Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/15/09 05:32 AM, ReiperX wrote: First off, the SEALS had orders to take the shot. They aren't going to take out three targets without clearance.

I did not mean to imply that the Seals took the shot without the proper clearance; my point was that there is no way to prove that the clearance was not given as "shoot when all three are visible," regardless of the effectiveness of the negotiations.

But for those saying that the SEALs were in the wrong, what do you suggest we have done?
- Pay a ransom (in case you have not noticed since ransoms have been paid piracy has gone up).
- Negotiate their freedom for the freedom of the captain? Then you are putting another terrorist into the pot (while I hate the overuse of the word Terrorist, this is what these people are).
- Make the stand off last even longer? This does nothing but put the captive's life in even more danger.
- Board the life boat? 3 armed men, 1 hostage on a life boat, it's hard to get there by stealth.
- Let the pirates go with the captain?

I am not saying that the Seals should have given in to the pirates' demands. I am not condoning the Somalian use of piracy. I am saying that if other nations would have refrained from invading Somalian sovereignty and dumping toxic waste and overfishing in Somalian territory the piracy by Somalians my never have taken place. Also, I am saying that instituting some form of government (not necessarily the "incorruptible" government for which I was accused of implying) might solve the problem now.

I know that this will probably only help prove your point, but I feel that this is important to understand at any rate. The life boat was an enclosed vessel--in that, it had a top on it in able to survive through thousand-foot swells--so there was no chance to board the vessel without jeopardizing the captain, if the pirates would have actually killed the captain.

At 4/15/09 02:09 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/15/09 05:32 AM, ReiperX wrote: First off, the SEALS had orders to take the shot. They aren't going to take out three targets without clearance.

I did not mean to imply that the Seals took the shot without the proper clearance; my point was that there is no way to prove that the clearance was not given as "shoot when all three are visible," regardless of the effectiveness of the negotiations.

Why do they have to prove that clearance was given? Believe it or not, military officers are people, and they do have a conscience. Most don't go around wanting to blow someone's head off. This was a hostage situation. I would bet my GI Bill that the pirates would still be alive today if they had laid down their guns and gave up. Look at the fourth one that jumped ship, he's alive, he got medical attention.

I am not saying that the Seals should have given in to the pirates' demands. I am not condoning the Somalian use of piracy. I am saying that if other nations would have refrained from invading Somalian sovereignty and dumping toxic waste and overfishing in Somalian territory the piracy by Somalians my never have taken place. Also, I am saying that instituting some form of government (not necessarily the "incorruptible" government for which I was accused of implying) might solve the problem now.

So what was your solution for this instance?

I know that this will probably only help prove your point, but I feel that this is important to understand at any rate. The life boat was an enclosed vessel--in that, it had a top on it in able to survive through thousand-foot swells--so there was no chance to board the vessel without jeopardizing the captain, if the pirates would have actually killed the captain.

A hostage situation puts the hostage's life in danger. Especially on a small boat with a gun pointed at the hostage. This right there means that the hostage takers are legitimate targets. Lets say you rob a bank police show up, and you take hostages. Do you actually expect to negotiate your way out of the situation? Do you expect a sniper to not take a shot if they get one before you give up?

At 4/15/09 02:25 PM, ReiperX wrote: A hostage situation puts the hostage's life in danger. Especially on a small boat with a gun pointed at the hostage. This right there means that the hostage takers are legitimate targets. Lets say you rob a bank police show up, and you take hostages. Do you actually expect to negotiate your way out of the situation? Do you expect a sniper to not take a shot if they get one before you give up?

The fact that the only way to see the captive captain and the three pirates was through portholes in the side of this enclosed lifeboat casts doubt on any statements that guns were pointed at the captain. The Seals could not even see the three pirates in the lifeboat until the Seals actually shot them, so how could they see the captain who was held captive.

At 4/15/09 02:30 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/15/09 02:25 PM, ReiperX wrote: A hostage situation puts the hostage's life in danger. Especially on a small boat with a gun pointed at the hostage. This right there means that the hostage takers are legitimate targets. Lets say you rob a bank police show up, and you take hostages. Do you actually expect to negotiate your way out of the situation? Do you expect a sniper to not take a shot if they get one before you give up?

