Somali Pirates Are So Dumb. LOL & Double LOL

[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.