Somalia pirate situation

[Chained_life]

Glad to see we shot 3 of them dead and the other faces life in prison. Exactly what I wanted. And the Captain made it out alive. Nice work US navy :thumbup:

[Chained_life]

Like 1_man_army said, why does this American ship get it's own thread lol? Pirates are constantly seizing ships near Somalia, it's been that way for a while and it probably wont change very soon so I don't see why one American ship gets a thread.

 

 

 

Because Americans only care about world issues when it suddenly affects themselves as well. Not meant to flame, just a neutral observation. Just see how much the average american cared about global terrorism (despite even the marine barrack attack in the 80's that killed hundreds of soldiers) until something bad happened on their own soil.

 

 

 

I don't think 9/11 was good at all, neither are the pirate attacks, but it's sad how the citizens of the US only react to events when it concerns US directly. Maybe these events secondarily serve as wake-up calls or 'Pearl Harbors'.

 

 

 

The guy is a proper man with high morals; Sacrificing himself for his crew, being an exemplary captain as well. I can only wish for his safe return and not getting tangled up in politics. He doesn't deserve to lose his life over a money/ransom dispute.

 

 

 

That's what happens when you're a superpower. Almost every country depends on our well-being. We don't have time to hear about every tragedy in every damn country. And yes, we do here about school shootings and other major things from other countries; often. I'm holding back, because most likely whatever country you're from we've saved your [wagon] in the past, while you continue to belittle us.

[1_man_army]

France did, yersterday I think.

 

 

 

edit - might have been the day before.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... li-pirates

[Racheya]

Like 1_man_army said, why does this American ship get it's own thread lol? Pirates are constantly seizing ships near Somalia, it's been that way for a while and it probably wont change very soon so I don't see why one American ship gets a thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's how frequent they are. Wanna make a thread each time one gets captured? Don't forget the other recent attacks...

 

 

 

It is the sixth seizure in recent days, including a British and Taiwanese ship.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe this one gets a thread since those other countries didnt call their navy to save the hostages.

 

 

 

And didnt kill all the pirates like America did.

 

Ooooh, because you kill people you can make a thread about it? Or is it because you have a nice big navy?

[1_man_army]

France did, yersterday I think.

 

 

 

edit - might have been the day before.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... li-pirates

 

 

 

 

 

Ask OP why this wasnt included, or better yet make this a thread too if you think it deserves one?

 

 

 

I'm not annoyed that there's a thread on this. What annoyed me was that people were expect to care (and were flamed for not caring) just because Americans were involved. The implication being that the rest of the world is somehow irrelevant. A general thread over the problems with Somali piracy would be interesting but this made it out to be a unique incident where Americans were targeted deliberately, which is not the case.

[Racheya]

France did, yersterday I think.

 

 

 

edit - might have been the day before.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... li-pirates

 

 

 

 

 

Ask OP why this wasnt included, or better yet make this a thread too if you think it deserves one?

 

He wasn't saying it deserves a thread, but this doesn't either. Why not make a thread about pirate attacks in general instead of 'pirate attack on US ship' which seems rather 'country-ist' if you could say that.

 

 

 

Every single pirate attack on a ship doesn't deserve a thread for each - there isn't enough discussion value beyond 'oh that sucks' so why make one for this ship?

 

 

 

Damn I forgot my anti-flame shield -.-

[trapical]

To answer why this incident had it's own thread is simply because it was a more publicized event, it had nothing to do with the OP's ignorance or anything like that. Now, why was this event more publicized?

 

 

 

1) There was a 50 hour hostage standoff. Normally these events end in death or surrender, not a raft with hostages being surrounded by warships and special forces for 3 days.

 

 

 

2) Nearly all traditional international media is owned by American companies. CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, Yahoo, Google, etc are all American companies that billions use, and these companies choose to report on this incident since it involved an American. Again, this had nothing to do with the OP of this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, all this debate and my "flag is bigger than yours" talk is moot. We should instead be focusing on the story at hand! Personally, I believe Yahoo mixed up the story. The real news is as follows:

 

 

 

At approximately 5pm GMT the pirates were nearing the Somalia shore and the US Navy was unable to stop them without directing firing onto the ship. All hope seemed lost when suddenly the guy controlling the aerial surveillance drone blinked. When his vision returned approximately 0.0001 seconds later all the pirates were found dead and piled neatly on the US navy ship, cause of death seemed to be katana and thowing star wounds to the face.

