Chat! culturecrossfire.slack.com

Pirates Owned, Hurting Ortonsault's Feelings

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Dr. Tyler said:
imagine if these ships started taking the next logical step and hiring armed guards to travel along. it's not as difficult as you guys are thinking.

Commercial vessels need to be able to get into lots of foreign ports quickly and easily. Generally, this is really difficult to do with armed folks on board. This is why these crews don't have guns to begin with.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
medlarge714.jpg
 

Precious Roy

hashtag trashbag
Messages
19,704
Reaction score
3
Points
176
bigolsmitty said:
“Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding the Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, said: ‘Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying,’ he told The Associated Press. ‘We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men.’”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

Weren't we just trying to be nice and bringing their people a boat full of food and shit when they decided they'd be better off stealing the boat and holding the captain hostage? While clearly Somalia is a country in bad shape, It's a tough spin to buy the pirates in this situation as wronged victims here.

I see a headline of "Obama vows to fight piracy". Obama's "War on Piratism" is just what all the liberal comedians have been waiting for.

Also, am I nuts or did I briefly see a headline about the hostage being killed during an escape attempt last week only to have it deleted/retracted within the hour. I think it was on MSNBC or Yahoo. But I also might be imaging things.
 

BurningPirateShipSex

BurningPirateShipSex
Messages
11,049
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Whitby, ON
There's something approaching a point in there, but god knows I'm not fishing for it.

Smitty, this one's on you. I've got an IR final at 2 today.
 

Agent of Oblivion

Faded as fuck
Messages
11,399
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Tampa
Blockade their ports. Can't capture anything if they can't get to open sea.

I'm not suggesting locking down all 3000km or whatever it is, but if you take out strategic lanes, that would drastically reduce the issue, right?
 

BurningPirateShipSex

BurningPirateShipSex
Messages
11,049
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Whitby, ON
I think part of the problem is that, due to the environment, there's no true list of what is or isn't a pirate port-If one is shut down, another could easily open up. Plus, from what I've seen, a lot of these guys are poor fishermen who turned to piracy as a means of supporting themselves. So once again, it raises the possibility of new ports opening up as soon as the others are shut down.
 

ericmm

Integral Poster
Messages
317
Reaction score
0
Points
0
According to NPR, being a pirate and getting pirate money is the only way to get chicks in Somolia.

It'll never stop...
 

BurningPirateShipSex

BurningPirateShipSex
Messages
11,049
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Whitby, ON
I'm not sure if that's in response to the problem of piracy, or the laugh-out-loud stupidity of segments of the US media in covering international affairs..
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Precious Roy said:
Weren't we just trying to be nice and bringing their people a boat full of food and shit when they decided they'd be better off stealing the boat and holding the captain hostage? While clearly Somalia is a country in bad shape, It's a tough spin to buy the pirates in this situation as wronged victims here.

While I don't have much sympathy for the pirates, I do have a lot of sympathy for Somalia in general. There hasn't been a government there since '91, and the place has basically been hell since then. Around 2006, there was starting to be a semblance of order with a moderate Islamic government, the ICU. They had even gotten piracy under control.

The United States backed an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in '06 to depose the government. Since then, the piracy problem has exploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Somalia_(2006-present)
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
U.S. Military Considers Attacks on Somali Pirates’ Land Bases
By Jeff Bliss

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. military is considering attacks on pirate bases on land and aid for the Somali people to help stem ship hijackings off Africa’s east coast, defense officials said.

The military also is drawing up proposals to aid the fledgling Somalia government to train security forces and develop its own coast guard, said the officials, who requested anonymity. The plans will be presented to the Obama administration as it considers a coordinated U.S. government and international response to piracy, the officials said.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
One of the best overall rundowns of the history & situation, also think I agree w/his conclusions:

Don't Chase the Pirates
by Matthew Yglesias

...However, the enormous skill of the Navy SEAL snipers who pulled off the extraordinary feat merely throws into relief the extent to which combating piracy solely at sea is destined to be a difficult endeavor with poor prospects for success. The ocean is extremely large, and the number of people who can successful execute a boat-to-boat sniper shooting is very small. The international antipiracy fleet is heavily clustered in the immediate vicinity of Somalia, but as the journalist Xan Rice has observed, the Indian Ocean is “an area too large for foreign navies to cover effectively."

