Row Row row your Boat

[ledhed]

Why we have Hostage crisis in Ocean ??

Remeber Jimmy Carter ?

he was BAD at this stuff....

Now we have Obama man ---he is worse.

Why didn't the guy say " get Captain back "

The end.

He is being humiliated daily --24/7 news .


Mr. Obama ---words and talking are nice and stuff...and I know you want USA to be like --not such big meanies ---and want world to love us and stuff.

But you are NUTS ..

LOL
It aint HAPPENING .

Respect is BETTER .

Thats why you GOT a big hug --then a kick in your BUTT and laughed out of Europe ---lol

500 troops and NO concessions on anything ...

But the people Love you --there is that .

It aint worth didly ..but the Queen may like the I pod.


I am sure that king dude like the bow style you didn't do .....

But 4 guys in a row boat ???


LOL


North Korea has some missles they want to sell you . They be sending them over to show you soon .

Iran has some stuff also .

They are not in a row boat though.





hmmm poor Pirates --I guess we will be condemned by the world now --they rescue the captain and kill three pirates --a sure human rights violation.
Daned Obama he is so mean ..using big Bully tactics on poor skinny Pirate guys with old guns.

whats this world comming to ?


Nice JOB Mr Obama .
Now can you stop making us marxist ?
I can't deal with with owning GM .
Its too much work for no pay .


But at least I know you kick Pirate BUTT !!

And you did it cool .
Thumb up .

 

[mafia_boy]

This story would be good for the picture battle thread. Barack Obama > Jack Sparrow.

But in all seriousness, I'm glad they shot the pirates to get the captain back. Maybe it will teach the Somali's to think twice about having people becoming a Pirate because Navy Seals will win everytime against those fools.

Other countries should follow this lead set by the USA against piracy. 👍

 

[ledhed]

Its insane ---They have been making millions off piracy --now its important because they FINALLY hijak a US flag ship ?

I am Glad they got captain ..I believe they waited too long --but more than likely I am wrong ...the results are --Captain is a great guy --a bad ass MO Fo --who saved his bad arsed crew --and helped save himself .
The guys on the scene know if they waited too long .
I guess I will wait for the book .

But Good for the crew of that ship and good for the Capatain.
I wish I could buy this guy a beer .

You know the crew kicked arse with an Ice pic ?

Ak 47 vs Ice pik ..

Almost as nuts as pirates running amok in the year 2009 -2008 .

 

[niky]

Ice pick? The Chinese beat off rocket propelled grenades with beer bottles. Now that one was an epic win.

 

[Solid Fro]

Big props to the Navy SEAL snipers for taking out the Somali terrorists. 👍

 

[Keef]

What are your guys' thoughts on pursuing this group of terrorists like we do in the Middle East? I'm watching Hannity right now and apparently he thinks we should take all the military that isn't involved in the Middle East and sick them on the pirates. I think that's a horrible idea, because if we did that we'd have no forces left for anything else. Possible something more important, like...North Korea? I don't know.

EDIT: Lmao, just showed a clip of Obama mixing up his words. Where he meant "piracy" he said "privacy". He said something along the lines of "We need to halt privacy in this area of the world." Nice.

 

[niky]

Somali pirates aren't terrorists. Terrorism is hostile acts for the sake of political motives. Somali pirates are more like common thieves... albeit common thieves armed with cast-off AK47s and grenade launchers.

It won't take that much of a military force to take them on... the trouble is, the scope of the area that needs to be patrolled is enormous...

I'm more in favor of arming the ships' crews with more sophisticated defensive equipment. Night vision and rifles for the deck watch... possibly... errh... barbed wire to keep people from climbing aboard?

A friend shared a tactic used by his company in those waters... reversing the lights. Most ships are lit up like Christmas trees above the waterline... what with navigational lights, deck lights, etcetera... what his former company did was turn off everything but the bare minimum of lights and put spotlights over the side. That way, they could see the pirates before they boarded, and the pirates could never tell who or what was waiting for them on deck.

