Somali Pirates Are So Dumb. LOL & Double LOL

[Dino Velvet]

When you see our flag run away and try another ship. You 3 were dead the moment you boarded the ship. Say hi to Satan for me losers! God Bless America and the US Navy Seals.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514775,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

[SarahG]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

They're holding the flag backwards... when positioning the flag where it isn't to be moving by the wind, the blue square is to always be on the left.

The question now is how long the pirates will wait before killing the 200 other hostages they have right now...

[hwbs]

bout time someone handled those fools out there ....

[Silcc69]

And all it took was somebody to fuck with the USA.

[Falrune]

The French and Chinese have also responded forcefully

[Jericho]

The French and Chinese have also responded forcefully



Yeah, the French sent a stongly worded letter! :lol:

[trish]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

[NYBURBS]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

That area has had piracy problems for centuries. It's better to respond forcefully rather than have endless hijackings. Not that I think this one show of force will stop it, but it's better than paying ransom. It would probably be best to allow these merchant vessels to carry certain small arms and perhaps some .50 cal machine guns which would make them a far less attractive target.

[chelseafc]

Y'all playing, the next American Ship to be captured will be in deep shit, vengeful muthafuckas can do alot of crazy things, They'll make an example out of them

[trish]

The Somali pirates have been hijacking ships and collecting ransoms for a decade without a single loss of life. Then the U.S. enters the scene and three days later three people are dead. Typical.


It's better to respond forcefully…
Better for whom?

Here’s an amusing solution. Somalia should probably just charge everyone a toll for the use of those waters and hire the pirates to collect. Then they wouldn’t be pirates anymore, just toll collectors. It would save a lot a time, because hijacking wouldn’t be necessary, provided everyone obeys the law and pays the toll.

[Dino Velvet]

Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

I was thinking the same thing. That would have been awesome. These pirates cheapen their lives through their own actions.

Seriously, paying them just rewards criminal behavior and encourages them and others to continue and terrorize more ships. What right do they have to one cent? If someone broke into your house, would you grab the 12 gauge or hand over your TV? We, as Americans, might be bloodthirsty but that should be more of a warning to others instead of something some might be ashamed of.

[trish]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

[Dino Velvet]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

I guess you're more civilized than I am. My 10 year old Sony Trinitron that cost me $250 brand new is worth more to me than the life of some shaky crackhead climbing through my window. Sorry I don't feel ashamed. I respect your passive nature. If everyone were like you no one would get hurt. Unfortunately, the world is not like that.

[NYBURBS]

The Somali pirates have been hijacking ships and collecting ransoms for a decade without a single loss of life. Then the U.S. enters the scene and three days later three people are dead. Typical.


It's better to respond forcefully…
Better for whom?

Here’s an amusing solution. Somalia should probably just charge everyone a toll for the use of those waters and hire the pirates to collect. Then they wouldn’t be pirates anymore, just toll collectors. It would save a lot a time, because hijacking wouldn’t be necessary, provided everyone obeys the law and pays the toll.

Yea that might be a cute idea except that as far as I know this hijacking took place in international waters. If people starting sailing a couple hundred nautical miles off the tip of Long Island and demanding a million dollars to release hijacked vessels would your response be that they should just be payed?

If your going to play GI Joe (like these pirates are doing) then you should be prepared for the possible consequences. They're dead now and no one outside of their family is going to miss them.

PS- This has been a problem for centuries (not decades). Granted the Barbary incidents took place along the northwest coast but still the same premise. This bullshit forced us to send a naval fleet and Marines:
http://looklex.com/e.o/barbary_pirates.htm

[BrendaQG]

There has only been piracy there when there was a weak, or no government..

For exmaple in 2006 a native force overwhelemed the warlords, as well as the puppet UN back regime, and created a government ruled by judges. They were not perfect, but they did put an end to warlordism, and piracy for the year and 1/2 that they were in control.

Then the US and Ethiopia invaded, just to be sure that they would not become a terrorist haven. Which lead ironically to somalia becoming a terroist haven. If we had just let the somalians' sort this out then this would no be happening.

[trish]

They're dead now and no one outside of their family is going to miss them.

That's right. No one of consequence. It's the profits that are important.

[trish]

Hey Dino, I presume you haven't whacked any yet for stealing your TV. And I haven't not whacked anyone yet for trying to steal my Celestron. So fortunately neither of us yet have anything to be ashamed of or proud of.

[NYBURBS]

They're dead now and no one outside of their family is going to miss them.

That's right. No one of consequence. It's the profits that are important.

Look I'm all for not invading countries in some effort to enforce distorted economic policies. That being said, our flagged vessels and citizens have the right to safe passage through international waters. If someone wants to try to impinge upon that right then I have no quarrels with killing them.

[Dino Velvet]

Hey Dino, I presume you haven't whacked any yet for stealing your TV. And I haven't not whacked anyone yet for trying to steal my Celestron. So fortunately neither of us yet have anything to be ashamed of or proud of.

That's true but we have different opinions on the value of the lives of criminals. The TV thing was just an example. As far as the pirates, their deaths put a smile on my face on Easter Sunday. The only person who had any worth was the one who was victimized, the captain. The others were garbage.

[trish]

Hey, I'm convinced already.

We saved some money, kicked some ass and killed three people. Fuck yeah. Three cheers for America.

[BrendaQG]

Invade? Just who and where should we invade? Mogadishu is not where the pirates are basses, They are based in Somali land and puntland in the north. The transitional Federal government who we would invade to support controls those area's, The "hardline Islamic" arent even a factor in the piracy, they are way south of where this happens.

So those who wish to invade just who do you wish to invade? The Islamist just because they are islaamist? Or the transitional federal government, which we put there but has no real authority? Just who should we invade?

[NYBURBS]

Invade? Just who and where should we invade? Mogadishu is not where the pirates are bassed, They are based in somali land and puntland in the north. The transitional Federal government who we would invade to support controls those areas's, The "hardline islamist" arent even a factor in the piracy, they are way south of where this happens.

So those who wish to invade just who do you wish to invade? The islamist just because they are islaamist? Or the transitional federal government, which we put there but has no real authority? Just who should we invade?

Who the fuck said anything about invading? lol. Besides if anything I could see destroying some ports that they operate out of, but I have no interest in seeing us occupy any part of that country.

[phobun]

They're dead now and no one outside of their family is going to miss them.

That's right. No one of consequence. It's the profits that are important.

Some people are always ready to defend the profits of people who point guns at innocents and demand millions of dollars in ransom money.

[phobun]

our flagged vessels and citizens have the right to safe passage through international waters. If someone wants to try to impinge upon that right then I have no quarrels with killing them.

Well put.

[trish]

phobun, you seem to have a knack for misreading. I'll chalk that up to a lack of reading comprehension skills. The passage you quoted was clearly in defense of life, not profit.

But hey, I already conceded. We fucked 'em over real good. We killed three people and made their families miserable. HOORAY for US.

[BrendaQG]

Invade? Just who and where should we invade? Mogadishu is not where the pirates are bassed, They are based in somali land and puntland in the north. The transitional Federal government who we would invade to support controls those areas's, The "hardline islamist" arent even a factor in the piracy, they are way south of where this happens.

So those who wish to invade just who do you wish to invade? The islamist just because they are islaamist? Or the transitional federal government, which we put there but has no real authority? Just who should we invade?

Who the fuck said anything about invading? lol. Besides if anything I could see destroying some ports that they operate out of, but I have no interest in seeing us occupy any part of that country.

Your the the only Fucker in the thread. I am sure that when many of you talk about stopping pirates that has to be what you have in mind.

The only way to stop piracy is to hit them where they live. You remember the marine corp hymm "...to the shores of Tripoli..." that was from the Barbary wars. Where north African corsairs were doing the same thing these guys are now. We invaded and stopped that piracy forever.

How do we hit these pirates where they live when where they live is already a hell hole? A hell hole with no real government (unlike Tripoli and the other Barbary states). How do we have a war when there is no one to negotiate with.

The hard fact is that to really stop this piracy the first thing Somalia needs is a effective government, that can control it's ports.

Say we bomb their ports. So what? The pirates go out in small boats that can launch from any boat ramp. Their "mother ships" aren't exactly aircraft carriers. Any and every fishing village in Somalia would need to be bombed out of existence. Then what? Do you really think that would not have consequences? Not only that it would not stop the piracy because all the port structure they need for their fast little boats is a simple wooden dock.

That is part of the problem, the utter impoverished simplicity of their operation makes them hard to stop.

[happychris]

the blue square is on the left, from their point of view




http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

They're holding the flag backwards... when positioning the flag where it isn't to be moving by the wind, the blue square is to always be on the left.

The question now is how long the pirates will wait before killing the 200 other hostages they have right now...

[NYBURBS]

1) I know where the line in the Hymn comes from since I served in the Corps

2) The invasion back then did not stop it forever, it just tamed it for a while.

3) I don't foresee having to destroy every port to get the point across. It's just like the school yard bully, you need only punch him in the nose a few times to get him to understand your point of view.

People will victimize those that allow them too. Aside from that if their piracy begins to have consequences for others (fishermen and those that count on that market) then those people will be forced to pressure the pirates to back off also.

[BrendaQG]

we'll just agree to disagree.

I can agree some bombing will get the point across to one group. But then what about the group next door, or the next band of thugs that want's to form a petty govt. ? It's just not clear to whom we will be making the point. Who in Somalia has the authority to say no more, and actually be obeyed?

[fred41]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Killing a thief, who breaks into your house, is nothing to be ashamed of (maybe not something to celebrate..but nothing to be ashamed of either).

So then, just out of curiosity, at what point would you believe in violence? Passivism is wonderful..but it leaves a person (or a country) open to victimhood.

Yes, if the whole world were filled with passivists it would be utopia..until just one violent fucker comes to town and takes over the whole world 'cause no one is there to stop him.

I don't think Patrick Henry would roll over so easy.

[arnie666]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Sorry luv but if I caught someone trying to nick my brand new car , I would boot him all over the road and if he dies who gives a shit. You don't fuck with peoples property. You think he will pay for the damage? And I will have to claim on my insurance so my premium will go up. I doubt even if he was caught he would get locked up. So I would give him a bloody good hiding instead.

As for the Pirates. Good to see the US opening some whup ass. The Royal Navy killed two of the bastards last November. We should make them walk the plank in my view if we capture any alive.

[phobun]

phobun, you seem to have a knack for misreading. I'll chalk that up to a lack of reading comprehension skills. The passage you quoted was clearly in defense of life, not profit.

But hey, I already conceded. We fucked 'em over real good. We killed three people and made their families miserable. HOORAY for US.

You cry for the families of hostage takers who were killed. But you said nothing for the families of the men held at sea who can't go home, or for those who have died while held hostage.

The hostage takers point guns at innocents and demand millions of dollars in ransom money, yet you take their side exclusively.

You're pathetic.

[phobun]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Killing a thief, who breaks into your house, is nothing to be ashamed of (maybe not something to celebrate..but nothing to be ashamed of either).

So then, just out of curiosity, at what point would you believe in violence? Passivism is wonderful..but it leaves a person (or a country) open to victimhood.

Yes, if the whole world were filled with passivists it would be utopia..until just one violent fucker comes to town and takes over the whole world 'cause no one is there to stop him.

I don't think Patrick Henry would roll over so easy.

She is morally superior because she is willing to allow bullies to assault, kidnap, extort money from and kill innocent people.

Some people actually get off on submission.

[phobun]

we'll just agree to disagree.

I can agree some bombing will get the point across to one group. But then what about the group next door, or the next band of thugs that want's to form a petty govt. ? It's just not clear to whom we will be making the point. Who in Somalia has the authority to say no more, and actually be obeyed?

Defeatist.

[Silcc69]

Friday, the French navy freed a sailboat seized off Somalia last week by other pirates, butoneof the five hostages was killed.

Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, said that the killing of the three pirates was "a painful experience."
"This is unfortunate action and our friends should have done more to kill the captain before they were killed. This will be a good lesson for us," Habeb told the AP from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl.
Residents of Harardhere, another port and pirate stronghold, were gathering in the streets after news of the captain's release, saying they fear pirates may now retaliate against some of the 200 hostages they still hold.
"We fear more that any revenge taken by the pirates against foreign nationals could bring more attacks from the foreign navies, perhaps on our villages," Abdullahi Haji Jama, who owns a clothes store in Harardhere, told the AP by telephone.


Well it seems like they have already killed somebody and they may go about killing in there own village but they do deserve to live amirite?

http://news.aol.com/article/captain-freed-from-pirates/419066

[Clind]

The problem here my friends is not the official pirates like the Somalia pirates , but the unofficial pirates like USA imperialist goverment and Army.

So i agree with you that this pirates has to captured but what are we going to do with your imperialist and terrorist politic??

Thats the question.

[phobun]

The problem here my friends is not the official pirates like the Somalia pirates , but the unofficial pirates like USA imperialist goverment and Army.

So i agree with you that this pirates has to captured but what are we going to do with your imperialist and terrorist politic??

Thats the question.

Where is Chairman Mao when we need him?

[Clind]

i dont know, but i know where your army troops are, they are in Iraq,in Afganistan,in ....everywhere they dont have any right to be there,this is imperialism and you can call me Maoist, Anarchist, Marxist , or whatever you want, but yes i believe that the struggle of the people in every place are going to take their freedom not only from the Americans but also from the other Imperalists.

[fred41]

i dont know, but i know where your army troops are, they are in Iraq,in Afganistan,in ....everywhere they dont have any right to be there,this is imperialism and you can call me Maoist, Anarchist, Marxist , or whatever you want, but yes i believe that the struggle of the people in every place are going to take their freedom not only from the Americans but also from the other Imperalists.

You're kidding right..please tell me you're kidding.

Is it me, or does it seem like every time you have ANY type of political argument (it could even be about the pros and cons of cow milking in the mythical land of Peronia)..someone's gotta weave in the "USA Imperialist nation".

...horseshit.(very un-Eastwood I might ad.. :) )

[Clind]

lol ..no i m not kidding.

USA goverment is the biggest pirate of all. I made this comment because for me is funny to see all this suporters of the Imperialist American Army who is murdering, steeling people all over the world
to complain about this "stupid dumbass pirates".

[Dave32111]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

[Silcc69]

lol ..no i m not kidding.

USA goverment is the biggest pirate of all. I made this comment because for me is funny to see all this suporters of the Imperialist American Army who is murdering, steeling people all over the world
to complain about this "stupid dumbass pirates".

They are also the biggest pimps in the world and there really aint much we can do about them.

[Dave32111]

lol ..no i m not kidding.

USA goverment is the biggest pirate of all. I made this comment because for me is funny to see all this suporters of the Imperialist American Army who is murdering, steeling people all over the world
to complain about this "stupid dumbass pirates".

They are also the biggest pimps in the world and there really aint much we can do about them.
Oh, I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this. The US government is really behind the whoring out of Russian prostitutes, Asian slave trafficking, and whatever bogeymen you have out there in your anonymous country?

[hungbrandonfan]

a couple daisy cutters into some of the places festering with these Muslim terrorists errrr...Somali pirates...would go a long way to signal how "weak" we are. So what if some innocents get killed those people are a death loving culture anyways send them to 72 virgins on an express ticket

[trish]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Killing a thief, who breaks into your house, is nothing to be ashamed of (maybe not something to celebrate..but nothing to be ashamed of either).

So then, just out of curiosity, at what point would you believe in violence? Passivism is wonderful..but it leaves a person (or a country) open to victimhood.

Yes, if the whole world were filled with passivists it would be utopia..until just one violent fucker comes to town and takes over the whole world 'cause no one is there to stop him.

I don't think Patrick Henry would roll over so easy.

Patrick Henry wasn't defending his TV. Killing a thief who doesn't threaten your life is more than shameful, it's immoral. Would you give your own life for a TV? If it's not worth your life, then it's not worth anybody else's life either. Is your freedom, worth your life? If it's worth your own life, then it's defense is worth another's.

[trish]

You cry for the families of hostage takers who were killed. But you said nothing for the families of the men held at sea who can't go home, or for those who have died while held hostage.

Actually phobun, I'm not crying. You presume too much. By the way, no hostages have died in the last decade, up until this week.

Why do you suppose the shipping companies don't arm their ships? Why are they willing to pay ransoms. It's because the pirates do not present a significant risk nor even a formidable drain on the pocketbook. It's ironic that those who think everything should be done by private concerns now want the federal government to step in take care of things. But I'm willing to concede that keeping shipping lanes clear is the job of the world's navies.

Look, I'm just saying this is not a happy outcome. The Navy was negotiating with the pirates when the shooting went down. I think it's safe to say the even the Navy negotiators were hoping for a better outcome. Perhaps it's the only way things could've gone down. I don't know. At least no innocent lives have been lost, even though three lives were lost. But those lost lives have immeasurably complicated the scene, and endanger the lives of all future shipping traffic through the region, especially American lives.

[BrendaQG]

Look, I'm just saying this is not a happy outcome. The Navy was negotiating with the pirates when the shooting went down. I think it's safe to say the even the Navy negotiators were hoping for a better outcome. Perhaps it's the only way things could've gone down. I don't kno

w. At least no innocent lives have been lost, even though three lives were lost. But those lost lives have immeasurably complicated the scene, and endanger the lives of all future shipping traffic through the region, especially American lives.