Meanwhile, not all daring antipirate rescue operations have such happy endings. The French, who've been the most aggressive pirate-fighters of all, recently suffered an incident in which one of the men they were seeking to rescue was killed during the rescue process.

This has led some to call for the U.S. and its allies to invade Somalia and fight the pirates on land. Impatience with half-measures at sea is understandable, but any realistic land options are likely to further plunge Somalia into chaos and make the piracy problem worse in the long term.

Bloomberg reported on Monday that the U.S. military is weighing options for a land assault. Meanwhile, hawks such as John Bolton who are looking to paint Barack Obama as "soft on piracy" are raising the rhetorical temperature arguing that "unless we go in and really end this problem once and for all, we will simply see it grow over time" so a "coalition of the willing" should storm in and put a stop to things.

Before rushing into an invasion of Somalia, Americans would do well to try to understand the broader context in which the piracy problem has emerged—15 years of anarchy following the hasty collapse of a U.S.-led peacekeeping effort in the early 1990s. Pirates thrive in conditions of political fragmentation, a scenario that certainly describes contemporary Somalia and, importantly, a situation to which recent U.S. military intervention has contributed.

For the past 15 years, the closest Somalia got to a period of stable governance was a roughly six-month period in which an outfit calling itself the Islamic Courts Movement seemed on its way to consolidating control over the bulk of Somali territory. The ICM was not a particularly friendly or humane bunch, but nobody is in Somalia, and they offered the prospect of something resembling governance. Unfortunately, in a little-noticed decision, the Bush administration also decided that they represented a threat to American national security.

Thus, while Americans were tuning out the news during the week between Christmas and New Year's in 2006, the administration chose to green-light an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, aimed at installing the powerless de jure government in Mogadishu as a puppet regime backed up by Ethiopian troops.

The Ethiopians would likely have wanted to invade anyway, but the United States is a major supplier of military aid to Ethiopia so we probably could have restrained them. Instead, bolstered by overblown claims of ties between the ICM and al Qaeda, we egged Ethiopia on and offered indirect military support to the Ethiopian invasion.

This was accompanied by loud cheers from conservative pundits, but as veterans of other recent efforts by Christian powers to invade and occupy Muslim lands could easily have predicted, the result was a popular backlash and a violent Islamist insurgency.

The long-term upshot of the invasion has been a more radicalized Islamist movement in Somalia that's now more likely to ally with jihadists against American interests, as well as a return to the general climate of chaos out of which the pirate problem has emerged.

If the U.S. really wants to engage with the piracy problem on the ground, we would need to do more than take potshots at pirates; we would need to intervene in a way that helps resolve the underlying chaos. And our record in this regard is not good. As Jeffrey Gettleman wrote in an excellent survey of Somalia's tragic recent history for Foreign Policy, "The United States has been among the worst of the meddlers: U.S. forces fought predacious warlords at the wrong time, backed some of the same predacious warlords at the wrong time, and consistently failed to appreciate the twin pulls of clan and religion." Consequently, "Somalia has become a graveyard of foreign-policy blunders that have radicalized the population, deepened insecurity, and pushed millions to the brink of starvation."

Unless over the past 15 years we've somehow become more knowledgeable about the intricacies of internal Somali politics, or more willing as a country to commit to decades-long nation-building operations in obscure portions of Africa, further intervention is likely to do more harm than good. A reasonable approach begins with the observation that anarchy never lasts forever, and Somalia's almost certainly would have ended before today had not past meddling knocked the country off the path to stability. Fighting pirates at sea is bound to fall short, too, but it's the best thing we can do until a coherent government emerges in Somalia. Further clumsy intervention will most likely only push that day further into the future.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-14/the-war-on-piracy/2/
 

Sex Machine Gun

Kotzenjunge
Messages
8,792
Reaction score
355
Points
188
Location
Charleston, SC
I gotta say, funding Somalia for the purposes of training security forces and whatnot is a bloody stupid idea. I'd rather each nation affected by this problem is entrusted with keeping their ships safe. If that means we have to have escorts for our ships in the area, so be it. I'm not terribly confident in any Somali-based solution to the issue.
 