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Why we have Hostage crisis in Ocean ??

Remeber Jimmy Carter ?

he was BAD at this stuff....

Now we have Obama man ---he is worse.

Why didn't the guy say " get Captain back "

The end.

He is being humiliated daily --24/7 news .


Mr. Obama ---words and talking are nice and stuff...and I know you want USA to be like --not such big meanies ---and want world to love us and stuff.

But you are NUTS ..

LOL
It aint HAPPENING .

Respect is BETTER .

Thats why you GOT a big hug --then a kick in your BUTT and laughed out of Europe ---lol

500 troops and NO concessions on anything ...

But the people Love you --there is that .

It aint worth didly ..but the Queen may like the I pod.


I am sure that king dude like the bow style you didn't do .....

But 4 guys in a row boat ???


LOL


North Korea has some missles they want to sell you . They be sending them over to show you soon .

Iran has some stuff also .

They are not in a row boat though.





hmmm poor Pirates --I guess we will be condemned by the world now --they rescue the captain and kill three pirates --a sure human rights violation.
Daned Obama he is so mean ..using big Bully tactics on poor skinny Pirate guys with old guns.

whats this world comming to ?


Nice JOB Mr Obama .
Now can you stop making us marxist ?
I can't deal with with owning GM .
Its too much work for no pay .


But at least I know you kick Pirate BUTT !!

And you did it cool .
Thumb up .

I hope you are more educated than this post makes you seem.

 

[Grand Prix]

I think it's his midgets doing the typing for him. Don't worry, he knows what he is talking about, 👍 LMAO

Good to see him back anyway.

Hi ledhed!

 

[Solid Fro]

What are your guys' thoughts on pursuing this group of terrorists like we do in the Middle East?

You mean the Somali terrorists... Man-Made Disasters of the Overseas Contingency Operations?

I'm watching Hannity right now and apparently he thinks we should take all the military that isn't involved in the Middle East and sick them on the pirates. I think that's a horrible idea, because if we did that we'd have no forces left for anything else. Possible something more important, like...North Korea? I don't know.

I just watched Hannity and I even went back and watched the first segment again. Hannity never said that or hinted at it.

Should the Navy escort cargo ships, especially American ships? Yes. Should Congress pass a law that if a company negotiates with terrorists, they are not allowed to do business in the US? Sounds reasonable.

EDIT: Lmao, just showed a clip of Obama mixing up his words. Where he meant "piracy" he said "privacy". He said something along the lines of "We need to halt privacy in this area of the world." Nice.

I cannot wait for the Obamaism calendar and birthday cards.

 

[Stevisiov]

Should the Navy escort cargo ships, especially American ships? Yes.

Seriously? It's not like the cargo ships are getting torpedoed is it? How many cargo ships do you think operate within Somali pirate territory?

The simple solution seems to be Niky's suggestion. Give the crew a chance to defend themselves properly, things which will help them less vulnerable to being infiltrated in the first place perhaps.

Also add in the deterrent factor, seizing a vessel of potentially armed crew while being outnumbered 4 to 1?

Sure the pirates have balls, but they're not stupid.

Should Congress pass a law that if a company negotiates with terrorists, they are not allowed to do business in the US? Sounds reasonable.

A company has an obligation to protect their employees, if they negotiate with pirates 'terrorists' to protect their employees they are cast out by the US? sounds reasonable?

Oh, and what if a country negotiates with terrorists?

 

[Joey D]

Why should the US Navy protect privately owned cargo ships? If the shipping company wishes to operate in known pirate areas than they should assume the risks and either plan their route differently or go in prepared for the worse. I can see if it was a US Navy cargo ship then yes by all means give it an escort, but just because the ship has an American flag on it doesn't mean they get the Navy as their beckon call.

And barring them from doing business in the US if the negotiate with pirates, terrorist, whatever label you put on them? That's a rather daft idea. Like Stevisiov. said, a company has a right to protect it's employees and it's property by whatever means they seem fit. Not everyone wishes to see bloodshed and sometimes people actually seek out a peaceful resolution to a dire problem. I can't fault the company for doing that.

Negotiation for the most part should be considered when dealing with rouge foes, whether they be terrorist, pirates, whatever. However, if negotiations fail then go on to the next course of action.

 

[FoolKiller]

Somali pirates aren't terrorists. Terrorism is hostile acts for the sake of political motives. Somali pirates are more like common thieves... albeit common thieves armed with cast-off AK47s and grenade launchers.

Technically, by definition pirates are not terrorists, however the way you deal with them is the same as they do not represent any official government. By definition they are different, but politically they are the same. In fact, the actions the US uses against terrorist groups are justified in the US Constitution using stipulations that were initially put in place to define how the US should deal with pirates, because it is the only legal guide the US has regarding threats from non-affiliated factions.

Similarly, pirates of old stole the cargo from the ships, the ships themselves, etc. They did not hold people for ransom.

Our pirates today are doing what airplane hijackers (non-suicide bomber) have done. The only difference is that one is financially motivated and one is typically politically motivated. Their actions and how you deal with them is the same.

It won't take that much of a military force to take them on... the trouble is, the scope of the area that needs to be patrolled is enormous...

I'm more in favor of arming the ships' crews with more sophisticated defensive equipment. Night vision and rifles for the deck watch... possibly... errh... barbed wire to keep people from climbing aboard?

Arming untrained men is a recipe for disaster. If we arm them we must train them. And the barbed wire idea is bad because on very rare occasion there is reason to be over the side.

Personally, I like the idea of doing it the same way British and US naval forces would deal with pirates. Send a fake merchant ship out manned with soldiers. Make it look to be the most appealing target possible. Capture a number of guys this way and eventually the pirates have to rethink what they are getting into.

A friend shared a tactic used by his company in those waters... reversing the lights. Most ships are lit up like Christmas trees above the waterline... what with navigational lights, deck lights, etcetera... what his former company did was turn off everything but the bare minimum of lights and put spotlights over the side. That way, they could see the pirates before they boarded, and the pirates could never tell who or what was waiting for them on deck.

I personally like my father-in-laws idea of pouring chemical drain cleaner or hot oil (from the kitchen) over the side on them as they are climbing up.


But after seeing how stubborn these guys were in this case, where they were still trying to negotiate millions while having no fuel or food, I think they are a bit insane.

Should the Navy escort cargo ships, especially American ships? Yes.

I am not sure I agree here. First, I am sure there are more cargo ships than Navy ships to spare. Perhaps stationing them along the route is the better idea. They won't be in sight of every ship, but they will be within response range when a May Day goes out.

Even then, how long do we keep this up? What if the pirates just lay low until we think it is safe again? Then its just wasted money.

And if the Navy does do anything it should only be in one of two capacities:
1) On loan to the UN acting under UN jurisdiction
or
2) Only protecting American citizens.

Should Congress pass a law that if a company negotiates with terrorists, they are not allowed to do business in the US? Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. I don't support this administration's mixing with business at home and I won't suddenly support their mixing in business in this way either. Free market means free market. No compromise.

 

[YSSMAN]

And if the Navy does do anything it should only be in one of two capacities:
1) On loan to the UN acting under UN jurisdiction
or
2) Only protecting American citizens.

The UN has already given the OK for powers to "invade" (not the right word, best I can come up with) to peruse pirates at will into Somalia. Problem is, the UN is not actively involved in the area. Both the US and the EU (I believe NATO is involved as well) have active military operations in the area to prevent pirate activity, but when you're protecting an area in excess of a million square miles, obviously a handful of ships aren't going to be able to protect all of the trade that moves through the area.

