NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30154714/

Wow. take your 3 year old son Yachting around Somalia. Real smart move there.
Sad someone died but could have been avoided by not going anywhere need the horn of Africa on boat.

People yacht around Somalia because they have a death wish for themselves and those they bring along.

This is the French we're talking about here. They're not really stupid, they just have this arrogant notion that they're exempt from the problems of the rest of the world. It really frosts them when the rest of the world ignores this and proceeds to treat them like real people.

This is the French we're talking about here. They're not really stupid, they just have this arrogant notion that they're exempt from the problems of the rest of the world. It really frosts them when the rest of the world ignores this and proceeds to treat them like real people.

So this is your scenario.

Frenchmen: Why are you kidnapping me?
Pirate: I am a pirate Yarr!! it is what I do!!
Frenchmen: But why me I am french!!
Pirate: screw the ransom money *blam*
Frenchmen: Why did you shoot me ?

Somalia is a beautiful country. I can't think of a more relaxing place to take a yachting trip than a war-torn, anarchistic 'nation' whose shores are lined with Jolly Rogers. Don't forget the arid, burned-out scenery either.

To summarise - god knows.

So this is your scenario.

Frenchmen: Why are you kidnapping me?
Pirate: I am a pirate Yarr!! it is what I do!!
Frenchmen: But why me I am french!!
Pirate: screw the ransom money *blam*
Frenchmen: Why did you shoot me ?

Yeah, pretty much.

Not that I'm stating that I think yachting around Somalia is a good idea (I have this thing about being kidnapped by people who are presumably so backwards as to believe that Leviticus 20:13 (or the Quran [sp?] equivalent should apply and this they should execute me and my boyfriend instead of ransoming us), but I think we should be fair. Passing the horn of Africa is sort of required for any vessel using the Suez Canal. Hence why people keep sending merchant vessels, cruise ships and the plethora of other things that keep getting hijacked through the area. It's hardly a French phenomenon, it just so happens they got to bright idea of assaulting the pirates back first apparently...

This is the French we're talking about here. They're not really stupid, they just have this arrogant notion that they're exempt from the problems of the rest of the world. It really frosts them when the rest of the world ignores this and proceeds to treat them like real people.

You'd think the French would have learned lessons about Exceptionalism from the Revolution and Reign of Terror.

A new brand of adventure tourism maybe?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the first option to any sort of pirate attempt should be the liberal application of military force. Right now, the current practice of paying off the ransoms and confrontation avoidance means the Somalian pirates can act with impunity with little real risk except for the occasional shift in government position.

If all ship holding attempts were met with strike teams who either kill or capture the pirates, the lure of piracy quickly dwindles.

The Horn of Africa has some beautiful places. I know some folks who went to Eritrea. Owing to the Fascist occupation, Eritrea has some of the world's best intact Italian Art Deco architecture.

http://www.travelroads.com/article/id_1258

Quite frankly, the economy has never taken off since the Italians pulled out, so there hasn't been much new development that would threaten the old buildings.

This is the French we're talking about here. They're not really stupid, they just have this arrogant notion that they're exempt from the problems of the rest of the world. It really frosts them when the rest of the world ignores this and proceeds to treat them like real people.

This is a hilariously mistaken notion about the French.

If, however, we were to exchange the word "French" with "people who own yachts," you might have a point.

Not that I'm stating that I think yachting around Somalia is a good idea (I have this thing about being kidnapped by people who are presumably so backwards as to believe that Leviticus 20:13 (or the Quran [sp?] equivalent should apply and this they should execute me and my boyfriend instead of ransoming us), but I think we should be fair. Passing the horn of Africa is sort of required for any vessel using the Suez Canal. Hence why people keep sending merchant vessels, cruise ships and the plethora of other things that keep getting hijacked through the area. It's hardly a French phenomenon, it just so happens they got to bright idea of assaulting the pirates back first apparently...