[Racheya]

France did, yersterday I think.

 

 

 

edit - might have been the day before.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ap ... li-pirates

 

 

 

 

 

Ask OP why this wasnt included, or better yet make this a thread too if you think it deserves one?

 

He wasn't saying it deserves a thread, but this doesn't either. Why not make a thread about pirate attacks in general instead of 'pirate attack on US ship' which seems rather 'country-ist' if you could say that.

 

 

 

Every single pirate attack on a ship doesn't deserve a thread for each - there isn't enough discussion value beyond 'oh that sucks' so why make one for this ship?

 

 

 

Damn I forgot my anti-flame shield -.-

 

 

 

eh you dont need the shield. You made a good point, and i was in no ways defending the OP's post.

 

 

 

I agree it shouldve been a Somalian pirates thread not an America thread. And yea i too fail to see the discussion value beyond that.

 

I should have equiped it on my first post before really :lol:

 

 

 

Okay I need to go to bed... :wall: I shall dream up a post for this thread in my sleep...

[scn64]

I love how people are flaming that this thread got made because a American ship got attacked. Not our fault that all the other nations in Off-Topic didn't make a topic themselves.

 

Actually it's the Americans flaming those who don't care.

 

 

 

And I don't really feel the need to since there isn't an amazing about of discussion for the most part. Something bad happened, it's not good... yeah.

 

 

 

If you don't care about it, that's fine. But not caring, and making fun of a situation are two different things. A few members such as Da_Latios saw a need to poke fun at the situation. If a thread were to be made about a similar attack on another country's ship, I certainly wouldn't go in there and laugh it up, whether I actually cared about the story or not.

[Dizzle229]

I didn't care when there were bombings in the UK, but I didn't go to a thread and make fun of them. ( had another acount, but I forgot the stinkin pass :evil:. Had like 3 posts anyway but still...)

 

 

 

Anyway, 3 pirates dead, one whose free life is pretty much over, and minimal (if any) American casualties.

 

 

 

New topic of discussion: Should the crew of cargo ships be allowed to arm themselves now?

[ember3579]

I didn't care when there were bombings in the UK, but I didn't go to a thread and make fun of them. ( had another acount, but I forgot the stinkin pass :evil:. Had like 3 posts anyway but still...)

 

 

 

Anyway, 3 pirates dead, one whose free life is pretty much over, and minimal (if any) American casualties.

 

 

 

New topic of discussion: Should the crew of cargo ships be allowed to arm themselves now?

 

 

 

 

 

If they're going through that area? HELL YES. However, it would be best if we were to organize with various countries that any non-military vessels that go through there get an escort of no less than 1 ship each. I imagine that most pirates wouldn't go anywhere near a military craft voluntarily. This might be difficult to get done, though. Arming trade ships is probably the best idea, just as long as there's limitations to the amount of firepower allowed. They shouldn't be able to double as destroyers.

 

 

 

Still, this doesn't handle the root problem. We need to stabilize Somalia if we want this sh** to end. Take away the necessity to induce risk on yourself, and most will not take the risk.

[mmmcannibalism]

changing opening post to discuss all pirate attacks in somalia; but seriously, I just posted this now because the story got a lot of attention same thread would be made if it was any nationality. So lets talk about somalia in general now, and give up on the immature America hating.

[trapical]

Here's an interesting twist. CNN just reported that the Somalian pirates have vowed to now kill any American or French sailors they find on trade ships they capture. (France also recently killed pirates while rescuing French citizens).

 

 

 

So... if you're a sailor stay away from that region.

 

 

 

Still, this doesn't handle the root problem. We need to stabilize Somalia if we want this sh** to end. Take away the necessity to induce risk on yourself, and most will not take the risk.

 

Ah yes, stabilize Somalia. Sounds like fun, can the US call "dibs not" on this one?

[EXToL]

Here's an interesting twist. CNN just reported that the Somalian pirates have vowed to now kill any American or French sailors they find on trade ships they capture. (France also recently killed pirates while rescuing French citizens).

