# Preemptive Strike



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

NATO Sinks Pirate Mother Ship Off Somalia



> (March 1) -- A NATO task force intercepted and sank a pirate mother ship off the Horn of Africa in a pre-emptive bid to disrupt the raiders' attacks on merchant ships ahead of peak piracy season.
> 
> An assault team from the Danish destroyer HDMS Absalon, the NATO force flagship, boarded and then scuttled the large open boat after it left a well-known pirate camp in eastern Somalia, the alliance announced Monday. Without that ship, which served as a floating dock and supply depot to smaller and faster attack vessels, the pirates are expected to have a harder time waging successful assaults.
> 
> ...











A NATO force from the Danish destroyer HDMS Absalon, shown here, intercepted and sank a pirate mother ship off the Horn of Africa.

Hummm.... Wonder if this approach will produce any effects, years of doing nothing hasn't stopped piracy so maybe doing SOMETHING will help...


----------



## MC1 (Jan 6, 2008)

Wow, they finally grew some!! Three cheers, and keep it comin' to 'em!


----------



## LittleWingCA (Jul 17, 2008)

Watch, they will probably get sued by Greenpeace for polluting the ocean.


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm assuming they scuttled the pirates too?


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Good for them.
Score one for the good guys!


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

Ha. There is no such thing as "the good guys."


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

tager said:


> Ha. There is no such thing as "the good guys."


Score one for the much better guys.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Thanks Smacky.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Those guys and gals at HDMS Absalon are good!
This seems pretty accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_(L16)


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

The point is that some people killed some other people and now you are saying "score one for the good guys." 

I am totally against piracy, and I believe that those pirates got what was coming to them. However, I don't cheer when people die. 

Who were the "much better guys" at Hiroshima? 

I am not comparing this event to Hiroshima, they are totally different. I am trying to illustrate that killing fellow humans is never good. When you tread on the safety of others by being a pirate, you accept death as a possible fate. I still think killing people is wrong, and so is scuttling ships. 

Doesn't it pollute the ocean? Isn't it an irresponsible way to deal with lead, petroleum products, and other chemicals? 

Maybe you guys think I am an "enviro-nut" or a "liberal" or whatever. 

I would not hesitate to kill pirates. However, I wouldn't celebrate their defeat as they swam helpless in the water, soon to die. Humans.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I see your point Tager - and I agree with it for the most part. There's nothing good in killing. Ever.

But I don't see in the story above where anybody killed anybody. They boarded a pirate ship and sunk it. That's pretty smart - it pre-empts the killing which will beget more killing.

From that standpoint - the better guys definitely won this one.


----------



## tager (Nov 21, 2008)

(If you have ever read John Rawls, think about the Original Position in the context of this debate...)

Here's an alternate standpoint.

Pirates, Warlords and Rogue Fishing Vessels in Somalia's Unruly Seas

"Fishing vessels known to operate off Somalia include the following flags: Belize (either French or Spanish-owned purse seiners operating under flag of convenience to avoid EU regulations); France (purse seiners targeting tuna licensed to the food company Cobrecaf); Honduras (EU purse seiners targeting tuna under flag of convenience); Japan (longliners now operate under licence to the Republic of Somaliland); Kenya (Mombasa-based trawlers); Korea (longliners targeting swordfish seasonally); Pakistan (trawlers, but also targeting shark); Saudi Arabia (trawlers); Spain (purse seiners targeting tuna); Sri Lanka (trawlers, plus longliners targeting shark under licence to the Republic of Somaliland and based at Berbera, Somaliland); Taiwan (longliners targeting swordfish seasonally); and Yemen (trawlers financed by a seafood importer in Bari, Italy). Formerly operated as the Somali national fleet, four Yemeni trawlers and a collector vessel are now based in Aden (see photo)."

Let me say that this is not my standpoint, in fact I agree with you, but I am just attempting to debunk the myth that some killers are better than others. (I am assuming here that they scuttling included captain and crew.)

It doesn't matter if the person who kills you was a good guy or a bad guy, you are still dead.

Lets say you are born poor, Somalian, and in a coastal town. Your father is a fisherman, but the fisheries are gone. This is largely due to illegal fishing by other countries off of the Somalian coast.

Each day he goes out in his small fishing boat, and tries to catch enough to sustain your family. He sees large foreign ships flying false flags and fishing illegally. Within a few years, the fishery is completely depleted, he can't catch any fish. Your family is now completely destitute. There are no social services in your town. There is hardly a government at all. The richest men in town are pirates that steal from foreign vessels off the coast.

You get a fever. You are malnourished, and you need to see a doctor or you will die. Your father comes home one day, he brings food, a doctor, clothing, new bedding, materials to make your life better.

You don't wonder where it came from, but you are happy now that your fever is going away and you are able to eat as much as you want.

The next day your father dies and you are screwed.

So will you hear from your friends that your father was a pirate, and that some good guys on a ship killed him because he was on a boat that committed illegal acts? Will you think to yourself: "Oh, my dad was a bad guy, it's a good thing those good guys killed him!"

I doubt it.

The point is, the Somalians are not just rolling over and letting foreign countries destroy their livelihood. The structural violence that destroyed their fishery is being responded to directly with physical violence. It's not a surprise.

The pirates are being painted by the press as morally bankrupt thieves. I am pretty sure that many of them are bankrupt fishermen.

I don't doubt that many people here, on sailnet, of lighter moral constitution, would resort to the same behavior. If you are so ready to believe that one side or the other is "good" and that their actions are justified, you are just the type of person that could be convinced to become a pirate. Through self serving reasons, you can convince anyone that something is good.

Was the holocaust good?


----------



## Zoomie (Oct 31, 2009)

Ahh, another sliding scale of good discussion. And the ever popular "It's all our fault" mentality !


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

The statement then is; you repeat what you sow, and so death is part of it, there is a British couple still being held not to mention others, what say you to them sorry for your luck, I think its time to wake up and deal only in what they understand, bullets are cheap, and a needed thing for our freedom.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Sorry Tager - you're now going down the road of the ends justifying the means. Good luck with that.

I'll just stick with the simple premise that killing is bad - in whatever form it takes. And in this case, good was done by preempting killing by sinking a boat. Your speculation about whether or not dudes were on board is just that from what I can see.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

tager said:


> Maybe you guys think I am an "enviro-nut" or a "liberal" or whatever.
> 
> Naaahhh!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## LittleWingCA (Jul 17, 2008)

In the news here, it said the pirate crew were allowed to return to shore in one of their life boats prior to the scuttling. It doesn't appear anyone was killed. Their offshore base ship was just sunk to hinder future attempts at piracy.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

tager said:


> The pirates are being painted by the press as morally bankrupt thieves. I am pretty sure that many of them are bankrupt fishermen.


In the first instance the fellow who wrote the article you posted a link to was exposed to Somalia in 1998. At that time MAYBE the story of fishermen losing their livelyhood had a modicum of validity. 12 years on the rules have changed.

If you have access to it read the article in the March Cruising World written by a person who has had direct contact of the worst kind with these terrorists yu may see that these people are thugs driven by self-interest and nothing more. Not some UN do-gooder who had limited peripheral exposure.

When someone can show me evidence of these pirates taking the money they are stealing from others and applying it for the good of the population of even their village, let alone their country, then I may start to reflect on their methods and maybe I'll even begin to understand why they are picking on folks who have a) nothing to do with the demise of their fishing industry and b) no way of influencing it either way.

Until then, if I were given to religion, I would be praying hard for a very nasty end to each and every one of them.

There is no justification for what they do and every justification for ridding the world of them. Attitudes such as yours that find ways to justify them will not help anyone.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, sometimes the killing of other human beings is a necessity. The Somalian pirates are not disgruntled fishermen trying to protect their fishing grounds, though they may have started off that way many years ago. The current crop have proven themselves to be amoral, greedy, and not deserving of any mercy. 

IMHO, either you are against terrorists like these pirates or you are tacitly supporting them.


----------



## jimmalkin (Jun 1, 2004)

At a dinner in NYC in December I listened to a journalist from Somalia who runs the only local news web site in Mogadishu and reports for most of the international press. His discussion focused on the funding of the prirates and the distribution of the ransom money - and the industry that it has evolved into. The pirates get their funding and the majority of their arms from the various Islamic warlords/groups in the country. The ransom proceeds are divided roughly 30% to the warlords/groups, 30% to the local tribal authorities, 30% to the pirate group itself. I would suggest that the average pirate may get funds that might be used for medicine, food and blankets for his family but the "spoils" - according to the Somali reporter - tend to go to 4 Wheel drive vehicles, "fancy women," elaborate houses and the trappings of wealth; not "family value" expenditure.