I would add in the future why the heck should the pirates ever negotiate with us again? Why should they trust us to negotiate? Why should 1-200 of them get toegther and do a revenge attack on one of our destroyers (if they can find one isolated). Think Pirates cannot pull off something like that. Look at history.

Small fast boats have taken down huge ships before, not just the USS Cole..but navies of the world use torpedo boats, missile boats. Small fast boats armed with not just RPG's but say....Iranian made Katyusha missiles, or long range recoilless rifles (RPG's on steroids). Or going farther back poorer navies would take out huge fleets by setting ships on fire and sailing them into the enemy (I beleive the English did this to the spanish.)

I'll bet you $100 that in the next two years, if we do not see a real government arise in Somalia, that those pirates with actually sink a modern ship of war.

Anyone who thinks we could just waltz into a hostile port without taking some big hits is a fool. We would have to bomb them back...there already in the stone age.. to the ice age before we went in. Then as soon as we leave, the pirates will just come back.

Force is not the answer here. I am generally a war hawk, but this is not the place to apply force it does nothing to help our cause.

[jaybull]

The pirates have killed, and they are messing up the merchant ships bringing goods to us and other countries.
Pirates 'kill' hostage in Somalia
Somali pirates, who have been holding a Taiwanese fishing vessel since the middle of last month, have reportedly killed one member of the crew.hiiraan.com/news2_rss/2007/Jun/pirates_kill_hostage_in_somalia.aspx. The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya, at the time it was hijacked, for the Copenhagen-based container shipping group A.P. Moller-Maersk.
These punk ass pirates have done enough, they have already received millioms of dollars for ransoms, and there is no telling what might happen down the road, There are too many sq. miles to cover,and protect those water routes, even if other countries join in...BUT...They need to be stopped, and if killing them is necessary, so be it, those bastards have had a long enough leeway over the years, and will keep on if never punished, they are terrorists, plain and simple. We need to destroy there ports where they work out of, the gangs and radicals running Somalia could care less about the citizens there, they keep all that they steal.
So there has been loss of life at the hands of the pirates, and why should these low life scumbags be left to do what they want?[b]

[BrendaQG]

No one is saying they should be left to do what they want.

What I have been saying is that we need to foster the developement of a strong governmental force in somalia. The last time they had something like that (called the union of Islamic Courts google it) they were able to stop piracy by imposing the death penalty on anyone caught in the act.

Right now Somalia has no real strong government, a federal government which is in effective, an Islamist controlled area, which really only controls barren wasteland anyway, and the northern most part of somalia, acts like it's a independent country.

There needs to be an end to the chaos on the ground in Somalia, and we have to help them to end that chaos. Not with bullets, but withe sensible, and culturally sensitive advice on how to set up a real government

Right now if we wanted to get the pirates about 100 special forces advisors guiding Somali troops, could do the job. This talk of sending in our navy is madness sheer madness.

I would not mind so much if I did not hear politicians on the radio talking like posters on HA

[trish]

I would not mind so much if I did not hear politicians on the radio talking like posters on HA


You don't mean people talking like low life scumbags, do you? :)

[Silcc69]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Killing a thief, who breaks into your house, is nothing to be ashamed of (maybe not something to celebrate..but nothing to be ashamed of either).

So then, just out of curiosity, at what point would you believe in violence? Passivism is wonderful..but it leaves a person (or a country) open to victimhood.

Yes, if the whole world were filled with passivists it would be utopia..until just one violent fucker comes to town and takes over the whole world 'cause no one is there to stop him.

I don't think Patrick Henry would roll over so easy.

Patrick Henry wasn't defending his TV. Killing a thief who doesn't threaten your life is more than shameful, it's immoral. Would you give your own life for a TV? If it's not worth your life, then it's not worth anybody else's life either. Is your freedom, worth your life? If it's worth your own life, then it's defense is worth another's.

If somebody tried to rob me w/o trying to kill them then I don't think a thief should be killed. However if the thief is armed and willing to kill the homeowner then well you know what kill or be killed if needed.

[tommymageeshemales2]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

Nice observation. Subject line and first couple of posts seem a little uninformed though.

[Shonuff]

I don't disagree about the US's right to protect itself. But celebrating the killing of 3 human beings (pirates or no pirates) and jesting in their demise lacks any degree of humanitarianism. Taking a life is always an unfortunate act.

[fred41]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Killing a thief, who breaks into your house, is nothing to be ashamed of (maybe not something to celebrate..but nothing to be ashamed of either).

So then, just out of curiosity, at what point would you believe in violence? Passivism is wonderful..but it leaves a person (or a country) open to victimhood.

Yes, if the whole world were filled with passivists it would be utopia..until just one violent fucker comes to town and takes over the whole world 'cause no one is there to stop him.

I don't think Patrick Henry would roll over so easy.

Patrick Henry wasn't defending his TV. Killing a thief who doesn't threaten your life is more than shameful, it's immoral. Would you give your own life for a TV? If it's not worth your life, then it's not worth anybody else's life either. Is your freedom, worth your life? If it's worth your own life, then it's defense is worth another's.

If somebody tried to rob me w/o trying to kill them then I don't think a thief should be killed. However if the thief is armed and willing to kill the homeowner then well you know what kill or be killed if needed.

The real world does NOT work this way. Someone BREAKS into your home that is already a threat against you and your loved ones. No thief will say "Hey dude , I'm only gonna take this T.V. set and be going O.K.?"
...and you say " Cool , grab a sandwich on the way out." A criminal is always one move ahead of you cause they already know what they're willing, and going to do to you. Sometimes there's no time to guess.

Listen..if it's just you, then I say do whatever the fuck you or your conscience want. But if you have to protect family or loved ones than it is safer to err on the side of caution and kill the fucker...cause I don't know about you but my family and whoever I love comes first ..everyone else I can give a rats ass about.

Not protecting your home , family and property to me..is tantamount to giving up your freedom.

[trish]

Someone did break into our home once when I was a kid. He was swearing, threatening and demanding all sorts of things. He was also drunk and didn't know where he was. After some calm questioning my father figured out where the guy lived and drove him home. That was years ago.

Recently, about two years ago, in the county where I now reside, the newpaper reports "Drunk Shot Breaking & Entering." Turns out, a drunk breaks into some old fart's house. The old fart, who thinks just like you do, grabs and gun and shoots the poor disoriented bastard. The wounded drunk winds up in jail for breaking and entering and the old fart is a local hero.

I know who the real hero is.

[fred41]

Someone did break into our home once when I was a kid. He was swearing, threatening and demanding all sorts of things. He was also drunk and didn't know where he was. After some calm questioning my father figured out where the guy lived and drove him home. That was years ago.

Recently, about two years ago, in the county where I now reside, the newpaper reports "Drunk Shot Breaking & Entering." Turns out, a drunk breaks into some old fart's house. The old fart, who thinks just like you do, grabs and gun and shoots the poor disoriented bastard. The wounded drunk winds up in jail for breaking and entering and the old fart is a local hero.

I know who the real hero is.

That's not really the same thing..and I think you know that......

.....and in the old farts case (he's old right)..if he guessed wrong ..he's overpowered and dead.Better story I guess.

So let's see..two living drunks compared to how many defenseless people who were murdered or assaulted in their homes in any major city during the same time frame.

[fred41]

Hey Shonuff..put some pants on for Chrissakes... :D

[trish]

The point isn't that my story is an analogue of your scenario, just the opposite. You claim to know how the real world works.


The real world does NOT work this way.

Really. I find the world is guided by our responses to the problems it poses. Not everything has to end with a "fucker" (as you prefer to view any one you deem threatening) getting shot or killed. Perhaps your own responses to the world would be less cowardly if you stopped objectifying people; maybe even talk to them before you start waving guns in the air.

[Tepres]

When you see our flag run away and try another ship. You 3 were dead the moment you boarded the ship. Say hi to Satan for me losers! God Bless America and the US Navy Seals.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514775,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

Good job by the SEALs. It's too bad one of them survived though...

[timxxx]

I see dead people













Yeah the Americans have arrived

[Beagle]

i'm sorry, but if you hijack, kidnap and then hold a AK-47 muzzle in someone's back you forfeit your rights.

it simply amazes me how anyone can warp this story into one of US aggression.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

We don't pay ransoms because that encourages further kidnapping. The Pirates make 90% of their money off of the ransom. If we don't pay it, they have less of a reason to board our ships. These guys are businessmen.

[envivision]

May God bless America, and NOBODY ELSE !

[fred41]

The point isn't that my story is an analogue of your scenario, just the opposite. You claim to know how the real world works.


The real world does NOT work this way.

Really. I find the world is guided by our responses to the problems it poses. Not everything has to end with a "fucker" (as you prefer to view any one you deem threatening) getting shot or killed. Perhaps your own responses to the world would be less cowardly if you stopped objectifying people; maybe even talk to them before you start waving guns in the air.

Actually, I rarely if ever use a gun..but it is an appropriate tool to defend ones home. Also, I've never really been called a coward before..though I met quite a few in my life...some even hide behind the guise of pacifism.

[trish]

I never met any cowards. I seen some cowardly behavior and some courageous behavior. Sometimes exhibited by the same person. If you read my post carefully, I didn't call you a coward. But thanks for the compliment.

[hungbrandonfan]

I see dead people













Yeah the Americans have arrived


So said the French, the Poles, the Russians, the Serbs, etc..etc every time America has come in to save lives. Unfortunately you have to take lives in order to save some. Some people just will never get this through their thick skulls, but those people usually are the ones sniveling and cowering under the bed sheets as the next totalitarian comes for their family.

[trish]

Spoken like a true expert on sniveling and cowering.

So is it really true? Do you ALWAYS have to take lives to save some, or is that something you just made up in order to sound idiotic?

[DeLuX]

LOL @ trish what an IGNORANT fucking moron.

[yosi]

LOL @ trish what an IGNORANT fucking moron.

DeLuX , do you always blame other poeple for YOUR faults after looking in the mirror? :lol:

having a different opinion doesn't make one an IGNORANT fucking moron.......

[DeLuX]

LOL @ trish what an IGNORANT fucking moron.

DeLuX , do you always blame other poeple for YOUR faults after looking in the mirror? :lol:

having a different opinion doesn't make one an IGNORANT fucking moron.......

Having THAT opinion does. just another stupid fucking liberal that has more sympathy for piece of shit pirates then the innocent man they are threatening to kill. FUCK THEM, i am glad there dead the only thing i am sorry about is that they died instantly, i wish they would have laid there bleeding out while gasping for air.

[yosi]

just another stupid fucking liberal , i wish they would have laid there bleeding out while gasping for air.

now I know who is the IGNORANT fucking moron.
it's not trish....................... :twisted:

[DeLuX]

just another stupid fucking liberal , i wish they would have laid there bleeding out while gasping for air.

now I know who is the IGNORANT fucking moron.
it's not trish....................... :twisted:

you people are truly sad and i genuinely feel sorry for you.

[phobun]

By the way, no hostages have died in the last decade, up until this week.Wrong.

Apart from the numerous hijackers and Somali security force members killed in shoot-outs related to hijacking, several innocent people have died prior to this week.

The FV Ching Fong Hwa was hijacked in April 2007, and one Chinese crew member was killed by the pirates on May 28 because the ship's owners failed to meet their ransom demands.

As the pirates boarded the MV Bunga Melati Dua in August 2008, one Filipino crew member was killed.

On September 28, 2008, Vladimir Kolobkov, the captain of the MV Faina, died of a stroke while held hostage by pirates.

After the MV Acton was hijacked in October 2008, three crew members died while held hostage.

During the hijacking of the FV Ekawat Nava 5 in November 2008, the pirates fired on an Indian naval vessel, which returned fire, causing injuries to the Thai crew and the death of at least one Thai civilian.

Given that the pirates often fire machine guns and grenades at the vessels during the attack (one rocket propelled grenade landed unexploded in the captains cabin of a Panamanian cargo ship attacked this week), it is amazing there have not been more deaths.
Why do you suppose the shipping companies don't arm their ships? Why are they willing to pay ransoms. It's because the pirates do not present a significant risk nor even a formidable drain on the pocketbook.There are estimated to be 230 people, from around the world (many poor Filipinos), held right now by Somali pirates, precisely because multi-million dollar ransoms have not been, or cannot be, paid. These hostages are innocent people with worried families at home.

Why do you ignore these people with your fatuous explanation?

Several shipping companies are rerouting around South Africa to avoid the horn of Africa altogether... is all of this because shipping companies "are willing to pay ransoms"?
At least no innocent lives have been lost, even though three lives were lost. But those lost lives have immeasurably complicated the scene, and endanger the lives of all future shipping traffic through the region, especially American lives.You wrote that there have been no other deaths until this week, and you have not even cared to question the validity of this. You chose to believe there were no other deaths because it fit your bias, and ultimately because those deaths of innocent people were unimportant to you.

You're a sheep who takes up for pirates.

[MacShreach]

LOL @ trish what an IGNORANT fucking moron.

Oh really?

trish
A Hot HungAngel

Posts: 3982

DeLuX
Rookie Poster

Posts: 5

The ignorant one is the the rookie barging in here and insulting one of the most intelligent and respected posters on this board.

Furthermore, the fact that this is the internet and you apparently have something you think other people might want to hear you say (a moot point if ever there was one) does not excuse you using foul and abusive language to a lady who has, as always, conducted herself impeccably.

You have your point of view, newbie, and you are entitled to it. But your lack of respect marks you out as an ignorant prick.

[DeLuX]

LOL @ trish what an IGNORANT fucking moron.

Oh really?

trish
A Hot HungAngel

Posts: 3982

DeLuX
Rookie Poster

Posts: 5

The ignorant one is the the rookie barging in here and insulting one of the most intelligent and respected posters on this board.

Furthermore, the fact that this is the internet and you apparently have something you think other people might want to hear you say (a moot point if ever there was one) does not excuse you using foul and abusive language to a lady who has, as always, conducted herself impeccably.

You have your point of view, newbie, and you are entitled to it. But your lack of respect marks you out as an ignorant prick.


LOL :roll:

[MacShreach]

As for the substance, attacking pirates' shore settlements will not succeed and will just turn ordinary, financially-motivated criminals into martyrs. Not a smart move. The very last thing we need is the cause to be taken up by politically-motivated terrorists, who will be much more violent; as someone pointed out, a boatload of explosives controlled by a determined suicide crew would have no difficulty sinking even military vessels, and merchant vessels would be easy meat. That outcome has to be avoided.

Shipping companies have been operating a "gentleman's agreement" for many, many years-- pirates take a ship, look after the crew, ransom is paid, everyone is released.

This cosy arrangement has unfortunately fostered increasing levels of piracy. Furthermore, increased naval activity in the sea areas off Somalia has, according to sources published this week, increased the uptick of piracy in the Indian Ocean--apparently the pirates can survive long offshore voyages in search of ships to attack.

There are specialist marine security firms who hire ex-soldiers and marines and offer their services for shipping protection. If the violence escalates, then it is possible that these crews will travel on ships in this area as armed security.

However, we are talking about a lot of shipping, and not all shipowners will pay for protection-- American and European owners might, but will the convenience-flag carriers? This is a real problem because many British, American and European professional seamen work for lines registered in Panama and elsewhere, which cannot be required by Govts other than their own to comply with possible new rules requiring that ships carry security crews. As the pirates travel further and further out to sea to seek easy targets, the area where ships need protection will expand, and the pirates will soon learn to avoid US, UK and French registered ships, if they know they are carrying armed security or can easily call on naval support-- and the target ships will become those registered in Panama, Honduras and other flag-of-convenience states instead; but these ships may very well be carrying British, American or French crew and officers themselves.

Historically, the Merchant Marine of all nations have been reluctant to carry firearms-- it's not their job and they are not trained for it. Furthermore, seamen working for US, UK and other registered flag ships, know perfectly well that they have colleagues working on flag-of-convenience ships, and have probably worked on those themselves in the past and may do again. The last thing they want is an escalation of violence against any flag registered shipping.

This is not a simple matter of being gung-ho Team America, and in the end the only solution will be the emplacement of strong government in Somalia and the other pirate rats' nests (there are quite a few) as Brenda says.

Bear in mind that there are currently over 20 hostage ships anchored off Somalia right now, and another, Indian registered, was taken this morning. There are over 200 crew currently being held hostage there. Whatever happens now, we have to be very careful not to cause these people to be killed.

[fred41]

I never met any cowards. I seen some cowardly behavior and some courageous behavior. Sometimes exhibited by the same person. If you read my post carefully, I didn't call you a coward. But thanks for the compliment.

No need for the thanks...I didn't call you anything either. Just some pacifists. I don't know you personally...so I can't judge.

..some of the posts are getting way hot on here though. Maybe this thread should be moved to the political section. Anyway, I'm out.

Peace :wink:

[transmaven]

A very good book to read about combat and killing, and how being obliged to kill effects a decent man:

http://www.history-books.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/07-old-breed.jpg

It's a book that silences the chatter of those lucky enough to be far removed from violence. Not much there to comfort either the bloodthirsty jingoist or the prissy pacifist.

