Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sea Pirates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CTEXSEC1
    replied
    Since this thread has been necro'd, I am going to respond to this:

    Originally posted by officerchick View Post
    They are not terrorists, they are pirates. It is a business model, and like any business their goal is to make money.
    They make money by taking hostages, waving firearms about, and shooting at people. They terrorize and are, therefore, terrorists.

    They hold the hostages/cargo for ransom and release them when they get their money.
    According to the news, this is not true. Many pirates have killed when their demands are not met.

    They don't hijack with the intent to kill or maim, only to get a ransom.
    And kill if that doesn't work.

    The captain is not a political prisoner, but a hostage kept for negotiations.
    Terrorism is not just about politics. It is about whatever they want it to be. It is about money, power, wealth, religion, whatever.

    I think the word terrorist should be reserved for those whose purpose is to inspire terror.
    Pretty sure if a bunch of Somalis in a dingy shoved an AK in your face, you would be terrified. By your own definition here, pirates are terrorists.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacticalOfficer2
    replied
    I saw a special on the US Navy fighting pirates.....those guys were awesome!

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post
    I guess we will just have to wait and see if there's a direct link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/...t_pe/us_piracy
    If it turns out that the bulk of the money goes to fund terrorists, you may be able to make the arguement. But just because a small amount makes it to terrorists, that doesn't make them terrorists. As I said earlier, Saudi money funds terrorists, as has US money.

    But I think the label terrorist should be reserved for those who commit or plan the acts of terrorism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    I guess we will just have to wait and see if there's a direct link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090410/...t_pe/us_piracy

    Leave a comment:


  • officerchick
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post
    They are not pirates - let's start calling them what they really are.....terrorists.
    Respectfully, Curtis, I disagree. I didn't respond yesterday because I wasn't sure how to phrase it, but this very distinction was discussed in a news interview last night. They are not terrorists, they are pirates. It is a business model, and like any business their goal is to make money. They hold the hostages/cargo for ransom and release them when they get their money. They don't hijack with the intent to kill or maim, only to get a ransom. The captain is not a political prisoner, but a hostage kept for negotiations.

    The overuse of words can cause them to lose their significance and impact. I think the word terrorist should be reserved for those whose purpose is to inspire terror.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    I kind of got the image of Juan Valdez on his donkey caring a rocket launcher heading for Somalia's coast. Sure hope his ass can swim.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    [QUOTE=SecTrainer;89695][QUOTE=integrator97;89687]I'm not sure where you pulled the number 110 from, but it stinks, so we can guess. There are about 200 countries in the world (depending on how you're classfying).

    Exactly. "Depending on how you're classifying". Excuse me if I don't consider the Vatican to be a country in this context. Regardless, the exact number is immaterial and my point still holds, namely that 17 nations participating (somewhat) in countering this problem is a spit in the ocean, if you'll pardon the pun.



    Who says that only countries with navies can participate in an operation to solve this problem?



    If it's not a US problem, it's not a NATO problem. And you absolutely have got to be kidding about leaving it to the UN, who can't decide whether to use the word "concern" or not in rebuking North Korea and have allowed many much more grievous international crimes on the continent of Africa (where this is happening) to go unredressed.

    I agree that we should call them pirates, but for the practical reasons that I stated - namely that it is very difficult to mobilize the international community against "terrorists". Curtis is quite correct, however, that these are terrorists in that we know these people have ties with terrorist groups and that at least some of the money goes to support terrorism. I just think we should be content to allow the world to continue to erroneously consider them to be maritime criminals so that at least we have some chance of getting some concerted action against them.
    Although you insist on trying to talk about US politics, I'll stay on the important topics.

    At this point it is solely a naval operation, so how would you like those other countries to help. Rowboats?

    It is a spit in the ocean. Navy's are not going to be able to stop it. I still think decoys could work well though at capturing them and the motherships.

    I don't put much stock in the UN either, but again, this shouldn't be our fight at this time. NATO is not the U.S. NATO is made up of a whole host of countries. And not every country participates in every NATO operation. And they aren't bound up by the politics of the UN.