The fact that the only way to see the captive captain and the three pirates was through portholes in the side of this enclosed lifeboat casts doubt on any statements that guns were pointed at the captain. The Seals could not even see the three pirates in the lifeboat until the Seals actually shot them, so how could they see the captain who was held captive.

We still don't know all of the details, so they may have known. But it still doesn't matter. They were armed, he was a hostage. They forfeit their life. I honestly don't care if they were all sitting around having a drink with the captain or if they had the gun to the back of the captain's head. His life was in danger, he was being held hostage, and unless I read incorrectly they had already shot at him earlier when he tried to escape. The military was right not to risk the captains life by assuming the captain would not be harmed.

At 4/15/09 02:30 PM, Shintogoru wrote: The Seals could not even see the three pirates in the lifeboat until the Seals actually shot them, so how could they see the captain who was held captive.

;;;
Maybe something like infared scopes...theres even better technology than that out there...

wanna bet the US wouldn't have the latest & best shit out there ?

At 4/15/09 06:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/15/09 02:30 PM, Shintogoru wrote: The Seals could not even see the three pirates in the lifeboat until the Seals actually shot them, so how could they see the captain who was held captive.

;;;
Maybe something like infared scopes...theres even better technology than that out there...

wanna bet the US wouldn't have the latest & best shit out there ?

I suppose you have a point but would the gun show up since its temperature would approximate that of the inside of the ship. Obviously, it might be a little warmer since the pirate is holding it but probably not that much warmer.

i think people are looking at this the wrong way....

In no way am I against the Navy SEALs firing on those pirates, IMO, i wish they got that on tape.... 3 shots, 3 kills, in roughs seas, at night. Thats extremely impressive.... when i first heard that I was like "only the U.S. military".

Where people fail to see the problem is long term. Once again, I believe the SEALs did the right thing... i mean there was no point of negotiating further, since the Somalian pirates don't rly have any bargaining chips other than the captain's life, and that shouldn't be put at risk longer than it had too. The problem is that, do you really expect the military to take care of every single incident of piracy of the coast of Somalia? With all the other problems on the U.S.'s hands, upholding law in foreign waters cannot be on the top of the list. What were saying is that we should aim to help Somalia help itself, rather than continue the trend of the "world's policemen" which if you are knowledgeable on the last 40 years of our foreign policy.. does not work too well.

Too all the people who add their "knowledgeable" and "concise" opinions, such as "Piracy is illegal, so we should kill them all!!!" etc. Take a moment before you post, and think, are you really benefiting the conversation? I mean, thanks alot, piracy is illegal.... i had no idea..... "They should have been killed/brought to Justice"....no one is disagreeing with you....

the whole point is to figure out a lasting solution to the problem.

At 4/15/09 10:18 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/15/09 06:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/15/09 02:30 PM, Shintogoru wrote: The Seals could not even see the three pirates in the lifeboat until the Seals actually shot them, so how could they see the captain who was held captive.

;;;
Maybe something like infared scopes...theres even better technology than that out there...

wanna bet the US wouldn't have the latest & best shit out there ?

I suppose you have a point but would the gun show up since its temperature would approximate that of the inside of the ship. Obviously, it might be a little warmer since the pirate is holding it but probably not that much warmer.

You could logically conclude that due to the position of arms and such, that it is likely that someone is holding a firearm. This is especially true if you know that they are in fact armed in the first place.

And I'm not saying kill all pirates. But if they are in the process of threatening another person (I don't care if they are American or not) then they are fair game. I also don't expect it to be long before many of the ships begin to arm themselves if they havn't already started

"U.S. president Barack Obama said the American government is committed to combating the rise in piracy, and the U.S. military is considering options for escalating its response.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted the difficulty of the job, saying Monday that economic improvements within Somalia will ultimately be needed to stop the attacks."

I'm going to take Gates side on this one, killing more Somalians isn't going to to stop piracy.

Reading about those 2 Egyptian fishing boats that were hijacked in Somalian waters, everyone talks about the piracy, but not the illegal fishing.

At 4/16/09 08:37 AM, bcdemon wrote: "U.S. president Barack Obama said the American government is committed to combating the rise in piracy, and the U.S. military is considering options for escalating its response.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted the difficulty of the job, saying Monday that economic improvements within Somalia will ultimately be needed to stop the attacks."

I'm going to take Gates side on this one, killing more Somalians isn't going to to stop piracy.