BurningPirateShipSex

BurningPirateShipSex
Messages
11,049
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Whitby, ON
Sex Machine Gun said:
I gotta say, funding Somalia for the purposes of training security forces and whatnot is a bloody stupid idea. I'd rather each nation affected by this problem is entrusted with keeping their ships safe. If that means we have to have escorts for our ships in the area, so be it. I'm not terribly confident in any Somali-based solution to the issue.

I think a solution based in part on what you're suggesting, and partly on an AU-led effort would be best.
 

BurningPirateShipSex

BurningPirateShipSex
Messages
11,049
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Whitby, ON
Here's a fun article on the domestic response, courtesy of the excellent Dr. Juan Cole:


Wingnut Pundits Who Trashed Obama over Pirate Stand-Off, Proved Wrong for the Zillionth Time


Kenneth T. Walsh at US News & World Report gives details of President Obama's handling of the Somali pirates' holding of Captain Richard Phillips hostage.

The crisis began early in the morning of April 8, when Somali pirates boarded the Maersk Alabama. The crew captured one pirate, and three others took Captain Phillips hostage. He talked them, along with one other, into getting into the lifeboat and keeping him as the hostage, as a way of saving his crew.

The US Navy, aware of the danger to Phillips's life if it took precipitate action, brought in experienced FBI hostage negotiators.

This attempt to end the crisis through hostage negotiation was made fun of by the American right wing:

April 9, 2009, Fox Cable News:


'GLENN BECK: Have you heard this one? The U.S. Navy is now looking to the FBI for advice on how to free an American cargo ship captain. Oh, no, they're sending over a hostage negotiator. Yes, I hope we're bringing them some hot cocoa over to the Somali pirates! The U.S. warship is near the pirates' drifting light boat and the Navy doesn't know how to fix this one. Wow!'


What Beck does not say is that a frontal US naval attack on the lifeboat at that stage might well have killed Phillips. Beck actually made fun of the US Navy, implying that it was dawdling about instead of going in with guns blazing. What kind of person makes fun of the professionals of the US Navy and the FBI while they are trying to do their jobs in saving a true American hero? This kind of snark is not patriotic or manly. It is just a little girl's hissy fit masquerading as macho.

Meanwhile, even Rush Limbaugh's supporters were embarrassed by his inability to stop bashing the president long enough to celebrate the escape of the crew. Ann Althouse lamented of Limbaugh, "He'd slotted the story into his Obama-doesn't-know-what-to-do template and was riffing away about Obama's indecision and what he must be fretting about and how he'd probably want to apologize to the pirates and so forth."

Walsh explains of Friday, April 10: "In Obama's first national security test, he secretly gave the Pentagon the go-ahead at 8 p.m. Friday to use force if Phillips's life was in imminent danger." So, Rush, I guess Obama wasn't in a mood to apologize after all. Unless in Limbaugh Limbo, making preparations to whack someone is seen as a mea culpa.

What of Obama's silence, which allowed the blowhards to bloviate? Walsh adds, "Throughout the crisis, Obama avoided saber rattling in public. His aides said that would have made negotiations for Phillips's release more difficult." In other words, Obama avoided posturing and talking like a cowboy about the pirates in order to avoid complicating a hostage crisis and endangering the life of the hostage. Obama took heat for his silence, but he took it like a man. Behind the scenes, he received 17 separate briefings.

At exactly the same time that the deft young president authorized lethal force, one of McCain's advisers, the far rightwing pundit Ralph Peters, was ridiculing Obama as ineffectual and clueless:

April 10, 2009:

O'Reilly Factor, Fox Cable News (John Kasich, guest host; guest, far rightwing pundit Ralph Peters)

' KASICH: What about the silence that we are seeing out of the White House, colonel? What do you think's behind that? Is this helpful in some way?

PETERS: I think our president is probably just hoping it goes away. I mean, sad to say, I wish him well because I wish America well, but he seems like the worst possible combination of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And he -- you know, he's the dog that caught the fire truck. He's never studied foreign policy, military affairs. And now he has to actually make decisions. And I suspect President Obama doesn't know what to do. So I hope he listens to our military.'


