NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you think that Somali Pirates chose now to attack an American flagged vessel?

Why not say...oh...the Bush years?


Thoughts?

I remember reading something about them not actually knowing? Or maybe they figured with all the money we've been throwing around they can get some too, like a stimulous bill for piracy or something. [/tongue in cheek]

I think they didn't do it with Dubya in office because they saw what happened to people that weren't even a credible threat to our citizens, let alone an actual one.

it was there.

Well, considering that they've been attacking anything that floats in that region and take sometimes upwards of five ships a day from every country that has one, I kind of doubt they targeted the ship because it was American.

The Somali pirates are just pirates -- criminals -- at the end of the day. They are not terrorists. They are in it for the money, not any global agenda.

Perhaps Bush was secretly some form of Pirate King?

Perhaps Bush was secretly some form of Pirate King?

Bushbeard :D

Because it was not in their waters until they attacked it? It's not as if it's the first ship they ever attacked.

Well, considering that they've been attacking anything that floats in that region and take sometimes upwards of five ships a day from every country that has one, I kind of doubt they targeted the ship because it was American.

The Somali pirates are just pirates -- criminals -- at the end of the day. They are not terrorists. They are in it for the money, not any global agenda.

I sort of agree, I don't think they targetted *spelling?* it because it was American; I just don't think they avoided it like they had been over the last few years. (opinion only)

Perhaps Bush was secretly some form of Pirate King?

This is all a plot by the Republican Party to ensure that the American populace starts to get concerend and scared again! But they couldn't find Osama Bin Laden to target something domestic so they hired pirates to attack our ships!

I sort of agree, I don't think they targetted *spelling?* it because it was American; I just don't think they avoided it like they had been over the last few years. (opinion only)
piracy is a growth industry in somalia.

the ones who hijacked this ship are probably not the ones that avoided hijacking US ships in the past.

if you pay attention you will see that somali pirates are increasing their territory. they never used to go that far from shore. now they do. it brings them in contact with a different variety of ships than they had in the past.

US politics has nothing to do with it.

I sort of agree, I don't think they targetted *spelling?* it because it was American; I just don't think they avoided it like they had been over the last few years. (opinion only)
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-pirates_03int.ART.State.Edition1.4a74ead.html

It's not the first.

Perhaps they found out the ship's cargo was something they wanted. Like tacos. I'd engage in piracy for tacos. *nod*

Bushbeard :D
Coffee on keyboard. :D

I sort of agree, I don't think they targetted *spelling?* it because it was American; I just don't think they avoided it like they had been over the last few years. (opinion only)
As Kat pointed out, this is not the first US ship they have attacked, only the first they have been sucessful against.

As Ashmoria pointed out, Somalian piracy is a growth industry, and they are reaching out further and attacking more targets, so it only stands to reason more US ships will get caught up in conflict with them.

And I will point out that I have never seen anything to suggest that Somali pirates were particularly avoiding US ships in the past.

EDIT: I would also add that Rachel Maddow a couple of nights ago interviewed another US merchant captain who is a friend of the hostage captain who told her all about the anti-piracy training that merchant marine crews and captains receive here in the US. That would indicate that US shipping companies have never believed that they were not targets of piracy. (Remember, there has been piracy in the seas around China for decades, long before Somalia became a problem.)

piracy is a growth industry in somalia.


While the rest of the private sector is downsizing the privateers are getting more numorous.

While the rest of the private sector is downsizing the privateers are getting more numorous.
i pulled all my money out of mutual funds and put it into piracy futures.

i pulled all my money out of mutual funds and put it into piracy futures.

You buried it? :tongue:

You buried it? :tongue:
yes

and it has done far better than the stock market!

i pulled all my money out of mutual funds and put it into piracy futures.

I myself was considering which ones to invest in but the growth rate of the Somalis won out in the end (Check 'em out, NASDAC symbol is ARR)

yes

and it has done far better than the stock market!

Which for the record, is also below sea level.

Why do you think that Somali Pirates chose now to attack an American flagged vessel?

Why not say...oh...the Bush years?


Thoughts?

They did try to attack American-flagged vessels during the Bush years:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174677,00.html

So now that this "OMG Obama is making the country weak" troll has failed, I propose that the topic of this thread be changed into "Why are they making a Spider-Man 4 film now?"

They did try to attack American-flagged vessels during the Bush years:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174677,00.html

So now that this "OMG Obama is making the country weak" troll has failed, I propose that the topic of this thread be changed into "Why are they making a Spider-Man 4 film now?"
Because we don't have Bush to protect us anymore!!! :eek2:

Because we don't have Bush to protect us anymore!!! :eek2:

Protect us from Spider-Man 4?

