# Pirates off the coast of Africa



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Earlier today, the pirates who had captured and were holding hostage four Americans killed them without provocation. These people were retired American citizens, members of the Marina Del Rey yacht club, sailing around the world distributing bibles. Anyone have any thoughts?

I have plenty of thouights. It will be a while before I can post because I have to clean up the language as I believe this fourm is "G" rated.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It seems to me, it is time for some payback! I've always been a firm believer in the effectiveness of air strikes. Even the Good book calls for "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth!" Retribution is not a new concept.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> It seems to me, it is time for some payback! I've always been a firm believer in the effectiveness of air strikes. Even the Good book calls for "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth!" Retribution is not a new concept.


Getting the right pirates is just the issue. Unless we want to just go willy nilly into international/sovereign waters taking out pirates for the fun of it.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Getting the right pirates is just the issue. Unless we want to just go willy nilly into international/sovereign waters taking out pirates for the fun of it.


Okay..let's do it. Why not? The only good pirate is a dead pirate. Arrrrrrgggggghhhhh!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> I Even the Good book calls for "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth!" Retribution is not a new concept.


I seem to recall a _newer_ Testament recommending the exact opposite.....

And my thoughts are really simple, anyone floating around these waters in anything but a Naval Destroyer is beyond stupid. Not only did it end dreadfully bad for those poor unfortunate people, it could have been potential fatal for those attempting a rescue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting these people deserved their fate - anything but in fact. However, you sail around these waters in a small yacht - and it's no secret as to where the danger lies - and bibles or no bibles, these animals are not going to mess about.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Just as there was a "no-fly zone" over Iraq for years, there should be a "no-sail zone" off the coast of Somalia. The US Navy makes sure anything that floats doesn't do so for long...anything.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> Getting the right pirates is just the issue. Unless we want to just go willy nilly into international/sovereign waters taking out pirates for the fun of it.


What do you mean "right pirates?" A pirate is a pirate and every pirate that isn't killed outright should be hung. International waters don't protect a pirate and as far as sovereign waters, if the nation involved isn't killing them, or at least putting them under the prison for life, then they are advocating piracy which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it an act of war if the pirates are committing their crimes on the high seas.

At some point the world is going to have to step up and say enough is enough. Haven't we already sent the Marines to Tripoli once before to stop piracy? I'm sure they would be more than willing to do it again.

Cruiser


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> What do you mean "right pirates?" A pirate is a pirate and every pirate that isn't killed outright should be hung. International waters don't protect a pirate and as far as sovereign waters, if the nation involved isn't killing them, or at least putting them under the prison for life, then they are advocating piracy which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it an act of war if the pirates are committing their crimes on the high seas.
> 
> At some point the world is going to have to step up and say enough is enough. Haven't we already sent the Marines to Tripoli once before to stop piracy? I'm sure they would be more than willing to do it again.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, you know your stuff!!

No matter how one looks at it, this is an act of war!! This is one of the many things about this incident that has me boiling mad; it is an act of war and the news media and even the White House/Congress has paid very little attention to it!! When are our leaders going to wake up??!! I like the way Obama and Hilary have handled the Mid-East/North Africa crisis so far (talk nicely as little as possible and do nothing), but this is an unprovoked attack on our countrymen in international waters which needs to be dealt with immediately.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> What do you mean "right pirates?" A pirate is a pirate and every pirate that isn't killed outright should be hung. International waters don't protect a pirate and as far as sovereign waters, if the nation involved isn't killing them, or at least putting them under the prison for life, then they are advocating piracy which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it an act of war if the pirates are committing their crimes on the high seas.
> 
> At some point the world is going to have to step up and say enough is enough. Haven't we already sent the Marines to Tripoli once before to stop piracy? I'm sure they would be more than willing to do it again.
> 
> Cruiser


What is this, the 17/1800s? I agree that a pirate is a pirate, and should be captured, tried, and sentenced according to the laws of the nation they violated (or international laws). Applying the death sentence to "Armed Theft at Sea" is actually a little overboard. US law sets the punishment at "Life in Prison."

Now don't get me wrong, if one of the bastards gets killed while committing the act, he had it coming.

But as for the US sending troops. We've done it before, and we do it NOW (specifically around the Horn of Africa), as part of our Maritime missions in that region.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

You obviously don't know your stuff - these pirate hail from Somalia and Somalia is a failed state with no national government. What's next - the War On Piracy? Well we all know how the WoT is going - and the resources needed to do so. You think Afghanistan is bad? A land invasion would prove impossible. That's why it hasn't already happened - and won't. I know there are those of a neocon persuasion that would like to see a few nukes dropped on Somalia and leave it at that. But then you have a population that is massively poor and starved of the resources needed to survive. Piracy is managed by regional (coastal) warlords and in the same way we've in the West not been able to wipe out our own problems with organised crime, the same applies to piracy. Declaring war on a failed nation such as Somalia is abhorrent.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blue suede shoes said:


> Cruiser, you know your stuff!!
> 
> No matter how one looks at it, this is an act of war!! This is one of the many things about this incident that has me boiling mad; it is an act of war and the news media and even the White House/Congress has paid very little attention to it!! When are our leaders going to wake up??!! I like the way Obama and Hilary have handled the Mid-East/North Africa crisis so far (talk nicely as little as possible and do nothing), but this is an unprovoked attack on our countrymen in international waters which needs to be dealt with immediately.


It's not an act of war. An act of war assumes that it is a sovereign nation conducting the attacks (vice individual profiteers). Even if the "host" nation is not doing anything about the issue, doesn't make it an act of war. it just means they aren't doing anything. Maybe because that host government isn't capable of doing anything. With Somalia, it's because there is _no real government_. They are just ill equipped to handle the situation.

So if we can't declare war on Somalia, who do we declare war on? Piracy? Sounds about as effective as declaring war on Terrorism, or Drugs.

However we do patrol the waters, and we do what we can to deter the practice, however we can't stop people from grabbing a boat and a gun in a third world nation and going after unarmed people within their reach.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gee, if only we understood why the pirates hate us this would cease!! :rolleyes2:


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

There have been some issues (beyond my understanding) where captured pirates had to be released due to "International Law." I have heard rumours of the Russian Navy releasing their captured pirates in their little boats in the middle of the Indian Ocean, in accordance with the release rules....

Aside from this the only easy solutions I see are (they all cost money of course):

-WW2 style convoys through the region.
-Mandate armed security forces on every boat passing through the region.
-Naval blockade of the entire coast (easier said than done).

None of these address the core issues of course, just makes the piracy more difficult and less profitable.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Air strikes against the pirates mainland operating bases would certainly put a damper on their enthusiasm for their foul craft! Make their costs of ongoing operations too high and, possibly, provide an incentive for these Somali nere-do-wells to find other work.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

VictorRomeo said:


> these pirate hail from Somalia and Somalia is a failed state with no national government.


OK, then we needn't concern ourselves with any issues of sovereign territory. We can just ignore that and go directly after the warlords who are profiting from these crimes. It was essentially the Muslim warlords that we went after in 1805 when we landed Marines on the Barbary Coast to stop the piracy back then.