I would not use the Suez Canal, especially more so in a slow moving sailing ship, that screams I am alone unarmed, and have lots of money.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the first option to any sort of pirate attempt should be the liberal application of military force. Right now, the current practice of paying off the ransoms and confrontation avoidance means the Somalian pirates can act with impunity with little real risk except for the occasional shift in government position.

If all ship holding attempts were met with strike teams who either kill or capture the pirates, the lure of piracy quickly dwindles.

Ah, "send the fleet" again.

We've sent the fleet. A few pirates have been killed, but life is cheap in Somalia and ransoms are a local fortune. Sending the fleet hasn't worked.

Let's move on to your next step. Sink the privately owned vessels, almost certainly killing their crew. Deny the pirates their prize, they'll stop taking vessels.

Why on earth does killing innocents to save money not seem so blindingly obvious to the major powers who have sent their fleets, as it does to you? They must be stupid or something.

Or maybe, as you say, it's just you.

I would not use the Suez Canal, especially more so in a slow moving sailing ship, that screams I am alone unarmed, and have lots of money.

But what if you were tailing that slow moving sailing ship in a faster moving one, with the button required to detonate that slow moving sailing ship's cargohold with 500kg of ANFO?

why are the French (or anybody) yachting around Somalia

They're trying to reestablish their African colonies?

Ah, "send the fleet" again.

We've sent the fleet. A few pirates have been killed, but life is cheap in Somalia and ransoms are a local fortune. Sending the fleet hasn't worked.


"OMG, the economy isn't fixed, Obama is a failure!"

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The fleet doesn't work for the following reasons.

1: A handful of ships not working together is not a fleet.
2: Negotiation is still the first option in most cases, meaning a lot of gain to be made for little real risk.
3: Dithering by various governments limits military action
4: Fairy tale blinkers worn by people who would rather contribute to crime by paying ransoms rather than accept the risks.

These are not martyr wannabes. They're not soldiers. They're crime gangs out for an easy buck. With no ransoms paid and death a very real and likely outcome of their occupation, who would take it up?


Why on earth does killing innocents to save money not seem so blindingly obvious to the major powers who have sent their fleets, as it does to you?

Interesting that you extended the argument beyond the original parameters and then argue as if I was the one who set the new lack of limits.

Well I suppose you can argue for the continued piracy problem. It's better that way innit?

pah considering the amount of shipping that actually does go through the horn of Africa the piracy isn't such a big deal and has only become such due to the hijacking of the Sirius star

They're trying to reestablish their African colonies?

this is of course folly as nobody wants Chad

With no ransoms paid and death a very real and likely outcome of their occupation, who would take it up?

*points at drug dealers*

Simply place ninjas aboard all shipping that goes through the Suez Canal. If nothing else, we'll finally learn the truth, one way or the other.

*points at drug dealers*

Drug dealers take ransoms now? Sorry, your example doesn't work. Hostage taking and drug dealing are two entirely separate mechanics of getting money.

Look, the only value hostages of any stripe to any hostage taker is that they have worth as bargaining chips and/or as human shields. The same applies to the ships they hold ransom.

If military strikes are the always first response, an action of a few hours as opposed to days for the typical ransom payment, the only payoff any pirates will have is what they can steal from the ships safe and the crew. This is a fraction of what the typical ransom taking pirate can take. Add this to the fact that they will be chased down and shot, and the benefits of piracy start shrinking significantly versus the risks.

It's the same when dealing with hostage taking terrorists. No dealing except to stall for time, kill on sight, no quarter given. Once hostages have no value whatsoever, people stop taking them as bargaining chips.

I think once and for all we need a multinational Navy deployed to the region. They may become targets but highly unlikely. You want to try to take over the ship. I have guns as big as your boat and shells as big as garbage can, try it. We could look at it as training exercise. If you put enough navy they will go away.

I suppose this is another option just kill them.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSTNLRmlXbDlBZe0lYhSR1XbGA5wD97HHDPO0

US captain's rescue raises stakes in piracy ops

By VIJAY JOSHI and EILEEN NG – 2 hours ago

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — The killing of three Somali pirates in the dramatic U.S. Navy rescue of a cargo ship captain has sparked concern for other hostages and fears that the stakes have been raised for future hijackings in the busy Indian Ocean shipping lane.