Protect us from Spider-Man 4?
you post that as if its wrong.

Protect us from Spider-Man 4?
From yet another onslaught of shitty summer sequels.

Oh, wait -- we had those when Bush was president, too, just like we had pirate attacks when he was in office.

Nevermind.

I was under the impression ship fly the flag of where they are registered, rather than where the owners are based. As it is cheaper to register a ship in places like Liberia, I am assuming it is quite hard to actually tell whether a ship is US owned or not. I also doubt the targeting of the ships by Somali pirates is any more sophisticated than 'look there is a ship'.

You buried it? :tongue:

yes

and it has done far better than the stock market!

Are you KIDDing me?

I was under the impression ship fly the flag of where they are registered, rather than where the owners are based. As it is cheaper to register a ship in places like Liberia, I am assuming it is quite hard to actually tell whether a ship is US owned or not. I also doubt the targeting of the ships by Somali pirates is any more sophisticated than 'look there is a ship'.

They also use dopplar radar. They stand on the front of thier speed boats with a megaphone shouting "Dopplar!" until they hear it echo off the side of a large sea going vessel.

Are you KIDDing me?
Oh! Oh, ho-ho, yo-ho-ho. That's so funny.

Oh! Oh, ho-ho, yo-ho-ho. That's so funny.
Don't you mean punny?

It's the EASTER PUNNY! Yeah, I know, I know, lowest form of humor. But I'm incorrigible and need no incorrigement.

Don't you mean punny?

It's the EASTER PUNNY! Yeah, I know, I know, lowest form of humor. But I'm incorrigible and need no incorrigement.
:D It's the spring thaw, and your brain is melting all over the place. :D


It's the brain drain. Her brain's draining.

...or is it Anne 'Easter' Bonny

...or is it Anne 'Easter' Bonny
ooooo nice!

...or is it Anne 'Easter' Bonny
A hit, a palpable hit!

Fired across me bowels!

*falls over*

:D It's the spring thaw, and your brain is melting all over the place. :D


It's the brain drain. Her brain's draining.

She's made some sweet points but now she's just hamming it up, don't egg her on.

*throws cold water left over from dying eggs over Kat's head to snap her out of it*

*puts the dying eggs on life support.*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

I feel a little better joking about this now. :)

Why not now?

They did try to attack American-flagged vessels during the Bush years:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174677,00.html

So now that this "OMG Obama is making the country weak" troll has failed, I propose that the topic of this thread be changed into "Why are they making a Spider-Man 4 film now?"

So the reason they have not attacked American vessels until now is American ships can out run them.

I also doubt the targeting of the ships by Somali pirates is any more sophisticated than 'look there is a ship'.

It's actually a multiple step process, based on a visible gun/jewellery ratio.

It's actually a multiple step process, based on a visible gun/jewellery ratio.

So they are scared of American guns. Told your the solution to all our problems is more guns.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

I feel a little better joking about this now. :)

Good news. About the captain being rescued, I mean.

Hmm. We'll see what the reaction to this is.

Hmm. We'll see what the reaction to this is.

The American military will blow up some stuff in Africa and then we'll all forget about it until they take another ship.

The American military will blow up some stuff in Africa and then we'll all forget about it until they take another ship.
I was thinking more of, "Take no prisoners -- their navies might kill us all."

I was thinking more of, "Take no prisoners -- their navies might kill us all."
I sincerely doubt that.

1) Plenty of Somali pirates have been killed doing this to date. Hasn't been a deterrant yet.

2) There's no profit in killing the prisoners. The bulk of their money comes from the paying of ransoms for hostages.

3) The head of the Maritime Academy in Massachusetts (of which the captain in this story is an alumnus) pointed out that this is a business model that works well for the pirates in spite of the high risk to them. Just because this bunch screwed up their mission doesn't add up to a reason to change tactics. He pointed out that there are currently over 200 mariners and other people being held hostage by pirates in Somalia, all for ransoms.

4) Jack Jacobs on MSNBC also argued that the situation that motivates piracy in Somalia is not that different from the situation that motivates the drug cartels in Mexico. No matter how many Mexican cartel members/employees you hear about being horribly murdered by torture, etc, they never run out of people to do what the cartels ask because the money is that damn good, compared to any other option they have. Jacobs also pointed out that, while a small number of pirates are terrorists, the vast majority are criminals seeking profit.

