RE: paying ransoms to pirates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Moonhead -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 12:59:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Many countries don't want merchantmen to be "armed" and won't let them in their ports if they are.

I doubt Israel would be happy about being expected to let tooled up muslim ships dock to trade. They'd probably take it out on the Palestinians if they were expected to, I expect.




Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:03:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

If we want to encourage more of it, pay the ransom. If we don't, then don't.

I'd prefer to go a little beyond just not "encouraging" it. [:D]

K.




Moonhead -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:05:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

If we want to encourage more of it, pay the ransom. If we don't, then don't.

I'd prefer to go a little beyond just not "encouraging" it. [:D]

K.


A good point, but (as Lady Ellen says) what on Earth could you threaten them with that hasn't been done to Somalia over the last ten years already?




Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:06:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Some would argue though Ron, that we have reduced them to piracy by levelling the shithole in the first place.

By that logic, the poor are entitled to engage in armed robbery. FAIL.

K.




Moonhead -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:07:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Some would argue though Ron, that we have reduced them to piracy by levelling the shithole in the first place.

By that logic, the poor are entitled to engage in armed robbery. FAIL.

K.


Wasn't that one argument for the Boston teaparty?




Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:11:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Wasn't that one argument for the Boston teaparty?

Are you suggesting that these pirates are resisting taxation without representation?

K.





Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:27:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

what on Earth could you threaten them with that hasn't been done to Somalia over the last ten years already?

I don't know. Have we done anything with a few of these yet?

[image]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080927/af-somalia-piracy/images/b0520672-584d-4611-8b8a-2dbfbded7988.jpg[/image]

K.




HunterS -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:51:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Wasn't that one argument for the Boston teaparty?

Are you suggesting that these pirates are resisting taxation without representation?

K.





If you were to apply your normal "due diligence" to the research you would find that the pirates are resting rape pillage and plunder not taxation without representation.

H.




Politesub53 -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 1:58:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40

Mixed feelings. 

If pirates were active, I would have chosen another venue for my trip of a lifetime.

Its kinda like all the public money that goes into search and rescue of standed hikers on a mountain in the middle of a winter storm.  Should public money be used to rescue thrill seekers?



Agreed.




Moonhead -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 2:06:17 PM)

I don't think the pirates are that smart, Kirata.




Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 2:14:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

If you were to apply your normal "due diligence" to the research you would find that the pirates are resting rape pillage and plunder not taxation without representation.

Unh, I assume you mean "resisting" and that you are referring to this:

According to Johann Hari, a left-leaning but not entirely fact-averse British journalist in a piece earlier this year, the Somalis didn’t start raiding ships until after a bunch of foreign fishing ships came in and fished out their coastal waters, depriving local fishermen of their livelihood and local Somalis of a source of food. Then, it is alleged, foreign vessels started dumping waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coast, and the vaunted international community did nothing about it.


But as the story continues to say...

There are problems with this, of course. By seizing commercial vessels they are demanding “compensation” from companies that are different from those that caused the problems in the first place. And what may have been conceived as a way to “get our own back” from nasty furriners has escalated into serious criminality, drawing in ever more ruthless and greedy scum, as successful criminality almost always does.

I have to agree. Engaging in indiscriminate piracy is not an acceptable solution to the problem, no matter how legitimate their grievances or how sympathetic your views.

K.






kdsub -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 2:28:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Some would argue though Ron, that we have reduced them to piracy by levelling the shithole in the first place.




Bull... they are victims by their own making and deserve what they will allow.

Fishing is but a small part of the countries economy and only an excuse for easy money.

To say because they are poor they must become criminals is insulting to many hard working poor people of this world.

NOW the only option is to clean them out but the real mistake was people that gave in to blackmail in the first place. IF from the very beginning countries had taken the line of the United States there would be no piracy today. If they did not get money then there would be no use talking a chance of getting captured or killed.

I say that without anyone I love in harms way but it is no less the truth.