Sunday's rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips followed a shootout at sea on Friday by French navy commandos, who stormed a pirate-held sailboat, killed two pirates and freed four French hostages. The French owner of the vessel was also killed in the assault.

The two operations may have been a setback for the pirates, but they are unlikely to quell the brigands, who have vowed to avenge the deaths of their comrades.

Experts indicated that piracy in the Indian Ocean off Somalia, which transformed one of the world's busiest shipping lanes into one of its most dangerous, has entered a new phase with the Navy SEAL rescue operation of Phillips.

It "could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it," said Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.

The International Maritime Bureau said Monday it supported the action by the U.S. and French navies, but cautioned it may spark retaliatory moves by pirates.

"We applaud the U.S. and the French action. We feel that they are making the right move, although the results sometimes may be detrimental," said Noel Choong of the IMB's piracy center in Kuala Lumpur.

He did not elaborate, but for families of the 228 foreign nationals aboard 13 ships still held by pirates, the fear is revenge on their loved ones.

"Those released are lucky, but what about those who remain captive?" said Vilma de Guzman, the wife of Filipino seafarer Ruel de Guzman. He has been held by pirates since Nov. 10 along with the 22 other Filipino crew of the chemical tanker MT Stolt Strength.

The U.S. rescue operation "might be dangerous (for) the remaining hostages because the pirates might vent their anger on them," she said.

So far, Somali pirates have never harmed captive foreign crews except for a Taiwanese crew member who was killed under unclear circumstances. In fact, many former hostages say they were treated well and given sumptuous food.

The pirates had operated with near-impunity in the Gulf of Aden north of Somalia, and more recently in waters south of the country after a multinational naval force began patrolling the Gulf.

Choong said there have been 74 attacks this year with 15 hijackings as compared to 111 attacks for all of last year.

The modus operandi of the pirates is simple: Board unarmed or lightly armed merchant ships, fire shots in the air or at the hull to intimidate the crew, divert the ships to hide-outs on the Somali coast and wait for the owners to pay millions of dollars in ransom.

But the game changed last week when the pirates boarded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. In an act of courage, Phillips offered himself as hostage in return for the safety of his crew.

The pirates transferred the 53-year-old Phillips, a Vermont native, to a lifeboat. But the pirates had not counted on the U.S. military's resolve. After a five-day standoff during which a small U.S. flotilla tailed the lifeboat, Navy SEAL snipers on a destroyer shot and killed three pirates and plucked an unharmed Phillips to safety. A fourth pirate surrendered.

The comrades of the slain pirates immediately threatened retaliation.

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them," said Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old self-proclaimed pirate, told The Associated Press by telephone from the pirate hub, Eyl.

Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship in the pirate den of Gaan, a central Somali town, told the AP that pirates will not take the U.S. action lying down.

"We will retaliate for the killings of our men," he said.

Giles Noakes, chief maritime security officer of the largest international shipping association, the Denmark-based BIMCO, says it is premature to say Philips' rescue will lead to an escalation of violence.

"The question here is whether there will be a change of attitude in the pirates and in their modus operandi. We hope the change will be that they will be even more deterred because of the successful action by both the Maersk Alabama crew and the navies," he said.

Many of the governments whose ships have been captured — including Taiwan's Win Far 161 with a multinational crew of 30 — are in talks with the pirates and would not comment on the consequences of the American rescue for fear of jeopardizing the negotiations.

"We are monitoring the situation closely, but the ship owner wants to keep a low profile to help with their negotiation with the abductors," Taiwanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Henry Chen said.

He said the crew, comprising 17 Filipinos, six Indonesians, five Chinese and two Taiwanese, were safe as of Monday.

Some families also wonder if Phillips' rescue drew so much of attention because of his nationality.