Cruiser


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

nosajwols said:


> There have been some issues (beyond my understanding) where captured pirates had to be released due to "International Law."


One of the _original_ issues that fell under this category was that foreign pirates could claim refugee status in Britain, if they had reasonable fear of a death sentence in their home country. It's not so much "international Law" but conflicts between the enforcing nation's laws and those of the home country.

Using the US as an example. Piracy isn't a capitol offense (for us), but it may be treated as such elsewhere.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> OK, then we needn't concern ourselves with any issues of sovereign territory. We can just ignore that and go directly after the warlords who are profiting from these crimes. It was essentially the Muslim warlords that we went after in 1805 when we landed Marines on the Barbary Coast to stop the piracy back then.
> 
> Cruiser


I don't think the comparison to the Barbary pirates is apt.

First, the Barbary coast is northern Africa, while Somalia is western Africa;
Second, our president then was Thomas Jefferson; he is dead now;
Third, we were a small and rather insignificant nation then, whereas today we are the most powerful in the history of the world;
Fourth, the Barbary pirates were Muslims, whereas the Somali pirates are Muslims;
Fifth, the Barbary pirates allowed us to pay tribute to avoid ransom, whereas the Somali pirates haven't thought of that;
Sixth, the Barbary pirates didn't waste their time with missionaries;
Seventh, the Barbary pirates were honoring their ancient customs, whereas the Somali pirates are innovators; and
Eighth, our flag on our ships had way fewer stars back then.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Somalia is on the east coast of Africa.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Somalia is on the east coast of Africa.


Indeed... Topically, the Barbary Corsairs hailed from Tunis, Tripoli and Algiers.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> OK, then we needn't concern ourselves with any issues of sovereign territory. We can just ignore that and go directly after the warlords who are profiting from these crimes. It was essentially the Muslim warlords that we went after in 1805 when we landed Marines on the Barbary Coast to stop the piracy back then.
> 
> Cruiser


Now you have it. Take out the brains of the operation in such a way that there's no chance of recovery. Hit them as hard as is possible but also make sure that we work to help rebuild the country. You might be surprised to learn that the transitional government there right now have actually done quite a good job at fighting piracy there - especially with the lack of resources at their disposal.

I visited Mogadishu about four years ago and the place is a mess. I was not able to leave our compound and that was based in the grounds of a heavily protected airport. Crazy place.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Now you have it. Take out the brains of the operation in such a way that there's no chance of recovery. Hit them as hard as is possible but also make sure that we work to help rebuild the country.


Like we've been doing since the early 1990's?


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

If I may amend the policy.
Take out the brains of the operation in such a way that there's no chance of recovery. Hit them as hard as is possible and let them know publicly that if we have to return it will only be worse. Never ever help them rebuild anything. Walk away and leave them to their own devices.

In the end they will respect you more.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Somalia is on the east coast of Africa.


Ah yes. Thanks for the correction. Key point.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh dear, what a very distasteful thread.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

Oh Earl, the business of protecting ones country from unsavory men is extremely distasteful.
I'm glad I'm not in that business.
Have a great day.


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

The historical cure for piracy is unreserved brutality. Unfortunately (fortunately?) we live in civilized societies and the pirates know this and act accordingly. Risking life in jail for some cool cash is one thing, but if the equation changed and they were suddenly risking their lives for the same amount of cash, you can bet there would be less incentive to pirate.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WindsorNot said:


> The historical cure for piracy is unreserved brutality. Unfortunately (fortunately?) we live in civilized societies and the pirates know this and act accordingly. Risking life in jail for some cool cash is one thing, but if the equation changed and they were suddenly risking their lives for the same amount of cash, you can bet there would be less incentive to pirate.


Like drug dealers. Risking life & limb for cold hard cash is such a deterrent...


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

^-Last time I checked we don't slaughter drug dealers. They go to prison.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WindsorNot said:


> ^-Last time I checked we don't slaughter drug dealers. They go to prison.


....through a revolving door with sometimes better conditions than those they left!!


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ....through a revolving door with sometimes better conditions than those they left!!


Very true. Root cause is poor economic conditions and no better jobs.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I oftentimes think our so-called "civilized" societies are too indecisive in dealing with these thugs. Shoot now. Ask questions later. Better yet...shoot now and forget about it. They have no respect for the rule of law (including drug lords and terrorists), why should we anymore?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TMMKC said:


> I oftentimes think our so-called "civilized" societies are too indecisive in dealing with these thugs. Shoot now. Ask questions later. Better yet...shoot now and forget about it. They have no respect for the rule of law (including drug lords and terrorists), why should we anymore?


Because we're better than that.

We follow the rules, even if we hate them.

I'd love to hang every pirate, and shoot every terrorist...but what happens when someone is just a suspected, or accused XXXXX. We have to afford them the full protection of our laws.. and punish them in full accordance with them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RedBluff said:


> Oh Earl, the business of protecting ones country from unsavory men is extremely distasteful.


I know, I did it for 16 years on the front line! Soldier, Security Service and Police Officer.
You've missed the target of my post.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

RedBluff said:


> If I may amend the policy.
> Take out the brains of the operation in such a way that there's no chance of recovery. Hit them as hard as is possible and let them know publicly that if we have to return it will only be worse. Never ever help them rebuild anything. Walk away and leave them to their own devices.
> 
> In the end they will respect you more.


Was watching a M*A*S*H rerun last night. You are Major Frank Burns. The inhumanity and how a predisposition towards 'collateral damage' for the neocon never fails to amaze me. Obliterate an already destroyed country and impoverished population just because a criminal element of their society carry out acts of piracy.... You're one sick puppy.

I feel dirty for participating in this thread now.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> We follow the rules, even if we hate them.


Oh really??

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he was "taken aback" by President Barack Obama ordering his administration to stop defending the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage. 
The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books. He says the U.S. Congress is mulling its options on the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WindsorNot said:


> Very true. Root cause is poor economic conditions and no better jobs.


The root cause of barbarism is lack of moral fiber!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The root cause of barbarism is lack of moral fiber!!


Or starvation.


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Oh really??
> 
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he was "taken aback" by President Barack Obama ordering his administration to stop defending the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.
> The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books. He says the U.S. Congress is mulling its options on the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act.


/start new thread


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Or starvation.


Are you suggesting that hungry and unemployed persons are Barbarians??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Westerners assuming the moral high ground & assuming that the root cause, if there is one, other than human nature, is negative and an active choice by said "barbarians" and forgetting that other societies beyond the industrialised western world have different moral and ethic codes only exacerbates barbarism. 
Many legitimate reasons lead people to barbaric acts, primarily survival, defence and protection of one's self and one's family


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Westerners assuming the moral high ground & assuming that the root cause, if there is one, other than human nature, is negative and an active choice by said "barbarians" and *forgetting that other societies beyond the industrialised western world have different moral and ethic codes* only exacerbates barbarism.


1) I find paternalistic excuse making for savage behavior unseemly. I don't presume non-Westerners to be inherently Barbaric, why have others??


