ports who would be restricted or denyed having weapons.

No to any Muslim nation, any nation who has a dictatorial leader/Communist like Venezuela, countries who we cannot trust for any number of reasons...

Its called drawing up sides. Pick your friends wisely.

Yeah, but it doesn't work like that. Ships are registered with "flags of convenience" and draw crews based on the rules of that country, some of which are lax. Granting certain rights to country X by no mans guarantees that the crew or cargo or even vessel comes from country X.

T-post Tom
04-13-2009, 08:33 PM
Hmmmmm...maybe the pirates' spokespeople should do some research...

http://images2.sina.com/english/world/p/2009/0311/U137P200T1D225116F8DT20090311185247.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/338682772_0f56189f1d_o.jpg

Rain Man
04-14-2009, 06:46 PM
So I guess these guys wouldn't have a problem if we came in and only held their family members for ransom.

GoHuge
04-14-2009, 10:53 PM
Well one problem is that 33,000 ships got through there a year. Arming then all would cost more than the ransom demands are. Not to mention (I heard today) less than one percent of ships going through there are attacked. The Somali coast line is over two thousand feet long which makes it hard to patrol the entire coast line and keep the f**kers from heading to sea.

With that being said I say do whatever is possible to light these bastards up and make piracy so unthinkably dangerous they just give up on it.

Make them go back and make an honest living.....oh wait YOU LIVE IN A F**KING DESERT. Nothing is ever going to grow there!! Die scumbags.....Darwin will take care of these pieces of Shiite!!

Respect the SEAL's f**kin authoritah!!

Iowanian
04-14-2009, 10:58 PM
I don't understand why ships don't just "convoy up" when going through known danger areas....and stay within reach of military support(air-sea).

googlegoogle
04-14-2009, 11:31 PM
I don't understand why ships don't just "convoy up" when going through known danger areas....and stay within reach of military support(air-sea).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123966729406515295.html

Bowser
04-15-2009, 12:36 AM
The Somali coast line is over two thousand feet long which makes it hard to patrol the entire coast line and keep the f**kers from heading to sea.

I'll go ahead and assume you meant 2,000 miles. If it really is just 2,000 feet, well, then that just makes them fucking lazy if they don't want to patrol that.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 07:56 AM
A lot of ports don't allow weapons to be brought in on non-military ships. If you lived in a major US port city, would you have problems with ships from everywhere - Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East - entering US ports armed? I know the US Coast Guard has noted their issue with it, and I'd assume other country's have similar hesitations.

It was discussed on tv last night that they have the right to defense under international law; but when in the port of a foreign nation they could have them locked up and put away as a regulation. There's no need once in port to have their arms out or available. That sounds workable to me.

Some other things were discussed like no ladders on the sides etc. in addition to this. And of course letters of marque and reprisals should be used again.

The thing is if piracy is on the rise, they're gonna have to be armed just like merchant ships of old. In this case though, I heard on tv that the owners of the cargo don't like the arms because it's too precious; that they consider the ransom cheaper.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2009, 08:21 AM
And he gets a sympathetic article by the Associated Press

Paul has already anticipated the criticism this could be another Blackwater fiasco.. He also introduced this after 9/11.

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy,” Paul wrote in a press release. “Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

Here's more of the article:
A little-known congressional power could help the federal government keep the Somali pirates in check — and possibly do it for a discount price.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships.

“I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said.

Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.

National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission.

Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.

The rest of it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090415/pl_politico/21245

Bowser
04-15-2009, 12:35 PM
Sounds like a job for Blackwater.

StcChief
04-15-2009, 08:18 PM
Hopefully Obama has already apologized for America's transgressions against pirates throughout history....
he should just dismantle the Navy, turn Jefferson history around :)

Saulbadguy
04-15-2009, 09:30 PM
I don't understand why ships don't just "convoy up" when going through known danger areas....and stay within reach of military support(air-sea).

Civilization PC game. Always couple your transport with a destroyer/battleship/sub, etc. :D

Direckshun
04-15-2009, 09:32 PM
So this is great. Not only do we have to continue occupying two Middle Eastern countries that are on the other side of the globe that we have nothing in common with, we should patrol the humongous coast of an impotent African nation that we have even less in common with for most of the foreseeable future.

Saulbadguy
04-15-2009, 09:34 PM
What do you expect, we've been glorifying pirates for years.

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 09:35 PM
What do you expect, we've been glorifying pirates for years.

Saulbadguy, I think you AAARRRRRR correct in that assessment..

WoodDraw
04-15-2009, 09:41 PM
Saulbadguy, I think you AAARRRRRR correct in that assessment..

BOOOOO

Jenson71
04-15-2009, 09:46 PM
I wasn't gonna, I wasn't gonna, been then I just had to. AND IT WAS AMAZING

Pioli Zombie
04-15-2009, 11:02 PM
Aaaaaarg. Fuck the Pirates right up the ass with broken bottles. Aaaaaarg.
Posted via Mobile Device