 

 

 

So... if you're a sailor stay away from that region.

 

 

 

Still, this doesn't handle the root problem. We need to stabilize Somalia if we want this sh** to end. Take away the necessity to induce risk on yourself, and most will not take the risk.

 

Ah yes, stabilize Somalia. Sounds like fun, can the US call "dibs not" on this one?

 

 

 

Could allow the sailors to just fire on the pirates if they appear to be a threat...

[mmmcannibalism]

Here's an interesting twist. CNN just reported that the Somalian pirates have vowed to now kill any American or French sailors they find on trade ships they capture. (France also recently killed pirates while rescuing French citizens).

 

 

 

So... if you're a sailor stay away from that region.

 

 

 

They just lost my sympathy, I had some sympathy for the fact they were trying to make money in a really terrible country. If this is true though, we are going to have to start defending ships with some strong military support.

[Racheya]

I didn't care when there were bombings in the UK, but I didn't go to a thread and make fun of them. ( had another acount, but I forgot the stinkin pass :evil:. Had like 3 posts anyway but still...)

 

 

 

Anyway, 3 pirates dead, one whose free life is pretty much over, and minimal (if any) American casualties.

 

 

 

New topic of discussion: Should the crew of cargo ships be allowed to arm themselves now?

 

Mass bombings =/= a few pirates

 

 

 

Anyway onto the topic... I think they should be able to arm themselves yes, but as long as its controlled and monitored.

 

 

 

And you know how I said I was going to dream up a reply? Yeah well I'm skipping sleep tonight :wall:

[Cup Lion]

Still, this doesn't handle the root problem. We need to stabilize Somalia if we want this sh** to end. Take away the necessity to induce risk on yourself, and most will not take the risk.

 

Ah yes, stabilize Somalia. Sounds like fun, can the US call "dibs not" on this one?

 

Interesting idea. Somalia seems to be the only country successfully (if you can call it that) run by a large "gang". The income they get from pirating ships is more than what their country makes doing legal things, by far. It is, in fact, their main source of income.

 

 

 

I doubt the US would be able to change that, since it seems to be their governing system, as well.

[mmmcannibalism]

Still, this doesn't handle the root problem. We need to stabilize Somalia if we want this sh** to end. Take away the necessity to induce risk on yourself, and most will not take the risk.

 

Ah yes, stabilize Somalia. Sounds like fun, can the US call "dibs not" on this one?

 

Interesting idea. Somalia seems to be the only country successfully (if you can call it that) run by a large "gang". The income they get from pirating ships is more than what their country makes doing legal things, by far. It is, in fact, their main source of income.

 

 

 

I doubt the US would be able to change that, since it seems to be their governing system, as well.

 

 

 

Unable without serious military intervention, and unfortunately the amount of trouble that would cause isnt worth it.

[Da_Latios]

Yarrr.

 

 

 

I don't care ^_^

This.

 

Although I did have a good laugh. Silly Americans getting trolled IRL.

 

The guy who is being held lives a few miles from me. My best friend's house is next to his, and (obviously) knew him. Latios, [bleep] you, honestly. You say you laughed because I ship filled with humanitarian supplies for one of the poorest areas in the world was attacked. Acting like an ITG won't make you cool, latios.

 

Good grief, he's not dead. You're making it sound like I should care.

[psvstef]

give all the ships who are close to there at least a machine gun!

 

and just shoot all those bastards :evil:

[brunokiller]

Stef, that's a bit too easy and it won't work because the pirates will just use more violence.

[Dizzle229]

Stef, that's a bit too easy and it won't work because the pirates will just use more violence.

 

 

 

Oh, so you want to try appeasement?

[magekillr]

[hide=Obama Beats First National Security Test]The U.S. economy is showing only glimmers of life and two costly wars remain in the balance, but President Barack Obama's "no drama" handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.

 

 

 

Obama's quiet backstage decision to authorize the Defense Department to take necessary action if Capt. Richard Phillips' life was in imminent danger gave a Navy commander the go-ahead to order snipers to fire on the pirates holding the cargo ship captain at gunpoint.

 

 

 

For Obama, the benefits were instantly clear: an American life saved and a major victory notched against an increasingly worrisome scourge of the seas off the Horn of Africa.