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Westerners assuming the moral high ground & assuming that the root cause, if there is one, other than human nature, is negative and an active choice by said "barbarians" and forgetting that other societies beyond the industrialised western world have different moral and ethic codes only exacerbates barbarism.
> Many legitimate reasons lead people to barbaric acts, primarily survival, defence and protection of one's self and one's family


Exactly right. Those pirates were in mortal danger from those predator missionaries.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Exactly right. Those pirates were in mortal danger from those predator missionaries.


The pirates knew they would burst into flames if the infedel's book so much as touched them!!

Who can blame the dear children for their misbehavior??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) I find paternalistic excuse making for savage behavior unseemly. I don't presume non-Westerners to be inherently Barbaric, why have others??


I'm not excusing it, I'm simply pointing out some of the things that make it worse. Christian missionaries in a dangerous Islamic part of the world dishing out Bibles? Idiots, they've only got themselves to blame!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm not excusing it, I'm simply pointing out some of the things that make it worse. Christian missionaries in a dangerous Islamic part of the world dishing out Bibles? Idiots, they've only got themselves to blame!


Exactly!!

Uncovered female Jewish busybodies as well!!



> CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan suffered a "brutal" sexual assault at the hands of a mob in Egypt while covering the downfall of president Hosni Mubarak, the US network said this morning.
> "She and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy," CBS said in a statement.
> "In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."
> The incident took place on Cairo's central Tahrir Square last Friday, the day Mr Mubarak stepped down, CBS said.
> ...


https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3139988.htm


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm not excusing it, I'm simply pointing out some of the things that make it worse. Christian missionaries in a dangerous Islamic part of the world dishing out Bibles? Idiots, they've only got themselves to blame!


That is despicable.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

Sorry Earl.....I was being sarcastic.
next time I'll color it red.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

My apologizes for offending you.
My opinions are skewed due to experiences with Muslim co-workers and or students.
What I wrote is pretty much what many have shared with me.
They loathe intervention and would much rather get punched in the mouth and left there to pick themselves up.

I would also admit that I would make one heck of a Benevolent Authoritarian Dictator.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

How so.....we complain about Muslims pushing their agendas and or dress in our societies but it's ok to try and convert uneducated Africans in the name of JC? 
Explain it to me?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

RedBluff said:


> How so.....we complain about Muslims pushing their agendas and or dress in our societies but it's ok to try and convert uneducated Africans in the name of JC?
> Explain it to me?


Using just the examples in this thread topic, when was the last time a Muslim woman was gang raped in Western Europe or North America for being a Muslim woman??

When was the last time Muslim missionaries were murdered in Western Europe or North America??

Do I really have to go on??



RedBluff said:


> I would also admit that I would make one heck of a Benevolent Authoritarian Dictator.


Wouldn't we all!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RedBluff said:


> How so.....we complain about Muslims pushing their agendas and or dress in our societies but it's ok to try and convert uneducated Africans in the name of JC?
> Explain it to me?


Modern Christian societies are far more accomodating to Muslims than vice versa, or perhaps you have not noticed this. The "Muslim agenda" complained about is shiria law, not religious conversions, and those complaints are not effectuated by murder.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'm not excusing it, I'm simply pointing out some of the things that make it worse. Christian missionaries in a dangerous Islamic part of the world dishing out Bibles? Idiots, they've only got themselves to blame!


Does any reasonable person think that those four people were specifically targeted because they were Christians passing out Bibles? Those pirates didn't know that, and probably didn't care one way or the other. They were nothing more than common criminals looking for easy prey. That's all most pirates have been for centuries.

Cruiser


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Does any reasonable person think that those four people were specifically targeted because they were Christians passing out Bibles? Those pirates didn't know that, and probably didn't care one way or the other. They were nothing more than common criminals looking for easy prey. That's all most pirates have been for centuries.
> 
> Cruiser


I intimated in an earlier post that I believe they were killed regardless of their proselytizing activities. My guess is they were killed because they were approached by potential rescuers. But then who knows? A sailboat full of bibles in waters where pirates from an Islamic country roam - that by and large practices Shari'a law - can only be described as provocative.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you suggesting that hungry and unemployed persons are Barbarians??


Another lesson in glib quipping from Captain Hindsight...

It was your word, not mine. My aim was to respond to the sentiment - people resort to extreme actions when their very survival is threatened. But then, who cares when all you have to worry about is not running out of olives for your next martini?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> My aim was to respond to the sentiment - people resort to extreme actions when their very survival is threatened.


Stealing a loaf of bread, murdering, chopping off heads or blowing up cars are not moral equivalents to one another.

I contend that non-Westerners are equally as cognizant in matters of right and wrong as Westerners. Yet some, in the interest of "tollerance" I suppose, accept moral corruption as some sort of cultural appreciation!!

I don't get it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> A sailboat full of bibles in waters where pirates from an Islamic country roam - that by and large practices Shari'a law - can only be described as *provocative.*


:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Stealing a loaf of bread, murdering, chopping off heads or blowing up cars are not moral equivalents to one another.
> 
> I contend that non-Westerners are equally as cognizant in matters of right and wrong as Westerners. Yet some, in the interest of "tollerance" I suppose, accept moral corruption as some sort of cultural appreciation!!
> 
> I don't get it.


Of course you don't get it. That's what happens when you are encumbered by linear thinking and a moral compass.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Thank you, Sir!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Oh really??
> 
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he was "taken aback" by President Barack Obama ordering his administration to stop defending the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.
> The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books. He says the U.S. Congress is mulling its options on the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act.


Yah, I heard about that today. As the Chief Executive of the country, he is the head of law federal enforcement. Telling those under him to ignore laws... is a sign of weakness. It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the law, until over-ruled by courts, or rescinded via the legislative process.

It's also a sign of an imbalanced system. The president doesn't get to choose what laws to enforce. If he ignores this law, what's next, maintaining troops on foreign soil past 90 days without congress consent?

***I could care less about this particular law, I care that he is acting outside his granted powers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> That is despicable.


Do you know what I find despicable? The arrogance of a group of westerners who think they've got a right and a mission to distribute Bibles in Muslim countries. What were they expecting, a warm welcome?

How long do you think a preaching black Jew would last preaching in the vicinty of a Montana white supremecist encampment?

You've heard of the KKK of course?

And I'm not in any way excusing the killings here. I'm criticising the stupidity and arrogance of those killed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RedBluff said:


> Sorry Earl.....I was being sarcastic.
> next time I'll color it red.


No problem RB, I just hapen to be one of that small handful of individuals that doesn't seem to be able recognise sarcasm or irony and I rarely, well actually almost never use it. Must be some kind of mental block. Never liked it, never understood it.


----------



## WindsorNot (Aug 7, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I care that he is acting outside his granted powers.


If the Executive Branch feels a law is not constitutional do they have the authority to not enforce it or do they have to put this through the court system?


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

No worries....some would even go as far to say that I am very sardonic at times.

I'm thinking these Christian folks probably got a "high" off of doing what they where doing.
In their hearts and minds they may have thought they where pushing the extreme for JC.

It's sad but the debate.....Brilliant.

