PIRATES DECLARE THEY INTEND TO RETALIATE! Oh my...

After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here. The fact is, this may make things worse down the road. Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it. We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked. Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.

Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed. That is now very likely to change.

One option would be for the shipping companies to contract with security firms like blackwater who would have no qualms about shooting at the pirates. But, that will escalate things to another level where the ships will possibly be sunk. ANd then we are back to olden days again.
 
Or we could end their civilization as it is know lay waste to all human life in that vicinity and move in people who are more US friendly.
 
The pirates got over confident and were working shorthanded.

Exactly. And you can bet they won't make THAT mistake twice. At least, not with us. I would also suspect they would be already plotting retaliation in order to get their heat back. They got punked this time. They aren't going to accept that.

If they take a crew and ship hostage, it won't matter WHAT we put off their coast. They'll still have the upper hand and I doubt we have the political will to go after them.

We obviously don't have it now when burning them out before they get a chance to act would be the correct course of action.

That, or we can go back to sailing around Africa.

After reading all the not so well thought through posts, I'm glad to see someone understands that we didn't win anything here. The fact is, this may make things worse down the road. Now that we have taken decisive action, we better well be prepared to follow through, because this isn't the end of it. We better start thinking of ways to protect all of these ships before they are hijacked. Once the hijackers have control, there isn't much any military can do without expecting the loss of hostages.

Prior to this, I do not believe any hostages have been killed. That is now very likely to change.
Maybe if these Pirates knew the ships were loaded with guns and ammo to protect themselves perhaps they will move on to some other "Criminal" endeavor. :lol:
 
Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:

When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
every problem looks like a nail.
 
I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory. In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.

These people want to win the war. They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay. All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.

Some people understand nothing but force. Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.


one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...
You make an important point. The pirates are hijacking ships for for money, and they know they will not get ransom money for dead hostages. They will continue to attack shipping, since it is so easy to take a ship adn has been so lucrative.
They currently hold 13 or 14 ships with about 250 hostages. Many of the hostages are Philipino crewmen.

Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year, only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.

The navies need to deter the pirates, attack some known pirate bases. COs need to have stronger policing authority, to seize and search and pursue authority. They need to hunt and sink the pirates crappy mother ships.
Send in marines, occupy a couple key bases, fortify them, take a few of their tribal and business leaders into custody, start talking to the pirate leaders from a position of strength.

Such action will either require getting authority and agreement from the UN, or just going in and doing it with countries who have already been involved.
The US Fifth Fleet currently operates 2 Combined Task Forces, mixed collection of international military vessels. It has a lot of firepower at its disposal.
Detailed discussions about going on the offensive have been taking place among those and other nations that have contributed ships to the patrols. The discussions are not so much "if", but when and where, the mission goals and logistics, and by whom.

The shipping companies are still negotitating, want to pay the ransoms, want to get those innocent hostages and captured ships returned, safely.
Paying ransom would actually be less expensive than military missions. But the pirates won't stop hijacking ships in one of the world's most important and highly travelled shipping lanes.
All vessels, large and small, are at risk in those waters.
Pirates have made it clear they aren't going to simply stop.
 
My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.

But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.

The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.

There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". Somalia is not Grenada or Panama. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion.
Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.
 
Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:

When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
every problem looks like a nail.
The little General says "We got nukes, lets use them !
31J27RjqjqL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
!"
 
Comcast.net: US captain freed; Somali pirates vow to retaliate



Well we're in for it now... :eusa_eh:

LOL... Oh who's kiddin' who, I can't EVEN keep a straight face on this one...

The "We just make it easier for them to recruit Pirates..." and the "This is why they HATE US!" crowd can now begin to rally around this one...

Enjoy...

Discuss and spew... which ever is called for by your respective natures...



DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also. What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"? Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists? "We were only creating more terrorists."

Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"? Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out? And now we're killing them.

Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing. Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.

The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement. PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE. And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.

Iraq didn't attack us.

The pirates attacked first.

That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor. In the latter case, we had every right to act. In Iraq, we were the invaders.

See the difference? I know its a subtle distinction.

Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES... Iraq had attacked us on THROUGH ACTS OF PIRACY! And your ignorance of the many times and many ways Iraq had attacked us doesn't stand as a pass for Iraq, PARTICULARLY given the reality of the post 9-11 US GWOT, where 'attacks by nasty little Muslim concerns' had ratched themselves up to trillion dollar economic losses and thousands of people at a whack.

We have been painted as the agrressor in the killing of those Pirates... BECAUSE KILLING THOSE PIRATES WAS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION... and JUST LIKE OUR LIBERATION OF IRAQ... Killing those Pirates was an act of aggression which was implemented as a means of defense.

And just because YOU presently feel that the US was justified in the aggressive acton of killing those Pirates; imparted as a means of defense from Piracy, doesn't mean that someone else is not looking at those Pirates as innocent victims of the geo-political exploitation of the 3rd world by the Industrialized West; where the Pirates are merely seen as working a sound business model towards avoiding starvation... thus the US UNJUSTIFIABLY used lethal force against an otherwise peaceful people, who intended to do no harm, and just wanted to trade the Captain for some dirty western money.

That you may presently see such a perspective as short sighted; where such a perspective missed the over-riding point that the Pirates are by their very NATURE and THROUGH THEIR VERY ACTIONS, usurpers of the RIGHTS of free people... thus such a perspective is wrong in every respect... doesn't prevent you from being presently subject to the same conclusion, with respect to your position on the Liberation of Iraq.

Again... Iraq's former Socialist government was a chronic violator of the rights of free people through their chronic use of Islamic Terrorist proxies to attack citizens of the US, along with her interests and allies... and despite a year and a HALF, post 9-11, wherein the US made every effort to urge Iraq's former socialist government to turn from its terrorist promoting ways... Iraq refused and suffered the aggressive invasion by the US and an international coalition which was a DEFENSE FROM IRAQ'S ATTACKS; designed to REMOVE that government from power and to provide for the Iraqi people THE OPPORTUNITY to build its OWN GOVERNMENT; a government which represents the IRAQI PEOPLE... which HOPEFULLY will not misuse it's power to usurp the rights of free people...

So no... with regard to the principles at play, there is nearly no distinction; with the sole distinction being that where the US aggressively took the lives of the individual Pirates, she has yet to strike at those WHO SENT THOSE PIRATES... which must inevitably come... where you will inevitably fail to see the logical extension of that which you find perfectly acceptable and reject the invasion of Somalia, on the grounds that 'Somalia never attacked us...'

It's not complicated... the principles are precisely the same... only the names and the grids have changed.
 
My version of leftness is not a suicide pact.

But if we find ourselves in a continuous battle with thugs because we see a land that's gone into a state of anarchy, and we do nothing to end the anarchic state, then we lose no matter how often we win every battle.

The secret to diplomacy isn't to win wars, the secret is to get other people to win wars for us.

There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". Somalia is not Grenada or Panama. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion.
Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.

There you go...raining on their parade.

Look a lot of people here think that every problem involving bad guys can be solved in 90 minutes because that's how long it takes Steven Segal to solve problems in the movies.

they're all over the military solution because they THINK they understand the military solution.

And then when the problem rears its ugly head again, they're all over the solution of sending OTHER PEOPLE into harms way again, because it satisfies their longing for vicarious violence.

A question for any of you gus who actually ever were in harms way...

Would you WANT to go into a shithole like Somalia to kick ass and then have to STAY THERE to keep the peace?

Because sans some REAL solution to that broken nation, that's about what would happen.

If we want Somalia to stop spawning deperate men who will do whatever it takes to make a living, we ought to get the SOMOLIANS to do that job.

I know that's not nearly as satisfying for those of you who like to imagine glorious American troops out there kicking bad guys asses, but it is the cheaper and more lasting approach to solving a problem like this.
 
I find it rather interesting that one of our WORST traits as a society is that we think in terms of individual victory. In effect, we lose to the very same mindset that allowed us to defeat the native Americans time after time.

These people want to win the war. They are going to live how they want and anything that annoys them, or threat to their lifestyles will be made to pay. All they have to do is make us "think" that going after them is not worth the time, manpower and money, and they win.