    Going by your logic of what defines a terrorist, we must agree that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state. And unfortunately that makes the U.S. a terrorist state, since we support Saudi Arabia. We also supported the Taliban, before they turned against us. There are a host of others. As a matter of fact, it would be hard not to find a terrorist almost anywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • officerchick
    replied
    Originally posted by darkenna View Post
    That's it... Integrator and SecTrainer, you guys are officially off the boat. We're here to sink pirates, not politcize, and I'll not be toleratin' any poli-talk amongst ye lubbers on me boat, arrr!!!

    Er, I mean, um... ah, screw it. ARRR!
    Hee! I almost responded, but it would have been so off topic that I resisted.

    Leave a comment:


  • darkenna
    replied
    That's it... Integrator and SecTrainer, you guys are officially off the boat. We're here to sink pirates, not politcize, and I'll not be toleratin' any poli-talk amongst ye lubbers on me boat, arrr!!!

    Er, I mean, um... ah, screw it. ARRR!

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    [QUOTE=integrator97;89687]I'm not sure where you pulled the number 110 from, but it stinks, so we can guess. There are about 200 countries in the world (depending on how you're classfying).[quote]

    Exactly. "Depending on how you're classifying". Excuse me if I don't consider the Vatican to be a country in this context. Regardless, the exact number is immaterial and my point still holds, namely that 17 nations participating (somewhat) in countering this problem is a spit in the ocean, if you'll pardon the pun.

    There are 73 Navies with 10 or more ships. These include Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Morroco, Ecuador and many more like them.

    Liberia and Sierra Leone, two major countries of ship registries don't even have Navies. How many of those 38 nations you mentioned have Navies at all, let alone a Navy capable of assisting here?
    Who says that only countries with navies can participate in an operation to solve this problem?

    As far as on land, it's a decision that needs to be made. At this point, I would leave it to the UN or NATO.
    If it's not a US problem, it's not a NATO problem. And you absolutely have got to be kidding about leaving it to the UN, who can't decide whether to use the word "concern" or not in rebuking North Korea and have allowed many much more grievous international crimes on the continent of Africa (where this is happening) to go unredressed.

    Curtis, I don't agree with you on them being terrorists. They fit the definition of pirates. They hijack the ships and ransom it and the crew. They make no political statement, have no specific group as targets, hold no ideology, and don't do it to strike terror. If you classify them as terrorists, you can then classify any kidnapper as a terrorist. It would water down the entire system.
    I agree that we should call them pirates, but for the practical reasons that I stated - namely that it is very difficult to mobilize the international community against "terrorists". Curtis is quite correct, however, that these are terrorists in that we know these people have ties with terrorist groups and that at least some of the money goes to support terrorism. I just think we should be content to allow the world to continue to erroneously consider them to be maritime criminals so that at least we have some chance of getting some concerted action against them.

    And please go back to Harvard and learn how to read. Mom and Dad spent lots of money! Nowhere did I "blame Obama" for this problem and specifically named the two prior administrations as having allowed this problem to persist. I did say that he has given us no reason to hope that he will be able to mobilize the world against the problem which is now on his watch. Based on his own performance, you couldn't prove it by me that he could persuade two policemen to walk across the street to arrest a rapist in the act.

    You really must one day figure out that his name is not Jesus, even if you do have a shrine to him in your living room and pray to him five times a day. Whenever you see the least negative thing about your sweetie wonder-man, you jump straight up in the air like a jealous lover and come down full of misunderstandings.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-09-2009, 12:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Excuse me, bro', but I think what you really mean is that you don't happen to like that part of my statement. As it happens, it is extremely relevant, bearing on international cooperation against common enemies. Couldn't be more relevant, in fact. 17 nations out of what...110? Wow! The ships of no fewer than 38 nations have been subjected to this piracy, and the ships of all nations are under this same threat, so where are all the others?

    And naval assets are only a part of the story, by the way. We (and other nations) have air assets and ground assets as well, all of which have direct application to this problem if we can catch up on the intel side of things.

