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

I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship. Not worth it.

I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked. Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.

PS. Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly. They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!

And not one congrats from the GOP?
 
Install passive repellant measures on the ships and wait. If the pirates up the ante with more lethal attacks, militarily take out the shore line from the air and proceed from there. This is not complicated. The service with air strike capability than can most easily reach the targets will be the main thrust of any formal military response.

The wholly unwarranted remarks about the Navy, etc. are just "thuds".
 
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.
The Europeans are governed through Secularist Relativism... thus they have no understanding of the principles of sustainable human rights... thus they rationalize that the symptom of Piracy is best handled through appeasement... foolishly believeing that a few bucks here and there is far better a solution than recognizing that Pircacy is a usurpation in MASS of the HUMAN RIGHTS... thus an intolerable scourge which must be destroyed at every point, to the extent of the means of every free individual... as a function of the sacred duty to DEFEND the divinely endowed rights...

Waiting on a Leftist to solve a problem can only result in subjecting one's self to dealing with the ENDLESS stream of 'unintended consequences' which must comes in the wake of their calamitous 'resolutions'...

Disregard the input of leftist, reject their idiocy and SOLVE THE PROBLEM...

Pirates have no rights... kill them, ALL OF THEM and be done with it.
 
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.


You're an idiot of the first order... and most certainly: PART OF THE PROBLEM.
 
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.

How hard can this be? It amounts to a bunch of thugs in bass boats. Arm the crew and ships and make it more dangerous for them then what it is worth.
 
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...

No it didn't. Quit making stuff up.
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.

Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US. No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.

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...

They had Iraqi diplomatic passports? That's a new one to me. Reliable source please.
 
Last edited:
I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.

But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships? A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.
 
I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship. Not worth it.

I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked. Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.

PS. Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly. They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!

And not one congrats from the GOP?

ROFLMNAO... yet another illustration of the abyss of ignroance on which Leftism rests...

So ya figure that the Pirates are just walking up the old ladder hangin' over the side of these slow moving ships, do ya?

therefore the solution is EASY... just drag up the ladder! PERFECT!


Oh your widom knows no bounds and it's clear that you're experience at sea is VAST!

I hope you've zipped off an E-mail to tip those Captains of those freighters off...

"Stow the ladders and FULL SPEED AHEAD!"

ROFLMNAO...

Leftists...

PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived. Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:

American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.

Yep... that's it... we're good.
 
Iraq had attacked us MANY TIMES...



Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...

No it didn't. Quit making stuff up.
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.

Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US. No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.

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...

They had Iraqi diplomatic passports? That's a new one to me. Reliable source please.

Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...


October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.”

Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italy’s prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates... such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way...

Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem... your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.

Your argument FAILS
 
Last edited:
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.
We could make those shippers pay the US tribute. Collect 'protection' money from them, only board and collect from every ship, not just a few slow weakly defended ships, here and there. That might be a way to pay down our national debt.
 
I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship. Not worth it.

I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked. Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.

PS. Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly. They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!

And not one congrats from the GOP?

ROFLMNAO... yet another illustration of the abyss of ignroance on which Leftism rests...

So ya figure that the Pirates are just walking up the old ladder hangin' over the side of these slow moving ships, do ya?

therefore the solution is EASY... just drag up the ladder! PERFECT!


Oh your widom knows no bounds and it's clear that you're experience at sea is VAST!

I hope you've zipped off an E-mail to tip those Captains of those freighters off...

"Stow the ladders and FULL SPEED AHEAD!"

ROFLMNAO...

Leftists...

PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived. Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:

American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.

Yep... that's it... we're good.

Yes, Obama is good.

And you are such an argumentative prick. A woman on the radio said that commercial shippers can do more to protect themselves, like speed up and lift up their ladders. Why would you argue that? These pirates are coming out on some small crappy boats that aren't fast. And why don't you just lower the ladder for them stupid. Make it easier rather than harder. :cuckoo:

New Urgency In Washington About Piracy : NPR

Gortney says commercial shippers must do more to protect themselves against pirates, including arming their crews and sailing farther away from known pirate locations.
 
I heard that these pirates will think twice before trying to take another American ship. Not worth it.

I also heard these ships can do a lot to prevent being hyjacked. Don't have their ladders hanging when they are on the go, increase their speed, etc.

PS. Republicans were hoping this was going to end badly. They were hoping this incident would make Obama seem like Jimmy Carter, and Obama handled the incident PERFECTLY!!!

And not one congrats from the GOP?

PS... that incident ended PRECISELY how Conservatives wanted it to end... EXCEPT that the 4th Pirate survived. Other than that, tho'... we've pretty much got evertyhting we wanted out of it:

American crew that refused to accept being hijacked and dead Priates at the feet of the healthy crew and Captain.

Yep... that's it... we're good.

No, you wanted Obama to fail, and you know it.
 
I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.

But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships? A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.
Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.
 
Your argument fails... Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES...

No it didn't. Quit making stuff up.


Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US. No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.

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...

They had Iraqi diplomatic passports? That's a new one to me. Reliable source please.

Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...


October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.”

Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italy’s prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates... such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way...

Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem... your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.

Your argument FAILS

Sorry, No.

You claimed that hijackers had Iraqi passports. They did not. The hijackers were detained and tried in Ital.

Fail Number 1.

Abbas had the Iraqi diplomatic passport. Abbas was not on board when the ship was hijacked or when Klinghoffer was shot. He was released by the Italians for lack of evidence, and utlimately tried in abstentia.

Abbas was later given free reign to travel in and out of Israel because of his involvment in peace negotiations.

Fail number 2.

None of this proves that Iraq was had any involvement with this incident. There was no retaliation against Iraq by the Reagan administration (which had given it the means to acquire WMD) or any other organization that I'm aware of.

Fail Number 3.

And I don't even have to use big red letters.

Any other "proof" you want to try to support your claim that "Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES" or is that the best you could come up with?
 
Install passive repellant measures on the ships and wait. If the pirates up the ante with more lethal attacks, militarily take out the shore line from the air and proceed from there. This is not complicated. The service with air strike capability than can most easily reach the targets will be the main thrust of any formal military response.

The wholly unwarranted remarks about the Navy, etc. are just "thuds".
There is a whole lot of air power on the nearest US Navy vessels.
lhd4_2.jpg

The USS Boxer has about 2,000 Marines aboard, Vertical landing fighter aircraft, a large contingent of a couple differnt types of assault and recon helos, and the ability to launch a fast strike force with landing craft.
lcac_5.jpg

We really don't want to occupy or get into a ground camapign in Somalia.
 
No it didn't. Quit making stuff up.


Iraq was never implicated in any terrorist attack against the US. No Iraqis were on the 9-11 jet.



They had Iraqi diplomatic passports? That's a new one to me. Reliable source please.

Of course 'that's a new one to you...' as I said you're ignorance of the issue is not a viable defense...


October 14, 1985 UPI story: “Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground.”

Now that quote was from the soon there after dismissed Bettino Craxi, Italy’s prime minister, who refused the US access to Italian airspace and permission for US forces to land towards the apprehension of the Pirates... such was his explanation for RELEASING IRAQI DIMPLOMATIC PIRATES... and sending them on their way...

Now if UPI doesn't qualify as a reliable source, well that's your problem... your acceptance is not the determining threshold by which FACT is sustained.

Your argument FAILS

Sorry, No.

You claimed that hijackers had Iraqi passports. They did not. The hijackers were detained and tried in Ital.

Fail Number 1.

Abbas had the Iraqi diplomatic passport. Abbas was not on board when the ship was hijacked or when Klinghoffer was shot. He was released by the Italians for lack of evidence, and utlimately tried in abstentia.

Abbas was later given free reign to travel in and out of Israel because of his involvment in peace negotiations.

Fail number 2.

None of this proves that Iraq was had any involvement with this incident. There was no retaliation against Iraq by the Reagan administration (which had given it the means to acquire WMD) or any other organization that I'm aware of.

Fail Number 3.

And I don't even have to use big red letters.

Any other "proof" you want to try to support your claim that "Iraq had in FACT used terrorist proxies to attack the US MANY TIMES" or is that the best you could come up with?
I'm thinking Pubes is certifiably insane. He's belligerent as hell, redfaced yelling all the time, and is a chronic blatant liar.
I'd wager he never served in the armed forces, or if he did, he was expelled from boot camp. The military doesn't keep obvious nutcases.
 
We could make those shippers pay the US tribute. Collect 'protection' money from them, only board and collect from every ship, not just a few slow weakly defended ships, here and there. That might be a way to pay down our national debt.

Or they could be held responsible to pay for their own private security. I hear there are some highly qualified blackwater folks who will be looking for employment soon. And, they have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later, which is precisely what is needed here. They also have first rate equipment and training.
 
I certainly agree with stepped up naval patrols.

But I wonder why they don't just arm the ships? A couple 50 calibers on deck you'd think would provide the best deterrent to additional pirate attacks.
Some nations do not allow ships registered under their flag to carry arms. Many shipping companies do not have arms aboard their vesels for insurance reasons, and because many owners consider having arms aboard to be themselves a danger to the security of the crew. A lot of emotionally unstable kooks out there, on land and at sea...where there is no place to run from that crazy effer who has gone off his rocker and has a gun.
In pirate filled waters. they obviously require better protection. Professional protection.
Not just weapons, people who are properly trained.

It actually goes further than that. Some countries do not allow civilian ships to carry arms in their waters. If they inspect the ship and find arms, you are in a world of trouble. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is if a security group like Blackwater comes up with a "Security Plan" for shipping companies. They send a team with a couple of .50 cals and a portable hard mount to affix to the ship a couple of M240s to carry around and about a half dozen security personal to man them.

Once the ship is in International waters, the helo lands on deck with its equipment and men. They stay on the ship while it transits the danger area. Then the helo comes back picks up it stuff and drops them on the next ship going the other way.

Hey!!! I think I want a meeting with the Blackwater marketing ppl!....:cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top