[MrF]

I think one needs a pretty strong justification to take a criminal's life, but it looks like it was met here. The Navy appeared to use the same standard rules of engagement that police use in hostage standoffs. Try to negotiate and reason with the hostage takers, give them a chance to give up, but when the hostage takers point a gun at the hostage, that's the trigger point. And that's how it went down, according to the news reports. I doubt the Navy was shooting just to make a point.

Besides, in the long run, the shipping industry cannot afford to pay 2 million for each ship that passes by Somalia. Let's get real.

[MacShreach]

Besides, in the long run, the shipping industry cannot afford to pay 2 million for each ship that passes by Somalia. Let's get real.

With most of these things there's a tipping point; it remains to be seen if that has been reached. I doubt if it'll be the ransom that does it, it will be the level of violence.

Personally I am in favour of armed security squads on these ships for defence in international waters, but it's a very delicate matter and there are a lot of hostages being held right now.

FWIW I can't imagine what else the US Navy, or any other Navy, could have done in this situation.

[Shonuff]

Aside from his disrespect, my main problem with comments like the ones from DeLux is the joy expressed in response to killing people. It's one thing to argue that the U.S. had a right to defend their citizens (which I also believe) and another to take pleasure in taking others' lives and wishing they had experienced more pain while dying. Killing is sometimes necessary but it shouldn't be treated like a football game--celebrating and cheering when our team beats (kills) theirs.

[trish]

Those of you who can read know that I’ve posted nothing in this thread accusing the U.S. Navy of belligerence. I have respect for the Navy negotiators (who were obviously hoping for a better outcome) and the Navy sniper(s) who took out the pirates only when they judged Capt. Philips to be in immanent danger. I’ve characterized the incident as one with an unhappy outcome (because of the three deaths), in which at least all the innocent lives involved walked away unharmed. So what is one to make of all the vitriol cast my way? Simply this: I refused to celebrate the taking of three lives. I refuse to characterize the incident as one where once again the U.S. steams in and shows everyone who is boss. That would be applauding an unflattering fantasy. It does my country no favor to depict it as a belligerent bully. It does us no favor to be caught objectifying others as scumbags and fuckers not even worthy of a trial (here I refer to another recent thread), as if all the facts are known & all you have to do to determine guilt is watch the news.

Thank you yosi and Shonuff, for your positive comments. Thank you MacShreach, for your thoughtful, insightful and truthful analysis.

[SarahG]

the blue square is on the left, from their point of view




http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

They're holding the flag backwards... when positioning the flag where it isn't to be moving by the wind, the blue square is to always be on the left.

The question now is how long the pirates will wait before killing the 200 other hostages they have right now...

Right, but they're (I am assuming) displaying it for others to see, thus its positioned incorrectly.

[SarahG]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

I am surprised, I was under the impression you thought pointing a loaded gun at anyone, at any time would be endangering lives.



That area has had piracy problems for centuries. It's better to respond forcefully rather than have endless hijackings. Not that I think this one show of force will stop it, but it's better than paying ransom. It would probably be best to allow these merchant vessels to carry certain small arms and perhaps some .50 cal machine guns which would make them a far less attractive target.

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. The reason why merchants need forces like the US Navy to respond to situations like this is because armament restrictions do not usually allow merchants to arm themselves to their teeth.

Anyone remember what caused WW1? It wasn't submarines, it was the armed neutral merchant who started shooting at submarines, all submarines at sight. There were even cases where American armed merchants accidentally shot up American US Navy ships under the fear that it was a German U-Boat, killing dozens of American sailors. The Germans only went to unrestricted submarine warfare after we refused to disarm our merchants.

Suppose we let the merchants do whatever they want, "it's international waters after all"- what do you think will happen? My bet is anytime a fast or low drought vessel got near a cargo freighter near Somalia, it would be shot up- it's not like hijackers wear uniforms so people can distinguish them from fishers, tourists, and other common small ships in the area. If the hijackers are any good at what they do, the merchant crews won't even know the hijackers are armed until they're right next to the cargo ship.

[trish]

touche'

[phobun]

So what is one to make of all the vitriol cast my way? Simply this: I refused to celebrate the taking of three lives. I refuse to characterize the incident as one where once again the U.S. steams in and shows everyone who is boss.
I agree it is sad that three stupid, greedy teenagers died after choosing to hijack ships on the high seas at gunpoint. I have not relished their deaths.

But your explanation above ignores your perhaps unwitting (although I doubt that) attempts to defend the pirates. First, you legitimized, and minimized, the pirates' crimes by proposing that they should be called "toll-collectors", and that they should have the right to to demand money for passage on the open ocean. That is obscene and offensive... real, innocent people have died from the actions of the action of these criminals, and dozens remain in captivity in lieu of someone paying your "amusing" multi-million dollar toll idea. Later, you suggested that a ransom should have been paid to avoid the deaths, and you wrote, "No one [died] of consequence. It's the profits that are important." Your message was that it was greed that kept a ransom from being paid to the pirates, and thus from preventing bloodshed. But take a step back further... if the pirates had not been sticking guns in the backs of innocent people, to PROFIT from their crimes by demanding millions of dollars in greedy ransoms, there would have been no bloodshed. You also parroted the line that "no hostages have died in the last decade, up until this week" because that gross falsehood fit your bias. And to add further insult, you lamented (at least until you were called out for it) only pirates' families grief, rather than the families of their victims who have died or who remain in captivity.

You would have been more persuasive had you indicated early consideration for the innocent victims, and their families, too. But I doubt they were of real interest to you at the start of this thread... your interest was in making a contrarian defense of the pirates' lives.

[Dave32111]

Of course we could've just let the company pay the ransom, like they always do, and nobody would've been endangered and nobody would've lost their life. But there's nothing like a little blood lust to liven up the onlookers. Too bad there weren't sharks in the water too.

I am surprised, I was under the impression you thought pointing a loaded gun at anyone, at any time would be endangering lives.



That area has had piracy problems for centuries. It's better to respond forcefully rather than have endless hijackings. Not that I think this one show of force will stop it, but it's better than paying ransom. It would probably be best to allow these merchant vessels to carry certain small arms and perhaps some .50 cal machine guns which would make them a far less attractive target.

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. The reason why merchants need forces like the US Navy to respond to situations like this is because armament restrictions do not usually allow merchants to arm themselves to their teeth.

Anyone remember what caused WW1? It wasn't submarines, it was the armed neutral merchant who started shooting at submarines, all submarines at sight. There were even cases where American armed merchants accidentally shot up American US Navy ships under the fear that it was a German U-Boat, killing dozens of American sailors. The Germans only went to unrestricted submarine warfare after we refused to disarm our merchants.

Suppose we let the merchants do whatever they want, "it's international waters after all"- what do you think will happen? My bet is anytime a fast or low drought vessel got near a cargo freighter near Somalia, it would be shot up- it's not like hijackers wear uniforms so people can distinguish them from fishers, tourists, and other common small ships in the area. If the hijackers are any good at what they do, the merchant crews won't even know the hijackers are armed until they're right next to the cargo ship.
I guess we have a different view of history, my friend. It is not illegal to arm merchant ships - read this interesting article in the NY Times regarding the same, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/13shipping.html

America was a reluctant to participate in World War 1, in fact in August 1914, when the war broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality. Preferring to remain isolated from the war, America tried to broker peace between the allies and the axis, the war was in Europe; America did not need to get involved.

On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedoes at the British passenger ship Lusitania sinking her in 20 minutes. On board were 128 Americans.

Woodrow Wilson, demanded that Germany stop attacking passenger ships and declared that America was too proud to fight. Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.

Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights. Wilson was under great pressure from former president Theodore Roosevelt, who denounced German "piracy" and Wilson's cowardice.

In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain. Although Wilson broke off diplomatic ties with Germany, he still hoped to avert war by arming merchant vessels as a deterrent. Nevertheless, Germany began sinking American ships immediately.

In February 1917, British intelligence gave the United States government a decoded telegram from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman that had been intercepted en route to his ambassador to Mexico.

The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. However, because Wilson had run for re-election in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.

On 2 April 1917, Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war and four days later all but six senators and fifty representatives voted for a war resolution. The Selective Service Act that was passed the following month, along with an extraordinary number of volunteers, built up the army from less than 250,000 to four million over the course of the conflict. General John Pershing was appointed head of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) and led the first troops to France

On April 6th 1917, America declared war on Germany

DURING THE COURSE OF WORLD WAR I, 116,708 AMERICAN SOLDIERS LOST THEIR LIVES AND 204,002 WERE WOUNDED.

[phobun]

Anyone remember what caused WW1? It wasn't submarines, it was the armed neutral merchant who started shooting at submarines, all submarines at sight. There were even cases where American armed merchants accidentally shot up American US Navy ships under the fear that it was a German U-Boat, killing dozens of American sailors. The Germans only went to unrestricted submarine warfare after we refused to disarm our merchants.
That is not what "caused WW1" !!!

Besides, merchant vessels have been armed for thousands of years to protect themselves from pirates. Their being armed did not suddenly provoke a world war in 1914.

[SarahG]

America was a reluctant to participate in World War 1, in fact in August 1914, when the war broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality. Preferring to remain isolated from the war, America tried to broker peace between the allies and the axis, the war was in Europe; America did not need to get involved.

That's blatantly incorrect. Wilson only pretended to be an isolationist because that's what the people wanted (akin to Bush Jr saying in running for Pres in 2000 that he was against nation building... how many years have we been in Iraq now?)

Wilson was an interventionist, and even the radical revisionist historians admit as much.

Colonel House, Wilson's top aid, was sent to England before US involvement to tell the Brits we GUARANTEED our entrance into the war in the event of a likely German victory. All we needed was an excuse to go to war, and if we didn't get one we'd fabricate one... so while in England House developed a plan for fabricating an excuse for US intervention. Google this, it's common knowledge.


On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedoes at the British passenger ship Lusitania sinking her in 20 minutes. On board were 128 Americans.

1- The Lusitania was smuggling arms to England, despite Wilson's "just for show" neutrality policies, which is what convinced the Germans that it was a legitimate military target
2- At the docks the German embassy distributed flyers & notices telling Americans not to board liners shipping armaments to England because they will be targeted.
3- The Whitehouse completely refused to warn Americans about traveling to Europe on ships sending war materials & armaments to England, it would have been very easy for Wilson to say "I want to stay out of this war, so I am telling you all that if you go into the German declared warzone your lives will be in danger"
4- Bryan quit his cabinet position over the Lusitania because he saw it was just being exploited by Wilson as an excuse to enter the war on the British side.


Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.

Wilson had earlier gotten the Germans to agree through diplomatic channels to end the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, and chemical warfare... in exchange all Germany wanted for England to stop their blockade of Germany. England refused, and we refused to pressure England to do so. So submarine warfare continued, and chemical warfare continued.


Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights.


Exactly, because he wanted us to enter the war against Germany.

The allies' blockade of Germany was a blatant disregard of our trading rights. England was making up the rules as they went along, redefining absolute and conditional contraband at will, in ways that greatly harmed our international trade on the continent. Yet Wilson didn't tell Americans to try to run the British blockade (a feat that would have surely resulted in the Brits firing on American merchants).

Fact: Everyone but England was wiling to abide by the 1909 Declaration of London. Only England was in favor of ditching international agreements having to deal with blockades. It was only after the abandonment of the 1909 Declaration of London that Germany started their aggressive submarine tactics.

...instead of telling Americans to run the British blockade, after all- they were violating our rights and ignoring our unbinding trade agreements, Wilson told them to keep sending trade through the German declared war zone.


In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain.

Only after we had given our merchants a blank check to arm themselves to the teeth, and then allowed them to fire at -whatever they thought- were German submarines on sight.

Fact: The allies would have shot at any armed German trading vessel on sight. The allies considered any armaments at all to be "offensive" in nature, even when on a cargo ship.

Fact: The British by 1916 were using plainclothed British soldiers, with British military guns on cargo ships to pose "submarine traps", as soon as a submarine would surface to search the ship for contraband, the British plainclothed soldiers would open fire and try to sink the submarine.

Fact: When Germany sent their first neutral merchant submarine to the US, to Baltimore in 1916... we virtually disassembled it looking for armaments, hoping we could claim it was an offensive warship. If it had any armaments, even ones for "defensive purposes" it would have been deemed a warship, we would not have allowed it to trade, and the 24-hour rule would have applied. After we found the submarine was totally unarmed, our papers plastered that fact to the international community... and we then delayed the submarine until there was a small armada of Allied warships just outside American waters waiting for it to leave Baltimore.


In February 1917, British intelligence gave the United States government a decoded telegram from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman that had been intercepted en route to his ambassador to Mexico.

The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. However, because Wilson had run for re-election in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.

So, why did the Germans send the Zimmerman telegraph? You think the Kaiser woke up one day and thought, out of the blue that Mexico would want to fight the United States?

Fact: Before the Zimmerman telegraph there was a major international incident that ruined US-Mexican relations. A bunch of US saliors on leave in a Mexican port got drunk, raped a few locals, got in some fights, and otherwise were causing chaos to the quiet port city. The local mexican police arrested the US sailors involved and demanded an apology. The US response under the Wilson admin was to tell our Mexican diplomats that the Mexicans would release them immediately, apologize to those detained US sailors immediately, and... would then fire of a cannonade salute to the American flag to apologize to the country... or else we'd use military force to release them & extract revenge ourselves. Mexico was horrified at our response, offered to compromise (for instance, offering to use a cannonade salute to both flags at once, to show there was no bad blood and everyone was still friends). Wilson hard lined, demanded what he had earlier stated... the Mexicans eventually agreed to the terms fearing invasion, and US-Mexican relations were the worst they'd been in almost a hundred years.

...that's when the Kaiser proposed an alliance with Mexico.



Anyone who can claim with a straight face that Wilson was an isolationist hasn't read anything on WW1 beyond the crap (and I do mean crap) in our k-12 public schooling textbooks.

[trish]

So you choose to take seriously a scenario which I intentionally entitled an “amusing solution”; i.e. one not to be taken seriously. You even twist your language to make it appear the pirates are carrying out my “multimillion dollar toll idea.” How can we believe anything you have to offer on this subject when you’re so willing to cherry pick and misstate other people’s positions?

In these posts I have not lamented anyone’s grief and I have not offered my sympathies to anyone. Do you really think this is the place for lamentations? There have been half a dozen posts in thread that have boasted that no one will miss three dead pirates. I pointed out those claims may be false, and for that I’m disrespectful of the families of the abducted and not offering them their fair share of sympathy!

What bugs you, phobun, is that someone would dare pipe up and ruin the fun while everyone is shouting about how we kicked ass and killed some no good fuckers. I’m impressed, you’re a real man.

[MacShreach]

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. .

Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.

That is why the suggestion has been made that maritime security companies should get involved. These would provide protection ONLY while in international waters and therefore would not cause a problem. The security would be removed from the ship as it entered national waters.

Furthermore, to attempt to equate what is happening now, regarding the criminal activities of pirates in peacetime, to the situation in wartime, is not really helpful.

[Dave32111]

America was a reluctant to participate in World War 1, in fact in August 1914, when the war broke out in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson issued a declaration of neutrality. Preferring to remain isolated from the war, America tried to broker peace between the allies and the axis, the war was in Europe; America did not need to get involved.

That's blatantly incorrect. Wilson only pretended to be an isolationist because that's what the people wanted (akin to Bush Jr saying in running for Pres in 2000 that he was against nation building... how many years have we been in Iraq now?)

Wilson was an interventionist, and even the radical revisionist historians admit as much.

Colonel House, Wilson's top aid, was sent to England before US involvement to tell the Brits we GUARANTEED our entrance into the war in the event of a likely German victory. All we needed was an excuse to go to war, and if we didn't get one we'd fabricate one... so while in England House developed a plan for fabricating an excuse for US intervention. Google this, it's common knowledge.


On May 7th 1915, German U-boats, patrolling in the Atlantic Ocean, fired torpedoes at the British passenger ship Lusitania sinking her in 20 minutes. On board were 128 Americans.

1- The Lusitania was smuggling arms to England, despite Wilson's "just for show" neutrality policies, which is what convinced the Germans that it was a legitimate military target
2- At the docks the German embassy distributed flyers & notices telling Americans not to board liners shipping armaments to England because they will be targeted.
3- The Whitehouse completely refused to warn Americans about traveling to Europe on ships sending war materials & armaments to England, it would have been very easy for Wilson to say "I want to stay out of this war, so I am telling you all that if you go into the German declared warzone your lives will be in danger"
4- Bryan quit his cabinet position over the Lusitania because he saw it was just being exploited by Wilson as an excuse to enter the war on the British side.


Wilson also tried to mediate a compromise settlement but failed.

Wilson had earlier gotten the Germans to agree through diplomatic channels to end the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, and chemical warfare... in exchange all Germany wanted for England to stop their blockade of Germany. England refused, and we refused to pressure England to do so. So submarine warfare continued, and chemical warfare continued.


Wilson also repeatedly warned that America would not tolerate unrestricted submarine warfare, as it was in violation to American ideas of human rights.


Exactly, because he wanted us to enter the war against Germany.