To me, its absolutely outrageous to demand that the US Navy move into the area and protect every American ship, especially when they are actively engaged in activity in the Gulf, near Pakistan, as well as in the area around the Sea of Japan. Simply put, the Navy is already overstretched, this only complicates that problem further.

Personally, I'm in favor of the WWII-style placement of "commandos" on private ships to aid in the prevention of pirate attack. It seems like it would be the easiest, most cost-effective, and presumably the most likely of solutions at this point. But, of course, its hard to know for sure.

But, in all honesty, its getting a lot of popular attention right now despite this being a very dangerous area for quite a long time.

 

[FoolKiller]

To me, its absolutely outrageous to demand that the US Navy move into the area and protect every American ship, especially when they are actively engaged in activity in the Gulf, near Pakistan, as well as in the area around the Sea of Japan. Simply put, the Navy is already overstretched, this only complicates that problem further.

This is why I proposed the fake cargo ship idea.

Personally, I'm in favor of the WWII-style placement of "commandos" on private ships to aid in the prevention of pirate attack. It seems like it would be the easiest, most cost-effective, and presumably the most likely of solutions at this point. But, of course, its hard to know for sure.

This would also work. I am willing to bet that we could have a couple of SEALs on ships that could be quickly taken back to their command ship if they get called to active duty in a different skirmish.

But, in all honesty, its getting a lot of popular attention right now despite this being a very dangerous area for quite a long time.

Two things did this. 1) It was the first all-American crew. 2) They acted like a stereotypical "Dirty Harry" American crew at the idea of surrendering their ship.

I'm reminded of the Captain America comic in the Funny Pic thread.

 

[Omnis]

Should the Navy escort cargo ships, especially American ships? Yes. Should Congress pass a law that if a company negotiates with terrorists, they are not allowed to do business in the US? Sounds reasonable.

Congress passing a law sounds reasonable? That's a lol in itself. If you feel uncomfortable with buying stuff from a company that paid pirates, then don't give them your business. No laws required-- especially not one as ridiculous as that.

I don't know why these ships aren't hiring security escorts though. US Navy isn't required, but I'm sure the companies could ink a deal for an escort by either the navy or some other company. The cost could be offset somewhat by letters of marque.

 

[Keef]

Solid Fro, if you think the government is busy taking away the rights of private companies now, wait until the Navy starts escorting cargo ships. They won't even be able to defend themselves, they'll have to rely on the Navy! That is absolutely akin to the government taking away your right to firearms and to defend your home, and instead having to rely on the police who are 5 minutes down the road.

 

[Omnis]

Solid Fro, if you think the government is busy taking away the rights of private companies now, wait until the Navy starts escorting cargo ships. They won't even be able to defend themselves, they'll have to rely on the Navy! That is absolutely akin to the government taking away your right to firearms and to defend your home, and instead having to rely on the police who are 5 minutes down the road.

What are you talking about? The only government on a ship is the Captain's word.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't know why these ships aren't hiring security escorts though. US Navy isn't required, but I'm sure the companies could ink a deal for an escort by either the navy or some other company. The cost could be offset somewhat by letters of marque.

Some companies are already hiring out Blackwater (uh, I mean "Xe") and Secopex for maritime protection, but the actual extent by which they can operate "legally" seems to be in question. That is something that I do not have a sufficient answer for. When they spoke about this on NPR last week, it was implied that as of now, they could be there to "protect" the ships in a show of force, but it sounded as though they couldn't shoot to kill (and so forth).

 

[Speedy Samurai]

but just because the ship has an American flag on it doesn't mean they get the Navy as their beckon call.

at their beck and call?

 

[Omnis]

That's baloney, yssman. If someone is trying to hijack a ship, the captain has the responsibility and the right to protect his ship. I'm not an expert on maritime law, but I'm sure firing on an invader is allowed.

The Japanese whalers shoot at that stupid eco-terrorist boat all the time.

