Snipers must have been relieved to finally be looking through their scopes at unambiguous jerks doing evil things with AKs, instead of women holding babies or children with bombs on their chests Another thing it brings attention to is the fact that pirates are dicks, and that the internet culture around them is a pile of ****. People seem to think that eye patches, cutlasses, big boats, alcohol, debauchery and rough talk constitute piracy. They don't. Piracy is made up of murder, rape, theft, torture and betrayal. Yeah, very hip, internet generation, you pack of misty-eyed retards. Not just modern pirates, either, even the 'classic' pirates of the caribbean. Those guys who smashed your car windows and stole the stereo? The ones who killed your dog and robbed your house? Pirates were the 18th-century version of them, except they did more killing. [/rant] All in all, I'm thoroughly glad four of them are dead and/or in custody respectively
Theres an internet culture of pirates are cool ? :? Pirates look cool, but I doubt there are many people who actually condone what they do. Saying that, these "modern" pirates dont kill as much as you might think - much of the time they are happy to trade hostages for money. Thats all they are after.
Such a wrong move, I thought they wouldn't do it, and was suprised when I heard they did, now this pops up on Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo..._Era_Of_Pirate_Guerilla_Warfare,_Expert_Warns Silly silly move, these guys are minted, they will take it to the next level now, and from what I have heard, these guys are unbeatable i.e. you cannot control them.
I generally tend to favour the less direct, diplomatic route but in this case I'm not sure how the US Navy could have acted any differently. The situation was already out of control in that the US crew recapturing the ship was definitely off-script as far as the pirates were concerned. The hostage US captain had already made one break for escape. Negotiations had pretty much failed when the negotiating fourth pirate refused to leave the US ship and return to his pirate crewmates (presumably because he realised the situation was breaking down and bound to end in gunfire any moment now). Second, French Navy commandos had already stormed a pirate-held boat a few days previously, killing two pirates and one French hostage, and freeing four French citizens. The notion that Somali pirates have not killed a single captive is incorrect. They will kill the crew if the vessel and its cargo are considered more valuable than the crew (in potential ransom). Somali pirate chief Abdi Garad is just doing what leaders do in a situation like this to maintain their position of preceived authority: talk tough. But he is unlikely to escalate the conflict further. If the combined Western Navies decide to throw diplomatic relations with Somalia to the wind they could bomb its pirate freeports right back to the stone age with little risk of any subtantial retaliation.
^^^ Nexxo is, as usual, very correct. Somalia is a failed state, the only resistance they could offer to a naval bombardment would be attacks by pirates, who tend not to fare well against navies who mount dual .50 BMG machine guns and 3" autocannon like they're automated pr0n dispensers. Ultimately, the only "retaliation" would be international in nature, and even that would probably be limited to government statements of protest, and a general worsening of public opinion. And, of course, a wave of Somali terrorists. (edit) I will post a good bit more on the topic after my midterm. (/edit)
Whether you like it or not the British Navy were the last to defeat pirates, which involved attacking them on the land as well as sea as thats where the issues start. If you want to hit them where it hurts you, stop paying up as thats why their doing it, attack their land bases and stop the foreign fish trawlers just pilaging the seas off Somalia which is why alot of them are pissed off in the first place. Also shows the inadaquecy of current navys if you ask me, there built for cold war style warfare of big sea battles, with specific roles and tasks, Destroyers for Submarines and Frigates for air craft. Lets face it off the coast of somalia they can do sod all, they're's too few and they're too slow. Submarines still have a role to carry SLBM's, but you don't have that with ships. What we need is fewer show piece tied down to one role ships and more aircraft carriers, which lets face it have a far greater range than a Destroyer for shooting down air craft, have just as good a chance of detecting submarines (helicopters) and are better for destroying ships (exocet missle anyone). They also have a far greater range to monitor the seas than a few ships ever could.
Well done to the Navy seals to have pulled something like that off, of course it's going to change things there, but it wasn't like other countries weren't using force, ie France. I think new international pirating laws are needed, rather than just re-acting to the pirates, International forces should now actively hunt them on both land and sea.