Some people understand nothing but force. Unfortunately, we seem to be overpopulated with the ones that can't grasp that simple concept.


one of the few times you and I agree completely on something. Ok, so now the pirates are saying that they will kill hostages. Well, d'uh! Ok, so this is the scenario: Pirates take hostages and kill them. Result? Definitely no ransom, and dead pirates. My money is on the US Navy winning this one in the end...easily too...

This idiot reminds me of the Leftist that were all OUTRAGED the morning of 9-11... but who by the afternoon of 9-11 were already rationalizing reasons to NOT take action to seek out, close with and destroy those who were BEHIND 9-11...

We can be sure that this same member will be crying about US policy in the following American Administration... who will take measures to free the US Crews which resulted from the FAILURE OF KING HUSSEIN TO EFFECTIVELY SHUT DOWN PIRACY, through his attempts to 'understand them and to 'talk it out...'

I see "DAY 1 - 10- 100... 444 American HELD HOSTAGE!" repeating itself... and this fool will be crying "COWBOY DIPLOMACY" when an American again comes to power and begins the unenviable work of DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM and not the symptom.

Set your watch... it begins here, where History begins to repeat itself.
 
Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:

When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
every problem looks like a nail.

ROFLMNAO... Of course it does... because you oppose hammers... they're loud and violent and those nails are after all just innocent voctims of the industrialized world that seeks to exploit their nature and resources.

It reminds me of the old saying: A Bag of nails is vastly more INTELLIGENT and exponentially more useful, than the individual WHO USES A FLOWER FOR A HAMMER!
 
DITTO--I am having a little fun with this one also. What about--"have we created more pirate/terrorists because we killed some"? Wasn't that what Obama & his followers said over the last 8 years when we were killing insurgents & terrorists? "We were only creating more terrorists."

Where is the "America is too blame crowd right now"? Where are the cries from the left that the only reason they captured our ship--was because we have "starved" them out? And now we're killing them.

Nope--they're out their rallying behind the commander & chief--stating he did the right thing. Well, YEAH--I don't think there was ever a President in U.S. history that would have given a command NOT TO SHOOT--if a hostage were in imminent danger.

The rules of engagement have just changed back to the George Bush rules of engagement. PUT THE COMMANDERS THAT ARE THERE IN CHARGE. And the left in this country is just perfectly O.K. with it now.

Iraq didn't attack us.

The pirates attacked first.

That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor. In the latter case, we had every right to act. In Iraq, we were the invaders.

See the difference? I know its a subtle distinction.

Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...

No it didn't

Iraq had attacked us on THROUGH ACTS OF PIRACY! And your ignorance of the many times and many ways Iraq had attacked us doesn't stand as a pass for Iraq, PARTICULARLY given the reality of the post 9-11 US GWOT, where 'attacks by nasty little Muslim concerns' had ratched themselves up to trillion dollar economic losses and thousands of people at a whack.

Oh Lord. Let me guess. Iraq was involved in 9-11, right?

We have been painted as the agrressor in the killing of those Pirates...

Who has said that?

BECAUSE KILLING THOSE PIRATES WAS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION... and JUST LIKE OUR LIBERATION OF IRAQ... Killing those Pirates was an act of aggression which was implemented as a means of defense.

LOL - "Agressor" means the party that initiate the conflict.

And just because YOU presently feel that the US was justified in the aggressive acton of killing those Pirates; imparted as a means of defense from Piracy, doesn't mean that someone else is not looking at those Pirates as innocent victims of the geo-political exploitation of the 3rd world by the Industrialized West; where the Pirates are merely seen as working a sound business model towards avoiding starvation... thus the US UNJUSTIFIABLY used lethal force against an otherwise peaceful people, who intended to do no harm, and just wanted to trade the Captain for some dirty western money.

I didn't say anything about what I feel. I just pointed out that unlike Iraq, the pirates were the aggressor. The point seemed to be lost on you.

That you may presently see such a perspective as short sighted; where such a perspective missed the over-riding point that the Pirates are by their very NATURE and THROUGH THEIR VERY ACTIONS, usurpers of the RIGHTS of free people... thus such a perspective is wrong in every respect... doesn't prevent you from being presently subject to the same conclusion, with respect to your position on the Liberation of Iraq.

You have me wrong. I reached the opposite conclusion with the pirates. Unlike Iraq, the pirates attacked us.