Actually, in our democracy, Mr. Peters, it is the military that is supposed to listen to its commander-in-chief. And, calling our first African-American president a "dog" that "caught the fire truck" is at the very least extremely offensive and at worst a slur. You will note, by the way, Mr. Peters, that Obama handed you and others in the McCain campaign your asses last November. So I think we know whom the American public trusts to make the important decisions, and it isn't you.

On the same day, April 10, Rush Limbaugh has the revelation that Phillips is not being held by pirates at all but by "community organizers" (hint, hint, by people like Obama): "Look, the Somali pirates and community organizers, they shake down private sector businesses, the Somali pirates claim they don't want to hurt anybody, although the captain did escape, but they recaptured him, and now they're threatening violence. You gotta laugh. This is not funny. But you have to laugh at a bunch of community organizers in basically a lifeboat surrounded by US destroyers, which appear to be powerless. You have to laugh at this. All the merchant marine organizers want is money from evil capitalists with big boats, the same as the ACORN community organizers out of Chicago, the same as the community organizers harassing and protesting AIG executives in Connecticut and New York."

Actually, as far as I can see, AIG is the pirate. I can't keep track. Did they hold up the US taxpayer for $185 billion? And you might say, well, it benefitted the US banks. But, no, not so much: A lot of it went to European banks. Then there were the $240 million in bonuses that your and my pockets were picked for by AIG with Rush's connivance. Rush, the corrupt and inept financier's best friend.

Not to mention that many Somali fishermen have been, well, deprived of their livelihoods by that nice unregulated capitalism that Mr. Limbaugh thinks so well of. There is no excuse for piracy, but that the fishermen are being reduced to penury does make it easier for the criminals to recruit them.

Limbo Limbaugh then posted a picture of Obama at a picnic table, implying that he was doing nothing.

Now it is Saturday, April 11. Walsh explains, "In a follow-up order at 9:20 Saturday morning, he gave more specific authorization that included allowing a Navy commander to order snipers to take out the pirates if the situation became dire, U.S. officials said."

On Sunday, the US snipers were sent into action when it appeared that the pirates were menacing Captain Phillips with their weapons. They killed three and freed Phillips, capturing the fourth.

While the whiny Right was ridiculing the president as a do-nothing, or calling for blowing the lifeboat out of the water, or calumniating Obama with charges that he was "apologetic" to the hostage-takers and even "bringing them hot chocolate," the president was quietly, competently, taking stock of the situation and putting in place the policies and personnel that would lead to a successful resolution and the freeing of a hero.

Reminds me of the Carly Simon Bond theme, "Nobody does it better/ Makes me feel sad for the rest."
http://www.juancole.com/2009/04/wingnut-pundits-who-trashed-obama-over.html
 

ericmm

Integral Poster
Messages
317
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apparnetly the shipping companies are against convoys / other safety measures because they'll be too expensive. Ships in a convoy go as fast as the slowest ship, so anyone who bought that fancy new fast freighter is gonna lose money. They'd rather just pay the pirates' ransom.

But now that we're killing pirates, this may no longer be an option. Not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
The French just paid the ransom and then killed/captured the pirates once. That doesn't seem like a bad idea, although maybe the pirates have figured out ways around that technique.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Agent of Oblivion said:
Blockade their ports. Can't capture anything if they can't get to open sea.

I'm not suggesting locking down all 3000km or whatever it is, but if you take out strategic lanes, that would drastically reduce the issue, right?

a) How would you keep from blockading fisherman?

b) It would be really easy for the little fishing boats the pirates use to run even a really tight blockade.

c) As you acknowledged, the coastline is really fucking long. What would keep them from just picking up and moving to a different area? It's not like this stuff is really capital intensive or requires a large base of operations.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Few Good Options in Pirate Fight
By Noah Shachtman April 13, 2009 | 7:19:00 PMCategories: Africa, Arrrrr!!!!, Ships And Subs, Strategery