Do we believe that we should permit individuals to violate international and local laws and customs to feed and clothe their family? Or should we expect, as the the hard life throughout history has shown, some of the disadvantaged can claw their way to a better life without recourse to violence and illegality and some, sadly, can not.

I may be a more attractive catch than a net full of fish, the fisherman's kids may need the proceeds from the theft of my vessel, but I'm not prepared for a world that allows the confiscation of my boat for someone else's benefit.

And as SD notes and the Somali journalist confirms; we are a long way from poor fisherman and a good way to dangerous kleptocracy on an industrial scale.

And the poor British couple are not having a good time of it -


----------



## jwreck (Jan 25, 2010)

I've never understood this whole concept that killing accomplishes nothing. Killing has accomplished a great deal throughout history. There are certainly times when killing someone is justified. If you think that sinking a couple of ships and then escorting the pirates to shore where they will simply regroup and re-arm is a solution to piracy, then I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

tager said:


> Ha. There is no such thing as "the good guys."


They are the winners, who write the history.

Or, they are the ones who do the right thing.

Sometimes those two can get confused.

Let's call this scoring one for the guys to took on the not so nice guys so the decent folk can go about their business.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

tager said:


> The point is that some people killed some other people and now you are saying "score one for the good guys."
> 
> I am totally against piracy, and I believe that those pirates got what was coming to them. However, I don't cheer when people die.
> 
> ...


Wow...did you read a lot into not only the story but he responses of some of the people who praised the work of the military.

I've been a soldier, a mercenary and a cop. Killing is not something I would cheer. However, killing is not, on it's face, wrong.

Looking at it in such black and white terms denies the complexities of the issues around the "use of deadly force to defend yourself or another against grave bodily injury or death."


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

tager said:


> Let me say that this is not my standpoint, in fact I agree with you, but I am just attempting to debunk the myth that some killers are better than others. (I am assuming here that they scuttling included captain and crew.)


You bet some killers are better than others.

If I put my life on the line to defend your life, or the lives of your loved ones, and have to take the life of another to defend same, then have to deal with the psychological impacts of it, you bet I'm "better" than the person who intended to harm you or yours.

There's nothing prideful about having to face that. There's nothing good about the actual act.

But there is the reality of Good Men, willing to do Very Bad Things, for Very Good Reasons.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

black - nicely defined.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

blackjenner said:


> But there is the reality of Good Men, willing to do Very Bad Things, for Very Good Reasons.


And I thank my lucky stars that there are such people each and everyday. I wouldn't have the freedoms that so may take for granted today if not for Men and Women willing to stand up and take that responsibility upon themselves. Could I be a soldier or a police officer? I don't think so. Could I shoot a pirate that boarded my ship? I don't know but there are people willing to protect me and protect my freedoms.

Too many people think they are better than those willing to protect them because they 'Wouldn't Kill' another or look back on history with contempt at events like Hiroshima and project their 'high morals' because people died at the hands of other. These hypocrite would certainly denounce what the Nazi's did and then denounce what the allies did to stop them?

I invite such people to take the next flight to Mogadishu and try to pass on these high morals to said pirates. I'm sure it will go over well...

Robert


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... Let's see, an estimated casualty rate over 1 million for the Allies alone or the 150,000 folks killed by the bombs? Even knowing the history since then, which choice do ya think I'd make?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

And digging the Japanese out of the rest of the Pacific and Asia would have cost a lot more than those 1,000,000 Allied casualties. The Japanese Empire was a monster...


CharlieCobra said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... Let's see, an estimated casualty rate over 1 million for the Allies alone or the 150,000 folks killed by the bombs? Even knowing the history since then, which choice do ya think I'd make?


----------



## wcsailor (Oct 30, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> ...The Japanese Empire was a monster...


Yes Sdog, anyone having read "The Rape of Nanking" would agree. Thanks for standing up for the truth of history...much of which gets 'creatively rewritten.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, I know about it from the Korean perspective. Some of my family's friends had relatives that served as "comfort women".


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

We face another Monster much more evil today...with out the luxury of handling it the same way..._yet_....sometimes there is such a thing as the good old days...Lets hope its not to late when it happens.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

Why can't you handle it the same way?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, I would recommend using conventional or FAE-based explosives instead of nuclear ones.  Other than that minor change, I don't see a problem with handling it the same way. The rest of the world might think that's a bit drastic though. 