The allies' blockade of Germany was a blatant disregard of our trading rights. England was making up the rules as they went along, redefining absolute and conditional contraband at will, in ways that greatly harmed our international trade on the continent. Yet Wilson didn't tell Americans to try to run the British blockade (a feat that would have surely resulted in the Brits firing on American merchants).

Fact: Everyone but England was wiling to abide by the 1909 Declaration of London. Only England was in favor of ditching international agreements having to deal with blockades. It was only after the abandonment of the 1909 Declaration of London that Germany started their aggressive submarine tactics.

...instead of telling Americans to run the British blockade, after all- they were violating our rights and ignoring our unbinding trade agreements, Wilson told them to keep sending trade through the German declared war zone.


In January 1917, Germany announced it would destroy all ships heading to Britain.

Only after we had given our merchants a blank check to arm themselves to the teeth, and then allowed them to fire at -whatever they thought- were German submarines on sight.

Fact: The allies would have shot at any armed German trading vessel on sight. The allies considered any armaments at all to be "offensive" in nature, even when on a cargo ship.

Fact: The British by 1916 were using plainclothed British soldiers, with British military guns on cargo ships to pose "submarine traps", as soon as a submarine would surface to search the ship for contraband, the British plainclothed soldiers would open fire and try to sink the submarine.

Fact: When Germany sent their first neutral merchant submarine to the US, to Baltimore in 1916... we virtually disassembled it looking for armaments, hoping we could claim it was an offensive warship. If it had any armaments, even ones for "defensive purposes" it would have been deemed a warship, we would not have allowed it to trade, and the 24-hour rule would have applied. After we found the submarine was totally unarmed, our papers plastered that fact to the international community... and we then delayed the submarine until there was a small armada of Allied warships just outside American waters waiting for it to leave Baltimore.


In February 1917, British intelligence gave the United States government a decoded telegram from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman that had been intercepted en route to his ambassador to Mexico.

The Zimmerman Telegram authorized the ambassador to offer Mexico the portions of the Southwest it had lost to the United States in the 1840s if it joined the Central Powers. However, because Wilson had run for re-election in 1916 on a very popular promise to keep the United States out of the European war, he had to handle the telegram very carefully. Wilson did not publicize it at first, only releasing the message to the press in March after weeks of German attacks on American ships had turned public sentiment toward joining the Allies.

So, why did the Germans send the Zimmerman telegraph? You think the Kaiser woke up one day and thought, out of the blue that Mexico would want to fight the United States?

Fact: Before the Zimmerman telegraph there was a major international incident that ruined US-Mexican relations. A bunch of US saliors on leave in a Mexican port got drunk, raped a few locals, got in some fights, and otherwise were causing chaos to the quiet port city. The local mexican police arrested the US sailors involved and demanded an apology. The US response under the Wilson admin was to tell our Mexican diplomats that the Mexicans would release them immediately, apologize to those detained US sailors immediately, and... would then fire of a cannonade salute to the American flag to apologize to the country... or else we'd use military force to release them & extract revenge ourselves. Mexico was horrified at our response, offered to compromise (for instance, offering to use a cannonade salute to both flags at once, to show there was no bad blood and everyone was still friends). Wilson hard lined, demanded what he had earlier stated... the Mexicans eventually agreed to the terms fearing invasion, and US-Mexican relations were the worst they'd been in almost a hundred years.

...that's when the Kaiser proposed an alliance with Mexico.



Anyone who can claim with a straight face that Wilson was an isolationist hasn't read anything on WW1 beyond the crap (and I do mean crap) in our k-12 public schooling textbooks.

And from all of that - you pick out what you want to and decide that the main thrust of my argument was that Wilson was an isolationist?

Wow!

To get back to (somewhat) the topic - you claimed that the arming of merchant ships "caused WWI" - your words, not mine. Since WWI had already started, and we're clearing talking about what brought the US into WWI, I think you have yet to prove your case.

You never refuted any substantial points I was making in my case to show your error.

Germany declared they would destroy all ships heading to England before merchant ships began arming in earnest.

[SarahG]

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. .

Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.

Which is a big point considering that this ship was sailing into Somalia with relief aid.

There was no way, this specific ship, could have legally armed itself to fight off Somalian pirates, if somalia cares about such things (I could see someone making the case they don't care, even if there is regulations on the subject on the books- because there is no functioning government).

Edit:
Other curious dimensions of this could be whether the shipper's insurance policies would or could allow armaments on the scale needed to fight off pirates, whether the vessel's status delivering relief aid brings more regulations into the picture, whether having armaments on board would influence what American ports the ship could leave from...

[SarahG]

To get back to (somewhat) the topic - you claimed that the arming of merchant ships "caused WWI" - your words, not mine. Since WWI had already started, and we're clearing talking about what brought the US into WWI, I think you have yet to prove your case.

Sorry, that was in error- to clarify I meant it caused American intervention in WW1. That was a brain fart on my part and I fully admit it was in error. I was wrong.


You never refuted any substantial points I was making in my case to show your error.

On the contrary, I had showed that the only reason why Germany engaged in unrestricted warfare was because of calculated British and American maneuvers aimed at bringing about those ends.

England set the stage by setting the precedent of making up contraband definitions at will. Since we let this fly for England, it would only stand to reason that the Germans could engage in the same practice. So they defined their own contraband rules to trade headed for England, and enforced it (using the same methods the Brits used, searching said ships for contraband, using prize courts etc- the only difference was that the Germans did it with submarines instead of destroyers... and went by traditional contraband definitions despite the strong argument they would have had to simply blockade everything from reaching England).

But since submarines are weak at surface engagement, the British started using plainclothes soldiers on merchant ships to fire on submarines trying to search for contraband (the legal way under maritime law), the Wilson Admin allowed shippers to try to run absolute contraband passed the German blockade on liners full of American passengers, and the Wilson admin allowed neutral merchants to fire at submarines on sight (illegal... act of war) even after there were incidents where Americans fired on American US Naval forces by accident, killing American sailors. Either the Wilson admin was grossly incompetent, or they were making decisions intending for it to lead to gross loss of American life... to act as a catalyst in forcing American involvement.

Would there still have been WW1? Absolutely but without American involvement it would have ended sooner, and with a German victory.

Neutrality is not a policy of being neutral, but it is a policy of nonintervention in the physical fighting sense. Therego Wilson did not actually follow neutrality, he merely pretended to do so for the American voters. Sending House to plan for a "fake" way into the war, trying to get Americans killed on liners running guns passed the German blockade- that's not an act of neutrality, it's the exact opposite.

If Wilson were truly following neutrality he would have wanted America to stay out from the fighting, even if it meant a German victory. Anything else- asymmetrical loaning, asymmetrical trade, asymmetrical diplomacy would have been fair game... provided it wasn't used as grounds (fake or not) to enter the war.


Germany declared they would destroy all ships heading to England before merchant ships began arming in earnest.

This came only after England & the US made intentional, collaborated efforts to push the Germans to unrestricted warfare. That's why Germany was following traditional contraband rules at first! If they had just wanted to sink merchant ships headed to England, they'd never have surfaced to do so, they'd have never have spent years of the war searching merchants for contraband (per intentional law's definitions, not England's "whatever we say, on this given moment is contraband").

[MacShreach]

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. .

Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.

Which is a big point considering that this ship was sailing into Somalia with relief aid.

There was no way, this specific ship, could have legally armed itself to fight off Somalian pirates, if somalia cares about such things (I could see someone making the case they don' caret, even if there is regulations on the subject on the books- because there is no functioning government).

In other words, you have no idea whether there are regulations of this type covering Somali national waters or not.

Secondly, it is the specific duty of the naval forces of the country whose national waters we are discussing, whichever one that is, to protect merchant shipping saiing through those waters.

Thirdly, if the cargo was destined for Somali ports, the Captain would have been entirely within his rights to refuse to enter Somali waters until naval protection was in place (indeed it is arguable that he was actually obliged to, because of his duty to protect his ship and crew,) and if such protection was not forthcoming, he or the owners would have been quite within their rights, again, probably legally obliged, to insist that, if an armed security escort had been aboard, it stayed aboard until the ship docked.

To put it another way, this specific ship could indeed have armed itself and maintained that armed security throughout the time it was in Somali waters. Or are you suggesting that the Somali Government is about to turn away aid ships because they are equipped to defend themselves against Somali pirates?

No one who goes to sea either professionally or for pleasure wants to see armed guards on ships--but we are in a mounting crisis and something will have to be done to prevent more bloodshed.

Having said all that, I reiterate-- Brenda is right, the solution can only come with strong and capable govt in Somalia-- but armed security, whether provided by what are effectively mercenaries or national navies, is the only available protection until that happens.

[NYBURBS]

It would probably be best to allow these merchant vessels to carry certain small arms and perhaps some .50 cal machine guns which would make them a far less attractive target.

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. The reason why merchants need forces like the US Navy to respond to situations like this is because armament restrictions do not usually allow merchants to arm themselves to their teeth.

That is why I wrote that it would probably be best to allow them to. I'm not sure what our Maritime law states, and as some other poster noted many countries do not allow ships to enter their territorial waters with weapons (which is understandable). Of course there are treaties that could be drawn up to reach some common ground.

When the nearest military vessel might be a day or two away at best speed you need to have alternatives for ships to defend themselves. Leaving them with no choice but to surrender, and be taken hostage, is not reasonable. Perhaps some less lethal technologies could be a reasonable alternative.

[SarahG]

It would probably be best to allow these merchant vessels to carry certain small arms and perhaps some .50 cal machine guns which would make them a far less attractive target.

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. The reason why merchants need forces like the US Navy to respond to situations like this is because armament restrictions do not usually allow merchants to arm themselves to their teeth.

That is why I wrote that it would probably be best to allow them to. I'm not sure what our Maritime law states, and as some other poster noted many countries do not allow ships to enter their territorial waters with weapons (which is understandable). Of course there are treaties that could be drawn up to reach some common ground.

When the nearest military vessel might be a day or two away at best speed you need to have alternatives for ships to defend themselves. Leaving them with no choice but to surrender, and be taken hostage, is not reasonable. Perhaps some less lethal technologies could be a reasonable alternative.

Haven't a few cruise ships tried nonlethal weapons against pirates in recent years? Has anyone heard anything recent about that?

I vaguely remember a few liners successfully used nonlethal weapons to get rid of pirates trying to hijack the ship.

[MacShreach]

Perhaps some less lethal technologies could be a reasonable alternative.

Actually, last year one marine security company was proposing a portfolio of defence techniques ranging from the fairly mild-- water cannons and laser dazzlers-- to the very lethal indeed, so this has been thought about. Their proposal IIRC was to run a convoy system with a dedicated marine security vessel carrying two helicopters and 3 RIBs with a full range of devices and weapons to protect the convoy-- it sounds a little inflexible, but would certainly be an impressive show of force.

Also remember that the pirates don't just target big ships-- just in the last few days they took two Egyptian fishing boats and recently a French yacht. (I have to say I wonder wtf the yotties were thinking being in that area at all, but never mind.) So even if we protect the big vessels, and we should, until the political situation in Somalia is brought under control, smaller vessels will still be targets.

[Suckalot1]

The Somali pirates have been hijacking ships and collecting ransoms for a decade without a single loss of life. Then the U.S. enters the scene and three days later three people are dead. Typical.


It's better to respond forcefully…
Better for whom?

Here’s an amusing solution. Somalia should probably just charge everyone a toll for the use of those waters and hire the pirates to collect. Then they wouldn’t be pirates anymore, just toll collectors. It would save a lot a time, because hijacking wouldn’t be necessary, provided everyone obeys the law and pays the toll.

for just a decade, huh trish? Never one life lost?
Excuse me, but please tell how it is that you know there's never been a life lost from those hijackers. OH RIGHT! The Americans are bad people, these pirates are really just tollcollectors misunderstood. What a solution you proposed, too bad it would never work. These people are pirates, not toll collectors, they are criminals.

For all of you who seem to be anti-American, wtf are you doing in this country? What a joke. Like you have the solution to all the problems and could run everything so much better. Your ridiculous trish, move over to Africa or Mexico if you think they're so much better over there.....what a joke.

[Suckalot1]

So what is one to make of all the vitriol cast my way? Simply this: I refused to celebrate the taking of three lives. I refuse to characterize the incident as one where once again the U.S. steams in and shows everyone who is boss.
I agree it is sad that three stupid, greedy teenagers died after choosing to hijack ships on the high seas at gunpoint. I have not relished their deaths.

But your explanation above ignores your perhaps unwitting (although I doubt that) attempts to defend the pirates. First, you legitimized, and minimized, the pirates' crimes by proposing that they should be called "toll-collectors", and that they should have the right to to demand money for passage on the open ocean. That is obscene and offensive... real, innocent people have died from the actions of the action of these criminals, and dozens remain in captivity in lieu of someone paying your "amusing" multi-million dollar toll idea. Later, you suggested that a ransom should have been paid to avoid the deaths, and you wrote, "No one [died] of consequence. It's the profits that are important." Your message was that it was greed that kept a ransom from being paid to the pirates, and thus from preventing bloodshed. But take a step back further... if the pirates had not been sticking guns in the backs of innocent people, to PROFIT from their crimes by demanding millions of dollars in greedy ransoms, there would have been no bloodshed. You also parroted the line that "no hostages have died in the last decade, up until this week" because that gross falsehood fit your bias. And to add further insult, you lamented (at least until you were called out for it) only pirates' families grief, rather than the families of their victims who have died or who remain in captivity.

You would have been more persuasive had you indicated early consideration for the innocent victims, and their families, too. But I doubt they were of real interest to you at the start of this thread... your interest was in making a contrarian defense of the pirates' lives.

There it is. touche*.

To trish, your latest response shows how ignorant you are. You just try to justify criminal acts by making the criminals seem to be the victims and the US is just some bully. Your ridiculous and not very bright.

[trish]

From my very first post in this thread my complaint has been about the bloodlust and belligerence of a certain segment “onlookers” following this particular event. I admit nothing pushes my buttons like a collection of boisterous, belligerent assholes. Now I understand no one wants to be interrupted while they’re cheering the deaths of three scumbags the world will never miss. So chiming in was a mistake. For not sharing in the blood lust, I been berated for sympathizing with the pirates, not sympathizing with the abductees, insulting the abductees (as if they’re regulars visitors to HA), allowing hypothetical thieves to steal me blind without so much as firing a shot, accusing the U.S. Navy of belligerence, etc. etc.

Well, [I'm] happy to say the Navy wasn’t belligerent and the innocent escaped peril. Still the outcome is not a happy one. Three people, who might have lived, died. It’s their own fault, yes. I don’t dispute that. But that’s no cause for celebration. Somalia is a tragic State. It’s been in economic ruin for decades. It seems a common place to subscribe to the Somali pirates the motive of “greed”. I think that’s probably correct. Yet I think it is a greed born out of deprivation. “Oh shit, there she goes again sympathizing with the enemy!” No, attempting to understand the deeper motivations of behavior is not sympathizing. It’s just the rational thing to do if you want to solve social, political and economic problems. The unfortunate deaths did not solve anything but the most immediate problem, saving the innocent life of Capt. Phillips. I will trust the Navy sniper’s judgment that that was the only solution to the immediate problem as it came to a head. But those deaths will only exasperate the problems of piracy off the coast of Somalia. I don’t think any amount Naval power can keep those waters safe until something is done to [lift] Somalia out of it economic situation.

[edits in square brackets]

[SemperFiGuy]

The whole pirate controversy is what provoked Thomas Jefferson into forming an active on going Naval force along with a Corps of Marines.

It's in our antham, from the shores of Tripoli... the Marines before me fought pirates on their own for 15 years. Many great battle stories indeed!

Look, we tried to help Somolia, that one I didn't miss out on. It was a fiasco, their own people stealing the food shipments out from under them. In the end, we weren't welcome there, and the numbers were huge. So starve you stupid mother fuckers! That's what I say, geesh!

Those early Marines, now they were the shit! Swinging from ropes onto the other ships, or boarding from a little dingy. You had one shot back then, the guns of the time were muzzle loaders, no time to reload, so after that one shot, they fought with swords, knives, hand to hand. The sword is still a strong part of our ceremonial heritage.

[hippifried]

It's in our antham, from the shores of Tripoli... Huh? I thought the anthem was from the halls of Montezuma TO the shores of Tripoli. Dude! You're going backwards! I guess that's why they had to call in the swabbies to handle it this time. :lol:



Trish,
You need to get with the program.

[Oli]

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. .

Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.

Which is a big point considering that this ship was sailing into Somalia with relief aid.



Except the Maersk Alabama was sailing to Mombasa, Kenya with relief aid for Uganda, Somalia and Rwanda.

And the attack occurred in international waters

[phobun]

So you choose to take seriously a scenario which I intentionally entitled an “amusing solution”; i.e. one not to be taken seriously. You even twist your language to make it appear the pirates are carrying out my “multimillion dollar toll idea.” How can we believe anything you have to offer on this subject when you’re so willing to cherry pick and misstate other people’s positions?
Surely you did not expect anyone to take your trite analogy seriously, but who except a very flippant person would joke like this, even as people lay dead or are still held captive?
Car-jackers are about the closest thing on land to which pirates can be compared. If a series of car-jackings had resulted in the sort of mayhem we've seen over the past few months, would you callously call the car-jackers something benign and suggest they were entitled to their crimes, as you did with the pirates.
Go back and read your posts.