"It's difficult when the ship's crew are all Filipinos because we are ignored," said de Guzman. "Maybe if there are Japanese, Koreans or British among the crew, the case would get more attention."

Associated Press writer Teresa Cerojano and writers around the world contributed to this report.

I think once and for all we need a multinational Navy deployed to the region. They may become targets but highly unlikely. You want to try to take over the ship. I have guns as big as your boat and shells as big as garbage can, try it. We could look at it as training exercise. If you put enough navy they will go away.

You'd need an unrealistically large navy. It's a huge expanse of sea, Somali pirates actually are as well organized as any criminal outfit (with a hierarchy, PR front, representatives and negotiating contracts abroad) and have modern communications and GPS. Attempting to combat piracy through only naval efforts is doomed to fail. The options are either dismantle piracy at its root through fixing Somalia or dismantling the actual organization and hierarchy.

Personally, I think taking measures to fix Somalia would be the best bet now and in the long run. I'm sure others would rather we just go in and start killing pirates, dismantling communications and scattering the survivors to the point that any hope of rebuilding the current organization is but a pipe-dream.

You'd need an unrealistically large navy. It's a huge expanse of sea, Somali pirates actually are as well organized as any criminal outfit (with a hierarchy, PR front, representatives and negotiating contracts abroad) and have modern communications and GPS. Attempting to combat piracy through only naval efforts is doomed to fail. The options are either dismantle piracy at its root through fixing Somalia or dismantling the actual organization and hierarchy.

Personally, I think taking measures to fix Somalia would be the best bet now and in the long run. I'm sure others would rather we just go in and start killing pirates, dismantling communications and scattering the survivors to the point that any hope of rebuilding the current organization is but a pipe-dream.

You did see the Navy Seal thing on the News right? Maybe they will think twice when attacking an American ship now. We should send a frigate with any American ship heading through the region. The idea is to be between your attacker and the merchant ship. You know they will be coming from somewhere around the Somali coast. Most ship will be heading for the Suez so stay in the middle. It could be done. It make me sick paying these pirate ransoms.

How many people yacht around Somalia?

What proportion of those are kidnapped by pirates?

You did see the Navy Seal thing on the News right? Maybe they will think twice when attacking an American ship now. We should send a frigate with any American ship heading through the region. The idea is to be between your attacker and the merchant ship. You know they will be coming from somewhere around the Somali coast. Most ship will be heading for the Suez so stay in the middle. It could be done. It make me sick paying these pirate ransoms.

Yes, I did--and they were responding to an event, not preventing it. If you want a naval force to prevent piracy, the only real way to stop it, you will need an incredibly large naval force. There is a lot of sea traffic in the gulf of aden and having a naval escort for each ship is simply unfeasible while setting up convoys would likely restrict times at which commercial vessels can engage in travel to such an extent that it might it'd likely be simply preferable to just not make use of them, returning us to the state we're currently in.

It is also unlikely they will worry about attacking an unguarded American ship, now. If anything, they will likely be more likely to attack the ship if the pirates that spot it are from the same clan or family as those killed; never underestimate the strength of clan-ties in East Africa. It is likely that they won't take American hostages, though, preferring to just kill them and sell off or even just leave the ship's contents.

But this is all conjecture, we'll see over the next few months, obviously. It very well may change absolutely nothing and piracy and business will continue as usual; such an event is not only not unfathomable but probably likely.

It is likely that they won't take American hostages, though, preferring to just kill them and sell off or even just leave the ship's contents.


Selling off the contents is highly unlikely, as these are cargo ships, slow and unwieldy. They are unlikely to outrun any gunship/destroyer borne emergency response teams in the area.

Cargo is worthless if you can't get it to someone to sell.

Here is handy map. You can see where the majority of the attacks occur. Maybe all we do is ask the Yemeni people to build a naval base? It wouldn't take too much or too many ships to be effective. I am sure they do not want these guys in their waters either.

http://ainashe.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/unosat_SEC_som280306.jpg

The US's first foreign war showed how to deal with pirates.... Killing pirates was the original purpose of the US navy.