Mama used to say, "cada cabeza es un mundo muy diferente" which translates to "every mind is a very different world".


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Do you know what I find despicable? The arrogance of a group of westerners who think they've got a right and a mission to distribute Bibles in Muslim countries. What were they expecting, a warm welcome?
> 
> How long do you think a preaching black Jew would last preaching in the vicinty of a Montana white supremecist encampment?
> 
> ...


A black Jew has every right to preach in the vicinity of a Montana white supremecist encapment, and should that black Jew be murdered for doing so his murderers should be hunted down and brought to justice. Preaching God's Word is not an emblem of arrogance, as any Catholic should know. If Muslims have the right to evangelize for their faith in Christian countries -- and they do -- then certainly the murdered missionaries had every right to be in international waters in the vicinity of Muslims, even with Bibles. If they were murdered because of their faith, then they are Christian martyrs to be revered, not arrogant fools to be ridiculed.

One can certainly make the case that the missionaries undertook efforts that were imprudent. But missionaries are not motivated by prudence, and never have been. They had no guns or swords, but only the faith that Holy Scripture enjoins us to pass on. Christ made it pretty clear that his teachings and His Church were not meant just for Jews or Europeans. This couple did nothing wrong. They took a risk in order to do God's work, and their murder was pure unadulterated evil. Period.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Do you know what I find despicable? The arrogance of a group of westerners who think they've got a right and a mission to distribute Bibles in Muslim countries. What were they expecting, a warm welcome?
> 
> And I'm not in any way excusing the killings here.
> 
> I'm criticising the stupidity and arrogance of those killed.


1) According to reports, there is no way the pirates could have know that is why they were there

2) No?? What do you call this again?? _Do you know what I find despicable? The arrogance of a group of westerners who think they've got a right and a mission to distribute Bibles in Muslim countries._

_3)_ Stupid?? Perhaps. I wouldn't hike on the Iranian border either. But arrogant?? How can you say that without knowing them??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

WindsorNot said:


> If the Executive Branch feels a law is not constitutional do they have the authority to not enforce it or do they have to put this through the court system?


Who's going to stop them from NOT doing something??

It's not as if they are failing to buy health insurance or anything!! 

It's obvious that no one has enforced immigration laws to the best of their ability or charged Mayors for open defiance and declaring their cities "sanctuary" cities.

The lawlessness just begets more lawlessness.



Apatheticviews said:


> It's also a sign of an imbalanced system. The president doesn't get to choose what laws to enforce. If he ignores this law, what's next, maintaining troops on foreign soil past 90 days without congress consent?


That's crazy. Obama has been in office for two years. There are no wars and Gitmo is closed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> A black Jew has every right to preach in the vicinity of a Montana white supremecist encapment, and should that black Jew be murdered for doing so his murderers should be hunted down and brought to justice. Preaching God's Word is not an emblem of arrogance, as any Catholic should know. If Muslims have the right to evangelize for their faith in Christian countries -- and they do -- then certainly the murdered missionaries had every right to be in international waters in the vicinity of Muslims, even with Bibles. If they were murdered because of their faith, then they are Christian martyrs to be revered, not arrogant fools to be ridiculed.
> 
> One can certainly make the case that the missionaries undertook efforts that were imprudent. But missionaries are not motivated by prudence, and never have been. They had no guns or swords, but only the faith that Holy Scripture enjoins us to pass on. Christ made it pretty clear that his teachings and His Church were not meant just for Jews or Europeans. This couple did nothing wrong. They took a risk in order to do God's work, and their murder was pure unadulterated evil. Period.


You've missed my point completely - the stupidity and arrogance of people who do stupid arrogant things in dangerous places. 
And we all know what happens if you do that in Iraq or Afghanistan, even as an innocent civilian, you get bombed to F**K by the USAF!!!!

So what's not to understand about the actions of the pirates?

War on WMD? An illegal war without basis, which makes all troops involved war criminals and as such no better than pirates.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Yah, I heard about that today. As the Chief Executive of the country, he is the head of law federal enforcement. Telling those under him to ignore laws... is a sign of weakness. It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the law, until over-ruled by courts, or rescinded via the legislative process.
> 
> It's also a sign of an imbalanced system. The president doesn't get to choose what laws to enforce. If he ignores this law, what's next, maintaining troops on foreign soil past 90 days without congress consent?
> 
> ***I could care less about this particular law, I care that he is acting outside his granted powers.


This is not news. President Bush did it *500 TIMES* in his first term alone.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mrkleen said:


> This is not news. President Bush did it *500 TIMES* in his first term alone.


Your source did not document 500 circumstances.

It documented a disagreement in the Executive during the Bush administration with the definition of "torture."

You know, giving a carnival dunking to three 9/11 co-conspirators??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> War on WMD? An illegal war without basis, which makes all troops involved war criminals and as such no better than pirates.


:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Your source did not document 500 circumstances.
> 
> It documented a disagreement in the Executive during the Bush administration with the definition of "torture."
> 
> You know, giving a carnival dunking to three 9/11 co-conspirators??


Make it 750.

https://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

If you want to buy the article, feel free. I am not spending $4.50 to prove you clowns wrong.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You've missed my point completely - the stupidity and arrogance of people who do stupid arrogant things in dangerous places.
> And we all know what happens if you do that in Iraq or Afghanistan, even as an innocent civilian, you get bombed to F**K by the USAF!!!!
> 
> So what's not to understand about the actions of the pirates?
> ...


I understand your point perfectly. It is not exactly complex. I just think it perverse and wrong-headed. Your analogy might be worth exploring if the pirates murdered the missionaries because they mistakenly believed they were hiding WMDs as they routinely violated their solemn agreement to not sail in international waters.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> A black Jew has every right to preach in the vicinity of a Montana white supremecist encapment, and should that black Jew be murdered for doing so his murderers should be hunted down and brought to justice.


Suicide via Homicide.

Just because you have the constitutional right to do something, doesn't make it less stupid to actually DO it.

Rights are not suits of invulnerable armor. They offer LEGAL protection, not PHYSICAL protection.

I'll happily fight for a person's Rights, but that doesn't mean I won't call them stupid for exercising them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Suicide via Homicide.
> 
> Just because you have the constitutional right to do something, doesn't make it less stupid to actually DO it.
> 
> ...


That might apply to a man counting his money in broad daylight in front of the projects, or a young couple on vacation who decides that a brief unnoticed detour into North Korea might be invigorating, but it does not easily apply to this couple. While what they did was risky, it can fairly be considered stupid only if one does not value evangelization of the Gospel. Given that they clearly did value such evangelization greatly, it is presumptuous and unfair to characterize their actions as stupid. Missionaries have always taken risks to spread God's word and to do His work. Some are murdered in the process, and that includes those who do nothing more than bring aid and assistance. Back when we were a more civilized society, we called such people martyrs and presumed that God honored their sacrifice. Today many of us are far too sophisticated to believe in God, let alone see sacrifice as anything but stupid. Sad.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WindsorNot said:


> If the Executive Branch feels a law is not constitutional do they have the authority to not enforce it or do they have to put this through the court system?


I don't know for certain, however it is not an enumerated power, which leads me to believe they do not.