In these posts I have not lamented anyone’s grief and I have not offered my sympathies to anyone. Do you really think this is the place for lamentations? There have been half a dozen posts in thread that have boasted that no one will miss three dead pirates. I pointed out those claims may be false, and for that I’m disrespectful of the families of the abducted and not offering them their fair share of sympathy!

What bugs you, phobun, is that someone would dare pipe up and ruin the fun while everyone is shouting about how we kicked ass and killed some no good fuckers. I’m impressed, you’re a real man.
Your last statement is blatantly dishonest. Try to find where I was revelling in the bloodlust. Take note of my preface in the last thread, where I wrote that it is sad the 3 teens died.

I still maintain that you're a not-very-bright sheep who took up for pirates.

[trish]

I believe you called them stupid greedy teenagers, but whose quibbling? I tried to be a clear as can be, correcting misconceptions and misrepresentations of my position. If you refuse to believe my position is what I say it is, that's now your affair. Maintain away.

[tstv_lover]

Somalia is a mess, with severe deprivation and without a legitimate Government or legislature attempting to address these underlying povity.

The Solami Pirates were originally considered some kind of joke, but they're desperate people who are well equipped and know these waters. Now that blood has been spilled I wonder whether companies will be prepared to risk lives as well as ransom.

Surely the solution lies in helping rebuild the country and negotiating arrangements with the pirates.

[MacShreach]

Somalia is a mess, with severe deprivation and without a legitimate Government or legislature attempting to address these underlying povity.

The Solami Pirates were originally considered some kind of joke, but they're desperate people who are well equipped and know these waters. Now that blood has been spilled I wonder whether companies will be prepared to risk lives as well as ransom.

Surely the solution lies in helping rebuild the country and negotiating arrangements with the pirates.

I know you mean well, but pirates are never considered a joke; even the most incompetent ones are dangerous. If you heard the 2cnd Mate of the Maersk speaking after the rescue, he was pretty respectful of the abilities of the pirates. Otherwise I agree--attempts to extirpate piracy by force have been going on since the days that Rome raided pirate nests on the North African coast, and we still have the problem. The solution is not force but adequate ship defence and much more importantly, supporting the local Govts to get control of the situation.

[Clind]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.

Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.

The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.

Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.

I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".

Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).

[Clind]

When you see our flag run away and try another ship. You 3 were dead the moment you boarded the ship. Say hi to Satan for me losers! God Bless America and the US Navy Seals.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514775,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/041209_rescue4_crew.jpg

[Dave32111]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.

Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.

The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.

Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.

I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".

Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).

You know, it would be that wouldn't keep the US private citizens from giving more foreign aid than their government does.

*sigh*

So have you come up with that government system that's better?

And where are you from, since you seem to be very opinionated without coming up with a solution, or even suggestion.

[SarahG]

Trish,
You need to get with the program.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/files/pp30261vampire_girl_posters_207.jpg



OMG, trish, look out- if you question the actions of the US Navy you'll turn into a vampire!

:lol: lmfao

[SarahG]

You know why merchants don't arm themselves? Because it's illegal. .

Merchant ships sailing in international waters may carry weapons. Merchant marine ships may not carry weapons in the national waters of many countries, however.

Which is a big point considering that this ship was sailing into Somalia with relief aid.



Except the Maersk Alabama was sailing to Mombasa, Kenya with relief aid for Uganda, Somalia and Rwanda.

And the attack occurred in international waters

That, I didn't know. The first report I watched on this case said they weren't in international waters... but you know what they say: if you don't care about the news you're uninformed, but if you read/watch the news you're misinformed.

[Clind]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.

Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.

The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.

Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.

I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".

Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).

You know, it would be that wouldn't keep the US private citizens from giving more foreign aid than their government does.

*sigh*

So have you come up with that government system that's better?

And where are you from, since you seem to be very opinionated without coming up with a solution, or even suggestion.

I m from Greece, sugestion about what? about how we will stop the Somalian pirates?
Yes i have lets rise up, against capitalists who gain from our work, rise up against the puppets goverments who serve this class, lets share the global resourses, lets share the result of our work , lets stop steel third world , and WHEN we do all that , yes i will have sugest about the Dumb ass Somalian pirates.

My friend you see the tree and you dont see the forest .

[SarahG]

I m from Greece, sugestion about what? about how we will stop the Somalian pirates?
Yes i have lets rise up, against capitalists who gain from our work, rise up against the puppets goverments who serve this class, lets share the global resourses, lets share the result of our work , lets stop steel third world , and WHEN we do all that , yes i will have sugest about the Dumb ass Somalian pirates.

My friend you see the tree and you dont see the forest .

If the US were following strict capitalism, we would not allow our military to go fight the pirates in the first place. The pirates have not directly entwined themselves with official federal gov affairs (that is to say, the stuff in the constitution itself).

If we were truly strictly capitalist, we'd simply tell the merchants to go hire mercenaries like Black Water for defense in the region. And if you can afford it, great, if not- their loss.

[SarahG]

And the escalation continues...




French nab 11 pirates as threats mount on US ships
AP

MOMBASA, Kenya – A pirate gang that launched an abortive attack on a second U.S. ship loaded with food aid said Wednesday they were singling out American vessels and would kill their crews, while French forces detained 11 other hijackers in a high-seas raid.

Pirates fired grenades and automatic weapons at the Liberty Sun, but its American crew successfully blockaded themselves inside the engine room. The ship was damaged in Tuesday's attack but escaped and was heading to Kenya under U.S. Navy guard.

A pirate whose gang attacked the aid ship admitted Wednesday that his group was targeting American ships and sailors.

"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.

"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack on the Liberty Sun.

The move comes after U.S. Navy sharpshooters killed three pirates Sunday to win the release of a hijacked American sea captain, Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama.

The French forces, meanwhile, launched an early morning attack on a pirate ship after spotting it Tuesday with a surveillance helicopter and observing the pirates overnight. The raid thwarted the bandits' planned attack on the Liberian cargo ship Safmarine Asia, the French Defense Ministry said.

The statement called the pirate vessel a "mother ship" — usually a seized foreign ship that pirates use to transport speedboats far out to sea and resupply them. The ship was intercepted 550 miles (900 kilometers) east of the Kenyan city of Mombasa.

The 11 detained pirates were being held on the Nivose, a French frigate among the international fleet trying to protect shipping in the Gulf of Aden.

France has traditionally been aggressive in fighting piracy — this was its ninth military operation against pirates. Three Somali pirates were in the French city of Rennes on Wednesday facing judicial investigation after being captured in a hostage rescue Friday. Several other pirates are also in French custody after being seized last year.

Tuesday's attack on the Liberty Sun foiled the reunion between Phillips and the 19-man crew he saved with his heroism. Phillips had planned to meet his crew in Mombasa and fly home with them Wednesday, but was stuck on the USS Bainbridge when it was diverted to help the Liberty Sun.

The crew left without him, flying to Andrews Air Force base in Maryland in a chartered plane.

"We are very happy to be going home," crewman William Rios of New York City said before departing Wednesday. "(But) we are disappointed to not be reuniting with the captain in Mombasa. He is a very brave man."

Third mate Colin Wright, from Galveston, Texas told ABC's "Good Morning America" that fighting off pirates gave him a new appreciation for life.

"I'll just love to hug my mother," Wright said. "Everybody out there give your mother a hug. Yeah, don't wait. Life is precious. And what a beautiful world."

The Liberty Sun had left Houston with a crew of 20 American sailors and a load of aid for the U.N. World Food Program. It warded off the pirates with evasive maneuvers, according to U.S. Navy Lt. Nathan Christensen of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet.

"We are under attack by pirates, we are being hit by rockets. Also bullets," Liberty Sun crewman Thomas Urbik, 26, wrote his mother in an e-mail. "We are barricaded in the engine room and so far no one is hurt. (A) rocket penetrated the bulkhead but the hole is small. Small fire, too, but put out."

By the time the Bainbridge arrived five hours later, the pirates had left. A small group of armed U.S. sailors from the Bainbridge went aboard the Liberty Sun to ensure its safe journey to Mombasa.

Despite President Barack Obama's vow to take action against the rise in banditry and the deaths of five pirates in French and U.S. hostage rescues, brigands have seized four vessels and more than 75 hostages since Sunday's dramatic rescue of Phillips.

Pirates released a Greek-owned cargo ship Wednesday and Greek authorities said all 24 crewmen on the Titan were in good health. The ship had been hijacked March 19 in the Gulf of Aden.

In all, Somali pirates are holding over 280 sailors on 15 ships — at least 76 of those sailors captured in the last few days. Pirates have attacked 79 ships this year and hijacked 19 of them, according to the International Maritime Bureau, a piracy watchdog.

Pirates can extort $1 million or more for each ship and crew seized off the Horn of Africa — and Kenya estimates they raked in $150 million last year.

The United States has asked the International Committee of the Red Cross and Somali officials to help locate the families of the three pirates slain Sunday by Navy snipers so their remains can be returned, a senior U.S. official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.

The difficulties in getting food aid delivered could leave some Somalis hungry.

World Food Program spokesman Peter Smerdon said more food aid was to have been delivered by another cargo ship hijacked Tuesday, the Lebanese-owned MV Sea Horse. It was headed to Mumbai, India, to pick up 7,327 tons of WFP food for Somalia.

"WFP is also extremely concerned that people in Somalia will go hungry unless the Sea Horse is quickly released or a replacement ship can be found," he said.

Hours before the attack on the Sea Horse, pirates seized the Greek-managed bulk carrier MV Irene E.M. in an unusual nighttime raid. They also captured two Egyptian fishing trawlers carrying 36 fishermen.

Pirates say they are fighting illegal fishing and dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters but now operate hundreds of miles from there in a sprawling 1.1 million square-mile danger zone.

A flotilla of warships from nearly a dozen countries has patrolled the Gulf of Aden and nearby Indian Ocean waters for months. They have halted many attacks but say the area is so vast they can't stop all hijackings.

The Gulf of Aden, which links the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, is the shortest route from Asia to Europe. More than 20,000 ships cross the vital sea lane every year.

Pirate attacks in the region have rapidly increased lately, according to the International Maritime Bureau. In less than four months this year, there have been 79 attacks, compared to 111 for all of 2008.

In 2003, there were only 21 attacks by Somalis in this expanse of water.

Last year pirates took 815 sailors hostage and hijacked 42 ships.

[MacShreach]

Hopefully we shall see a bit less of the unwarranted prejudice shown against the French, for a day or two or so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8000447.stm

[Dave32111]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.

Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.

The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.

Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.

I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".

Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).

You know, it would be that wouldn't keep the US private citizens from giving more foreign aid than their government does.

*sigh*

So have you come up with that government system that's better?

And where are you from, since you seem to be very opinionated without coming up with a solution, or even suggestion.

I m from Greece, sugestion about what? about how we will stop the Somalian pirates?
Yes i have lets rise up, against capitalists who gain from our work, rise up against the puppets goverments who serve this class, lets share the global resourses, lets share the result of our work , lets stop steel third world , and WHEN we do all that , yes i will have sugest about the Dumb ass Somalian pirates.

My friend you see the tree and you dont see the forest .
No, about a government or economic system that differs significantly from capitalism that actually works?

Greece is without problems? There are captured ships under Greek flag as well - see the above post. 8% unemployment? (2007) Still dealing with problems with Turkey? Cyprus?

Surely you don't suggest another failed communist country?

[SemperFiGuy]

actually, it's been completely within the warlords MO to send kids to do the dirty work. It was the same when I was there. I'll never forget the little kid who was posturing up to fire off an RPG at the embassy, could barely handle the damn thing. He took one to the head too. Sad, very sad!

[TommyFoxtrot]

You did notice, of course, that in 2007 (for instance), the US gave out $21,197,000,000 in foreign aid?

I don't support everything the US government does, but I damn well think we do a lot better than most other nations.

The american goverment sould keep this money for the American people. The all "Charity" matter is well known to everyone that wants to make publiC relations, all this money off course is money that are going to specific goverments, all this money its nothing else but a tool for political influence to several countries and goverments.

Also this money is exactlly an alabite for the American politic that needs a profile like this.

The problem is not the Americvan Nation or anything else like this, is generally the capitalist system that create imperialist countries who trying to have bigger part of the "pie", so i m not talking only for the Americans and offcourse not for the people.

Americans are only the leaders in this game, that make billionaires with the sweat of the people.

I m not going to support any pirate but i have to say that all this pirates have connectiions with terrorist groups , and this groups off course have closed relations with the goverments, and i m not going to forget that the big nations with USA first was supporting goverments like Somalian because very simple "doing the job".

Off course this allliances is changing and many times you ve turned your bag to your childs(Bin Landen, Sadam, Taliban, etc).

You know, it would be that wouldn't keep the US private citizens from giving more foreign aid than their government does.

*sigh*

So have you come up with that government system that's better?

And where are you from, since you seem to be very opinionated without coming up with a solution, or even suggestion.

I m from Greece, sugestion about what? about how we will stop the Somalian pirates?
Yes i have lets rise up, against capitalists who gain from our work, rise up against the puppets goverments who serve this class, lets share the global resourses, lets share the result of our work , lets stop steel third world , and WHEN we do all that , yes i will have sugest about the Dumb ass Somalian pirates.

My friend you see the tree and you dont see the forest .\


You really should stop with this communist b.s. The far left has run Greece how many times in the last few decades and your nation is a Basketcase. The whole country needs to get its shit together.

[BrendaQG]

So you choose to take seriously a scenario which I intentionally entitled an “amusing solution”; i.e. one not to be taken seriously. You even twist your language to make it appear the pirates are carrying out my “multimillion dollar toll idea.” How can we believe anything you have to offer on this subject when you’re so willing to cherry pick and misstate other people’s positions?
Surely you did not expect anyone to take your trite analogy seriously, but who except a very flippant person would joke like this, even as people lay dead or are still held captive?
Car-jackers are about the closest thing on land to which pirates can be compared. If a series of car-jackings had resulted in the sort of mayhem we've seen over the past few months, would you callously call the car-jackers something benign and suggest they were entitled to their crimes, as you did with the pirates.
Go back and read your posts.

In these posts I have not lamented anyone’s grief and I have not offered my sympathies to anyone. Do you really think this is the place for lamentations? There have been half a dozen posts in thread that have boasted that no one will miss three dead pirates. I pointed out those claims may be false, and for that I’m disrespectful of the families of the abducted and not offering them their fair share of sympathy!

What bugs you, phobun, is that someone would dare pipe up and ruin the fun while everyone is shouting about how we kicked ass and killed some no good fuckers. I’m impressed, you’re a real man.
Your last statement is blatantly dishonest. Try to find where I was revelling in the bloodlust. Take note of my preface in the last thread, where I wrote that it is sad the 3 teens died.

I still maintain that you're a not-very-bright sheep who took up for pirates.

In the name of Allah most beneficent ever merciful.

I performed a Salat-l-Istikhara, and opend my Quran to whatever page god guided me to. This was the only quranic arabic text that appeared. Chapter 12 "Surat ul Yusuf" verse 111

In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it, and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe.

I am going to share with trish in private with the rest of the board.... I just cant let her stew any longer..

"A bit of what I get on here when I talk of my faith."

To most in NYC I suppose Islam is just two buildings falling. The roots of this board are a community of NYC transsexuals. Out in middle America it is not much different, though here it is based on racism.

Trish, it's not about actions, it's about the fact that those Pirates face Mecca and pray to god (whenever they occasion to pray). It is about Islam, Muslims, and the way we are thought of by the LGBT and gay friendly west.

In a sense you stood where I have stood here.

Here is my advice Rolling Eyes your eyes and ignore their ignorance.... for to so many average joe Muslim on the street of mogadishou is not a person with needs and dreams they are just a terrorist...even if average joe Muslim is just a child.

That is just the way HA, and the gay community are.

Thankyou for trying to talk to these people as if the Somalis were actual people, I am afraid that it is fruitless.[/quote]

I wonder how the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie will do in light of this? Hell there's still piracy there (http://www.bluewaterins.com/second/pirates.htm) .... Or how about the next annual talk like a pirate day arrrh. (http://www.talklikeapirate.com/) :roll: I guess it's cute as long as the pirate's not saying Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!

These are the histories and we are paying the price. Our culture made light of pirates, and the reasons they plundered in the past. We called them Robin Hood, we called them sir Francis Drake, Christian Anglo-Saxon Hero's. Our culture ignored its own history.... Then when we saw the chaos in Somalia, a country that resents foreign influence as much as we ourselves do... What did we do? Send in the military. When we saw them still poor and desperate what did we do? Freeze their assets, all of the assets of all of the people just because maybe 10 Arabs there might possibly someday hurt us. When they did start to put together a government based on the one thing all Somalis agree on...the rule of Shari'a law....a government which for a time actually stopped the piracy and beheaded those it caught in the act.. what did we do? Help the Christian Ethiopians invade and reintroduce chaos to a muslim land!