Omatako said:


> Why can't you handle it the same way?


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

Yep, the force and overpressure of a nuke without the radiation... Neat weapon.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Just to be clear..I wasn't talking Pirates either....but enough said on that


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

tager said:


> I don't doubt that many people here, on sailnet, of lighter moral constitution, would resort to the same behavior. If you are so ready to believe that one side or the other is "good" and that their actions are justified, you are just the type of person that could be convinced to become a pirate. Through self serving reasons, you can convince anyone that something is good.


Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Think of what would happen in the US if the economy collapsed and a lot of starving fishermen saw foreign fishing ships coming through fishing on and depleting what had always been their fishing waters. I think a lot of Americans would do the same thing. When someone is really hungry it doesn't take much or any logic to justify doing something like this. What's also very worrying is that I too often when Americans say "we should just nuke them" referring to some country in the Middle East. But when somebody in the Middle East says that America should be nuked that's practically enough to get their entire country labeled as a terrorist nation. US foreign policy over past hundred years has been far from spotless.

Now I'm not saying it's wrong to defend yourself from pirates or anything. But maybe the western navies shouldn't patrol the waters to provide cover for the foreign fishing ships in the area? Please correct me if I'm wrong.



> When the Somali government collapsed in 1991, so too did Somalia's ability to police its waters and regulate foreign vessels. For corporate fishing fleets from Asia and Europe, that meant rich shark and tuna fisheries suddenly wide open for exploitation. And boy did they exploit. Tales abound of foreign vessels stripping the fish from once-rich waters, and chasing away small-time Somali fishermen.
> 
> The problem got so bad that many displaced Somali fishermen picked up AK-47s and began boarding foreign vessels to demand "fees." Thus Somali piracy was born. No wonder pirates are so popular - and untouchable to police - in many Somali fishing towns.
> 
> ...


So there are some "good" pirates who are doing exactly the same thing that most other nations would do if you came in their waters without permission and started fishing. Then there are the ones who have taken it to the next level.

So could the western navies keep the foreign fishing ships out of Somali waters and then all the good pirates should stop being pirates and all that would be left are the bad ones which can be dealt with with force.


----------



## otisgudlyfe (Aug 1, 2010)

Tager, it would be nice if the world were as Mr. Disney portrayed it, with Bambi and Thumper and the woodland creatures living in peace and harmony....but that just ain't true. Perhaps you should get out your Ouija board and ask Mr. Churchill why you sleep soundly in your bed.


----------



## rickinnocal (Mar 2, 2011)

I will say that what truly irritates me about the whole situation is the massive amount of world press being given to a grand total of NINE yachties who have been taken with four killed, compared to the ear shattering silence the same press has been emitting with regard to the pirates current SEVEN HUNDRED merchant seamen being held hostage, or the over 1,100 who were imprisoned for at least some period during 2010. 

The number of killed is unknown, since most merchant seamen are spirited inland to be held in the pirates tribal villages, but the Fillipino government (Over 400 of the current hostages are Filipino) believes that at least 100 of the Filipinos listed as "hostages" are probably dead after their employers simply declined to pay to ransom them. (In some cases, after paying to ransom their ships)

Richard


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Score one for the good guys!

There, I hope that's clearer to anyone who hasn't thought enough about what is needed for good people to live. Treating known criminals like good people is why good people get treated like criminals. <-- Yes, you actually have to think for awhile to get there. Start with how prison furloughs make everyone have to lock their doors at night. Proceed from their. (If you aren't willing to think about it, move over and let the grown-ups keep you and your family alive, safe and free.)

Regards,
Brad


----------



## MaineFloat (Nov 23, 2010)

Blackjenner - Thank You. 

There are indeed "good guys"& killing is very necessary at times. It's not fun to live with the aftereffect of it; however, necessary..


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

tager said:


> (If you have ever read John Rawls, think about the Original Position in the context of this debate...)
> 
> Here's an alternate standpoint.
> 
> ...


There is just a wee problem with this scenario.
1. If these guys are the "Somalian coast guard", why are they attacking yachts? More than 500 miles from the Somalian coast?
2. If they were really enforcing Somalian fishing rights, they would be targeting fishing vessels, and or collecting fees. If they were merely robbing vessels that transit, especially if they were collecting a fixed amount like $1000.00 or we seize your ship, I could almost buy it.

