The Barbary Pirates

Well, Marocca had the totally awesome position of beeing the only barbary state beeing able to attack Atlantic shipping wihtout having to get by Gibraltar, this alone made them more "powerfull" than Tripolis.
On a similiar vein, Algiers actually had manpower.

Also, Barbary pirate raid continued until the French intervention.

Last but not least, look at the history of the Barbary pirates.
They were not stopped by the Spanish, who temporally conquered Algiers, initiated Blockades and shelled their capitals.
They were not stopped by the Portugese or English who blockaded them at Gibraltar, and shelled their capitals a bit more.
And you argue that the United States, who actually payed them a ransom to return to the Status Quo Ante Bellum, somehow was what stopped them? From your article, the most daring thing the US did in the first war was blowing their own ship up. Another Bey than used the fact that the Bey in question was a bit distracted to stage a coup (particpants in the coup, 500 Berbers, 8 Marines), ending the first war.

On the other hand, the French invaded their lands, killed a third of the population and moved in French settlers in significant numbers.
If I would be a Pirate Bay, I know which of the 2 things would stop me from pirating :D

Concerning Barbary pirates primarly attacking and enslaving non Moslems:
Well, there was not anyone else they could raid in a profitable way. Going after Ottoman Shipping was obviously not an great option, the earlier Mamelucks were the same. They did some raids on the only non Barbary moslem faction that was around, Mali.

However, the Gold routes going from Mali went overland, and Marocco was profiting from the "peacefull" gold trade too, meaning they did not have a huge incentive to destabilise Mali.
Due to their geographic situation, the 3 other Berber states were far less able to raid Mali, when Mali later collapsed there was not a lot to pillage from them anyway.

Profitable non Moslem targets would have been in India and the far east, getting their was by far to difficult to be worth the effort.
The United States did not 'pay them off' after it sent naval forces to break them.

Morroco has no Med seaports, in fact it's atlantic ports are not defensible, the main one being Agadir. They were never 'more powerful' then anyone at sea, certainly not Tripoli. It's clear to me you don't understand the sea route around africa, in order to catch the correct wind and avoid the perpetual storm zone near the equitorial coast of Africa sailing ships moved far out to the ocean, considerably west of teh Canaries. Muslim pirates used for the most part Xebecs and Galleys, which are unsuited to heavy seas.

'Manpower' is pointless when discussing sea power.

The US did NOT pay for 'status quo' anything, that was the entire point of the story, which you are not registering, they had tried to pay, released they could not and choose the correst option, military operations.
 
And the rest of the story?

America continued to pay ransom for people who were taken hostage.

Yeah, that's right, it wasn't like there was only ONE group of Pirates.

But what that did for AMERICAN prestige was still pretty damned impressive.
Actually, that is wrong.

Because of teh costs of the 1805 operation, jefferson was forced to withdraw it because a skittish Congress didn't want to pay for it.

They got the prisoners back and paid 60,000 in cash, as a final settlement, the US claiming it was because it had fewer prisoners to exchange.

The pirates did not attack US ships again until 1815, when they began again.

Decatur and friends were sent back, but this time they forced the rulers of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli to cough up large indemnities for the damage they had done.

The US never again 'paid' as you state, the mood of the country from 1805 would never have permitted it.
 
these individuals IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY THEIR ISLAM RELIGION!
They do?

I hope that answers your question...
Inane diatribes about how piracy is supposedly encouraged by Islam? No, dude, not really. You're making characteristically baseless attacks against a religion whose tenets you seem to be unfamiliar with. I wonder, can you substantiate your claims with examples from the Qur'an?

And please feel free to treat us to more of your well worn position wherein Islam is a peaceful religion, despite it's LONG AND NOTORIOUS HISTORY AS THE PURE ANTITHESIS OF ANYTHING RESEMBLING such.
A self-professed Muslim who doesn't follow the teachings of the Qur'an isn't a Muslim. You mistakenly attribute the actions of criminals to their religious beliefs without realizing that correlation does not imply causation.

Shall We treat those who believe and do good like the mischief-makers in the earth? Or shall We make the dutiful like the wicked? - 38:28​
 

Forum List

Back
Top