The President, swears to uphold the Constitution, and if they believe that a law is unconstitutional, they have an obligation (by affirmation or oath) to fight it, however that they cannot violate the Constitution to do it. The Constitution grants specific powers (this is not one), and Legislation grants additional (for lack of better word) guidance on how those powers can be executed. I'm willing to bet no Congress has ever passed a law which allows the President to _ignore_ laws.

This tells me it's not really within his authority. It would be the military equivalent of an unlawful order.

As the President, I believe can petition directly to the Supreme Court for an "immediate" review. The Court system however is charged with determining whether it is constitutional, and can resolve the situation.

By giving the order, he is infringing on another Branches (Judicial) Constitutional Powers, which in itself is a violation of his oath of office (in the attempt to uphold it).


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> That might apply to a man counting his money in broad daylight in front of the projects, or a young couple on vacation who decides that a brief unnoticed detour into North Korea might be invigorating, but it does not easily apply to this couple. While what they did was risky, it can fairly be considered stupid only if one does not value evangelization of the Gospel. Given that they clearly did value such evangelization greatly, it is presumptuous and unfair to characterize their actions as stupid. Missionaries have always taken risks to spread God's word and to do His work. Some are murdered in the process, and that includes those who do nothing more than bring aid and assistance. Back when we were a more civilized society, we called such people martyrs and presumed that God honored their sacrifice. Today many of us are far too sophisticated to believe in God, let alone see sacrifice as anything but stupid. Sad.


The fact that they are missionaries is irrelevant honestly.

1) They are victims of piracy. 
2) They were in pirate infested waters.
3) The recommendation of most governments is that the best way to avoid pirates is to not be in pirate infested waters.

They chose to RISK piracy by being off the coast of Somalia. If they were 4 college students, instead of missionaries, the only thing we would be questioning is their motives. I'm not saying they deserved to die. I'm saying they were stupid *if* they didn't realize there was a chance they could die, and didn't weigh that chance versus their personal mission.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I understand your point perfectly.


No, you clearly don't.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> The fact that they are missionaries is irrelevant honestly.
> 
> 1) They are victims of piracy.
> 2) They were in pirate infested waters.
> ...


Thank you, well said, my view exactly. I'm half cut at the moment and you put it far more eloquently than I could.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WindsorNot said:


> If the Executive Branch feels a law is not constitutional do they have the authority to not enforce it


From a UK perspective, No! The police can't ignore executon of applicable legislation. However, 
there are many ways around it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> The fact that they are missionaries is irrelevant honestly.
> 
> 1) They are victims of piracy.
> 2) They were in pirate infested waters.
> ...


That is a nice handy proviso you conveniently added at this point in the exchange. Well of course they were ignorant if they didn't appreciate the risk and stupid if they did not weigh it against the importance of their mission, but we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that either is the case. And given their history and experience it is implausible to assume that they were either unaware of the risk or failed to give it consideration. And the fact that they were missionaries is quite relevant, honestly, precisely because the motivation for taking the risk is a critical element in the risk calculus. It is illogical, and hardly eloquent, to assert on the one hand that the fact that they were missionaries is irrelevant and on the other that their alleged stupidity is contingent (note your emphasized "if") on not weighing the gravity of the risk against the importance of the mission.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> That is a nice handy proviso you conveniently added at this point of the exchange. Well of course they were ignorant if they didn't appreciate the risk and stupid if they did not weigh it against the importance of their mission, but we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that either is the case. And given their history and experience it is implausible to assume that they were either unaware of the risk or failed to give it consideration. And the fact that they were missionaries is quite relevant, honestly, precisely because the motivation for taking the risk is a critical element in the risk calculus. It is illogical, and hardly eloquent, to assert on the one hand that the fact that they were missionaries is irrelevant and on the other that their alleged stupidity is contingent (note your emphasized "if") on not weighing the gravity of the risk against the importance of the mission.


Here's the deal. It's a travesty that people died.

Them being missionaries doesn't make it any more or any less of a travesty. Their profession, mission, or cause doesn't garner them any additional sympathy from me. Pirates killed four *people*. Their lives was not worth more than non-missionaries. Being a member of a religion doesn't make you a better person, and doesn't deserve special consideration, if you become the victim of any crime. You're still a victim.

In this case four people were victims of pirates in waters known to be infested with pirates. My previous comment about Suicide by Homicide, is no less correct. They went somewhere dangers, and paid the price. They shouldn't have had to pay that price, but no one killed by pirates should. The fact that they are missionaries is irrelevant to the crime committed.

The entire concept of "special victims" is ludicrous. What makes them so special? Belief? I'm sorry but I have A LOT of beliefs, but not a one of them makes my life more valuable than the person sitting next to me.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Here's the deal. It's a travesty that people died.
> 
> Them being missionaries doesn't make it any more or any less of a travesty. Their profession, mission, or cause doesn't garner them any additional sympathy from me. Pirates killed four *people*. Their lives was not worth more than non-missionaries. Being a member of a religion doesn't make you a better person, and doesn't deserve special consideration, if you become the victim of any crime. You're still a victim.
> 
> ...


Do you seriously think that you can keep changing your argument and no one will notice? What are you, a politician? Anyone with brains can see right through your straw man argument. No one is suggesting that one life is worth more than another. It was you that asserted the stupidity of the missionaries' actions, and my point is that their mission is key in evaluating the accuracy and fairness of that assertion; not that it is key in determining the gravity of the travesty (nor in the gravity of the evil committed for that matter). You are either very confused or just plain too stubborn to admit error.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

A) Four people wander into pirate infested waters and get killed. Suicide by Piracy.
B) Four missionaries wander into pirate infested waters and get killed. Suicide by Piracy.

The only difference between A) & B) is that we spell out the profession. That's why they're profession is irrelevant. Same action. Same result. A different profession doesn't change the outcome, making it an irrelevant variable.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> :icon_headagainstwal


That sentiment is mutual. You quote in isolation and out of context and that's weak.... But just to be explicitly clear - this time - my points are a:they were killed regardless of their proselytizing activities...(I believe we can agree on that) b:They were killed by murderous pirates...(ditto) c:the suggestion that the country from where they came should be razed to the ground is abhorrent... (et tu, Brute?) d:their reasons for veering into pirate infested waters while inexplicable yet very, very stupid...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> They chose to RISK piracy by being off the coast of Somalia.
> 
> I'm saying they were stupid *if* they didn't realize there was a chance they could die, and didn't weigh that chance versus their personal mission.


Of course what they did was stupid. I have no disagreement with you on this point. They made a bad choice to go sailing alone in those waters; HOWEVER, this is a totally separate thing from that of what the world should do with pirates. They should all be hunted down and either killed or locked away in prison, no matter where they try to hide. There should be zero tolerance for piracy.

To even hint that somehow the despicable criminal acts of these low life thugs should in any way be mitigated by the legal acts of their victims, no matter how idiotic those acts may be, is even more stupid than anything that the victims of piracy might have done. I sincerely hope that is not what some here are trying to say.