The major problem is that Somalians, (formerly Ethiopians before an Islamic revolution). NEVER HAD A FISHING INDUSTRY, ...NEVER. The current "fishermen", were given their steel fishing boats with British outboards as part of a charity project among a group of European Nations as an attempt to reduce Somalian dependence on UN food aid. (The theory is give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, ...), The problem with this theory is, Somalians DON'T EAT FISH! It is not in their culture. The original coastal inhabitants, that might have once upon a time eaten fish were genocided. The current inhabitants of Somalia's coastline not only have no "father to son" fishing tradition, they also have neither the raw materials, nor the know how to construct ocean going vessels of any size or type.

This does not even mimic the pirate situation in Thailand. In Thailand there IS a tradition of fishing, but the fishermen are the lowest and least educated of Thai society. They are paid pennies for the fish they catch, and have to make it up in volume, (hard to do with hand fishing). And as such are even poorer that the rice farmers. The Thai priate attack we have heard about are merely robbery attempts gone bad, as the Thai priates rarely try to hold someone for ransom. Most of the killings have been because of racial strife, and historical animosity between the different groups of Asians, (that westerners often group together).

Also the Thai build their own fishing vessels, (out of native materials like bamboo), and dont venture far from the coast.

We've focused on losses from the pirated ships, but to be in a small steel skiff 500 miles out with a single outboard you have no idea how to fix, and no spare parts, and no tools, hoping the mothership that dropped you off out here doesn't lose you or forget you. I'm betting that the pirates don't have either ocean experience, or the ability to navigate, and that 1-10% are simply lost each trip. You can buy a lot of skiffs for one of the million dollar ransoms.


----------



## TheMadchef (Feb 16, 2010)

Seems to me that much of this discussion revolves around whether or not somali pirates should be killed. In my mind, the punishment should fit the crime;
if a pirate is witnessed killing innocent people, by all means, blow up the boat they are on, arrest and prosecute the survivors accordingly. 
Any pirate arrested during the commission of a crime should be detained and prosecuted according to the same standards of anyone else in the free world.
Seems pretty simple. More authorities in pirate-laden waters to police criminal activity.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

TheMadchef said:


> ....Seems pretty simple. More authorities in pirate-laden waters to police criminal activity.


I hate the bastards, but this isn't very practical. There is 2,000 miles of Somalian coastline and they wander hundreds of miles offshore. It would require all the authorities east of the Mississippi.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

steel said:


> Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Think of what would happen in the US if the economy collapsed and a lot of starving fishermen saw foreign fishing ships coming through fishing on and depleting what had always been their fishing waters. I think a lot of Americans would do the same thing. When someone is really hungry it doesn't take much or any logic to justify doing something like this.
> So there are some "good" pirates who are doing exactly the same thing that most other nations would do if you came in their waters without permission and started fishing. Then there are the ones who have taken it to the next level.
> 
> .


Exactly you are wrong. What DID happen in the US in disasters, (except Katrina), was the people of the comunities gathered together, selected leaders, and worked together to fix the problem. What WOULD happen in the US if our economy collapsed and foreign ships were threatening our livelyhood, is what DID happen historically. We would organise a fleet of "deputized" armed merchant ships, and patrol our coast with the ships operating under a common command, and under strict rules of engagement.

This was the exact scenario under which the US NAVY was commisioned by congress. The patrols; like our society operated under the RULE OF LAW, and under the supervision and scrutiny of the original colonies. Even in the "wild west", people worked to form local and regional authorities, and enforce the rule of law. Lawlessness, thievery, and kidnapping is not part of our culture.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

As pirate attacks grow, shipowners take arms - Business - World business - msnbc.com

It's about time these ships started packing heat.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

CapnBilll said:


> Exactly you are wrong. What DID happen in the US in disasters, (except Katrina), was the people of the comunities gathered together, selected leaders, and worked together to fix the problem. What WOULD happen in the US if our economy collapsed and foreign ships were threatening our livelyhood, is what DID happen historically. We would organise a fleet of "deputized" armed merchant ships, and patrol our coast with the ships operating under a common command, and under strict rules of engagement.
> 
> This was the exact scenario under which the US NAVY was commisioned by congress. The patrols; like our society operated under the RULE OF LAW, and under the supervision and scrutiny of the original colonies. Even in the "wild west", people worked to form local and regional authorities, and enforce the rule of law. Lawlessness, thievery, and kidnapping is not part of our culture.