 

 

 

Obama's handling of the crisis showed a president who was comfortable in relying on the U.S. military, much as his predecessor, George W. Bush, did.

 

 

 

But it also showed a new commander in chief who was willing to use all the tools at his disposal, bringing in federal law enforcement officials to handle the judicial elements of the crisis.

 

 

 

The rescue appeared to vindicate Obama's muted but determined handling of the incident. What won't be known for some time is whether Obama will benefit politically.

 

 

 

When Obama campaigns for re-election, he may take Bush's approach of turning any such incident into evidence of his leadership acumen. On the other hand, Obama didn't go before the cameras Sunday to trumpet the success, instead releasing a written statement that saluted the bravery of the military and Phillips but claimed no credit for himself.

 

 

 

Also, this crisis, while topping the news now, may fade into distant memory by the time voters get a chance to take any new measure of Obama and his party.

 

 

 

Still, it goes some way toward dispelling the notion that a liberal Democrat with a known distaste for war - Obama campaigned on his consistent opposition to the Iraq invasion - doesn't have the chops to call on U.S. military power.

 

 

 

The sniper operation Sunday, with pirate guns aimed at Phillips, was a daring, high-stakes gambit, and it could have easily gone awry. If it had, the fallout would have probably landed hardest on Obama.

 

 

 

Indeed, the last Democratic president to unleash American military might against Somalis suffered miserably from the failure of that operation. Portrayed in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," a U.S. peacekeeping mission ordered by President Bill Clinton ended with a humiliating withdrawal of troops after a deadly clash in the Somali capital of Mogadishu.

 

 

 

The outcome this time was vastly different.

 

 

 

Since the standoff began last Tuesday, Obama made no public, in-person remarks on the topic, even declining to answer when questions were shouted at him during a press availability.

 

 

 

He didn't call in his Cabinet for a high-profile command meeting. He let military and top administration officials do the talking, but even they kept saber rattling out of the equation.

 

 

 

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Obama's silence should not be interpreted to mean that he wasn't deeply involved. The president's public posture was calculated to not raise the temperature on the situation or give the hostage-takers anything to exploit.

 

 

 

"Let's not confuse a public role with being on top of the situation," Emanuel said. "If you'd interjected yourself, you would make the discussions that were happening more difficult."

 

 

 

So what Obama did was receive regular briefings, sometimes as often as half a dozen times a day. He weighed in with two critical decisions allowing the military to take action to save Phillips' life. And he laid the groundwork for a federal criminal law enforcement response.

 

 

 

White House officials said the Justice Department is already reviewing evidence to determine whether to file criminal charges against the captured Somali pirate. The U.S. is treating the matter as a criminal case because officials have found no direct ties between East African pirates and terror groups.

 

 

 

Obama doesn't like labels for himself or catch phrases for policy. So it's notable that in an administration that has virtually banned the phrase "war on terror," no one called the pirates "terrorists."[/hide]

 

 

 

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ ... TE=DEFAULT

 

 

 

It's really sad that people like Rush Limbaugh tried to use this as a weapon against Obama rather than hoping that the captain would make it out alive. Rush kept saying that this crisis was quite similar to the Iranian Hostage Situation with Carter, and that it would show Obama's true colors as a weak President that "doesn't know what to do."

 

 

 

Well, Rush, are you vindicated, yet?

[brunokiller]

Stef, that's a bit too easy and it won't work because the pirates will just use more violence.

 

 

 

Oh, so you want to try appeasement?

 

I just don't think violence is the right answer.

 

Create jobs and the fact that Somalia doesn't have a law system (Though, not another Vietnam please).

[ember3579]

Stef, that's a bit too easy and it won't work because the pirates will just use more violence.

 

 

 

Oh, so you want to try appeasement?

 

I just don't think violence is the right answer.

 

Create jobs and the fact that Somalia doesn't have a law system (Though, not another Vietnam please).

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, we need to stabilize Somalia if we want this mess to stop. HOWEVER, I'm willing to bank on some level of resistance from the pirates and other criminal types that saturate the area. A lot of them won't be negotiated with, and any attempts would just give them an advantage and a heads-up. It sucks, but sometimes violence is necessary in controlled amounts to accomplish a goal. Welcome to humanity.