President Obama said today that he's "resolved to halt the rise of piracy" in East Africa. But it isn't at all clear how the international community would stop the ocean-going hijackers, exactly.
Taking out the Maersk Alabama pirates was relatively quick and straightforward. Taking down the pirate network in Somalia won't be. So what are the options? Here's a brief rundown.
* Send in the U.S. Navy! Actually, they're already there. And, unfortunately, our armada isn't particularly well-configured to scare off pirates; it's really made to lay waste to a city, or to another navy. The American vessels best equipped to do the job won't be ready for years. Ships from twenty countries are also on anti-pirate duty in the region. But coordination between the navies -- and with the merchant companies -- is uneven. So maybe step one is some kind of unified pirate-fighting command. Even with better cooperation, though, they won't be able to cover all of those 1.1 million square miles of ocean that have become the hijackers' hunting grounds.
* Kill the pirates! Yesterday's head-shots aside, the international policy right now is to capture pirates, and send them to jail. But that doesn't exactly have the Somalis shaking in their boats. So why can't the Navy terminate the pirates, when they're found? Well, floating around in a skiff, carrying an AK, is no crime. Nor is it an act of war. But an armed takeover of a vessel definitely is a criminal deed. Which means the pirates can get whacked, right? In fact, the international law is surprisingly murky here.
* Arm the crews! Let the merchant vessels take care of their own defense, in other words. So far, international rules have made it tough to bring firearms aboard the ships. But those rules may be about to change. Would armed-but-relatively-untrained crews be up to the test, if attacked?
* Send in Blackwater Xe! Private security contractors have got the training. But so far, they haven't been very effective in stopping pirate attacks. Besides, few, if any, commercial shipping companies seem interested in having guns-for-hire aboard -- or sailing alongside. "At the moment, tanker vessels absolutely will not carry armed escorts on board; they will not carry any firearms; they don't like armed sailors -- naval personnel -- on board, let alone private security operators. And the downstream legal implications of hiring private security are really pretty substantial," one private security firm exec said lat last year. Again, that could change, if pirate attacks ramp up.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Ever wish you could watch a reality TV show about something as cool as, say, catching pirates?

Wish granted. Spike TV is set to join the U.S. Navy on the high seas in coming months, with two camera crew tagging along to the U.S. fleet on its patrol of the 1.1 million square miles of pirate-infested ocean. Expect footage for the show by September.

What does the Navy get out of the deal -- aside from prime time exposure? Recruiting, of course!

If chasing pirates doesn't get you to enlist, I'm not sure what would.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/14/reality_tv_pirate_edition

Yeah, I'll be watching this.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Ya know, w/r/t to the captain of the Maersk Alabama, I'm honestly surprised he was able to attempt to swim away, what with his huge brass balls weighing him down and all.
 

bigolsmitty

stares Trick Daddily
Messages
3,427
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I've been meaning to read this Foreign Policy article on Somalia for some time now, and finally got around to it. It has some great info on how the ICU came to power and got the country under control:

By 2005, the CIA saw what was happening, and again misread the cues. This ended up being Strike Two.

In a post-September 11 world, Somalia had become a major terrorism worry. The fear was that Somalia could blossom into a jihad factory like Afghanistan, where al Qaeda in the 1990s plotted its global war on the West. It didn’t seem to matter that at this point there was scant evidence to justify this fear. Some Western military analysts told policymakers that Somalia was too chaotic for even al Qaeda, because it was impossible for anyone—including terrorists—to know whom to trust. Nonetheless, the administration of George W. Bush devised a strategy to stamp out the Islamists on the cheap. CIA agents deputized the warlords, the same thugs who had been preying upon Somalia’s population for years, to fight the Islamists. According to one Somali warlord I spoke with in March 2008, an American agent named James and another one named David showed up in Mogadishu with briefcases stuffed with cash. Use this to buy guns, the agents said. Drop us an e-mail if you have any questions. The warlord showed me the address: no_email_today@yahoo.com.

The plan backfired. Somalis like to talk; the country, ironically, has some of the best and cheapest cellular phone service in Africa. Word quickly spread that the same warlords no one liked anymore were now doing the Americans’ bidding, which just made the Islamists even more popular. By June 2006, the Islamists had run the last warlords out of Mogadishu. Then something unbelievable happened: The Islamists seemed to tame the place.

