LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI'll bet it will be cheaper than paying ransoms in the millions of dollars.Originally Posted by liteweight
Large-scale military action against pirate vessels and their bases of operations
Smaller-scale measures such as increased patrols and deterrence
Cargo and merchant ships should take it upon themselves to provide their own security
Other (specify)
Indeed. Most of these people can clean an AK but can't read. Their country is only a country de jure.*Obvioulsy he has never seen the outside of Somalia.
I'll bet it will be cheaper than paying ransoms in the millions of dollars.
J. J. Ogershok, Jr.
Next time I will add emoticon.
It was to further your point.
Of course they are not terrorists,
terrorism=political purpose,
crooks, banditry=greed.
Get a grip people.
Last edited by Oscar; 15 Apr 09, at 22:11.
No problem. It's just that people exist who actually are saying what you did with a serious face.
Some easy and good suggestions have been made on this thread: ruthlessly kill all pirates caught in the act, drop their bodies on villages from helicopters.
It will stop in a week.
It's not as easy as that.
There have been suggestions at times for yachtsmen to carry guns on their sailboats for protection against pirates. But one of the big problems about that is the world isn't as free with small arms as the US is. It may not be uncommon to sail into a foreign port and have the local authorities seize the weapons (or worse) because they don't allow guns in the hands of private citizens.
Despite what we may want to think, the US is not around the world.
_____________________________________________
("And the reason why the sun never sets on the British Empire is because God doesn't trust the English in the dark!"--Prof. Auturo, (wtte), "Sliders")
How about this?
J. J. Ogershok, Jr.
)
The insurance companies are the problem. They aren't too happy with their clients engaging in firefights.
Could be viewed that way since there are more then just one group and they use the money to support further operations against the International public. Plus the damage they could do enviromentally with say a supertanker if they crashed it into another ship or land and polluted the waters. I have yet to hear of their beliefs wether be muslim, english or any other. That hasnt come to light yet. In the old days (Barbary Wars and others) they put ships to sea with the soul function of chasing them down and fighting until sunk or they sank whichever came first. And you dont want to know how they were punished because it was far worse then any punishment outside of few that some countries have today baring none.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
A textbook example.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Hmm. Does not sound like terrorists to me. Highwaymen do also have more than one group. In fact, they have many.
The point on giving money to their militant nephew is good, but I see it like an opportunity phenomenon and not a goal.
Right now they only rob ships.
Were privateers and similar pirates-by-permission also terrorists?
Not when sanctioned by a legitmate government or Monarchy. It would have been considered somewhat of a military/naval action I would
suppose with legal documents to present to the RN or any other major navy of the era.
Last edited by Dreadnought; 15 Apr 09, at 22:54.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Legitimity is very arbitrary.
If you want to see law as the will of the man with the longest stick, agreed.
But if you want to see it as a moral system, a large portion of the world will disagree with the legitimity of the US government and call the Somali tribal "law" just.
Will it?
One must remember that the US is already facing potential war crime charges based on what happened during the Bush administration. Personally, I put that down to a situation that the administration failed to say what was and was not right (or worse, the opposite). Already, we have seen that the low troops were left holding the bag.
And this seems to me to be exactly the same thing.
Would you stand up, most probably be facing dismissal from the service, and say, "No, this is wrong (it is against the rules of war) and I will not have my troops used this way!"?
I would.
Abandon the rules of war or the Constitution because we think that the situation justifies it, that we are justified to do so, because we can?
To me, that makes us no better than the Nazis.....and we know what happened to them when they were called to answer for it.
__________________________________
("Commander, I've made a career out of knowing when to leave. And this provisional government is far too provisional for my taste and when governments fall, people like me are lined up and shot.."--Quark, (wtte), DS 9 "Emissary")
If the pirates know that ships flying the flag of country "A" pay ransoms and the ship of country "B" do not pay but fight back, who do you think the pirate will continue to rob? Predators like the chetah do not pick "hard targets."
J. J. Ogershok, Jr.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: