Now We're in Trouble!

Uh oh, the pirates are angry. Now they are going to show us a thing or two,
"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&rip_id=%3CD97HHO5O1%40news.ap.org %3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS


I sure am glad I'm out of the Navy. I'd hate to have this horribly powerful and crafty an enemy out there in rowboats threatening my ship.

I am sure the international community will find a way to show the pirates love in order to soften their anger... is not that the modern PC way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparq

I am sure the international community will find a way to show the pirates love in order to soften their anger... is not that the modern PC way?

---

Yep, I'm already seeing the comments from certain quarters about how the pirates were "just desperate people trying to survive", or "a superpower beating up on four little Somalis with guns". I just don't know what's wrong with people...:shrug:

Jordan

hey, the way I see it, committing piracy on the open seas has carried a death sentence for a couple hundred years, why are these pirates surprised that our snipers are shooting them? they got what was coming to them.

Hey hoo and a bottle of rum...

three pirates less to worry about I say.. the fourth can walk the plank.

Maarten

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

---

Doesn't this threat already underpin every hostage taking situation? I think the US response pretty well demonstrates that this stance goes both ways. Maybe the pirates need to think this through a little better, especially from a purely practical point of view. They may very well be desperate people trying to survive, but there are softer targets, at least for now. To quote Clint Eastwood "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

Yep, I'm already seeing the comments from certain quarters about how the pirates were "just desperate people trying to survive", or "a superpower beating up on four little Somalis with guns". I just don't know what's wrong with people...:shrug:

Jordan

---

So far you are the only one making those comments. :thinking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FastEdge

So far you are the only one making those comments. :thinking:

---

On sites such as the BBC, NY Times, London Times...some readers are making these comments. I don't agree with those views, but I can't say I'm surprised to see them.

Jordan

They really need to start arming these ships. A squad of Marines with 50 cals and RPGs (or similar private sector security force) would make short work of the little boats those guys are using.

As for the whole hostage thing. I don't think we should ever negotiate in a hostage situation. I'm sorry but if every time someone took a hostage a SEAL/SWAT/whatever team went in within the hour/day and resolved the problem people would stop taking hostages. Simple as that. It is rough that some hostages would die but I think in the long run we would be much better off.

All of this IMHO of course, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSD

They really need to start arming these ships. A squad of Marines with 50 cals and RPGs (or similar private sector security force) would make short work of the little boats those guys are using.

As for the whole hostage thing. I don't think we should ever negotiate in a hostage situation. I'm sorry but if every time someone took a hostage a SEAL/SWAT/whatever team went in within the hour/day and resolved the problem people would stop taking hostages. Simple as that. It is rough that some hostages would die but I think in the long run we would be much better off.

All of this IMHO of course, lol.

---

My thoughts exactly!

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is that we don't have enough marines to do this and cost of private security on thousands of ships might be prohibitive. We should at least start sinking the "mother" ships that allow these guys to operate so far out at sea.

Jordan

I would like to see the pirates addressed with a seek find and destroy mission by our forces and those of our allies. Preemptive to any hostage taking and especially after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

I agree with the sentiment, but the reality is that we don't have enough marines to do this and cost of private security on thousands of ships might be prohibitive. We should at least start sinking the "mother" ships that allow these guys to operate so far out at sea.

Jordan

---

If the shipping company, or its insurer, isn't willing to shoulder the costs of keeping their ships safe then they shouldn't be crying to us. The reality is the area is too big to patrol effectively. Unless they are willing to provide their own security or alter their schedules so they can run in convoys with an escort or two they are going to end up on the short end eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I would like to see the pirates addressed with a seek find and destroy mission by our forces and those of our allies. Preemptive to any hostage taking and especially after the fact.

---

They need to use the "pursue them onto shore" option the UN sanctioned... or they were talking about sanctioning. I don't really keep up on that stuff.

Either way though it is too much area to effectively patrol. What might work is taking the time/resources to hunt down those mother ships and capture/sink them. Without them they can't venture as far out. It might be tough to spot a little motorboat in all that water but I imagine a few passes with AWACs or satellites would give them a good idea where to look for the bigger ones.

Nobody gave a rats @$$ about these pirates until they hit an oil tanker for the first time this year. I suspect it'll take these guys a long time to realise what should be done in response to western protection in the gulf there. I'm pretty sure there will be a slew of pirate deaths this year and that in the future they will simply avoid those ships which are not alone on the open seas.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSD

If the shipping company, or its insurer, isn't willing to shoulder the costs of keeping their ships safe then they shouldn't be crying to us. The reality is the area is too big to patrol effectively. Unless they are willing to provide their own security or alter their schedules so they can run in convoys with an escort or two they are going to end up on the short end eventually.