I saw it with my own eyes. I flew into Mogadishu in September 2006 and saw work crews picking up trash and kids swimming at the beach. For the first time in years, no gunshots rang out at night. Under the banner of Islam, the Islamists had united rival clans and disarmed much of the populace, with clan support of course. They even cracked down on piracy by using their clan connections to dissuade coastal towns from supporting the pirates. When that didn’t work, the Islamists stormed hijacked ships. According to the International Maritime Bureau in London, there were 10 pirate attacks off Somalia’s coast in 2006, which is tied for the lowest number of attacks this decade.

The Islamists’ brief reign of peace was to be the only six months of calm Somalia has tasted since 1991. But it was one thing to rally together to overthrow the warlords and another to decide what to do next. A rift quickly opened between the moderate Islamists and the extremists, who were bent on waging jihad. One of the most radical factions has been the Shabab, a multiclan military wing with a strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. The Shabab drove around Mogadishu in big, black pickup trucks and beat women whose ankles were showing. Even the other Islamist gunmen were scared of them. By December 2006, some of the population began to chafe against the Shabab for taking away their beloved khat, the mildly stimulating leaf that Somalis chew like bubble gum. Shabab leaders were widely rumored to be working with foreign jihadists, including wanted al Qaeda terrorists, and the U.S. State Department later designated the Shabab a terrorist organization. American officials have said that the Shabab are sheltering men who masterminded the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Somalia may indeed have sheltered a few unsavory characters, but the country was far from the terrorist hotbed many worry it has now become. In 2006, there was a narrow window of opportunity to peel off the moderate Islamists from the likes of the Shabab, and some U.S. officials, such as Democratic Rep. Donald M. Payne, the chairman of the House subcommittee on Africa, were trying to do exactly that. Payne and others met with the moderate Islamists and encouraged them to negotiate a power-sharing deal with the transitional government.

But the Bush administration again reached for the gunpowder. The United States would not do much of the fighting itself, since sending large numbers of ground troops into Somalia with Iraq and Afghanistan raging would have been deemed insane. Instead, the United States anointed a proxy: the Ethiopian Army. This move would be Strike Three.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4682&page=2

The whole thing is worth reading. It goes on to talk about the Ethiopian invasion. It also talks about the Bush Sr. intervention back in the 90s.
 

Nightwing

Nightwing
Messages
587
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Detroit, Michigan
And Xavier's opinion on things!

I would accept that the origins of the fishermen's efforts were as coastguards, and the modern privateering operation evolved from those actions.

42. Why I called it a short-term mistake: The Somalis have no history of killing hostages. They are friendly to cooperative hostages. They have to make threats in order to get the ransom, but they have no intention of killing. It is against their interests. The Somalis on the boats are only a small part of the overall operation. Somalis do not want to jeopardize their operation by killing.

I do not believe that the captain was truly in danger. Why would they shoot their hostage who is worth up to $2 million and ensures their safety (except from snipers)? I've read the excuses such as that the Somalis were increasingly desperate or suffering qaat withdrawal. They sound like bullshit. Haven't we seen many instances in which a police officer—whose mindset is focused on possible threats—wrongly shoots and kills a person (e.g., Oscar Grant, Timothy Stansbury, Jr.)? The U.S. Navy had a 'justifiable' opportunity to end the situation, and they took it.

Another point is that one of the privateers in Eyl claims, "The American liars have killed our friends after they agreed to free the hostage without ransom."

I called it a short-term mistake because I believe that three Somali human beings were unnecessarily executed.

Why I called it a long-term mistake: I worry that the Somalis will no longer treat American (and French) hostages well. I'm sure that they will discuss it rationally and do what's best for their operation, but they utterly despise injustice. They may intend only one act of retribution (and I'm not saying that it will be a killing), but the Americans certainly won't be happy about it. In order to 'save' one American's life, we may now have the consequence of many more Somali deaths and possibly multiple American deaths. The outlook is terrible. The world needs to stop putting all of the blame on the Somalis.

I mean, wow. A guy in Eyl claims they were totally going to let them go for free? That's certainly a reliable source.
 

Twisted Intestine

Integral Poster
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
1
Points
111
Location
Ontario, Canada
The despise injustice? Okay, well you held someone hostage and ended up dead for it. Justice served!

and I'm one of the most left thinking people here.
 
Messages
8,892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Someone needs to put xavier on a somali ship as a hostage and have a gun shoved in his face and see how he feels. He's a pirate sympathizer and is stupid for being so.
 
Top