I was thinking more of, "Take no prisoners -- their navies might kill us all."

I don't think it'll go that way. I figure they're smart enough the realise that the chance they might be killed for taking prisoners trumps the fact that they will be killed if they start executing crews.

This article (http://www.foi.se/upload/projects/Africa/FOI-R--2610.pdf) by Karl Sörenson of the Stockholm Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.scss.se/7.html) goes a long towards addressing Somali piracy and its motivations.

It's written in November 2008. That' *before* Obama entered office. I don't think it has anything to do with our president.

I was thinking more of, "Take no prisoners -- their navies might kill us all."

I doubt it. Ransom money is their most profitable venture. Just because this one group of pirates bungled their operation isn't cause for other pirates to change their tactics.

Why do you think that Somali Pirates chose now to attack an American flagged vessel?

Why not say...oh...the Bush years?


Thoughts?

Yeah. The Bush years are over and every little wannabe gangster and tyrant is going to be pushing the envelope. had this act of piracy happened in the Bush years, they would have been dead in under 48 hours, instead of Bamy waffling for close to 100 hours.

Yeah. The Bush years are over and every little wannabe gangster and tyrant is going to be pushing the envelope. had this act of piracy happened in the Bush years, they would have been dead in under 48 hours, instead of Bamy waffling for close to 100 hours.
is trying to make sure the captain was rescued waffling?

is trying to make sure the captain was rescued waffling?

No, not bothering to make a decision for close to five days is waffling.

No, not bothering to make a decision for close to five days is waffling.

They did make a decision. The decision was, "we're not going to make a move against these pirates while there's still a good chance they'll kill him during a rescue attempt."

Yeah. The Bush years are over and every little wannabe gangster and tyrant is going to be pushing the envelope. had this act of piracy happened in the Bush years, they would have been dead in under 48 hours, instead of Bamy waffling for close to 100 hours.

Almost 3000 dead Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) is not "pushing the envelope?"

No, not bothering to make a decision for close to five days is waffling.
is it? how do you know, you werent there.

Maybe if we just blew up a random coastal village every time they took a hostage.

Maybe if we just blew up a random coastal village every time they took a hostage.
i dont think random would work. it would have to be the place where the pirate's mother lives.

Almost 3000 dead Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) is not "pushing the envelope?"

If in your mind there is some sort of moral equivalency between Bush and two-bit pirates, then I really have no reason to reply to you any longer.

If in your mind there is some sort of moral equivalency between Bush and two-bit pirates, then I really have no reason to reply to you any longer.
You misunderstand.

Trostia was (rather effectively) countering your claim that Obama is somehow soft, and thus folks will attack US targets when they wouldn't of under Bush.

Yeah. The Bush years are over and every little wannabe gangster and tyrant is going to be pushing the envelope. had this act of piracy happened in the Bush years, they would have been dead in under 48 hours, instead of Bamy waffling for close to 100 hours.
Aw, so cute! So eager to bash Obama and sing hosannas to Bush that you couldn't find the time to read a 4-page thread. If you had, you would know that it has already been established that "they" (the pirates) most certainly did attack US ships during Bush's term. You lose that point.

Also, you apparently didn't bother to watch the news about this story, just like you didn't bother to read the thread about it. If you had, you would have known that it was mentioned in the news when the Alabama story first broke and it was announced that the Bainbridge had arrived on the scene that Obama had already reiterated the standing order authorizing them to do whatever was necessary up to and including force to effect the rescue of the captain. Not only was the decision made, it was made within minutes of the situation becoming known to US authorities. You lose that point, too.

Since you only made two points and lost both, I'm sorry, but you're a loser this round.

Want to play again?

If in your mind there is some sort of moral equivalency between Bush and two-bit pirates

Are you pretending to be stupid? There is a moral equivalency between terrorists and pirates, not Bush and pirates. That terrorist event - the one you've apparently forgotten just so you can blather on about Obama - happened on Bush's watch.

But that's not "pushing the envelope" according to you, since under Bush's administration, terrorists and criminals didn't push the envelope.

Yeah, it was only the worst terrorist attack in US history. No envelope-pushing there, right.

, then I really have no reason to reply to you any longer.

Oh no! Whatever shall I do if (when) you ran scurrying away from any argument? My world, it is turned on its head.

Had you actually read my post instead of breaking your arm patting yourself on your back, you would see that I never claimed that ships had not been attacked during the Bush years. No points for you, Mr. Witty, you come back one year!

"want to play again?" could you be any more whinny?

That kind of insufferable attitude is why we have welfare.