Well said

+1


----------



## motion300 (Feb 12, 2009)

So if a unemployed auto worker in detroit started hyjacking trucks and killing the drivers on the highway we should understand and let him be?


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

Surely if all the Somalian coastline can't be patrolled, the best approach is to protect individual ships? By that I mean put teams of marines or the coalition equivalent on random ships - once a few ships have fought back the pirates might start thinking about another profession.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

MarkSF said:


> Surely if all the Somalian coastline can't be patrolled, the best approach is to protect individual ships? By that I mean put teams of marines or the coalition equivalent on random ships - once a few ships have fought back the pirates might start thinking about another profession.


There is some complication, I believe it is to do with the Geneva Convention (not sure) that prohibits merchant ships from arming themselves.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

Omatako said:


> There is some complication, I believe it is to do with the Geneva Convention (not sure) that prohibits merchant ships from arming themselves.


This is an interesting piece of info. Does anyone know if this is true? I'm not casting doubt, it's just I've never heard it clarified one way or the other (though a few people I've talked to believe it to be).


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I heard something similar, although I heard it was the insurance companies for merchant ships that prohibited it.


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

That would not surprise me, insurance companies are as risk averse as they come (having to pay for the follies of the insured). My understanding is that a majority of pirate ransoms are paid by said insurance companies where it is cheaper to pay off the pirates short-term than to lose the ship, it's freight, and pay out the life insurance of the crew.

Still would appreciate anyone knowing one way or the other. Been caught out before with something that "sounded true", only for it to be urban legend


----------



## VetMike (Mar 5, 2011)

Tager, my sympathy is reserved for the people the pirates have killed and for the people currently held for ransom. Your sympathy for people who have no sympathy for you or anyone else is, I believe, misplaced and possibly dangerous in that it may actually encourage this type of behavior. I was in the Army for 20 years and accepted the fact that I might have to kill someone. I also accepted the fact that people would be very uncomfortable with that fact and that I and my fellow soldiers may be shunned for the fact that we had killed. Many people are very uncomfortable with the idea of killing another person and that is okay. Until the pirates are climbing aboard your boat or the home invaders are kicking in your door. Will your tune change then?


----------



## VetMike (Mar 5, 2011)

The Geneva Conventions and Protocols (four Conventions and three Protocols) address the treatment of civilians, medical and religious personnel and other non-combatants as well as the treatment of prisoners of war and the wounded. Protocol I addresses how guerrilla fighters must identify themselves and states that they must be under a central command to qualify for protection under the provisions of Protocol I. Nothing in the Conventions or Protocols would prevent a civilian ship from using force to protect itself and the Somali pirates would not fit the definition of guerrilla fighters under Protocol I. What little government Somalia has is responsible for controlling acts of piracy out to the international limits of 12 miles. Beyond that is international waters and thus the joint responsibility of all seafaring nations.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

I may have said this before. I can fully understand why a criminal may choose the acts they do. I may have full knowledge of their justification/reasons/excuses for harming others. The key here is "harming others." The crucial factor is that they harm others *who are bringing no harm to them*. 

I am a peaceful person by nature but, I have no problem using the full force of my intent, my training, and my experience to do grave violence against those intent on harming me, mine, or an innocent.

If that seems in conflict with my claim of being a peaceful person, perhaps a study of what a warrior can be, is in order.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

*sea-whiz!*

It seems like the Somali situation, and I expect soon to include the entire coast in that region, is a perfect opportunity for armed decoys to create a bit of uncertainty for the pirates who so easily pray on unarmed vessels. Rotating a few ARMED!! ships and imposter yachts through the regions of risk that would invite attack with lethal consequences to all attackers, might reduce the threat? If a CIWS - pronounced "sea-whiz", popped up to deal with a pirate threat from time to time the word would get back to the rest of the opportunists.

Down

Down


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

I have no sympathy for these pirates, at all. But comparing going after them to nagasaki is apples and oranges. "Strategic bombing" against civilians is and was always wrong. I don't see how you can justify fire bombing cities in Japan and Germany, burning thousands of civilians, women and children and elderly and all, to death. Even if the other side did it first.


----------