The founding of the United States Navy occurred when President George Washington signed the Act to Provide Naval Armament (March 27, 1794). Te justification was attacks in American shipping by the Barbary Pirates.
http://histclo.com/essay/war/bp/bp-abw.html

Selling off the contents is highly unlikely, as these are cargo ships, slow and unwieldy. They are unlikely to outrun any gunship/destroyer borne emergency response teams in the area.

Cargo is worthless if you can't get it to someone to sell.

Indeed. As was more oft the case historically, ransom and tribute is the motive here.

Selling off the contents is highly unlikely, as these are cargo ships, slow and unwieldy. They are unlikely to outrun any gunship/destroyer borne emergency response teams in the area.

Cargo is worthless if you can't get it to someone to sell.

Which is why I said that they may just even leave the ship's cargo. I'm sure they'd steal and sell what they could haul onto their boats, but seeing retaliatory strikes against American vessels from pirates within the same clan as those killed would be completely unsurprising.

And Yemen can barely muster internal stability, much less a naval force capable of protecting ships from pirates. (directed at Truly Blessed, not NAS)

Which is why I said that they may just even leave the ship's cargo. I'm sure they'd steal and sell what they could haul onto their boats, but seeing retaliatory strikes against American vessels from pirates within the same clan as those killed would be completely unsurprising.


Expected? Yes. Bad outcome? Not exactly.

Piracy is a lose lose business for the victims, no matter how you look at it. Short of inventing mind control devices or simply conquering the area where they came from and putting the lot in chains, the only option is to lose less. Paying ransoms does not mean losing less. It only means you lose more, encourages further depredations as pirates use the loot to improve their gear and range, and ups the likelihood of them becoming a serious threat rather than a nuisance thanks to all that money they get.

You lose less by adopting a complete non-negotiation stance with pirates, and deal with them only at the barrel of the gun. Pirates are mostly in it for the money, and right now, most of the navies in the area can beat anything the pirates can muster without breaking a sweat. People will die, some pirates won't take any hostages and kill the crew, but that's a better deal than letting them get to the point where they have the guns and gear to remove the need for hostages to make big money. Eventually, either the clan revenge killings will stop because there's nobody left alive to do it, or they like living better.

well...
The owners, Florent and Chloe Lemacon, had left the French port of Vanves in Brittany in July 2009 on an adventure with their three-year-old son, according to their blog.
they wanted an adventure... sadly... they got one.

Expected? Yes. Bad outcome? Not exactly.

Piracy is a lose lose business for the victims, no matter how you look at it. Short of inventing mind control devices or simply conquering the area where they came from and putting the lot in chains, the only option is to lose less. Paying ransoms does not mean losing less. It only means you lose more, encourages further depredations as pirates use the loot to improve their gear and range, and ups the likelihood of them becoming a serious threat rather than a nuisance thanks to all that money they get.

You lose less by adopting a complete non-negotiation stance with pirates, and deal with them only at the barrel of the gun. Pirates are mostly in it for the money, and right now, most of the navies in the area can beat anything the pirates can muster without breaking a sweat. People will die, some pirates won't take any hostages and kill the crew, but that's a better deal than letting them get to the point where they won't need hostages to make big money. Eventually, either the clan revenge killings will stop because there's nobody left alive to do it, or they like living better.

Indeed. As I intended to show by the historical reference above. When we get down to brass tacks, this whole set up isn't much different from the Barbary Wars. Put the navy offshore with a MEU(SOC) and a SEAL detatchment.

well...

they wanted an adventure... sadly... they got one.

Strange, it's only April 2009.

The UN could earn it's keep for once. Set up the suggested multinational fleet. It would need ships from each member nation - or a cash substitute to support the ships, crew and munitions. Then convoy groups of cargo ships through the dangerous waters. Companies or countries who opt out of the convoys are s.o.l. This would be used only to protect shipping (and, possibly, legitimate research vessels).

Strange, it's only April 2009.

what can I say... fast boat?

what can I say... fast boat?A tardis?