    I didn't politicize this discussion. I blamed both Democrat and Republican administrations for allowing this situation to fester. I suggest that you not do so either. The fact that Obama was unsuccessful in getting NATO combat assistance (except a few "trainers") for Afghanistan, unsuccessful in getting European nations to go along with his global stimulus plan, unsuccessful in getting Russia to assist with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and unsuccessful in the UN with respect to N. Korea's missile launch (in conjunction with the incredibly inept next-day announcement of reductions in missile defense spending) are simply facts that are directly relevant to any situation that will require concrete joint operations, including this one and - whether the term is still legal to use under Obama or not - the ongoing war on terror, of which this is a part.

    "Being liked" is easy, and frankly anyone can do that. All you do is go over to Europe and trash the United States in your speeches. Rephrase reality so that it's less scary ("overseas contingency operation"). Bow to Saudi kings. Tell Turkey that America isn't a Christian nation. Send your Secretary of State to China and make sure she doesn't mention their increasing human rights atrocities. Cozy up to Castro. Talk about fantasies like "eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world". The world will say "Wow! What a guy!"...but you start asking for military assets or money and they give you zip. So far Obama hasn't shown any real global leadership at all when it comes to getting anything out of the international community other than applause.

    This whole piracy situation is Obama's "overseas contingency operation" if anything is, so I guess that now we'll have a chance to see what that gag-phrase means, won't we? I'm betting it will either prove to mean absolutely nothing or else it will prove to look an awful lot like the "war on terror" (like Obama's "overseas contingency operation" in Afghanistan looks exactly like the "war on terror") - meaning a few countries will do the heavy lifting while the rest of the world sits around kibitzing, screaming in horror if any "innocents" happen to be killed, invoking the Geneva Conventions, and talking about "war crimes" while the lawyers in this country holler for captured pirates to be tried in the traffic court of Muncie, Indiana.

    What's your bet? Will the inept junior senator from Illinois fall flat on his face again, or will he grow up and discover what being the President of the United States is really all about?
    Yes, you did politicize. This isn't just a problem for the USA, it's a world problem. Yet you blamed our government, and Obama, who you haven't even given a chance on this before passing judgement. Now I'll take it off of politics, so try to talk about the subject at hand, not the one you understand even less about.

    I'm not sure where you pulled the number 110 from, but it stinks, so we can guess. There are about 200 countries in the world (depending on how you're classfying). There are 73 Navies with 10 or more ships. These include Croatia, Romania, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Morroco, Ecuador and many more like them.

    Liberia and Sierra Leone, two major countries of ship registries don't even have Navies. How many of those 38 nations you mentioned have Navies at all, let alone a Navy capable of assisting here?

    As far as on land, it's a decision that needs to be made. At this point, I would leave it to the UN or NATO. The reasons are several. We are already in 2 wars. Our military is stretched enough without adding another prolonged ground war. Our economy also doesn't need another prolonged war. This would be another war in which you can't readily identify the enemy, often until they are shooting at you.

    Curtis, I don't agree with you on them being terrorists. They fit the definition of pirates. They hijack the ships and ransom it and the crew. They make no political statement, have no specific group as targets, hold no ideology, and don't do it to strike terror. If you classify them as terrorists, you can then classify any kidnapper as a terrorist. It would water down the entire system.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post
    They are not pirates - let's start calling them what they really are.....terrorists.
    I wonder if it's not counterproductive to call them terrorists, however accurate the term might be. The international community - now including the United States - has never agreed on what constitutes terrorism, what groups are terrorists, or how to deal with them. There is no more "war on terror" (and backing away from this term, especially in conjunction with the closing of Gitmo, is much more than a semantic shift as it signals a significant difference in this administration's belief system).

    My guess is that the best cooperation we'll ever get from the world will be obtained by calling these individuals pirates, which brings them under the umbrella of maritime law, and that they will be dealt with as criminals - perhaps being tried in an international court, if any. Call them pirates and maybe you can get some international cooperation. Call them terrorists and watch the rest of the world stampede for the exits.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-09-2009, 10:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    They are not pirates - let's start calling them what they really are.....terrorists.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by integrator97 View Post
    You are correct that the problem is on shore.