---

I understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day, we'll end up paying for the security through higher prices...It will be passed along.

Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Nobody gave a rats @$$ about these pirates until they hit an oil tanker for the first time this year.

X

---

I'm sorry X, I am not sure what your point is. Could you please elaborate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSD

They need to use the "pursue them onto shore" option the UN sanctioned... or they were talking about sanctioning. I don't really keep up on that stuff.

Either way though it is too much area to effectively patrol. What might work is taking the time/resources to hunt down those mother ships and capture/sink them. Without them they can't venture as far out. It might be tough to spot a little motorboat in all that water but I imagine a few passes with AWACs or satellites would give them a good idea where to look for the bigger ones.

---

I agree. Between satellites, drones, patrol aircraft, signal intelligence, etc, we should be able to locate a fair number of these larger boats. Then we'll just have to deal with all the whining bleeding hearts when pirates start dying in numbers.

Jordan

There are no "mother ships". The pirates are independants with smalls boats and small arms who have found that shipping companies will pay dearly for the return of an experienced crew and/or skipper. They are impossible to differentiate from the hundreds of other small boats fishing in the area until they attack. They made a huge mistake when they took the skipper of an American flagged vessel. Our Navy is in business to protect that ship. We are not going to run a security service for the rest of the world's merchant vessels.

The solution is for a shipping company to pay for armed security on board each ship they send into "dangerous" waters. A half dozen pirates with AK-47's and RPG's in a small boat can overtake and board any ship that has no one shooting back. One man standing a topside watch can alert the rest of a crew to draw arms and repel boarders. Even two people with shotguns from a protected, elevated position can put down any attack from a small boat.

Question: The fourth pirate, the one who went to the destroyer to "negotiate" for the American captain. Was he happy when the shooting went down? Was he surprised? Or, was he the smart one who knew the American Navy wasn't going to play around much longer but didn't want to look like a sissy in front of the other three clowns?

Brad

Listening to the radio this morning...

This is me paraphrasing...

1) Due to internal treaties/laws/whatever, these ships are not allow to have armed crewman. If they did arm, they would not be able to dock in some ports.

2) the percentage of ships that get hijacked is very very low and shipping companies dont want to spend the money\

3) the companies say it is the job of the governments to keep the waters safe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

I understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day, we'll end up paying for the security through higher prices...It will be passed along.

Jordan

---

and the ransom payments wouldn't be passed on to the consumer as well?

as long as we're going to have to indirectly foot the bill for something, i'd rather it be making the world a better place by ridding it of some vile, hostage-taking pirates.

[quote=Slartibartfast;362479]Listening to the radio this morning...

This is me paraphrasing...

1) Due to internal treaties/laws/whatever, these ships are not allow to have armed crewman. If they did arm, they would not be able to dock in some ports. This is why the security has to be hired guns who are not members of the crew.

2) the percentage of ships that get hijacked is very very low and shipping companies dont want to spend the money\

3) the companies say it is the job of the governments to keep the waters safe This is true. That is why waters off the coast of some countries are safe. However, in a place where there is no recognizable government and the people walking on the streets aren't safe, how can anyone expect that country's coastline to be patrolled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

and the ransom payments wouldn't be passed on to the consumer as well?

as long as we're going to have to indirectly foot the bill for something, i'd rather it be making the world a better place by ridding it of some vile, hostage-taking pirates.

---

I agree with you - I would rather pay the guards too. But I would think the cost of a few trained men on each of thousands of ships (based on what contractors in Iraq make, with expenses, maybe $100K+ per year each?) is going to be a lot more than the cost of the insurance they're paying now. If it wasn't, I think the shipping companies would have done it already. I don't know the scale involved here -how many ships would have to be manned? I'm happy to have my opinion changed on this one.

Jordan

Piracy used to be a joke. Now it isn't any more. Ships/companies/countries that do something to deal with the problem are likely to be better off than those that ignore it.

I see an opportunity. It's often said that war is an effective way to boost an economy. The world economy is in a poor state right now. Let's declare war on the pirates. It would be better than a "real" war because there would no need to invade foreign land, and you rarely get innocent civillians creeping up on unsuspecting supertankers, so no innocent casualties of war. It's a win-win strategy. :D

They don't need them their whole journey just through the pirate risk regions. Either relay them from ship to ship as needed (both ways) or have the ships group up and run escorts with a convoy. Either way something will have to be done or these guys will just get bolder and bolder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSD

They don't need them their whole journey just through the pirate risk regions. Either relay them from ship to ship as needed (both ways) or have the ships group up and run escorts with a convoy. Either way something will have to be done or these guys will just get bolder and bolder.

---

And get more and better firepower with the millions of ransom dollars they're apparently receiving.