The piracy we see now is not our fault, but it is a confirmation of the results of our actions, and the actions of a whole world which has ignored a country or even punished it for standing on it's principle, submission to gods will. The only will Somalis will ever agree they should submit to. The only thing that can unite them, govern them, and end this accursed piracy for good.

Peace.

[Suckalot1]

Well you and trish are two peas in a pod, aren't you. Calling pirates Robin Hood? are you stupid or just crazy? No one in our culture ever referred to pirates as Robin Hood. To these people steal from the rich and give it back to their community or steal from anyone they can and keep it for themselves? If you can't answer that correctly, I ask again. Are you stupid or just crazy?

as for you trish, it's obviously you are so ignorant no one could change your values. All I can say to your dumb, arrogant ass, is your values are twisted and you respect all the wrong people. You value pirates lives over honest, hard-working Americans' lives. You can't justify these things that are morally wrong and you are morally wrong.

Also, you are the belligerent one.

Thank you.

[Solitary Brother]

Hopefully we shall see a bit less of the unwarranted prejudice shown against the French, for a day or two or so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8000447.stm

Thank you!
The french were and are our FIRST ally!
Just because certain ethnic minorities in this country dont like the french does not me we all have to.

[phobun]

So you choose to take seriously a scenario which I intentionally entitled an “amusing solution”; i.e. one not to be taken seriously. You even twist your language to make it appear the pirates are carrying out my “multimillion dollar toll idea.” How can we believe anything you have to offer on this subject when you’re so willing to cherry pick and misstate other people’s positions?
Surely you did not expect anyone to take your trite analogy seriously, but who except a very flippant person would joke like this, even as people lay dead or are still held captive?
Car-jackers are about the closest thing on land to which pirates can be compared. If a series of car-jackings had resulted in the sort of mayhem we've seen over the past few months, would you callously call the car-jackers something benign and suggest they were entitled to their crimes, as you did with the pirates.
Go back and read your posts.

In these posts I have not lamented anyone’s grief and I have not offered my sympathies to anyone. Do you really think this is the place for lamentations? There have been half a dozen posts in thread that have boasted that no one will miss three dead pirates. I pointed out those claims may be false, and for that I’m disrespectful of the families of the abducted and not offering them their fair share of sympathy!

What bugs you, phobun, is that someone would dare pipe up and ruin the fun while everyone is shouting about how we kicked ass and killed some no good fuckers. I’m impressed, you’re a real man.
Your last statement is blatantly dishonest. Try to find where I was revelling in the bloodlust. Take note of my preface in the last thread, where I wrote that it is sad the 3 teens died.

I still maintain that you're a not-very-bright sheep who took up for pirates.

In the name of Allah most beneficent ever merciful.

I performed a Salat-l-Istikhara, and opend my Quran to whatever page god guided me to. This was the only quranic arabic text that appeared. Chapter 12 "Surat ul Yusuf" verse 111

In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it, and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe.

I am going to share with trish in private with the rest of the board.... I just cant let her stew any longer..

"A bit of what I get on here when I talk of my faith."

To most in NYC I suppose Islam is just two buildings falling. The roots of this board are a community of NYC transsexuals. Out in middle America it is not much different, though here it is based on racism.

Trish, it's not about actions, it's about the fact that those Pirates face Mecca and pray to god (whenever they occasion to pray). It is about Islam, Muslims, and the way we are thought of by the LGBT and gay friendly west.

In a sense you stood where I have stood here.

Here is my advice Rolling Eyes your eyes and ignore their ignorance.... for to so many average joe Muslim on the street of mogadishou is not a person with needs and dreams they are just a terrorist...even if average joe Muslim is just a child.

That is just the way HA, and the gay community are.

Thankyou for trying to talk to these people as if the Somalis were actual people, I am afraid that it is fruitless.

I wonder how the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie will do in light of this? Hell there's still piracy there (http://www.bluewaterins.com/second/pirates.htm) .... Or how about the next annual talk like a pirate day arrrh. (http://www.talklikeapirate.com/) :roll: I guess it's cute as long as the pirate's not saying Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!

These are the histories and we are paying the price. Our culture made light of pirates, and the reasons they plundered in the past. We called them Robin Hood, we called them sir Francis Drake, Christian Anglo-Saxon Hero's. Our culture ignored its own history.... Then when we saw the chaos in Somalia, a country that resents foreign influence as much as we ourselves do... What did we do? Send in the military. When we saw them still poor and desperate what did we do? Freeze their assets, all of the assets of all of the people just because maybe 10 Arabs there might possibly someday hurt us. When they did start to put together a government based on the one thing all Somalis agree on...the rule of Shari'a law....a government which for a time actually stopped the piracy and beheaded those it caught in the act.. what did we do? Help the Christian Ethiopians invade and reintroduce chaos to a muslim land!

The piracy we see now is not our fault, but it is a confirmation of the results of our actions, and the actions of a whole world which has ignored a country or even punished it for standing on it's principle, submission to gods will. The only will Somalis will ever agree they should submit to. The only thing that can unite them, govern them, and end this accursed piracy for good.

Peace.

Creating walls based on religion is for demagogues.
Religious superstition is for stupid people.

Aren't you a wannabe physicist? Science might be a better way for you to help the world, and more focus and a little diligence might help your academic endeavors.

[trish]

SucksAlot states,

as for you trish, it's obviously you are so ignorant no one could change your values. All I can say to your dumb, arrogant ass, is your values are twisted and you respect all the wrong people. You value pirates lives over honest, hard-working Americans' lives. You can't justify these things that are morally wrong and you are morally wrong.

Also, you are the belligerent one.My, what enlightened eloquence! I am shamed by your, shall I say, non-belligerent display of superior wisdom.

In defense of my dumb, ignorant ass I can only reiterate my position as I’ve stated it before:

From my very first post in this thread my complaint has been about the bloodlust and belligerence of a certain segment “onlookers” following this particular event. I admit nothing pushes my buttons like a collection of boisterous, belligerent assholes. Now I understand no one wants to be interrupted while they’re cheering the deaths of three scumbags the world will never miss. So chiming in was a mistake. For not sharing in the blood lust, I been berated for sympathizing with the pirates, not sympathizing with the abductees, insulting the abductees (as if they’re regulars visitors to HA), allowing hypothetical thieves to steal me blind without so much as firing a shot, accusing the U.S. Navy of belligerence, etc. etc.

Well, [I'm] happy to say the Navy wasn’t belligerent and the innocent escaped peril. Still the outcome is not a happy one. Three people, who might have lived, died. It’s their own fault, yes. I don’t dispute that. But that’s no cause for celebration. Somalia is a tragic State. It’s been in economic ruin for decades. It seems a common place to subscribe to the Somali pirates the motive of “greed”. I think that’s probably correct. Yet I think it is a greed born out of deprivation. “Oh shit, there she goes again sympathizing with the enemy!” No, attempting to understand the deeper motivations of behavior is not sympathizing. It’s just the rational thing to do if you want to solve social, political and economic problems. The unfortunate deaths did not solve anything but the most immediate problem, saving the innocent life of Capt. Phillips. I will trust the Navy sniper’s judgment that that was the only solution to the immediate problem as it came to a head. But those deaths will only exasperate the problems of piracy off the coast of Somalia. I don’t think any amount Naval power can keep those waters safe until something is done to lift Somalia out of it economic situation.

I will add that Capt. Phillips’ role was a heroic one. Not because he fought, but because he negotiated with the privateers. He negotiated his abduction for the lives and freedom of his crew. He could have refused to negotiate or cooperate in any way. He could have ordered his men to fight. He didn’t.

The above is a fair statement of my perspective on this whole affair. If you find this belligerent, or offensive, or stupid, or un-American, or naïve etc. then I'm sorry my assessment doesn’t measure up to those who have a clearer grasp of right and wrong than do I.

[phobun]

Yet I think it is a greed born out of deprivation. “Oh shit, there she goes again sympathizing with the enemy!” No, attempting to understand the deeper motivations of behavior is not sympathizing.

You do the vast majority of the world's poor people a disservice when you justify the crimes of a few pirates. Most poor people are actually good people, and most would probably not want to rationalize the actions of bullies who fire automatic weapons at innocent civilians, then hold them hostage for money.

Besides, there are quite a lot of "rich" people who are greedy, including the warlords who arm African teenagers. Will you rationalize and excuse the greed of these warlords, so long as they started out economically deprived?

[trish]

Where in that line you quoted do I "justify" anything, let alone the "crimes of a few pirates." Try reading for understanding before making accusations. I wrote that to solve social, political and economic problems one needs to UNDERSTAND the deeper motivatons of behavior. I didn't say one needs to rationalize. I didn't say one needs to justify. I didn't say one needs to sympathize, nor did I say one needs to excuse. The distinctions between these words are not so subtle that they are readily confused lest one is intent on misleading, misdirection and obfuscation.

[BrendaQG]

Well you and trish are two peas in a pod, aren't you. Calling pirates Robin Hood? are you stupid or just crazy? No one in our culture ever referred to pirates as Robin Hood. To these people steal from the rich and give it back to their community or steal from anyone they can and keep it for themselves? If you can't answer that correctly, I ask again. Are you stupid or just crazy?

as for you trish, it's obviously you are so ignorant no one could change your values. All I can say to your dumb, arrogant ass, is your values are twisted and you respect all the wrong people. You value pirates lives over honest, hard-working Americans' lives. You can't justify these things that are morally wrong and you are morally wrong.

Also, you are the belligerent one.

Thank you.

Idiot. I never said the pirates were robin hood. I said that robin hood, and other white Christian thieving bastards that you are taught as children are great guys were no different from these pirates.

Also I did not say the pirates lives were more valuable than an Americans... but a life is a life is a life. All life is precious.

As for being arrogant sir. I believe what 1 Billion other people, all kinds of people, from people "whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white,"* To transsexuals every bit as lovely as any HHA or pageant queen in the west http://www.insideindonesia.org/content /view/624/47. Compare those realities with the racist, Islamophobic, it's true because you saw it on CNN and MSNBC kind of way you found out about Islam!

*Those who wish to call me ignorant of Islam must honestly be able to tell me where that quote is from without using goggle. It should be extremely obvious.

[phobun]

Where in that line you quoted do I "justify" anything, let alone the "crimes of a few pirates." Try reading for understanding before making accusations. I wrote that to solve social, political and economic problems one needs to UNDERSTAND the deeper motivatons of behavior. I didn't say one needs to rationalize. I didn't say one needs to justify. I didn't say one needs to sympathize, nor did I say one needs to excuse. The distinctions between these words are not so subtle that they are readily confused lest one is intent on misleading, misdirection and obfuscation.
You're casting them as victims of economic deprivation and therefore you are rationalizing, and in a way, excusing, their behavior.

As I wrote before, this does most poor people, who are mostly good souls, a disservice. Most poor people would probably not stick guns in the backs of innocents and hold them hostage for money, even if they could.

And if you are willing to understand the deeper motivations (which you ascribe to poverty) of the teen pirates, why not do the same for the wealthy warlords and financiers who arm African teens, who also quite likely started life in poverty?

[phobun]

and other white Christian thieving bastards

...All life is precious.

You discredit yourself and your faith.

[trish]

phobun writes

You're casting them as victims of economic deprivation and therefore you are rationalizing, and in a way, excusing, their behavior.

So you believe that being a victim of economic deprivation justifies and excuses criminal behavior. Or at least that’s what your accusation implies. I personally do not think that economic deprivation justifies or excuses criminal behavior. It does go a long way in EXPLAINING the statistics of criminal behavior.


And if you are willing to understand the deeper motivations (which you ascribe to poverty) of the teen pirates, why not do the same for the wealthy warlords and financiers who arm African teens, who also quite likely started life in poverty?

Why not? I know, because in your head there’s no way to place a wall between understanding and justifying.

[phobun]

phobun writes

You're casting them as victims of economic deprivation and therefore you are rationalizing, and in a way, excusing, their behavior.

So you believe that being a victim of economic deprivation justifies and excuses criminal behavior. Or at least that’s what your accusation implies. I personally do not think that economic deprivation justifies or excuses criminal behavior. It does go a long way in EXPLAINING the statistics of criminal behavior.

Explaining, rationalizing... parse your verb.
How do you explain the many many rich people who engage in criminal behavior, or the vast majority of poor people who are not criminals? Would Bernie Madoff's crimes be more understandable if they were borne of deprivation?

[BrendaQG]

Phobun.

You say that casting those pirates as victims of economic deprivation (because they live in a war torn hell hole) cannot explain their behaviour?

You see there is a difference between explanation and an excuse.

All either I or Trish have tried to do is explain the why of this. Once that is understood, and the recent history of the country, how to stop it is clear.

The next time any faction is either popular and/or brutal enough to kick the asses of every other faction, and impose some kind of actual order there, let's just let them do it and mind our business. (Which likely means letting an Islamic state exist there.)

Why is that objectionable to you. What did any muslim ever do personally and directly to you?

[trish]

Obviously greed is a motivation for lots of criminal behavior. Certainly economic deprivation would poorly explain the Madoffs of this world. Just as obviously, dirt poor orphans living on the street can easily recruited into lives of crime. There’s nothing difficult to explain here. If you wish to see such deprivation and recruitment as a justification of thievery be my guest. But don’t ascribe such leaps of deduction to me. If you do equate explanation with justification, may I suggest that’s why you are reluctant to accept economic deprivation as a explanatory factor in some criminal behaviors.

[phobun]

Phobun.

You say that casting those pirates as victims of economic deprivation (because they live in a war torn hell hole) cannot explain their behaviour?

You see there is a difference between explanation and an excuse.

All either I or Trish have tried to do is explain the why of this. Once that is understood, and the recent history of the country, how to stop it is clear.

The next time any faction is either popular and/or brutal enough to kick the asses of every other faction, and impose some kind of actual order there, let's just let them do it and mind our business. (Which likely means letting an Islamic state exist there.)

Why is that objectionable to you. What did any muslim ever do personally and directly to you?

This is not about Islam, or the superstition of any other religion. I criticized you in your last 2 posts for writing "and other white Christian thieving bastards", and for appealing to religious demagoguery and superstitition. As I tried to ask you before, aren't you a wannabe physicist? Because you don't sound like a physicist, most of whom are not religious, nor do you seem very educated.

[phobun]

Obviously greed is a motivation for lots of criminal behavior. Certainly economic deprivation would poorly explain the Madoffs of this world. Just as obviously, dirt poor orphans living on the street can easily recruited into lives of crime. There’s nothing difficult to explain here. If you wish to see such deprivation and recruitment as a justification of thievery be my guest. But don’t ascribe such leaps of deduction to me.
I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic.

If you do equate explanation with justification, may I suggest that’s why you are reluctant to accept economic deprivation as a explanatory factor in some criminal behaviors.
So avoiding the words "justify" or "excuse", how do you explain how most economically deprived people are good and law-abiding, while many rich kids get involved in crime, as well as many rich adults. If your explanation of economic deprivation is good enough to explain why a minority of poor people engage in piracy, why is the same explanation useless for these other questions? Perhaps economic deprivation is not the best explanation for crime? Are you willing to consider that?

[BrendaQG]

Yes it is about Islam. People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.

As for being economically deprived, being the cause... what is the first step to a solution? How about having a government to enforce laws and contracts instead of tribal clan law, and the law of who has more guns? The economy can take care of itself from there.

The only alternative I have seen on HA ,on other websites, on TV and radio is to do violence to Somalia. If that would have worked it would have worked a long time ago.

[2009AD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyGStVc8QY

[trish]

So your contention is that economic deprivation is never a factor in criminal behavior, in spite of the statistical fact that criminal behavior is positively correlated with deprivation. Your contention is that street orphans living from hand to mouth are not easy targets for recruitment into exploitive criminal organizations, in spite of the fact that just such scenarios are the staple of literature and film from Great Expectations to Slumdog Millionaire. I was under the impression that most people were capable of seeing the connection between economic deprivation and crime. You really want to say poverty is not statistically linked to crime and is not a likely a causal factor?

[phobun]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

[phobun]

So your contention is that economic deprivation is never a factor in criminal behavior, in spite of the statistical fact that criminal behavior is positively correlated with deprivation. Your contention is that street orphans living from hand to mouth are not easy targets for recruitment into exploitive criminal organizations, in spite of the fact that just such scenarios are the staple of literature and film from Great Expectations to Slumdog Millionaire. I was under the impression that most people were capable of seeing the connection between economic deprivation and crime. You really want to say poverty is not statistically linked to crime and is likely a causal factor?
Read my last post again more carefully, and kindly answer the question I asked.

[addicted]

Those somali pirates are not as dumb as obama and his supporters.

[phobun]

Those somali pirates are not as dumb as obama and his supporters.
Oh, a real dipshit has now arrived!

So, your HIV dementia appears to be progressing, correct?

[trish]

If there were sufficiently plentiful opportunities within a population for eeking out a living, there would be less pressure to survive by illegal means. In a population suffering economic deprivation there are not sufficient legal opportunities for pursuing the requirements of survival. Consequently there is higher pressure for people to pursue criminal paths.

Now for some strange reason you want me to explain why most economically deprived people are not criminals. I don't know if that is true or not. I believe it's true in the United States at the current time. But the population of the United States is not an economically deprived population. The population of Somalia is.