    However, this part of your statement has no direct bearing on this subject. Three months into the international anti-piracy campaign, as many as 17 nations are participating in increased patrols, and more are expected to join. According to the Navy, it would take 61 ships to control the shipping route in the Gulf of Aden, which is just a fraction of the 1.1 million square miles where the pirates have operated. A U.S.-backed international anti-piracy coalition currently has 12 to 16 ships patrolling the region at any one time.

    Remember that we have the largest Navy, and that's only about 300 warships. Some navies don't have deepwater capabilities, etc.
    Excuse me, bro', but I think what you really mean is that you don't happen to like that part of my statement. As it happens, it is extremely relevant, bearing on international cooperation against common enemies. Couldn't be more relevant, in fact. 17 nations out of what...110? Wow! The ships of no fewer than 38 nations have been subjected to this piracy, and the ships of all nations are under this same threat, so where are all the others?

    And naval assets are only a part of the story, by the way. We (and other nations) have air assets and ground assets as well, all of which have direct application to this problem if we can catch up on the intel side of things.

    I didn't politicize this discussion. I blamed both Democrat and Republican administrations for allowing this situation to fester. I suggest that you not do so either. The fact that Obama was unsuccessful in getting NATO combat assistance (except a few "trainers") for Afghanistan, unsuccessful in getting European nations to go along with his global stimulus plan, unsuccessful in getting Russia to assist with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and unsuccessful in the UN with respect to N. Korea's missile launch (in conjunction with the incredibly inept next-day announcement of reductions in missile defense spending) are simply facts that are directly relevant to any situation that will require concrete joint operations, including this one and - whether the term is still legal to use under Obama or not - the ongoing war on terror, of which this is a part.

    "Being liked" is easy, and frankly anyone can do that. All you do is go over to Europe and trash the United States in your speeches. Rephrase reality so that it's less scary ("overseas contingency operation"). Bow to Saudi kings. Tell Turkey that America isn't a Christian nation. Send your Secretary of State to China and make sure she doesn't mention their increasing human rights atrocities. Cozy up to Castro. Talk about fantasies like "eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world". The world will say "Wow! What a guy!"...but you start asking for military assets or money and they give you zip. So far Obama hasn't shown any real global leadership at all when it comes to getting anything out of the international community other than applause.

    This whole piracy situation is Obama's "overseas contingency operation" if anything is, so I guess that now we'll have a chance to see what that gag-phrase means, won't we? I'm betting it will either prove to mean absolutely nothing or else it will prove to look an awful lot like the "war on terror" (like Obama's "overseas contingency operation" in Afghanistan looks exactly like the "war on terror") - meaning a few countries will do the heavy lifting while the rest of the world sits around kibitzing, screaming in horror if any "innocents" happen to be killed, invoking the Geneva Conventions, and talking about "war crimes" while the lawyers in this country holler for captured pirates to be tried in the traffic court of Muncie, Indiana.

    What's your bet? Will the inept junior senator from Illinois fall flat on his face again, or will he grow up and discover what being the President of the United States is really all about?
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-09-2009, 10:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • integrator97
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    And then, of course, we have the international community, who have just discovered that it is enough to scream and applaud loudly for Obama while giving him nothing in the way of concerted military action, even against common enemies. "Liking" Obama got him exactly what "disliking" Bush got him - jack sh1t. In fact, Bush actually got more out of the UN than Obama did.
    You are correct that the problem is on shore.

    However, this part of your statement has no direct bearing on this subject. Three months into the international anti-piracy campaign, as many as 17 nations are participating in increased patrols, and more are expected to join. According to the Navy, it would take 61 ships to control the shipping route in the Gulf of Aden, which is just a fraction of the 1.1 million square miles where the pirates have operated. A U.S.-backed international anti-piracy coalition currently has 12 to 16 ships patrolling the region at any one time.

    Remember that we have the largest Navy, and that's only about 300 warships. Some navies don't have deepwater capabilities, etc.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X