Reading about those 2 Egyptian fishing boats that were hijacked in Somalian waters, everyone talks about the piracy, but not the illegal fishing.

Because no one cares about illegal fishing. Whether it's even a reason or not for the piracy the piracy isn't justified.

I agree that an actual government for Somallia will help out, but you have to battle the pirates as well. With the current ransoms that have been paid, the pirates won't care what the government has to say it's risk vs reward. Now if you add government + a very good risk of being killed then it should drastically deter piracy.

What do people think of issuing a letter of marque to combat piracy?

At 4/16/09 05:03 PM, JoS wrote: What do people think of issuing a letter of marque to combat piracy?

Can you further clarify what exactly issuing a letter of marque is por favor?

At 4/17/09 05:18 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/16/09 05:03 PM, JoS wrote: What do people think of issuing a letter of marque to combat piracy?

Can you further clarify what exactly issuing a letter of marque is por favor?

It is when America hires private individuals to fight against pirates. I think that America does have this right, since the Second Amendment grants people the right to establish private militias.

At 4/16/09 02:41 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/16/09 08:37 AM, bcdemon wrote: "U.S. president Barack Obama said the American government is committed to combating the rise in piracy, and the U.S. military is considering options for escalating its response.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted the difficulty of the job, saying Monday that economic improvements within Somalia will ultimately be needed to stop the attacks."

I'm going to take Gates side on this one, killing more Somalians isn't going to to stop piracy.

Reading about those 2 Egyptian fishing boats that were hijacked in Somalian waters, everyone talks about the piracy, but not the illegal fishing.

Because no one cares about illegal fishing. Whether it's even a reason or not for the piracy the piracy isn't justified.

And that is exactly the problem here. Everyone looks beyond what made the Somali fishermen resort to piracy, and just focuses on the piracy. I think (depending on the circumstances) that the piracy is justified. Those circumstances being that the pirates stick to fishing boats, attacking a Maersk ship is unjustified. But attacking the people that are responsible for the demise of your livelihood? No problem. Especially considering they have no government to turn to, and if they did, who (internationally) would listen to that government, nobody.
Sometimes you have to stick up for yourself, and there are no rules in a street fight.

I agree that an actual government for Somallia will help out, but you have to battle the pirates as well. With the current ransoms that have been paid, the pirates won't care what the government has to say it's risk vs reward. Now if you add government + a very good risk of being killed then it should drastically deter piracy.

Or how about a good government, and a return to a way of life that has supported the coastal communities forever. Then you only have to worry about a handful of radicals.

JoS, are you saying Blackwater should get the job?

At 4/17/09 08:56 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/17/09 05:18 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/16/09 05:03 PM, JoS wrote: What do people think of issuing a letter of marque to combat piracy?

Can you further clarify what exactly issuing a letter of marque is por favor?

It is when America hires private individuals to fight against pirates. I think that America does have this right, since the Second Amendment grants people the right to establish private militias.

I've read an article before that Blackwater has been hired to escort some ships in the area. I'm not a big fan of Blackwater's history, especially in Iraq, but this I don't see as being a bad thing.

At 4/17/09 09:17 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 4/16/09 02:41 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/16/09 08:37 AM, bcdemon wrote: "U.S. president Barack Obama said the American government is committed to combating the rise in piracy, and the U.S. military is considering options for escalating its response.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted the difficulty of the job, saying Monday that economic improvements within Somalia will ultimately be needed to stop the attacks."

I'm going to take Gates side on this one, killing more Somalians isn't going to to stop piracy.

Reading about those 2 Egyptian fishing boats that were hijacked in Somalian waters, everyone talks about the piracy, but not the illegal fishing.

Because no one cares about illegal fishing. Whether it's even a reason or not for the piracy the piracy isn't justified.

And that is exactly the problem here. Everyone looks beyond what made the Somali fishermen resort to piracy, and just focuses on the piracy. I think (depending on the circumstances) that the piracy is justified. Those circumstances being that the pirates stick to fishing boats, attacking a Maersk ship is unjustified. But attacking the people that are responsible for the demise of your livelihood? No problem. Especially considering they have no government to turn to, and if they did, who (internationally) would listen to that government, nobody.
Sometimes you have to stick up for yourself, and there are no rules in a street fight.