[BrendaQG]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

I did answer your points. Economic deprivation is no excuse, violence is no answer. For Somalia an Islamic government, which somali's would respect, could enforce laws against piracy. It happend before.

Piracy Off Somalia's Coast Increases (http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2007-oct-piracy_off_somalia_s_coast_increases.aspx)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Piracy off Somalia is on the rise because an Islamic group that had cracked down on the seafaring criminals was ousted from power, an official who tracks such cases off Africa's side of the Indian Ocean said Tuesday.

'''''During the six months that an Islamic group known as the Council of Islamic Courts ruled most of southern Somalia, where Somali pirates are based, piracy abated, said Andrew Mwangura, the program coordinator of the Seafarers Assistance Program.

At one point, the Islamic group said it was sending scores of fighters with pickups mounted with machine guns and anti-aircraft guns to central Somali regions to crack down on pirates based there. Islamic fighters even stormed a hijacked, UAE-registered ship and recaptured it after a gunbattle in which pirates — but no crew members — were reportedly wounded.

Mwangura said but piracy increased this year after Ethiopian forces backing Somali government (UN/EU/US puppet with no real authority what so ever) troops ousted the Islamic courts in December. ....

It's as simple as that. Had we not ousted that particular Islamic Government, in our irrational fear that they might harbor terrorist, there would not have been a pirate attack on the ship, none of this would have happened. They were willing to actively fight the pirates and we ousted them. Directly because of the USA and our racially, and religiously motivated crusade against Islamic Government.

Edited because I wanted it to be quoted obvious for all to see in this case, our over-active imagination about every single islamic gov't being evil lead to a chain of events which created the situation we are in. Like the good book said, this present is a product of past history.

[phobun]

If there were sufficiently plentiful opportunities within a population for eeking out a living, there would be less pressure to survive by illegal means. In a population suffering economic deprivation there are not sufficient legal opportunities for pursuing the requirements of survival. Consequently there is higher pressure for people to pursue criminal paths.

Now for some strange reason you want me to explain why most economically deprived people are not criminals. I don't know if that is true or not. I believe it's true in the United States at the current time. But the population of the United States is not an economically deprived population. The population of Somalia is.
There are truly impovershed areas and families within North America, including the United States. I won't deny that.

And just because two phenomena are linked statistically does not indicate that one causes the other. A basic maxim goes something like this: correlation does not imply causation. Your theory of economic deprivation fails to explain why rich kids and adults get involved in crime, and it does not explain why most poor people in Somalia are decent people who don't stick guns in innocents' backs and hold them hostage for money.

[phobun]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

I did answer your points. Economic deprivation is no excuse, violence is no answer. For Somalia an Islamic government, which somali's would respect, could enforce laws against piracy. It happend before.

Piracy Off Somalia's Coast Increases (http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2007-oct-piracy_off_somalia_s_coast_increases.aspx)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Piracy off Somalia is on the rise because an Islamic group that had cracked down on the seafaring criminals was ousted from power, an official who tracks such cases off Africa's side of the Indian Ocean said Tuesday.

It's as simple as that. Had we not ousted that particular Islamic Government, in our irrational fear that they might harbor terrorist, there would not have been a pirate attack on the ship, none of this would have happened. Directly because of the USA and our racially, and religiously motivated crusade against Islamic Government.
Is your scientific logic so convincing too?
And how many leading academic centers in physics exist under sharia law? Seriously.

[BrendaQG]

there is a difference between an impoverished area of a rich country....

And being in a country that has no actual legal system what so ever.

The riddle of Somalia is that it's economy is actually better than that of some other countries in Africa because there is no govnerment to get in the way of free enterprise. There are no taxes on phone/internet service for example. One can get really cheap internet access there. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia)

The problem of somalia is that there is no government (with any real authority) to stop some of those enterprises from being piracy, slavery, dealing drugs, or just setting up a roadblock every 500 yards and demanding a bribe/toll.

[trish]

And just because two phenomena are linked statistically does not indicate that one causes the other. A basic maxim goes something like this: correlation does not imply causation. Your theory of economic deprivation fails to explain why rich kids and adults get involved in crime, and it does not explain why most poor people in Somalia are decent people who don't stick guns in innocents' backs and hold them hostage for money.

My so called “theory of economic deprivation” isn’t intended to explain why the rich get involved with crime. There are do doubt many factors and causes of criminal behavior besides poverty. If X is offered as a causal factor of Y, it is not necessarily a valid criticism to maintain X doesn’t explain Z.

It is true that correlation alone doesn’t imply causation. But I also provided a mechanism of causation in the form of increased pressure to behave criminally in order to survive because of the poverty of legitimate means of survival. Can you provide an alternative explanation for the correlation?

I do not know for a fact that the “most poor” Somali are not involved in some form of illegal behaviors in order to survive. It probably depends on what one means my “most poor”. Not having any legitimate opportunities to provide the necessities of survival seems like a possible definition. But of course if we take that as the definition of “most poor,” it becomes tautological that the most poor are indeed surviving by criminal means.

[BrendaQG]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

I did answer your points. Economic deprivation is no excuse, violence is no answer. For Somalia an Islamic government, which somali's would respect, could enforce laws against piracy. It happend before.

Piracy Off Somalia's Coast Increases (http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2007-oct-piracy_off_somalia_s_coast_increases.aspx)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Piracy off Somalia is on the rise because an Islamic group that had cracked down on the seafaring criminals was ousted from power, an official who tracks such cases off Africa's side of the Indian Ocean said Tuesday.

It's as simple as that. Had we not ousted that particular Islamic Government, in our irrational fear that they might harbor terrorist, there would not have been a pirate attack on the ship, none of this would have happened. Directly because of the USA and our racially, and religiously motivated crusade against Islamic Government.
Is your scientific logic so convincing too?
And how many leading academic centers in physics exist under sharia law? Seriously.

Look in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Feb 25, 1999,Pakistan creates national centre for physics (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27950) Well before then... in the 1960's there was Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam). Then reaching way back there is the historical fact that in the Islamic world, before the renaissance philosophy, medicine, and even natural philosophy...what would become physics were being practised... all while under reasonably enforced sharia. (Not say.... the authoritarian thing the Saudi gov't. calls sharia, which is really an excuse to suppress it's populace.)


Oh and more on topic. Read about the current "Trasitional federal govt. of Somalia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed)" Check who the UN recongnized "president's" pals are. He was commander of the government we ousted, which had the will and ability to stop the piracy. Now, why should they do either?

[phobun]

And just because two phenomena are linked statistically does not indicate that one causes the other. A basic maxim goes something like this: correlation does not imply causation. Your theory of economic deprivation fails to explain why rich kids and adults get involved in crime, and it does not explain why most poor people in Somalia are decent people who don't stick guns in innocents' backs and hold them hostage for money.

My so called “theory of economic deprivation” isn’t intended to explain why the rich get involved with crime. There are do doubt many factors and causes of criminal behavior besides poverty. If X is offered as a causal factor of Y, it is not necessarily a valid criticism to maintain X doesn’t explain Z.

It is true that correlation alone doesn’t imply causation. But I also provided a mechanism of causation in the form of increased pressure to behave criminally in order to survive because of the poverty of legitimate means of survival. Can you provide an alternative explanation for the correlation?
I'm not convinced your mechanism is valid. This is an area of pure conjecture and it does the broader population little good to try and rationalize why a some Somalis have chosen to commit piracy. I think some individuals in every society are willing to hurt or take advantage of others in order to benefit themselves, and this reality cuts across race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Perhaps poverty is more often associated with crime simply because poor people accused of crimes are less likely to get a good defense, and poor victims are less likely to see their victimizers prosecuted and taken off the streets.

I do not know for a fact that the “most poor” Somali are not involved in some form of illegal behaviors in order to survive. It probably depends on what one means my “most poor”. Not having any legitimate opportunities to provide the necessities of survival seems like a possible definition. But of course if we take that as the definition of “most poor,” it becomes tautological that the most poor are indeed surviving by criminal means.
I think it is pathetic that you impugn the vast majority of Somalis to support your unconvincing explanation.

[phobun]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

I did answer your points. Economic deprivation is no excuse, violence is no answer. For Somalia an Islamic government, which somali's would respect, could enforce laws against piracy. It happend before.

Piracy Off Somalia's Coast Increases (http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2007-oct-piracy_off_somalia_s_coast_increases.aspx)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Piracy off Somalia is on the rise because an Islamic group that had cracked down on the seafaring criminals was ousted from power, an official who tracks such cases off Africa's side of the Indian Ocean said Tuesday.

It's as simple as that. Had we not ousted that particular Islamic Government, in our irrational fear that they might harbor terrorist, there would not have been a pirate attack on the ship, none of this would have happened. Directly because of the USA and our racially, and religiously motivated crusade against Islamic Government.
Is your scientific logic so convincing too?
And how many leading academic centers in physics exist under sharia law? Seriously.

Look in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Feb 25, 1999,Pakistan creates national centre for physics (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27950) Well before then... in the 1960's there was Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam). Then reaching way back there is the historical fact that in the Islamic world, before the renaissance philosophy, medicine, and even natural philosophy...what would become physics were being practised... all while under reasonably enforced sharia. (Not say.... the authoritarian thing the Saudi gov't. calls sharia, which is really an excuse to suppress it's populace.)


Oh and more on topic. Read about the current "Trasitional federal govt. of Somalia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed)" Check who the UN recongnized "president's" pals are. He was commander of the government we ousted, which had the will and ability to stop the piracy. Now, why should they do either?
Fail.

Most of Pakistan is not governed by sharia law, and certainly not the islamic law that the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia tried to impose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a transsexual who has posed in the past for shemale porn? I doubt that you would feel very comfortable living under the sort of government you advocate for Somalia. I suspect you're a hypocrite, as too many religious people are.

[trish]

I agree there are some people in every society who are disposed to take advantage of others. But I also think that in truly impoverished populations many people not so disposed are pressured into a life a crime by the mechanism which I elucidated above. But these are questions best left to criminologists and statisticians.

Let’s take a look at the progress we’ve made. This evening’s conversation began with me being accused of justifying the pirates by suggesting there may be an explanation for their behavior. It seems that you now grant there is a distinction between justification and explanation. We both agree their criminal behavior is not justified. So our focus has shifted to explanation. We see the main causes of criminal behavior in Somalia differently. That’s something about which we can agree to disagree. Suppose I’m wrong and the scarcity of legitimate means of survival has nothing to do with excessive crime in Somalia. That only means I failed to find a proper explanation of their criminal behavior. Lacking an explanation of behavior is not a justification of that behavior either. So either way, whether I’m right or whether your right, we have a basic agreement on the moral issue.

[phobun]

I agree there are some people in every society who are disposed to take advantage of others. But I also think that in truly impoverished populations many people not so disposed are pressured into a life a crime by the mechanism which I elucidated above. But these are questions best left to criminologists and statisticians.

Let’s take a look at the progress we’ve made. This evening’s conversation began with me being accused of justifying the pirates by suggesting there may be an explanation for their behavior. It seems that you now grant there is a distinction between justification and explanation. We both agree their criminal behavior is not justified. So our focus has shifted to explanation. We see the main causes of criminal behavior in Somalia differently. That’s something about which we can agree to disagree. Suppose I’m wrong and the scarcity of legitimate means of survival has nothing to do with excessive crime in Somalia. That only means I failed to find a proper explanation of their criminal behavior. Lacking an explanation of behavior is not a justification of that behavior either. So either way, whether I’m right or whether your right, we have a basic agreement on the moral issue.
No, I still think that trying to explain the pirates' crimes on the basis of them being economic deprived victims is illegitimate and a form of excuse making. I do think that you have backed away somewhat from some of the very stupid things you wrote earlier in this thread. And I would rather agree to disagree with someone making such claims, than grant any common ground.

[trish]

The sad fact that you continually conflate explanation with justification has more than a little to do with your continual misinterpretations of my prior posts which are consistent with everything I’ve said tonight. I’m sorry we couldn’t find common ground. It seems to me the main obstacle is as follows. You believe that the occurrence of criminal behavior can only be explained by moral disposition and that any [...] explanation amounts to a justification. So if I really proved that scarcity of legitimate means of survival was the cause of increased crime in Somalia, you would have to believe that crime was justified. To me that sounds silly. I’m willing to hold people responsible for their actions regardless of their causes. In any case, the only progress we made was to speak civilly to one another. Thank you for the exchange. I think I'm calling it a night.

[All edits are within square brackets]

[BrendaQG]

Yes it is about Islam.
You're paranoid too. Just respond to the points I made in my last post.


People get hijacked and robbed on the high seas all around the world yet only one place does it get reported, and made to look like the only place it happens.
There is a serious pirate problem in the Malacca straits off the coast of Indonesia, but I'll leave it to you to say whether they are true Muslims.

Personally, I don't think the world's piracy problems are related to Islam.

I did answer your points. Economic deprivation is no excuse, violence is no answer. For Somalia an Islamic government, which somali's would respect, could enforce laws against piracy. It happend before.

Piracy Off Somalia's Coast Increases (http://www.hiiraan.com/comments2-news-2007-oct-piracy_off_somalia_s_coast_increases.aspx)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Piracy off Somalia is on the rise because an Islamic group that had cracked down on the seafaring criminals was ousted from power, an official who tracks such cases off Africa's side of the Indian Ocean said Tuesday.

It's as simple as that. Had we not ousted that particular Islamic Government, in our irrational fear that they might harbor terrorist, there would not have been a pirate attack on the ship, none of this would have happened. Directly because of the USA and our racially, and religiously motivated crusade against Islamic Government.
Is your scientific logic so convincing too?
And how many leading academic centers in physics exist under sharia law? Seriously.

Look in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Feb 25, 1999,Pakistan creates national centre for physics (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27950) Well before then... in the 1960's there was Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam). Then reaching way back there is the historical fact that in the Islamic world, before the renaissance philosophy, medicine, and even natural philosophy...what would become physics were being practised... all while under reasonably enforced sharia. (Not say.... the authoritarian thing the Saudi gov't. calls sharia, which is really an excuse to suppress it's populace.)


Oh and more on topic. Read about the current "Trasitional federal govt. of Somalia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Sharif_Sheikh_Ahmed)" Check who the UN recongnized "president's" pals are. He was commander of the government we ousted, which had the will and ability to stop the piracy. Now, why should they do either?
Fail.

Most of Pakistan is not governed by sharia law, and certainly not the islamic law that the Islamic Courts Union of Somalia tried to impose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a transsexual who has posed in the past for shemale porn? I doubt that you would feel very comfortable living under the sort of government you advocate for Somalia. I suspect you're a hypocrite, as too many religious people are.

Really, Pakistan does not have Sharia? This is what google gives for pakistan sharia law. (http://www.google.com/search?q=Pakistan+Sharia+law&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) ]As for the Sharia the ICU practiced... each Islamic court in the union was pretty independant, so it varied from liberal to conservative. However on the whole it was better than chaos and the law of the gun.

As for being transgender, even living this lifestyle, and being muslim being contradictory I have , over time, presented evidence that says otherwise about, Malyasia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Egypt, Morrocco, and even Arabia during the time of Muhammad, my beloved prophet S.A.S. had a number of transgender persons called Mukhannathun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun) around him. They were entertainers who sang erotic songs and danced for a living. If Islam condemned us, his first act as ruler of Medina would have been to have all of them executed. Such a deed would have been recorded by someone. Instead we have stories about him at one time berating them for their music, and protecting one from a mob that expected the prophet to execute the male for wearing female clothes.

(That did not stop people even back then from not liking and being prejudiced against transwomen, even as the founder and leader of their religion was not, nor does it stop people now. Persecution of transwomen over there, and right here are because of peoples emotions. No religion I have studied that bothers to mention us, condems us.)

[2009AD]

And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

[BrendaQG]

And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

[2009AD]

OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

[Suckalot1]

Holy crap, Brenda you are dumb.

trish, the reason I say you are arrogant and ignorant is because you have been trying to justify these criminal acts. You cannot just "explain" their behavior because of economic deprivation. Are all of these people in Somalia criminals? Like phobun says, what about all the rich people who commit crimes. They can't be justified, not greed either.

Brenda I already said to you that you can't compare these people to Robin Hood, but you try to anyway. I don't know what other" white Christian thieving bastards" that people glorify as good but are more like pirates, you obviously don't know any to name either. I already explained why these people are nothing at all like Robin hood.

Now please tell me, when has a white Christian ever shown you to be a thieving bastard? When has a white christian ever directly stole from you or anyone you know? Don't tell me about what you see on TV.

Brenda, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

trish if your really at all smart, realize that your wrong for trying to justify these acts. Just stop posting on here, it's over. People are going back and forth with no resolve but your wrong trish. Absolutely no one agrees with you, except for that moron Brenda who I'm sure you don't even agree with. Aside from maybe that Robin Hood was a pirate.

[trish]

...you have been trying to justify these criminal acts.
False. You need to sharpen your reading and comprehension skills.




...what about all the rich people who commit crimes.What about them? Not every criminal is motivated by the same desires or the same history.