Butch




rockspider -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 2:59:32 PM)

I agree on your idea a long way, but your plan of action is not to well thought out. Consider what happens in a pirate attack. A few high powered rubber ducks mounted with extreme high powered engines "suddenly" appear with heavily armed tugs on board and treatens to shoot anybody doing any of the in several treads mentioned dropping stuff on to them. Which allows them to attach various climping stuff to get on board so they can seize the crew with handweapons.
Well one rifle or handgun in the hand of the crew is suicidal. So forget that. The idea of converting an old ship in to a stool pidgeon is way to elaborate. The answer is really quite straight forward. 200 - 300 guys made up in details of maximum 10 man units, drawn from all countries involved. We have our hunters and the frogmen, the brits their SAS, the jews "the boys" i believe they are called "Seals" in USA. All countries have such units, some better than others. They board absolute normal freight ship in the area and sail along hidden from view.
As it is would be totally unacceptable to shoot on inocent people in this situation you really have to let them show their intend, but that is quite clear when they under 250 m from the ship. Their order of battle is no secret as every merchantman have radars which can see them many miles away. What you see on that screen is a target where suddenly several target seperate from. Due to the extreme high fuelconsumption of those rubberducks their range is strictly limited and therefor attached to a much slower and bigger wessel which serves as a mother ship.
When the attack is unmistakeable under way the special OP's forces appear on the merchantman and in reality 3 rubberducks needs only 3 handheld surface to surface missiles to be blown to hell and gone. The chance of an actual firefight is minimal, as anybody knows, who sailed in a rubber in those waters. They buck and hop in a way, so hitting a barn with a handgun is totally impossible on a 100 m. I have done a lot of scuba a bit further south. The pattern of the the ducks leaving the mothership is quite unmistakeable that something nasty is about to happen, but the warning is normally early. At least 15 minutes many times an hour. As a neath little coup de grace. You contact you friendly neighbourhood aircraftcarrier captain and give the coordinates of the mothership who dispatches his not so friendly F16 pilot who on getting there could fire a single air to surface missile in to the mothership or decide to be a cheapie and just let rip with the ,5 machine guns for a single strafing run. Either method guarantied to see the mothership on the bottom of the Indian Ocean ASAP.
For the Chandlers, i am quite surprised, as Mauritius is really way from what up to now been considered Somali pirates hunting grounds. I have not seen the coordinates where the piracy took place, but if they came from India via Maldives to head down the Mocambique coast as is the sort of standard route for yachts (trade winds and currents dictate that) the should have been about 2600 km of Somalia. The route over Seychelles heading down the Mocambique Channel is more used and still considered safe, but only 1300 km of the Somali Coast.
The above scheme would require the oldest aircraftcarrier in the US fleet parked north of Seychelles, or depending on the Seychelles cooperation just a couple of jets on the island and might be the same in Saudi or Oman. One or 2 high speed armed patrolboats to move the special forces from ship to ship as they leave an enter the target zone.
Maybe it would be a good idea to let one of the rubberducks escape only killing half the crew. So a few can adventually get back to Somalia to tell about the new experience of being a pirate.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

The understanding in  maritime definition of piracy, is crimes carried at sea by private individuals for private ends. So if that is the case, these current pirates are outlaws in the country they hail from, as I am sure piracy there is against their laws too. So if  a pirate threat to shipping exists, then the country whose waters the pirates operate in should be told to sort it out, else risk others sorting it out. If there is a threat to shipping, it needs resolving, send a warship there to blast the things out of the water, as was that not the purpose of military vessels in the first place, protect shipping and there trade.

Ransoms, though they have been paid in antiquity, Europe paid the Barbary pirates for a quiet life, they should not be paid, these current pirates demand what they do, however unreasonable it is, because they can, perhaps they have no expectation of really getting what they demand, but why not give it a go, as the publicity the case generates they know is sure to act in their favour, they may even get the large sum they demand, there is always an outside chance.

But these present day pirates know also it is unlikely that a foreign warship will hunt them down, as they know foreign powers are very scared about what they do in foreign waters, they know military action will be seen worldwide, and there condemned, so in reality, they are sitting pretty until the unexpected happens, and needs to happen to protect all shipping, be that trade or other.

All it needs, is an old time raider, a warship disguised as a merchant ship, lure them in with promises of fat goods to be seized, then drop the hoardings and blast them out of the water.






travelgman -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 3:34:02 PM)

As for countries not wanting armed seamen coming into their ports. Any security forces would not have to get off the boat or for that matter they could simply chopper off the boat once it was out danger.




kittinSol -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 3:40:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
I doubt Israel would be happy about being expected to let tooled up muslim ships dock to trade. They'd probably take it out on the Palestinians if they were expected to, I expect.


No, they would not.




HunterS -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 4:17:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

If you were to apply your normal "due diligence" to the research you would find that the pirates are resting rape pillage and plunder not taxation without representation.

quote:

Unh, I assume you mean "resisting" and that you are referring to this:[quote/]

There is that "due diligence" I have always noticed in your posts.
 