Chris L

It's learned behavior and risk/reward evaluation.

Every time they get away with it you end up with a more experienced pirate that is better funded. You also end up with other desperate people seeing what this pirate did and figuring "why not, he did it".

On the other hand every pirate you capture or kill is one less experienced pirate out there and those other desperate individuals that might be thinking about joining the pirate ranks will think twice. Especially if you NEVER pay out a reward. If nobody every receives a reward for capturing a ship and holding it hostage then there is no reason for them to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

There are no "mother ships". The pirates are independants with smalls boats and small arms who have found that shipping companies will pay dearly for the return of an experienced crew and/or skipper. They are impossible to differentiate from the hundreds of other small boats fishing in the area until they attack. They made a huge mistake when they took the skipper of an American flagged vessel. Our Navy is in business to protect that ship. We are not going to run a security service for the rest of the world's merchant vessels.

The solution is for a shipping company to pay for armed security on board each ship they send into "dangerous" waters. A half dozen pirates with AK-47's and RPG's in a small boat can overtake and board any ship that has no one shooting back. One man standing a topside watch can alert the rest of a crew to draw arms and repel boarders. Even two people with shotguns from a protected, elevated position can put down any attack from a small boat.

Question: The fourth pirate, the one who went to the destroyer to "negotiate" for the American captain. Was he happy when the shooting went down? Was he surprised? Or, was he the smart one who knew the American Navy wasn't going to play around much longer but didn't want to look like a sissy in front of the other three clowns?

Brad

---

The solution is to sink them all and let God (or Allah as the case may be) sort them out.

It is my understading that there ARE "motherships" where there is more covered area (the motorboats are open...not what you want to be a few hundred miles out for days at a time in), and the range to tow the speedboats out into the hunting grounds.
Piracy insurance exists, accoridning to the Dow Jones News Service. It costs 30-50K for 3-5 million in coverage for a single trip through this area. If private security can be had for less than this amount, miight this not be the better "buy" economically speaking for the shipping companies? Also, even if it is MORE expensive, after a few years of being violently and permanantly repelled by armed guards...I think the rate of piracy would go down a bit, too!

Yes there are mother ships or base ships or whatever you want to call them. If you search the news you will see where some have been taken down. The last one I remember reading was the Indian Navy sinking one.

As for the whole bottom line ransom vs security and such. I don't care if it costs more. It is stupid to bow to the demands of bullies it just emboldens them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomSD

As for the whole bottom line ransom vs security and such. I don't care if it costs more. It is stupid to bow to the demands of bullies it just emboldens them.

---

But FOR THE SHIPPING COMPANIES, all that matters is the bottom line. Well, I shouldn't say that, I am sure some of them care about the crews, etc, but we'd be dishonest if we didn't think they were putting this in bottom line terms. They don't arm the ships because then they can not dock in some ports. They don't use private securtiy because the risk does not justify the cost...yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I see an opportunity. It's often said that war is an effective way to boost an economy. The world economy is in a poor state right now. Let's declare war on the pirates. It would be better than a "real" war because there would no need to invade foreign land, and you rarely get innocent civillians creeping up on unsuspecting supertankers, so no innocent casualties of war. It's a win-win strategy. :D

---

I agree that this would be an easy case to make. You don't have to invade a country, the pirates will not get a sympathy vote from anyone, and if it happens in international waters, then simply killing the pirates is probably not even illegal if you catch them in the act.

I suggested on another forum that special forces units from the various countries could take turns at offing pirates, thereby gaining real-life experience without ****ing off some country or other.

The reply I got was that these sf groups have enough on their plate already, and that is probably true. But with these exercises they could actually kill the bad guys. And I can imagine that this is a wholly different experience for sf trainees.

The waters off the coast of Somalia have been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990. European companies found a very cheap way to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a ton, instead of something like $1000 a ton. Evidence of this dumping appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia during the tsunami of 2004. Uranium waste, lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury have been found from the barrels. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes. Hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.
Coastal Somalis live off fishing and this has poisoned their livelihood. Sounds like these "pirates" are trying to make a living and feed their families. The Somalis fishing boats are now pirate ships!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denmason

The waters off the coast of Somalia have been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990. European companies found a very cheap way to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a ton, instead of something like $1000 a ton. Evidence of this dumping appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia during the tsunami of 2004. Uranium waste, lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury have been found from the barrels. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes. Hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.
Coastal Somalis live off fishing and this has poisoned their livelihood. Sounds like these "pirates" are trying to make a living and feed their families. The Somalis fishing boats are now pirate ships!

---

I knew it had to be our fault! :rofl2:

Why make $3 a day fishing when you can make a small fortune being a thief - with really no additional risk?

Jordan