You cannot just "explain" their behavior because of economic deprivation. I'm not a criminologist, so perhaps I personally cannot explain why some Somali have taken to piracy. But I suggest there may be such an explanation, but not based on the economic deprivation of single individuals but of the population as a whole. When a population suffers a scarcity of legitimate means of survival there will be otherwise decent people who have no recourse to survival other than criminal behavior. This does not excuse criminal behavior. At least not in my eyes. Perhaps it does in your estimation.


trish if your really at all smart, That must be your impression, because I never said I was. I'm an average person, who has worked hard, applied herself and was lucky enough to have opportunities to take advantage of. Look, I even end sentences in pr[e]positions sometimes.


...realize that your wrong for trying to justify these acts. For about the twentieth time, I'm not justifying these acts. I'm not even explaining them. I'm suggesting they have a sociological explanation.


Just stop posting on here, it's over.
That's not for you to say.


Absolutely no one agrees with you, You may be surprised. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my views once again.


except for that ... Brenda who I'm sure you don't even agree with. Aside from maybe that Robin Hood was a pirate.

I'm not at all familiar with Islam, so I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with Brenda on those issues. If the general American public were smart enough to know the Somali are Muslim, I think it would definitely count against them. Given that I said absolutely nothing relevant to the legend of Robin Hood, you have no evidence what I think one way or the other about Robin and piracy.

[edits are in square brackets]

[tstv_lover]

I think Trish is making excellent sense - in explaining (not justifying) the piracy in Somalia.

Perhaps this analysis posted on the BBC website helps shed further light on the reasons why piracy is happening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm

[yosi]

OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

and this comes from a racist , who just has to prove how homophobic and ignorant he realy is 8)

[2009AD]

Racist? You obviously missed my point.



OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

and this comes from a racist , who just has to prove how homophobic and ignorant he realy is 8)

[Mugai_hentaisha]

I'd happily give them the TV, if that what they came for. Better for me to lose a TV than for someone to lose a life. Killing a thief for threatening to take a television IS something to be ashamed of.

Here is the problem with pacifistic thinking. You gave them the TV, next time they demand your Tivo, then your console game system, then your stereo. All the while you just state.. hey I am insured so no problem. Yes there are problems. 1 your a pushover and a mark. 2. All of those claims to your insurance company is going to raise your and other's rates again and again or cancel your policy outright. 3 your rewarding bad behavior, so once you get taken for everything they will move on to another person. Now you have reinforced bad behavior to the point no one is safe!

No easy answers on the Piracy issue. Is it going to get worse, yeah probably as long as nations stick together on this we will win. 1 solution is to go into Somalia and hammer down on these groups, and help that country organize itself. This "country" is a danger to all around her. They have no government to speak of so they cannot intervene with these pirates

Funny though most on here that had a problem with our outstanding Navy Seals protecting an American life. They are the same ones wanting the government to protect us from the evil capitalist by taking control of everything. Funny

[LTR_Seeker]

There not worth even trying to save im fior peace & harmony but there times you need to just kick ass to get rid of problem

[trish]

Mugai_hentaisha writes:

Here is the problem with pacifistic thinking. You gave them the TV, next time they demand your Tivo,…I’m not a pacifist nor am I promoting “pacifistic thinking.” Here is what I said back on page 5 about the home invasion situation:

Would you give your own life for a TV? If it's not worth your life, then it's not worth anybody else's life either. Is your freedom, worth your life? If it's worth your own life, then it's defense is worth another's.

It’s kind of a golden rule. If you wouldn’t give your life for a truck load of appliances, then you probably shouldn’t take a life to save a truck load of appliances.

So yeah, if some guys showed up with a truck and started emptying my house and if I judged myself to be under no threat of physical harm (a big proviso), then no, I wouldn’t escalate the danger by grabbing for my thirty ‘aught six. I definitely wouldn’t want to take anyone’s life for a simple theft. You want me to kill someone to keep your insurance rates from going up (under the assumption that I even have insurance against theft). I’m not saying that if you were robbed once, then you should leave the door open and invite them to come back. There are lots of precautions, short of arming oneself, that one can take to avoid theft.

But all this is a long way from Somalia. In Somalia, people aren't worth the time of day, isn't that right right, LTR_Seeker? I could kill a Somali pirate with a clear conscious because it’s just like slapping down an insect, right? What did Capt. Phillips do. He talked to them. He negotiated his abduction to gain the freedom of his crew. What did the Navy do? They negotiated. They talked, they bargained and they attempted to avoid an escalation of violence. Some may have cheered when the snipers took necessary action. The negotiators were hoping for a better ending. It may even be the case the snipers were hoping for a better outcome.

Funny though most on here that had a problem with our outstanding Navy Seals protecting an American life. They are the same ones wanting the government to protect us from the evil capitalist by taking control of everything. Funny

One, capitalists are not evil, though capitalism is sometimes misunderstood to mean nobody and especially no government should get between me and my ability to make a buck. But nobody who’s against pirates would take that position, right? Two, I didn’t and I don’t have a problem with the Navy’s action in last week’s encounter with Somali pirates. They, the Navy Seals, weren’t behaving belligerently. The Navy’s behavior was calm, rational and ethical. My problem has only been with the bloodlust of the cheering onlookers. So no, I am not being at all inconsistent to think that the federal government needs to repair the regulatory apparatus for banks and conglomerates.

[MacShreach]

OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



Woo, that was uncalled-for. I spend plenty time not agreeing with Brenda, but that was just nasty. What does any of that, even if true, have to do with the quality of her argument? You didn't score any points there.

[BrendaQG]

OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



Woo, that was uncalled-for. I spend plenty time not agreeing with Brenda, but that was just nasty. What does any of that, even if true, have to do with the quality of her argument? You didn't score any points there.

:-/ He left out theoretical physicist

I am the way I am because of what I am and because of where I am. This is not NYC, or LA. This is a working class suburb of the City of Chicago and the County of C(r)ook. The Crooks are all socially conservative democrats who make their campaign appearances at black Baptist churches.

[Suckalot1]

trish, your putting it like would you give your TV for your life. If someone had a gun on me, then they could have the TV.

Think of it this way though. If someone came to rob you with a knife, but you had a gun and people around the corner. Wouldn't you say, "are you crazy?" pull the gun and call your people over?
People need to be let known who they're messing with. You could catch me by myself, but when I catch you it don't matter who your with your all getting dropped. You get me trish? After all we are the worlds superpower.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We give those people plenty of help and aid. They should be grateful we help feed their families, not holding hostages for television sets.

Thank you.

[2009AD]

You know what, yea that was below the belt. My attempt at levity obviously failed. Sorry Brenda.



OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



Woo, that was uncalled-for. I spend plenty time not agreeing with Brenda, but that was just nasty. What does any of that, even if true, have to do with the quality of her argument? You didn't score any points there.

[trish]

SuckaLot asks,

trish, your putting it like would you give your TV for your life. If someone had a gun on me, then they could have the TV. Think of it this way though. If someone came to rob you with a knife, but you had a gun and people around the corner. Wouldn't you say, "are you crazy?" pull the gun and call your people over?

In the situation you describe, I might be able to prevent the robbery by pulling the gun. And I may even do it. But let’s look at the negatives that weigh into the decision.

1. Remember, the hypothetical I postulated was such that I was not in danger of physical harm, or at least that was my hypothetical judgment. By pulling the gun, I change that. By threatening harm to the robbers, I escalated the situation. The situation is now officially dangerous to my life and limb.
2. By introducing the gun, I introduce the possibility that I may be overpowered, perhaps by a robber I didn’t see. Now they have a gun as well as a knife.
3. Suppose they’re stupid. They grab the TV and run. I’m still not going to shoot them, the TV’s not worth a human life, because I wouldn’t give my life for a TV.
4. Suppose they're stupid and attack me. Now my life and limb are in danger and I have to shoot. I took a situation in which no one had to die and made [it] into one in which someone may die and die by my hand!

So once again my maxim is: If it's not worth your life, it's not worth another's.


People need to be let known who they're messing with.
That’s right. And when they’re messing with me, they’re messing with a reasonable person who respects life and has her values in place.


After all we are the worlds superpower.
Don’t let that prefix “super” go to your head. In this case it merely means that at this moment in history we have the most atomic weapons, and still a relatively strong economy.


We give those people plenty of help and aid. They should be grateful we help feed their families, not holding hostages for television sets.

Now here I gather you switched gears on me and are talking about Somalia and not home invasion. We do not give Somalia plenty of aid. Somali families are starving. Moreover, I think it’s a bit trite to characterize piracy as holding hostages for TV sets.

[edits in square brackets]

[Suckalot1]

they say Brenda's got a baby, but Brenda's barely got a brain. A damn shame, the girl could hardly spell her name.

trish- : P ...just shutup, we're arguing semantics here.

[trish]

Oh really? You'd rather argue syntax? If it's just semantics, why does it upset you so?

[freak]

put a few a these on each ship and there will be no more pirates. They will be running in there little fishing boats

http://www.16ops.com/camerapics/BazookaTest_01_lar.jpg

http://www.amazing-planet.net/slike/rodents/squirrel_bazooka.jpg

http://imagecache.allposters.com/images/pic/LIFPOD/1223174~American-Marine-Phillip-Wilson-Carrying-Bazooka-Through-a-Stream-During-a-Patrol-Near-the-DMZ-Posters.jpg

[trish]

Yeah, we could put a few helmets on each ship, but I don't see how that'll help :)

[thx1138]

http://www.innercitypress.com/los1somalia041909.html

[tstv_lover]

People need to be let known who they're messing with. You could catch me by myself, but when I catch you it don't matter who your with your all getting dropped. You get me trish? After all we are the worlds superpower.

It's precisely this attitude that has caused the US moral standing to plummet internationally. President Obama has stessed that bridges need to be rebuilt through negotiation and genuine openness. Countries around the world (including old friends) are thankful that the "you're either with us or against us" attitude has been replaced by diplomacy. Being the words superpower gives the US a responsibility to use it's power wisely. Similarly, diplomacy and dealing with the bigger picture is required to eliminate piracy.


You don't bite the hand that feeds you. We give those people plenty of help and aid. They should be grateful we help feed their families, not holding hostages for television sets.


Those who make personal sacrifices to help others do so generously and with good intent, however the reality is that the poor provide more aid to the rich that the other way round.

There are 4 major problems with "aid" from the US:

1. The US is both the most generous and stingiest when it comes to foreign aid. http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

2. More funds are moving from poor countries to rich countries than the other way round. http://www.europaworld.org/week151/developmentfunds311003.htm Work led by Gordon Brown to write off debt in a few African countries will help, but debt recovery payments made by poor countries to IMF and others still exceeds foreign aid.

3. Foreign aid is a critical part of foreign policy rather than targetted at the needy. That is why 25% of US foreign aid is provided to Israel, a country with similar per capita income to Europe, which other major recipients are Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Those in the world's poorest countries receive nothing, unless their strategically important.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance

4. REAL aid involves empowering developing economies to grow rather than simply maintain minimum income (feeding families). It is through empowering these families to feed themselves that real progress will be achieved.

OK, maybe deviated from the OP, but let's be clear about the way foreign aid has been used by the US and other countries for political rather than altruistic reasons.

BTW, if someone broke into my house wielding a knife and looking to steal the TV I'd get the hell out and call the police. I'm not planning to "drop" anyone.

[hippifried]

Well Trish, I don't know why you'd hesitate to take on a crew emptying your house. You seem to be comfortable taking on this whole place.

I understand the perturbation with the rah rah shoot-em-up crowd, & I get the whole deprivation theory of criminology, but I think there's more to all of this.

If you've got the wherewithal to go after ships 200 miles out to sea, you've got the wherewithal to do something else. These ships are being ransomed for millions of dollars each. Where's the money? One would think that after a ship or 2, the whole deprivation theory would go right out the window. But this windfall doesn't seem to be making it's way to the mainland of Somalia. The pirates are rich by Somali standards (not much), but not like they should be if they were getting the cash. These jackings seem to be organized, but the guys who did this were basically kids & were neither smart or sophisticated. Something's wrong with this picture.

Another thing I have a problem with is all this shrieking about Somalia as if the Somali coast the big hotbed of piracy in the world. Not so. That dubious distinction belongs to the South China Sea & has for decades, if not a century or more. Piracy is going on all around Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania, the Mediteranian, & the Caribbean. It's a huge business, & it's lucrative because everybody pays the extortion. There's a problem, & nobody's talking about it. Why?

[tstv_lover]

http://www.innercitypress.com/los1somalia041909.html

Thanks for highlighting this.
So an impoverished nation is being robbed of it's mineral resources by use of a UN-appointed government (TFG), special negotiator - with vested interests and a deadline that no other county faces.

They may wear suits but who are the pirates?

http://blog.norway.com/tag/transitional-federal-government-of-the-somali-republic/

[trish]

hippiefried writes:
One would think that after a ship or 2, the whole deprivation theory would go right out the window. But this windfall doesn't seem to be making it's way to the mainland of Somalia. The pirates are rich by Somali standards (not much), but not like they should be if they were getting the cash. These jackings seem to be organized, but the guys who did this were basically kids & were neither smart or sophisticated. Something's wrong with this picture.

Exactly, somebody is getting rich. Not the Somali in general, not the kids conscripted or recruited into piracy. My money is on the organizers…the “piratanical” admirals, if you will. I guessing they're covered in pirate bling and live in pimped out mansions.


Piracy is going on all around Africa, Asia, South America, Oceania, the Mediteranian, & the Caribbean. It's a huge business, & it's lucrative because everybody pays the extortion. There's a problem, & nobody's talking about it. Why? :shrug

[Suckalot1]

hey trish, why don't you answer just this one two part question then.

Why do you care so much for these PIRATES and CRIMINALS, but not so much for an innocent American citizen held hostage?

Why should we care more for them than the American? Why even the same?

You must be one of the people that care about the crackdealer who deals crack to everyones mom in the neighborhood, but then your all upset that cops kicked in his door and beat him down. Right?

[trish]

It amuses every time you write, Sucksalot.

hey trish, why don't you answer just this one two part question then.

Why do you care so much for these PIRATES and CRIMINALS, but not so much for an innocent American citizen held hostage?

Because it’s a “When did you stop beating your wife?” kind a question. The question, like you, presumes too much. Where did I say I care for the pirates and criminals and that I care less for the hostages? I haven’t said anything about my likes or what I care about. Rather the opposite: I believe I said that I abhor assholes who applaud the taking of human lives.


Why should we care more for them than the American? Why even the same?
I give up. Why should you? I haven't addressed that particular matter.


You must be one of the people that care about the crackdealer who deals crack to everyones mom in the neighborhood, but then your all upset that cops kicked in his door and beat him down. Right?
(italics are mine)
That’s an odd commandment! I don’t give a damn if I must, I refuse to belong to such a ridiculous group of people. But I’m curious, did he resist arrest? Was there provocation? Was there a warrant? What does “beat him down” entail? I forgot, did you say how we knew he was a crack dealer?

[Shonuff]

hey trish, why don't you answer just this one two part question then.

Why do you care so much for these PIRATES and CRIMINALS, but not so much for an innocent American citizen held hostage?

Why should we care more for them than the American? Why even the same?

You must be one of the people that care about the crackdealer who deals crack to everyones mom in the neighborhood, but then your all upset that cops kicked in his door and beat him down. Right?

Such black and white thinking. It's of the same type that leads to "us vs. them" and "with us or against us" worldviews. Why must it be that when someone (Trish, in this case) questions or is critical about the actions of her country or expresses regret for the loss of life due to those actions that she is choosing the enemy over her country?

[chrissygirl]

...well..... i confess.....i didn't read all 19 pages of this thread....... but on a lighter note.........anyone know where i can but one of these?......lol

[baileyandkc]

Aren't there 2 versions of that hat for sale, with, or without, the sniper rifle hole?

[russtafa]

cool hat :lol:

[Clind]

Racist? You obviously missed my point.



OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

and this comes from a racist , who just has to prove how homophobic and ignorant he realy is 8)

You ARE A MOTHERFUCKER RACIST, FUCK YOU

if Breda is a Muslim, Black, Shemale and Republican and you are Christian, White, Decomrat and Straight , then motherfucker ,i will change dogma, color and sexual wills only to dont be like you (asshole!!)

[2009AD]

Fuck you too. We resolve this issue a few weeks ago. I apologized to brenda for misunderstanding what I was saying. Now fuck off.



Racist? You obviously missed my point.



OK, This comes from a black, muslim, paranoid, republican shemale prostitute.



And the winner is phobun, hands down.

phobun: 3
trish: 0... and she goes back to shemale cartoons
Brenda: -1

Basically that's a inverted scale for how well you understand subtle points of logic.

and this comes from a racist , who just has to prove how homophobic and ignorant he realy is 8)

You ARE A MOTHERFUCKER RACIST, FUCK YOU

if Breda is a Muslim, Black, Shemale and Republican and you are Christian, White, Decomrat and Straight , then motherfucker ,i will change dogma, color and sexual wills only to dont be like you (asshole!!)

[sgtpepper557]

maybe if the west wasn't imperialist and didn't fuck Somalia's government there might be an internal organization to halt piracy? and maybe some decent living conditions to give somalis something else besides piracy? just my 2 cents