Again... Iraq's former Socialist government was a chronic violator of the rights of free people through their chronic use of Islamic Terrorist proxies to attack citizens of the US, along with her interests and allies...

First I've heard of that, what terrorist proxies of Iraq attacked US citizens. Reliable sources please.

Was Iraq a socialist government? What difference does that make?

and despite a year and a HALF, post 9-11, wherein the US made every effort to urge Iraq's former socialist government to turn from its terrorist promoting ways... Iraq refused and suffered the aggressive invasion by the US and an international coalition which was a DEFENSE FROM IRAQ'S ATTACKS; designed to REMOVE that government from power and to provide for the Iraqi people THE OPPORTUNITY to build its OWN GOVERNMENT; a government which represents the IRAQI PEOPLE... which HOPEFULLY will not misuse it's power to usurp the rights of free people...

I've heard about that. The Bush administration said Iraq had WMD and mistakenly attacked. Yes, that is my point, that is why it is different that the pirates. That is why the mistaken US attack on Iraq motivated the creations of terrorists who were fighting against an unjustified aggressor, versus the pirates where no one could reasonable call the US the aggressor.

So no... with regard to the principles at play, there is nearly no distinction; with the sole distinction being that where the US aggressively took the lives of the individual Pirates, she has yet to strike at those WHO SENT THOSE PIRATES... which must inevitably come... where you will inevitably fail to see the logical extension of that which you find perfectly acceptable and reject the invasion of Somalia, on the grounds that 'Somalia never attacked us...'

Where did I say any position on attacking the pirates?

It's not complicated... the principles are precisely the same... only the names and the grids have changed.

No, the pirates attacked us first. See the difference?
 
Last edited:
A lot of people in the pirate security profession are unemployed. These guys are available
musketeers2.jpg

as long their Captain comes along
images%5Cproducts%5C955%5C83215-2098-8999.jpg
 
There is no suicide pact. If the US really wanted to lay waste to Somalia, they could do so in a heartbeat. People look at the tragedy of Black Hawk down and think what a waste of 17 US servicemen's lives. And it was. But just as important is to remember approximately 1000 Somali's lost their lives in that fire fight. Not 10. Not 100. 1000 in their own back yard. I think if the US gets pushed, Somalia is stuffed. There are no mountains to hide in, and no where else for them to run to. The Ethiopians hate them as do the Eritreans (after all, they were part of the same country not so long ago). Maybe they should go back to fishing, or getting along with their neighbouring clans...
No invasion is "done in a heartbeat". Somalia is not Grenada or Panama. It is much larger than Iraq. Somalia is an enormous amount of territory, with the longest coastline in Africa. We won't accomplish much by conducting another unilateral full scale invasion.
Surgical strikes against known targets. Take out the pirates' head men, the ones who send those scrawny desperate teenagers out in runabouts and dinghys to hijack ships.

There you go...raining on their parade.

Look a lot of people here think that every problem involving bad guys can be solved in 90 minutes because that's how long it takes Steven Segal to solve problems in the movies.

they're all over the military solution because they THINK they understand the military solution.

And then when the problem rears its ugly head again, they're all over the solution of sending OTHER PEOPLE into harms way again, because it satisfies their longing for vicarious violence.

A question for any of you gus who actually ever were in harms way...

Would you WANT to go into a shithole like Somalia to kick ass and then have to STAY THERE to keep the peace?

Because sans some REAL solution to that broken nation, that's about what would happen.

If we want Somalia to stop spawning deperate men who will do whatever it takes to make a living, we ought to get the SOMOLIANS to do that job.

I know that's not nearly as satisfying for those of you who like to imagine glorious American troops out there kicking bad guys asses, but it is the cheaper and more lasting approach to solving a problem like this.

ROFL... 'SOMOLIA IS A BATTLE HARDNED FORCE... IT'S THE FOURTH LARGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD!...'

LOL... Leftists...

The voices of appeasement have used this farce MANY TIMES... the last two times, resulted in the two most decisive military victories in human history and the establishment of two Constitutional Representative Republics being established where there was formerly tyrannical Islamic regimes...

What you see there friends is precisely what I just spoke to above... the rationalization to NOT go after the problem... but to merely treat the symptom. Where they HAIL the use of aggressive force int he killing of the Pirates, they will very inevitably reject the use of aggressive force to kill those who sent them... and to establish a government which understands the principles on which sustainable human rights rest...

The subversion begins through the advocacy of such species of reasoning and where it is lent credence sets the path to the fast track to catastrophe.

"DAY 444- AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE!"... Children, who do not recognize that... ask an adult American.
 
Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year, only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.


An infinitessimally small percentage of those impacted are Americans. It appears to me to be a primarily European problem. Perhaps THEY should be the ones to launch the naval action against piracy, instead of America always being the one to take the responsibility.
 
Some of the responses in this thread remind me of the old saying:

When the only tool in your kit is hammer,
every problem looks like a nail.

ROFLMNAO... Of course it does... because you oppose hammers... they're loud and violent and those nails are after all just innocent voctims of the industrialized world that seeks to exploit their nature and resources.

It reminds me of the old saying: A Bag of nails is vastly more INTELLIGENT and exponentially more useful, than the individual WHO USES A FLOWER FOR A HAMMER!
Speaking of tools.....

Pubes - your toolbox definitely has a few screws that need to be tightened. You are funny.
 
Merchant shippers are like any business, trying to pinch pennies to make a profit. They have known for years and months that sailing those waters is risky, yet they continue to take that risk without adding security, except naval patrols. Out of the 28,000 ships that pass those straits each year, only a small percentage actually get attacked. Merchants are playing the odds, avoiding costs, taking their chances.
Arming and building bunkers on ships costs a lot of money. Security details cost a lot of money.
Fuel costs money. Insurance companies and merchant regulators need to pressure the shippers, financially and through licensing, to add security.


An infinitessimally small percentage of those impacted are Americans. It appears to me to be a primarily European problem. Perhaps THEY should be the ones to launch the naval action against piracy, instead of America always being the one to take the responsibility.
Alas, we has the most boats and planes and guns. The US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is in command of the motley fleet that is patrolling the pirate zone.
The French are hot to fight the pirates, have sent ships on this. In fact a French Admiral just took command of the small international fleet known as CTF 150 that is responsible for patrols in the Red Sea and Staits of Aden and Gulf of Aden. He reports to the US RADM in command of the US 5th Fleet.
Japan is sending a large frigate. One of South Korea's destroyers just arrived, is operating with the USS Bainbridge and USS Boxer off the coast of Somalia under the command of an American RADM. Germany, India, Russia, Britain have all sent ships. Our navy has the best ships, and the most.
And we are paying for a lot of this.
 
Alas, we has the most boats and planes and guns.

So? We are also carrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let someone else buck up for a change.

The French are hot to fight the pirates, have sent ships on this. In fact a French Admiral just took command of the small international fleet known as CTF 150 that is responsible for patrols in the Red Sea and Staits of Aden and Gulf of Aden. He reports to the US RADM in command of the US 5th Fleet.

I say let them. I'd be happy to see the French fight for a change.

Our navy has the best ships, and the most.
And we are paying for a lot of this.


And our economy is in the shitter and we are the least impacted by this. let other nations step up and do something for a change.
 
Iraq didn't attack us.

The pirates attacked first.

That's why in Iraq we could be painted as the aggressor, but in the case of the pirates, they were the aggressor. In the latter case, we had every right to act. In Iraq, we were the invaders.

See the difference? I know its a subtle distinction.

Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...

No it didn't

Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES... Iraq had DIRECTLY FUNDED AND HAD OTHERWISE PROMOTED ISLAMIC TERRORISM, using such as PROXIES TO ATTACK THE US HER INTERESTS AND ALLIES through OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF INTELLIGENCE, TRAINING AND DIRECT DIPLOMATIC ASISTANCE... The balance of your argument thus is founded directly upon this failure and as such is summarily dismissed.

To wit: The Hijackers (PIRATES) of the greek passenger vessel "Achille Lauro" were protected through their possessing IRAQI DIPLOMATIC PASSPORTS... Passports which identified them as IRAQI DIMPLOMATS... that act of Piracy resulted in the execution death of the American Citizen: Leon Klinghoffer... A wheel chair bound American retiree on a final Mediterranean cruise with his wife...

klinghoffer-assassiniatoa.jpg


And the list goes ON AND ON...
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top