 

[niky]

Technically, by definition pirates are not terrorists, however the way you deal with them is the same as they do not represent any official government. By definition they are different, but politically they are the same. In fact, the actions the US uses against terrorist groups are justified in the US Constitution using stipulations that were initially put in place to define how the US should deal with pirates, because it is the only legal guide the US has regarding threats from non-affiliated factions.

Similarly, pirates of old stole the cargo from the ships, the ships themselves, etc. They did not hold people for ransom.

Our pirates today are doing what airplane hijackers (non-suicide bomber) have done. The only difference is that one is financially motivated and one is typically politically motivated. Their actions and how you deal with them is the same.

But I dislike incorrect definitions. I think it is important to draw the line between hostile political entities and common criminals. The Somali problem is huge, but it is a purely criminal problem that requires law enforcement, not a full-scale invasion of Somalia... though that, in itself, wouldn't be a bad idea.

With terrorists, you're up against an entity that can be swayed by negotiations (if you do plan to negotiate with terrorists) or harmed by attacking their organization and its officials. Pirates can't be negotiated with to stop piracy, as the motivations are more economic than political, and the pirates themselves may or may not be centrally organized, and if they are, it's definitely not just one organization.

Arming untrained men is a recipe for disaster. If we arm them we must train them. And the barbed wire idea is bad because on very rare occasion there is reason to be over the side.

Oh, we'll train them first, of course. My company is in the business of training seamen... and we also have the odd security training program... I've been mulling the idea of creating special courses in anti-piracy measures for a while... our security head was trained briefly under the SAS when he was with the government... or so I've heard... he had an epic gun collection when he resigned from the service, which he actually sold to build his house.

Oh, come on... barbed wire makes everything better...

Personally, I like the idea of doing it the same way British and US naval forces would deal with pirates. Send a fake merchant ship out manned with soldiers. Make it look to be the most appealing target possible. Capture a number of guys this way and eventually the pirates have to rethink what they are getting into.

Would be a good way to do it.

I personally like my father-in-laws idea of pouring chemical drain cleaner or hot oil (from the kitchen) over the side on them as they are climbing up.

Except for those pesky environmental laws...

But after seeing how stubborn these guys were in this case, where they were still trying to negotiate millions while having no fuel or food, I think they are a bit insane.

Darn right...

No, it doesn't. I don't support this administration's mixing with business at home and I won't suddenly support their mixing in business in this way either. Free market means free market. No compromise.

Personally... yes. This is a matter that affects Egyptian interests most. They have the money, they have the military... why don't they go after the pirates?

The big question is: shouldn't we allow ships plying international waters to arm themselves against pirate attacks? While arming your common seaman with a high-powered assault rifle is probably not wise, having two or three security officers with special forces training and automatic small arms will not add as much cost to the voyage as the long haul around the Cape of Good Hope.

 

[Joey D]

at their beck and call?

heh oops, I knew something didn't sound right. To many pirates on the brain I suppose.

 

[FoolKiller]

When they spoke about this on NPR last week, it was implied that as of now, they could be there to "protect" the ships in a show of force, but it sounded as though they couldn't shoot to kill (and so forth).

I am betting a few rubber bullets or even just tazer rounds (don't taze me bro!) or anything non-lethal fired into a guy climbing up the side will be effective enough. And if they happen to fall, get sucked under the ship, and then through the propellers...oopsie!

But I dislike incorrect definitions. I think it is important to draw the line between hostile political entities and common criminals. The Somali problem is huge, but it is a purely criminal problem that requires law enforcement, not a full-scale invasion of Somalia... though that, in itself, wouldn't be a bad idea.

With terrorists, you're up against an entity that can be swayed by negotiations (if you do plan to negotiate with terrorists) or harmed by attacking their organization and its officials. Pirates can't be negotiated with to stop piracy, as the motivations are more economic than political, and the pirates themselves may or may not be centrally organized, and if they are, it's definitely not just one organization.

I think the problem here is that they are being lumped in with the rebellion forces in South America that kidnap people for ransom. Often they are seen as terrorist because they are using terror to achieve their goals, as opposed to the old-school pirate style of murder/rape/steal.