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> A) Four people wander into pirate infested waters and get killed. Suicide by Piracy.
> B) Four missionaries wander into pirate infested waters and get killed. Suicide by Piracy.
> 
> The only difference between A) & B) is that we spell out the profession. That's why they're profession is irrelevant. Same action. Same result. A different profession doesn't change the outcome, making it an irrelevant variable.


What he said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

VictorRomeo said:


> That sentiment is mutual. You quote in isolation and out of context and that's weak.... But just to be explicitly clear - this time - my points are a:they were killed regardless of their proselytizing activities...(I believe we can agree on that) b:They were killed by murderous pirates...(ditto) c:the suggestion that the country from where they came should be razed to the ground is abhorrent... (et tu, Brute?) d:their reasons for veering into pirate infested waters while inexplicable yet very, very stupid...


Very well said. Though I'm not sure we can ever know for definite if the pirates knew they were misisonaries or not and if they had that knowledge how it might have affected their actions. While something remains possible it also retains a degree of probability i.e. they might have found out they were missionaries (by seeing a boatload of Bibles) and that might have influenced their decision to kill them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> Yah, I heard about that today. As the Chief Executive of the country, he is the head of law federal enforcement. Telling those under him to ignore laws... is a sign of weakness. It doesn't matter what the law is, it's the law, until over-ruled by courts, or rescinded via the legislative process.
> 
> It's also a sign of an imbalanced system. The president doesn't get to choose what laws to enforce. If he ignores this law, what's next, maintaining troops on foreign soil past 90 days without congress consent?
> 
> ***I could care less about this particular law, I care that he is acting outside his granted powers.


+1. Indeed, this is just the kind if Executive decisions coming out of the present administration that persuade me to be more inclined to grant credence to Glen Beck's "Chicken Little" like rants! Have any of you had occasion to read Beck's book, The Overton Window? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Of course what they did was stupid. I have no disagreement with you on this point. They made a bad choice to go sailing alone in those waters; HOWEVER, this is a totally separate thing from that of what the world should do with pirates. They should all be hunted down and either killed or locked away in prison, no matter where they try to hide. There should be zero tolerance for piracy.
> 
> To even hint that somehow the despicable criminal acts of these low life thugs should in any way be mitigated by the legal acts of their victims, no matter how idiotic those acts may be, is even more stupid than anything that the victims of piracy might have done. I sincerely hope that is not what some here are trying to say.
> 
> Cruiser


Victims being stupid doesn't make it less of a crime. I'm not saying that. There was an old Heinlein book where he mentions one person "inciting a riot doesn't give another person the right to riot." Both are equally liable for their own choices, and their individual acts should be viewed separately.

If you harass someone until the pop you in the face, you had it coming, but it doesn't change the fact that they popped you legally. just makes it more understandable why they did. They never gained the right to do it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Very well said. Though I'm not sure we can ever know for definite if the pirates knew they were misisonaries or not and if they had that knowledge how it might have affected their actions. While something remains possible it also retains a degree of probability i.e. they might have found out they were missionaries (by seeing a boatload of Bibles) and that might have influenced their decision to kill them.


That works both ways though. If you're a bloodthirsty pirate, and find a ship full of bibles (instead of valuables), you might be pissed off enough kill someone.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> Earlier today, the pirates who had captured and were holding hostage four Americans killed them without provocation. These people were retired American citizens, members of the Marina Del Rey yacht club, sailing around the world distributing bibles. Anyone have any thoughts?
> 
> I have plenty of thouights. It will be a while before I can post because I have to clean up the language as I believe this fourm is "G" rated.


I think that you'll find that they were killed during an attempt to rescue them. That, of course, doesn't excuse the pirates of responsibility for their murder.
However, as has been said elsewhere on this thread, it was, effectively, suicide by piracy. They shouldn't have been sailing in an area in which pirates operate, any more than people should wander through Somalia itself, driving a new and expensive Mercedes, for example. The right/wrong moral situation is irrelevant.
As far as attacking the pirates, or using force to resist them, is concerned, I'd suggest that, so far, they've been fairly averse to actually killing people. If violence escalates, yes, more pirates will die, but there are plenty of people in Somalia who'd be glad of the chance to replace them. Also, more sailors will die. Is that the result that we want? 
Remove the cause and the piracy will go away.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> OK, then we needn't concern ourselves with any issues of sovereign territory. We can just ignore that and go directly after the warlords who are profiting from these crimes. It was essentially the Muslim warlords that we went after in 1805 when we landed Marines on the Barbary Coast to stop the piracy back then.
> 
> Cruiser


Didn't you (the US) try that in Somalia some years ago? If I remember rightly it didn't quite go as planned.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Air strikes against the pirates mainland operating bases would certainly put a damper on their enthusiasm for their foul craft! Make their costs of ongoing operations too high and, possibly, provide an incentive for these Somali nere-do-wells to find other work.


What about the innocent Somali people living there? Or do _*those*_ innocent lives not count? Just because they live, for no fault of their own, under the control of a warlord, does that make them dispensible? In any case, given the penchant of the US forces for misdelivering air strikes, it would probably not harm the actual pirates at all.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

nosajwols said:


> There have been some issues (beyond my understanding) where captured pirates had to be released due to "International Law." I have heard rumours of the Russian Navy releasing their captured pirates in their little boats in the middle of the Indian Ocean, in accordance with the release rules....
> 
> Aside from this the only easy solutions I see are (they all cost money of course):
> 
> ...


Option 1 is possible, but the rules of engagement would have to be very clear.
Option 2 would be unworkable. Where would these armed people join and leave? Would they be National forces, or "security contractors" (mercenaries)? What measures would be introduced to allow them to travel, armed, to the vessels they are to protect? How effective would they be? Would they deter pirates, or merely make the pirates more desperate, and consequently more violent? Rather than pirates boarding ships and holding the crews, as they do now, we might find them boarding ships and killing the crews instead. Might "defence contractors" deal with unidentified craft near the vessels they are protecting with complete fairness? The US don't have a very good record in this area. https://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49367
Option 3 is probably too expensive and too difficult to manage. How easily will Naval forces distinguish between an innocent fishing vessel, and a pirate vessel if they are in most cases identical? This will be so manpower intensive that I think it inoperable.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Gee, if only we understood why the pirates hate us this would cease!! :rolleyes2:


Such a typically American attitude! It isn't about Americans! Somali pirates have been highjacking merchant vessels in the Indian Ocean for years, of all nationalities. But because Americans are attacked the problem is now all about Americans. Such arrogance!
That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes people in the rest of the world despise and dislike Americans.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The piracy that was endemic in the Carribean in the 17th and 18th centuries didn't end because of the campaigns against piracy by the variuous governments who had control in that area, but because the economic and political situation that engendered piracy changed. The piracy that was endemic in SE Asia in the 19th century stopped because the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies became politically and economically stable, not because of the anti-piracy actions of the Dutch, Spanish and Royal Navies. Now that the economic and political system in SE Asia is less stable, piracy is increasing in that area again. 
The piracy based in Somalia won't end until Somalia becomes a stable economic and political unit again. But, as Somalia has no oil, the West doesn't care enough to do anything about it.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

I agree this was a sorry situation.
I feel spreading Gods word may justify this ordeal as well.
The clergy have a special job.
I have worked with clergy in the service, and do admire sincere clergy. The do a grand job for that matter.

And it is very complicated for that matter.
I believe they were on vacation? I may be wrong.
I think 92 was Mogadishu?
We have been playing in this area all along. Both the Marine and US Army.
During Mogadishu this included the 10 MTN and the Special Operations people. A typical **** happens thing did happen. When choppers go down.
All of this behind us my gut feeling:

We are speaking of Africa. People are the poorest in the world. 8/10 poorest in the world. Here in Africa.We have disgusting vermen, taking anything from these people.
It is a very sad state. On top of this, monies come in from more vermen!

My gut feeling. The US is not strong anymore.
They do not have to guts to nuke things anymore.
This would resolve the middle east, and Africa.

Nice day gents

Jimmy


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thank you, well said, my view exactly. I'm half cut at the moment and you put it far more eloquently than I could.


A little eloquence goes a long way!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Didn't you (the US) try that in Somalia some years ago? If I remember rightly it didn't quite go as planned.


1991~through 1994, when we were "replaced" by UN peacekeeping forces. I joined my first unit right after they got back from Somalia.

Part of the issue was that "culturally" the indigenous people saw honor in dying against a more powerful opponent. Essentially, shows of force don't work in that area, and would quickly escalate up to actual warfare.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Such a typically American attitude! It isn't about Americans! Somali pirates have been highjacking merchant vessels in the Indian Ocean for years, of all nationalities. But because Americans are attacked the problem is now all about Americans. Such arrogance!
> That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes people in the rest of the world despise and dislike Americans.


I believe WouldaShoulda was using sarcasm to highlight that the attitude is incorrect. In essence, he probably agrees with you, and is making fun of people who think "understanding will result in peace."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

The only real way to fix it, is to stabilize the nation of Somalia (politically), build their enforcement capabilities, and then make piracy not worth it.

Taking out the pirates physically doesn't work, since you have a queue of potential recruits available. You have to take away the mental motivation, by removing the cost/benefit of the action. No reward = no action.

But this is a 50 year plan, vice something that can be done with immediate returns.

Something that could be done to expedite it would be building a few US/UN military bases in the country, and stimulate their economy that way. The added benefit is having a full compliment of peacekeeping units in the immediate area. What I'm suggesting is something similar to the 100 year leases we had back in the 20th century.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Here is the latest from that part of the world.

*28 February 2011* Last updated at 11:58 ET
 

*Somali pirates 'seize Danish children' in Indian Ocean*


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12600251


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> I believe WouldaShoulda was using sarcasm to highlight that the attitude is incorrect. In essence, he probably agrees with you, and is making fun of people who think "understanding will result in peace."


Even with irony and sarcasm, it is still the kind of statement that makes Americans despised and disliked. So perhaps my comment is still valid.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> Here is the latest from that part of the world.
> 
> *28 February 2011* Last updated at 11:58 ET
> 
> ...


The news story in the link confirms that the victims are increasingly at risk.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> .... making fun of people who think "understanding will result in peace."


I even used a smilie for emphasis!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

"Danska flottan på piratjakt"
Danish Navy on a Pirate Hunt

I think there's a bit more to this event than meets the eye, when you start reading between the lines & analysing the original Danish news report, which I've done and which seems to be getting lost in translation to English. Plus, the reporting in Sweden and Denmark if course is more detailed.

First clue: "Danish Crew members" rather than just family friends.
Second clue: It wasn't just an open emergency channel the mayday call was made on. The call was made directly to the Danish Royal Navy!!!
Third clue: A Danish naval vessel is, as I write, en route to East Africa. This one, the Esbern Snare )

You don't send a fully manned naval vessel half way across the globe just to look for a normal family, you send a team by aircraft. You might however, send a fully manned warship for Royals or top politicians.

My view is that this was clearly not just a boatload of your everyday Danish citizens out on a pleasure cruise. I think these are VIPs of some sort.
My guess, high ranking naval officer and family and friends - presumably fellow officers.

Reported today is that the Danish RN and the Danish MoD are not commenting on the matter.

Of course I hope I'm wrong:
Perhaps Denmark does respond like this for all its citizens
Perhaps the HDMS Esbern Snare was already in the region & the quickest option

Anyway, latest developments are the discovery that the pirates have contacts in Denmark and they've made a ransom demand.

Also, Danish Marine Commandos getting ready for an insert, this report from the Danish newspaper Ekstrabladet just half an hour ago: https://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1511973.ece

"Danske elitesoldater bliver i naerheden"
"Danish elite soldiers getting close"

Like I said, if Denmark responds like this for all its citizens then I'm very impressed.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Who even has the phone number to the Danish Royal Navy? I'm thinking higher ups. Otherwise it would make more sense to use the general emergency distress frequency, which would have got US/UN forces (since they are already staged in the area).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

hhmmm...I'm not a conspiracy theorist but...someone is playing silly buggers on Wikipedia, the wiki link to the HDMS Esbern Snare (L17), which worked when I posted it, half an hour after the news broke this morning, now takes you to a page asking you if you meant HDMS Esbern Snare (L17) and the link to that page is exactly the same!

Someone is clearly montionring the hits to the page.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> Who even has the phone number to the Danish Royal Navy? I'm thinking higher ups. Otherwise it would make more sense to use the general emergency distress frequency, which would have got US/UN forces (since they are already staged in the area).


Well, like I said, I'm guessing minor royals or friends of royals or naval officers but anonymous enough so as not to be identified by paparazzi and thus causing a feeding frenzy.

In Sweden and Denmark the usual maritime alert channel is monitored by the regional MRCCs (Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres) and that would be a Danish or Swedish vessel's usual channel in home waters...but off the coast of East Africa? Highly unlikely.So nothing odd there.

But this vessel didn't contact a Scandinavian MRCC or a local emergency channel to be picked up by UN or Nato. No, this vessel off the East African coast radioed directly to the Danish Royal Navy's distress channel!!!! Make of that what you will conspiracy theorists. I know I will, I know I think it is extremely odd!

Theories:
1. minor royals or friends of the royal family?
2. minor politicians?
4. naval officers

or, and this is the most unsavoury one

3. Danish intelligence service - using kids and family setting as cover, while on a recce?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Of course I hope I'm wrong:
> Perhaps the HDMS Esbern Snare was already in the region & the quickest option


Right okay, I've just read another link and HDMS Esbern Snare is indeed in the right area already. She engaged pirates as recently as Saturday, firing live rounds and seizing a pirate mother ship off Somalia.

So nothing odd there then, so that ends that conspiracy theory, well it was fun while it lasted!

You see, initially I didn't connect this BBC report with the Esbern Snare! But it is her! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12442330


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

If the ship was already in the area, it's not odd to use the frequency.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You see, initially I didn't connect this BBC report with the Esbern Snare! But it is her! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12442330


Facinating link.



