Somali Pirates

[Franco]

Time to open the season, no permits and no limits!

[JDogger]

Finally...a thread on which we all can (or should) agree. JD

No...no... It'll be Obamas' fault.

[BrianW]

From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.

Maybe they thought that power of prayer would protect them?
While I believe prayers are answered, sometimes the answer is "no".

[charly_t]

Are these the same type/nation (?) of pirates that we read about being active in Jeffereson's day. How many generations of them have been operating this way ? Maybe I should ask which countries they operate out of. Or is it just one country anymore ?

[Franco]

Are these the same type/nation (?) of pirates that we read about being active in Jeffereson's day. How many generations of them have been operating this way ? Maybe I should ask which countries they operate out of. Or is it just one country anymore ?

Back in Jefferson's day we had to deal with the pirates in Tripoli, northwestern shore of African.

Solamia is located on the northeastern shore of Africa.

There is no reason to allow piracy in 2011.

[charly_t]

Thanks, Franco.

[Hew]

From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.

These people were sailing the same route that hundreds (thousands?) of sailboats pass each year. They all take precautions (convoying, no radio contact, using their radar to avoid boat traffic, motoring if/when necessary, etc.). Most make it with no problems other than increased anxiety. It's a route that ships have to take to get to the Mediteranean Sea via the Suez/Red Sea. The only other route is around the Horn of Africa. One of the big problems is that the Somali pirates use larger mother ships to extend their operations hundreds of miles or more from Somalia...making it far tougher to give Somalia a wide berth (and impossible to avoid if you're trying to enter the Red Sea). These people weren't religious zealots looking for trouble by trying to convert muslm pirates to Christianity. They were world cruisers who happened to be religious and were trying to get from point a to point b when they were unlucky enough to get caught by scumbags. Here's a link to their website, btw: http://svquest.com/TableOfContents.htm

[subroc]

From what I've been able to read, they intentionally put themsleves in harm's way, knowing full well what was going on in that part of the world.

Maybe they thought that power of prayer would protect them?
While I believe prayers are answered, sometimes the answer is "no".

Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

[ducknwork]

Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

There are parts of this town that I live in that I know would not be safe for a white guy to walk around in after dark. If I did that and something happened to me, would it not partially be my fault for being somewhere that I KNEW would greatly increase my risk of something bad happening to me?

[BrianW]

These people were sailing the same route that hundreds (thousands?) of sailboats pass each year. They all take precautions (convoying, no radio contact, using their radar to avoid boat traffic, motoring if/when necessary, etc.). Most make it with no problems other than increased anxiety. ... These people weren't religious zealots looking for trouble by trying to convert muslm pirates to Christianity. They were world cruisers who happened to be religious and were trying to get from point a to point b when they were unlucky enough to get caught by scumbags. Here's a link to their website, btw: http://svquest.com/TableOfContents.htm

First from the story I read & the reports on the radio, they broke away from their regatta flotilla to sail by themselves. And supposedly they were completely unarmed. Also,I never said they were "zealots" but they reportedly also had a "boatload of Bibles" which they gave away to the poor, along with other sundry items, on their trips, so I think we'll agree they were religious?. Trying to avoid trouble is not protection, imo. Alone and unarmed, like Quakers in "Indian country", what else was there to protect them, except the Lord? Unfortunately, in His plans, in answer to what I'm sure were their prayers to "keep us safe, o Lord", His answer was "no".

Is this what blaming the victim looks like?

No, this is not "blaming the victim", but it's also not blaming Obama as JD asserted it would be.
Look, you go where the grizzlies are, with nothing on you but little bells, not even bear spray, you shouldn't be surprised if those bells end up as grizzly scat sometimes.
As was pointed out in previous pirate threads, the Navy (like cops) can't be everywhere and they can only respond after something happens. That they were able to trail the boat, negotiate, respond and provide EMS when the shooting started was a minor miracle in itself.
But until the Congress declares war, the CinC can't issue "shoot on sight" ROE's for suspected pirates. Now, if the Navy decides to "have a friendly chat" with a possible pirate vessel, and they pull out an RPG? Use all necessary, not just "reasonable" force to vaporize 'em/make fish food, I've got no problem with that.