They walk a fine line, but I think that it is safer to define them as a new form of pirate than label them terrorists at this point (although shooting rockets at US officials in an airport pushes them closer to terrorist). I am afraid a terrorist label opens the door to too many possible actions that are not necessary...yet.

Oh, we'll train them first, of course. My company is in the business of training seamen... and we also have the odd security training program... I've been mulling the idea of creating special courses in anti-piracy measures for a while... our security head was trained briefly under the SAS when he was with the government... or so I've heard... he had an epic gun collection when he resigned from the service, which he actually sold to build his house.

I've known a few Navy guys and according to them they had weakly drills to train for boarding scenarios. I am sure a few ex-Navy guys could make a lot of money training cargo crews.

Oh, come on... barbed wire makes everything better...

I grew up on a farm and have scars that say otherwise.

Except for those pesky environmental laws...

If it is between my life or Flipper's I will be walking away.

The big question is: shouldn't we allow ships plying international waters to arm themselves against pirate attacks?

Yes, allowing them to do it on their own is fine by me. Hopefully the companies will be responsible and their plans will be similar to the ideas airlines have for arming pilot, lots and lots of training.

Too many pirates on the brain I suppose.

Arg, he has a little bit o' the captain in him, he does!

(Disclaimer: Not a Somali pirate. They could never be this awesome. Do not accept rum from a Somali pirate.)

 

[Tornado]

That's baloney, yssman. If someone is trying to hijack a ship, the captain has the responsibility and the right to protect his ship. I'm not an expert on maritime law, but I'm sure firing on an invader is allowed.

The Japanese whalers shoot at that stupid eco-terrorist boat all the time.

Has anything actually invalidated the old piracy laws? Not that they are directly applicable, but I'm fairly certain that they allowed you to pretty much do whatever you wanted when it came to preventing piracy.


Personally, I quite like the "commandoes on a ship" idea.

 

[TheCracker]

Personally, I quite like the "commandoes on a ship" idea.

I'm surprised that every merchant ship to to sail in the area hasn't had an armed detail as part of it's crew for some time now. An armed four man team is bound to cost less than a a multi million ransom.

I guess the trouble is that a small fast boat is unlikely to be picked up on radar and probably hard to pick up visually, especially at night. These huge ships have very few sailors on board and i'd bet that most of the time the pirates are onboard before anyone on the ship notices.

 

[FoolKiller]

I guess the trouble is that a small fast boat is unlikely to be picked up on radar and probably hard to pick up visually, especially at night. These huge ships have very few sailors on board and i'd bet that most of the time the pirates are onboard before anyone on the ship notices.

An old school string with cans tied to it should do the trick. 👍

Or dogs. Is there a reason not to have a couple of well-trained German Shephards on a ship?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

An old school string with cans tied to it should do the trick. 👍

Or dogs. Is there a reason not to have a couple of well-trained German Shephards on a ship?

Dogs die when shot. They aren't really a deterent to armed pirates.

 

[Stevisiov]

Dogs die when shot. They aren't really a deterent to armed pirates.

Dogs are great for patrolling a military barracks, how many times have to seen a man with a German Shepard outside a barracks or the likes on TV? Why? because they are great at taking down armed men? No so much, but they are much better at detecting the presence of an foreign intruder than humans generally.

As the cracker said, the pirates probably get on deck before anyone notices, the crew won't generally patrol a cargoship all night and there aren't many crew to begin with.

A few trained dogs on board could help detect pirates before they even get on board, allowing for the crew to react sooner, if the crew had arms or trained personnel with arms then the pirates wouldn't be able to board the ship. Try climbing a rope while your getting shot at.

 

[TheCracker]

Or dogs. Is there a reason not to have a couple of well-trained German Shephards on a ship?

Have you learned nothing from Hanna-Barbera, a doped steak chucked on deck will sort the dogs out in no time