> Piracy off Somalia is a highly organised business.
> There are investors, accountants and a pirate leader on land, then of course, the actual attack group that puts to sea.
> I have been shown an actual pirate notebook, taken from one of the ships they seized then abandoned.
> Flipping through the pages, I can see a detailed ledger, written in Somali, of provisions supplied to each pirate onboard. They all have nicknames. One is called Shino, the Chinaman, another one is called Big Nose.


It appears the "root cause" for piracy is profit.

There is no mention of lack of jobs or food.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Taking out the pirates physically doesn't work,
> 
> Something that could be done to expedite it would be building a few US/UN military bases in the country, and stimulate their economy that way.


1) There's nothing wrong with short term results while seeking long term goals!!

2) PAX Americana!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> If the ship was already in the area, it's not odd to use the frequency.


Exactly, here endeth my conspiracy theory!


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

I cannot help but wonder how much of what I like to call "rich person stupidity syndrome" is going on here. Not the pirates of course but the civilians that are being captured. Why would anyone sail into this area for pleasure?

other examples of said "syndrome":

-Buying a 16 year old child a Ferrari or other super high performance car.
-Flying an advanced private plane with a broken leg in bad weather (with little experience).
-you get the idea...

Basically someone with a tonne of money that seems to have no common sense all because they have money. Nothing can happen to me because I have lots of money...

Of course not all rich people do this just certain ones...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

nosajwols said:


> I cannot help but wonder how much of what I like to call "rich person stupidity syndrome" is going on here. Not the pirates of course but the civilians that are being captured. Why would anyone sail into this area for pleasure?
> 
> other examples of said "syndrome":
> 
> ...


Suicide via Money!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Do you think Michael Jackson could have destroyed himself the way he did without money?? 

I mean publically and all....


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Do you think Michael Jackson could have destroyed himself the way he did without money??
> 
> I mean publically and all....


Or Lindsey Lohan!, or Britney Spears!

What's the old saying. _If you're broke, you're crazy, if you're rich, you're eccentric! _


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Oh really??
> 
> CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he was "taken aback" by President Barack Obama ordering his administration to stop defending the constitutionality of a federal law that bans recognition of gay marriage.
> The Virginia Republican said Thursday that he'd never been around when a president decided not to defend a law on the books. He says the U.S. Congress is mulling its options on the 15-year-old Defense of Marriage Act.


Before you go too much further you might pause to consider the facts.

The Obama administration is continuing to enforce and apply the law. For instance, legally married taxpayers in my home state of Vermont are not entitled to file as married couples or claim each other as dependents, even though this is obvious discrimination. The law, though, continues to be applied by the IRS.

There is a big difference between arguing in court that the law is unconstitutional and refusing to obey or enforce the law.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Facinating link.
> 
> It appears the "root cause" for piracy is profit.
> 
> There is no mention of lack of jobs or food.


Good point.

Maybe they should have chosen employment in banking, stock brokerage, publishing, or some of the other lucrative fields that are routinely available to Somali peasants.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jackmccullough said:


> Good point.
> 
> Maybe they should have chosen employment in banking, stock brokerage, publishing, or some of the other lucrative fields that are routinely available to Somali peasants.


I understand that there may still be a goat tender or two with the moral fibre to continue herding and not apply themselves to the trade of murder and lawlessness.

Those SUCKERS!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

jackmccullough said:


> Good point.
> 
> Maybe they should have chosen employment in banking, stock brokerage, publishing, or some of the other lucrative fields that are routinely available to Somali peasants.


Isn't it commonly believed that Banking & Stock Brokerage are forms of piracy? if we throw in lawyering, we have a trifecta!    (smilies added for emphasis, lest someone think I'm serious)

"You have to be a Lawyer to steal that kind of money" Discworld Novels, Terry Pratchett


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Apatheticviews said:


> Isn't it commonly believed that Banking & Stock Brokerage are forms of piracy? if we throw in lawyering, we have a trifecta!    (smilies added for emphasis, lest someone think I'm serious)
> 
> "You have to be a Lawyer to steal that kind of money" Discworld Novels, Terry Pratchett


Off topic: I'm reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis right now, so I would have a hard time arguing with you.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Isn't it commonly believed that Banking & Stock Brokerage are forms of piracy? if we throw in lawyering, we have a trifecta!


Madoff obviously turned to crime for lack of opportunity.

Poor fellow.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Madoff obviously turned to crime for lack of opportunity.
> 
> Poor fellow.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarians_at_the_Gate:_The_Fall_of_RJR_Nabisco


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."


Contrary to popular beleif, not all great crimes are equal!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Haven't you heard the latest? Bernie Madoff is working himself into a position of claiming he is merely the fall guy for all the major banking houses and federal regulatory agencies...he's just another victim(?)! Frankly, comparing Madoff to the Somali pirates, seems an insult to the pirates!! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Haven't you heard the latest? Bernie Madoff is working himself into a position of claiming he is merely the fall guy for all the major banking houses and federal regulatory agencies...he's just another victim(?)! Frankly, comparing Madoff to the Somali pirates, seems an insult to the pirates!! :icon_scratch:


Pirates can only rob 1 boatload of people at a time!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

"Never steal anything small"


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> "Never steal anything small"


"I don't believe in petty theft.*" -Phule's Company, Robert Aspirin

*Petty theft being defined as anything less than $250,000US.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Therefore it's agreed; as any rational person can conclude, that lessor crimes may motivated by desperation, but the root of piracy and high crimes is moral turpitude.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Therefore it's agreed; as any rational person can conclude, that lessor crimes may motivated by desperation, but the root of piracy and high crimes is moral turpitude.


Hmm. Does that mean that Somali Pirates aren't practicing Piracy? But wall street tycoons who never go near the sea are?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

No, it means that both literal pirates and figurative pirates are moraly bankrupt and niether has an excuse for their corruption!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, it means that both literal pirates and figurative pirates are moraly bankrupt and niether has an excuse for their corruption!!


Maybe we should start issuing privateer licenses again. Both in Somalia, and in Wall Street.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Excellent.

For if the miscreants go at it again, we will have at least collected a fee from them prior to the transgression and can cancel the license as punishment.

Or, like the UN, just threaten to refer them to the committee to recommend cancellation.

That will show them!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Excellent.
> 
> For if the miscreants go at it again, we will have at least collected a fee from them prior to the transgression and can cancel the license as punishment.
> 
> ...


No. No. No.

Issue licenses so they can hunt each other! In theory you'll have a tank full of wounded sharks.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

How about a nice adventure cruise??



> _To The Point_ is excited to offer the ultimate adventure cruise along the pirate-infested coast of Somalia!
> 
> We board our luxury cruise ship in Djibouti on the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea, and disembark in Mombassa, Kenya seven adrenaline-charged days later.


https://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/3617/85/


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Hunting would be A LOT more interesting if the deer had guns too...

I'm not saying I would intentionally go on a cruise like this (looking for a fight). Going into the waters overarmed, and waiting to ambush them is (borderline) murder (not that they don't have it coming). You're not really defending yourself.

However, if I were on a cruise line that permitted passengers to protect themselves in such a fashion, I can't say I see anything wrong with it. The fear of death has to be present to justify deadly force.


----------