If they had stuck to fishing boats on their coast I don't think it would have ever been a big deal in the media's eye. But, since they started attacking ships sending Aid to not only their country but other countries, as well as many other types of ships, then they no longer have any justification. They are now doing it for money and not to keep fishers out of their waters.

I agree that an actual government for Somallia will help out, but you have to battle the pirates as well. With the current ransoms that have been paid, the pirates won't care what the government has to say it's risk vs reward. Now if you add government + a very good risk of being killed then it should drastically deter piracy.

Or how about a good government, and a return to a way of life that has supported the coastal communities forever. Then you only have to worry about a handful of radicals.

Putting in the government is going to be something that will take a while and be very risky. I'd love to see it happen, it would help out a lot over there. But currently don't look for the US to try to do this because we have our hands full currently.

JoS, are you saying Blackwater should get the job?

At 4/17/09 08:56 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/17/09 05:18 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/16/09 05:03 PM, JoS wrote: What do people think of issuing a letter of marque to combat piracy?

Can you further clarify what exactly issuing a letter of marque is por favor?

It is when America hires private individuals to fight against pirates. I think that America does have this right, since the Second Amendment grants people the right to establish private militias.

Thats not quite accurate. The government does not hire them. Instead they give them authorization to attack pirate ships without fear of being labeled as pirates or prosecution. Traditionally they were allowed to keep the treasures on the pirates ship, but since pirates these days don't have chests full of gold another system of reward would be needed. Perhaps a bounty for each pirate ship captured or attack intercepted? Just kind of throwing ideas of the top of my head, haven't realyl thought too much about it.

Its not a Second Amendment issue. The Deceleration of Paris outlawed letters of marque, although the US is not a signatory of it, and well piracy is not what it use to be (letters were outlawed because of the difficulty distinguishing pirates from privateers).

As far as Blackwater getting the job, there is no job. A letter of marque is not hiring someone to do something, it is immunity from prosecution or attack for attacking pirates. If Blackwater or the Sea Scouts want to go out and take on the pirates on their own initiative then I am fine with it.

Also, Blackwater no longer exists. It is now called Xe and has a new president.

At 4/17/09 06:26 PM, JoS wrote: Its not a Second Amendment issue. The Deceleration of Paris outlawed letters of marque, although the US is not a signatory of it, and well piracy is not what it use to be (letters were outlawed because of the difficulty distinguishing pirates from privateers).

As far as Blackwater getting the job, there is no job. A letter of marque is not hiring someone to do something, it is immunity from prosecution or attack for attacking pirates. If Blackwater or the Sea Scouts want to go out and take on the pirates on their own initiative then I am fine with it.

Ohh...well, that makes much more sense. Ron Paul discussed it as if it was a means by which the U.S. could hire people to combat piracy. Thanks for the clarification.

At 4/17/09 06:47 PM, JoS wrote: Also, Blackwater no longer exists. It is now called Xe and has a new president.

Serious? I didn't know that.

At 4/18/09 06:44 PM, Sabado-Karate wrote: I am happy that the Somalia pirates keep hijacking ships. Its time to teach a lesson to oil companies and rich nations.

Yeah, especially since a lot of the ships have been carrying food to poor countries that are in need of it.

Damn those rich people being generous enough to help out the needy.

While I think that the majority of the Somalian pirates of this time are now only in it for the money, I still do not believe that this precludes the existence of many whose piracy is limited to attempts to protect the Somalian border from the dumping of toxic waste and overfishing. If Somalia possessed a government powerful enough to enforce its sovereignty, that government would have the right to forcefully remove such intruders; yet, the world nations seem to feel that the individuals themselves, which such a government would represent, do not have this same right.

At 4/19/09 12:09 AM, ae2009 wrote: Somalian pirates have got something that NATO nations lack: Balls.

For that reason alone, I admire Somalian pirates.

Well in the past week or so they have had their ass handed to them by the French, the Americans, and the Dutch military.

At 4/19/09 12:20 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 4/19/09 12:09 AM, ae2009 wrote: Somalian pirates have got something that NATO nations lack: Balls.

For that reason alone, I admire Somalian pirates.

Well in the past week or so they have had their ass handed to them by the French, the Americans, and the Dutch military.

Unless either of those three states employ some of the least effective tactics militarily possible there is almost no way for individual pirates to stand a chance against entire nations. Of course, pirates may hold these states off for a while but inevitably these pirates will succumb to the might of these nations.