 


According to Johann Hari, a left-leaning but not entirely fact-averse British journalist in a piece earlier this year, the Somalis didn’t start raiding ships until after a bunch of foreign fishing ships came in and fished out their coastal waters, depriving local fishermen of their livelihood and local Somalis of a source of food. Then, it is alleged, foreign vessels started dumping waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coast, and the vaunted international community did nothing about it.


But as the story continues to say...

There are problems with this, of course. By seizing commercial vessels they are demanding “compensation” from companies that are different from those that caused the problems in the first place. And what may have been conceived as a way to “get our own back” from nasty furriners has escalated into serious criminality, drawing in ever more ruthless and greedy scum, as successful criminality almost always does.

I have to agree. Engaging in indiscriminate piracy is not an acceptable solution to the problem, no matter how legitimate their grievances or how sympathetic your views.

K.





Although I find it sadly lacking here. 
You really are better at it than you are pretending.
I find it most interesting that you find time to pick out and post  a spelling error but fail to even atempt to
address the point that you quote. 
 
 
H.




RCdc -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 4:27:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

what on Earth could you threaten them with that hasn't been done to Somalia over the last ten years already?

I don't know. Have we done anything with a few of these yet?

[image]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080927/af-somalia-piracy/images/b0520672-584d-4611-8b8a-2dbfbded7988.jpg[/image]

K.



Yup.  And there was one watching when they were originally taken.  But of course, the excuse is that they didn't want to put lives at risk by stopping the terrorist pirates - of course that doesn't matter about civilians when it comes to bombing countries of course - or the fact that the couple are at risk now anyway.  Oh, and the covering it up - that also works.

the.dark.




Kirata -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 5:24:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterS

I find it most interesting that you find time to pick out and post a spelling error but fail to even atempt to address the point that you quote.

I assume you mean "attempt". [:D]

I addressed the Somali complaint in the quote as follows:

Engaging in indiscriminate piracy is not an acceptable solution to the problem, no matter how legitimate their grievances or how sympathetic your views.

K.




Aneirin -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 6:06:04 PM)

I still think any vessel should have the ability to defend theselves, sod special forces and such, mount a gun on a ship for and aft and train the crew to use it. A gun need not be a war size large calibre, but something with enough credibility by mere sight might be enough to dissuade cowards from attacking any vessel.  Even if an unpracticed crew manage to fire a round or two with wild aim, one shot might get lucky, there is always that chance and that chance might be enough to put an attempted boarding right out of their tiny minds.

To note, the current pirates only attack, because there is no defence, create a defence and an attack becomes a different thing, if the pirates understand there is a possibility they may lose their life in attacking, they might not be so keen.




Rhodes85 -> RE: paying ransoms to pirates (11/21/2009 6:29:33 PM)

'Should the British government relent in this instance? Or should it allow the Chandlers to die or be handed over to terrorists? '

No they should not relent. If you accept a pirates demands and hand over a ransom it only lets them know you will do the same in the future, and makes it more likely that they will take more hostages. There really isn't a good solution to the problem here. Attempting a rescue would most likely get everyone killed.

'As an experienced mountain hiker, I can tell you that I and everyone experienced I know takes a very, very negative view of these morons. To go unprepared, to take unnecessary risks, to put the lives of others at risk to rescue them--well, let's just say I agree with the NH law that CHARGES them for the expense. That doesn't help with the lost lives of rescuers.

It's worse with GPS. These idiots feel safe. They don't get that (1) we know where you are, but (2) that doesn't mean we can get there safely or (3) in time to save your moronic ass. Additionally, some people have pushed the panic button indicating they need help, but what kind of help? It has to be treated as an emergency, when turns out often they're fine for a few days. '

I couldn't agree more. Alot of idiots do stupid things like that without thinking of the dangerous situation they are putting themselves in, let alone their rescuers.

I always found it odd that many Americans that visit third world countries seem to think that because they are American that it automatically means nobody can do anything to them. They think they are safer than everyone else that lives there because of their blue passport. Really what do they expect? some robber to come up to them and ask if they are American before they rob and beat them? I can see it now 'what?! you're american?! i'm sooo sorry sir! i'll just go and beat and rob that 60 year old thai woman over there instead! sorry for the trouble'

Not very realistic is it?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.492188E-02