Since you only made two points and lost both, I'm sorry, but you're a loser this round.

Want to play again?

Are there prizes?

The better question is why the somebody else doesn't annex the land along the shipping channel to keep it clear of pirates. Hell, let the GCC or AU do it if they don't want US or other troops in the area...it's in their region, so they should be footing the bill to keep it safe. We already spend enough on troops stationed in the region, so it would be a way of repaying the favor.

i dont think random would work. it would have to be the place where the pirate's mother lives.

I figured you deprive them of places to take/spend the swag and ransom money they will lose interesting in pirating.

The better question is why the somebody else doesn't annex the land along the shipping channel to keep it clear of pirates. Hell, let the GCC or AU do it if they don't want US or other troops in the area...it's in their region, so they should be footing the bill to keep it safe. We already spend enough on troops stationed in the region, so it would be a way of repaying the favor.

Although I support this, no one is going to be for more violance in trying to force all of the warlords out of the area.

I figured you deprive them of places to take/spend the swag and ransom money they will lose interesting in pirating.

there are actually places to go to in somalia?

there are actually places to go to in somalia?
Several large cities and a few large expanses of relatively stable areas (mainly to the north and east).

there are actually places to go to in somalia?

http://epictrip.com/Somalia-travel-l274.html

Plus, they don't necessarily have to spend it in Somalia. They could go to Europe and spend it there.

Although I support this, no one is going to be for more violance in trying to force all of the warlords out of the area.

Or, ships could begin to carry heavier weapons. Of course, I bet some people would be concerned about the "militarization" of merchant ships in the region...

Or, ships could begin to carry heavier weapons. Of course, I bet some people would be concerned about the "militarization" of merchant ships in the region...

Yea why don't the merchant ships just carry bigger guns? or more?

Had you actually read my post instead of breaking your arm patting yourself on your back, you would see that I never claimed that ships had not been attacked during the Bush years.
Ah, so then you were blathering for no reason, eh? Well, of course, you didn't need to tell us that.

No points for you, Mr. Witty, you come back one year!
That's Ms. Witty to you.

And why one year? Is that when you will be gone forever?

"want to play again?" could you be any more whinny?
You are confusing me with Mr. Ed, the Talking Horse. I'm Ms. Muravyets, the NSG Poster Who Made You Blink.

That kind of insufferable attitude is why we have welfare.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :D Good one! Nice! :D

Yea why don't the merchant ships just carry bigger guns? or more?

Maybe because they thought they were safe on those waters transporting the merchandise...

I figured you deprive them of places to take/spend the swag and ransom money they will lose interesting in pirating.
noooo you have to kill their mom, or take away their ability to pick up loose women and hard liquor. they are pirates much like pirates of 200 years ago.

Had you actually read my post instead of breaking your arm patting yourself on your back, you would see that I never claimed that ships had not been attacked during the Bush years. No points for you, Mr. Witty, you come back one year!

"want to play again?" could you be any more whinny?

That kind of insufferable attitude is why we have welfare.
hmmm then what was your point?

Why do you think that Somali Pirates chose now to attack an American flagged vessel?

Why not say...oh...the Bush years?


Thoughts?
Because the law doesn't seem to care if a blackman is robbed.

Speaking of Somali pirates, this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html) was poked my way a bit ago. It's an interesting view on the whole affair.

Hm. Well, for those of you who said there wouldn't be much response, apparently, (according to Good Morning America) Somali pirate leaders (whomever they are) said that from now on they will "treat American hostages the way they treated us."

Given that they also just killed a French pleasure-boater in a hostage-situation gone bad, this doesn't bode well.

Hm. Well, for those of you who said there wouldn't be much response, apparently, (according to Good Morning America) Somali pirate leaders (whomever they are) said that from now on they will "treat American hostages the way they treated us."

Given that they also just killed a French pleasure-boater in a hostage-situation gone bad, this doesn't bode well.
im not too concerned about macho bravado.

Hm. Well, for those of you who said there wouldn't be much response, apparently, (according to Good Morning America) Somali pirate leaders (whomever they are) said that from now on they will "treat American hostages the way they treated us."

Given that they also just killed a French pleasure-boater in a hostage-situation gone bad, this doesn't bode well.

Well, it seems you are right. Other experts on Sunday were saying that this could cause a spike in violence in general during these raids. On the other hand, when has getting attacked by pirates on the open sea not violent and likely to get someone killed? As you point out, they have killed hostages from other nations, too, already. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to pirates, the old rules hold -- shoot on sight.