The morals should always be considered strongly but in this case it was more clear cut who the "bad guys" were. Granted these Somalians are just poor people acting out of desperation, but when you don't have an out and you're going into such a risky venture as it is, you need to give yourself up and just take the loss. Unfortunate it had to come to this but all other options were exhausted. Also - take more time with your next post and try to include content or analysis. You're just embarrassing yourself. Nexxo is an excellent example for you to model.
I think we are going to be seeing these ships carrying rifles and such now on the ships with them. That captain was a great hero making them take him for the safety of his crew.
While it seems to be a right/wrong situation for the military, this is actually a bit more complex. With people paying ransoms fairly often, it's just breeding more hijackings. This is much more of a law enforcement issue. A good starting point is to freeze the assets of any company that has a ship hijacked, and remove the potential for them to pay the pirates; there by removing the incentive to hijack in the first place. Harsh? Yes. But it's a proven method in kidnapping prone parts of the world. There is no way that this has a military solution. With no access points to control, a supportive populace, and thousands of square kilometers of open ocean; it's next to impossible to prevent hijackings. This needs a solution at the source of the problem: poverty and lack of a functioning government. And no western government will touch those issues. No, actually you won't. You think the US would allow foreign cargo ships to dock at US ports with the type of weapons needed on board? No. And neither will any other government around the world. I mean, after Mumbai, I can guarantee you that the Indian government won't even consider letting a ship dock with an armed crew. And none of the Arabian governments will allow it. Iran, forget it. China, nope. Singapore? No, they have their own pirate issues and the task force to combat them. Any bulk carrier or smaller cargo ship going through that corridor is coming from those markets. So we won't be seeing any armed merchantiles for some time. And after seeing some of the reports from ships employing mercenaries, they aren't a solution either; especially the ones from the UK who seem to jump overboard at that first sign of attack.
Nah I meant more of the huge ships that transport oil and such. Like that superliner that got hijacked. When there is so much money involved I think that the US government will try and protect them via keeping their own weapons.
Exactly, which is why this has now become a ****ing big problem, they now know that even the massive militarys cannot stop them, so more people will want to become pirates etc. There is nothing stopping these pirates of jumping onboard, killing every single person on the ship, and leaving, nothing at all. Maybe we'll see ghost ships soon.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to employ PMC's to guard ships going near or through dangerous waters in terms of pirates? Surely that cost has to be lower than the cost of ransom and loss of face/crew members lives? Nice to see the captain got out alive and well, though.
I have no idea how these ships operate, but can they make these ships like a tank i.e. you cannot get into the ship or onto the ship if it's locked down, possibly put an eletric strip around the ship so no one can climb up, because once they are on with guns and RPGs, it instantly becomes a bad situation, so surely making it impossible for them to get on is a solution. And like the guy said above, surely having armed guards on every ship around that location would reduce the hijack rate a lot, could the US not put 2-3 armed soldiers on each ship once they come into the radius? (3 hijacked ships) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD97I6QN80
Well, the military can stop them, just not in a way that is generally accepted as reasonable and proportional. Not a precedent you'd want to set. As SitraAchra says, in any case you can't please everybody all of the time, so the US should just look after its own and let others do the same. The French did. There are effective non-lethal ways to keep the pirates at bay. But the real solution, as Jumeira_Johnny says, is to help Somalia become economically self-supporting. Favoured trading status, anyone? It worked for China. Very few people would choose to become a pirate if they can have a safe, reasonably paying job at home that allows them to raise a family and send their kids to school.
Favoured Trading status? What does Somalia have to trade, except the contents of hijacked ships? I am told they export sugar, maize and fish, but hardly enough to viably compete with other, larger, exporters. According to Wakipedia there's possibly a large oil deposit in the north of Puntland - but I doubt that'd be enough to up their GDP sufficiently to effectively combat the pirate ports.
