15
   

SHUD THE CAPTAIN BE RANSOMED FROM PIRATES ?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 05:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Have you been to the fairground Dave? Or on a Test Your Strength machine?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:24 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
Have you been to the fairground Dave?

Do u have a particular fairground in mind ?


Quote:
Or on a Test Your Strength machine?

Y do u ask ?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:29 am
by the way david it's spelled "should"

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:32 am
I would say the Navy has not made a major mistake, yet.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:38 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
In most cases it is the insurance Carriers that dictate the conditions on the ship.
On tankers , they allow no weaponry that could endanger the cargo of oil.

Does that mean that the pirates cant bring their AK47s on board?

or r only the victims prohibited ?



Quote:

The mariners have not signed onto a "no negotiations" pact
when they sign on.

Does that mean that their employers HAVE a duty to bargain,
for lack of a waiver ??
Will u reveal the source of that duty ?





Quote:
The next step will be when a cruise ship is commandeered.
Pay now, kill later.

In their advertizing,
thay can exhibit their pride of defensive weaponry.
I know that thay have shotguns on board the QE II,
because thay let me use them. I think thay r retiring that ship.

If thay can have shotguns,
thay can just as well have fully automatic rifles or MGs.
Thay r a lot of fun.

KILL NOW, HAVE FUN LATER !


David
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:58 pm
They should send out ships in a random fashion to clear out pirates. The ships would appear to be merchant vessels, but the "cargo" would be marines, who respond by killing them if necessary, otherwise capturing them. Change up the ships' appearance often enough to confuse would be pirates.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 04:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
or r only the victims prohibited ?
The ships are not allowed munitions with the exception of lightweapons on the bridge. Oil tankers cannot risk fires caused by gunfights. This is a rather recent condition so its apparent that the shipping lines havent thought it out well enough. Perhaps they will modify their regs. NOBODY wants someone to shoot an RPG into a tanker and possibly starting a fire.
So, in answer to your attempted humorous question, yes, apparently only the pirates carry incendiary weapons


Quote:
Will u reveal the source of that duty ?
Quote:
When the first tanker was waylaid last year, the Wash Post had an article about the employment contracts . Presumably NO WEAPONS on board was a policy of the ship owners and the shipping companies and the oil "clients
Quote:
I know that thay have shotguns on board the QE II,
because thay let me use them. I think thay r retiring that ship.

RPGS, Ak's, and reportedly (at least one incident) of a stinger or two? I think not. A cruise liner and a steamer , in the past, have used fire hoses to successfully deter pirates. That was then, this is now, the piracy industry is operating with an entirely new business plan. IF we negotiate and then take them out by refusing them landing and hunting them down, that will send a message that there is no future in this. Criminals operate on an assumption that they wont get caught. If we use deep V hulled speed boats and cutter like (SafeBoats) armed to the teeth and in sufficient numbers, each supported by several " marine servants" tenders , this would drive the pirates out to deeper water where we could divvy up the responsibilities among several nations and make a turkey shoot out of it.


The life boat that they are in is a "drop boat" that sits astern in a series of slide davits and the boats are these fully hooded orange boats with space for about 50 people. Its very hot out there and the pirates have gotta be wilting (as is our captain).

Negotiations are being carried out (presumably) because noone can really see into the life boat, so if they open fire on it, itsd be like a firing squad and we might as well kiss off the US captain. Im not ready to go postal like you are. If all things are even and we knew more about the interior of the lifeboat, we could use something like a sniper team , BUT, as is, they have no actual target except the boat itself.




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
http://www.hbm.com/fileadmin/mediapool/ram/RAM-1988-2-page25-28.pdf Heres an article about drop tests on lifeboats. Theres a picture of one style, it looks rather like a canal boat used in the low countries. I was at a standoof position several years ago while they were doing a lifeboat "drill" on a Hrdanger Freighter off of Eastport Maine in the BAy of Fundy. The lifeboat was a big orange thing very similar to the one in the article and it hadda be at least 75 feet up in the lide cradle and it shot right off the fantail of the freighter. It was like an amusement park ride because the boat just plunged deeply,( headfirst) into the water and came bobbing up and it righted itself . There were several crewmen inside and they were taking measurements of the seaworthiness. The Canadian Coast Guard was apparently doing the testing. It was like going over Niagara Falls.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:08 pm
@farmerman,
ITS AMAZING WHATS ON YOUTUBE. Heres a lifeboat free fall test from a rather low launch position. You can clearlysee that these boats dont provide targets for snipers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yB7mXUjzfU&NR=1
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:09 pm
@farmerman,
Why don't you just lossack on the soaf and watch The Masters effemm? I've been spreadeagled across it all day today. And have every intention of doing the same tomorrow and the day after.

On Tuesday we have to get our arses in gear then Gordon Brown can claim to have sorted it all out.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Pirates should not be "rewarded" with any ransom, but shot out of the water. That's the only lesson they understand. Otherwise, you play by their rules, and we will never get rid of them.

By paying what they ask, we only exacerbate the problem in the future. Why should they stop if it works? Sometimes you have to sacrifice a few for the many in the future. That's also the reason pirate activity continues to increase.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Rearranges legs in armchair thrumming with decisive decision making aimed at the wall above the imitation log fire.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:26 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I agree; it's short-sightedness to protect one individual when looking at the danger for the future of all vessels. In war, we understand there will be casualties. We try to lesson our casualties by destroying the terrorists.

Otherwise, what are we doing in Afghanistan? We know we will lose some people in the war, but the idea is to stop them from expanding and harming others. If we fear losing a few good men, what's the purpose of any war?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:33 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Dont buy it. Its crassness to just write off an individual by immediate actions. We sent guys into harms way to save 1 or 2 GIs in all recent wars. This could turn into a "Keystone Kops" attempt at armed rescue. Especially with the lifeboat being a totally closed vessel . Imagine just shooting everybody up after weve spent some good effort at negotiation.

Keep your guns in yer pockets Dave and Ci, youre probably bad shots anyway. We could put an LA sub under the lifeboat and bring em all up on the deck of the sub .(Thats a joke son)
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
What $2 million after Madoff? Pay up.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 05:46 pm
@spendius,
And Dover.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 06:17 pm
@farmerman,
So just let the pirates operate freely without any recourse. Good plan. That will create more pirates.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 07:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Please read what I said, dont make things up and attribute them to me.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 07:56 pm
@farmerman,
What exactly did you say other than "keep your guns in your pocket?"
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 08:54 pm
recently watched a one hour special on somalia .

for anyone who is truly interested in why the pirates are out there , it pays to look at the history of somalia .
somalia was occupied and exploited by italy for decades , only to be tossed around after WW 2 by various outside forces .
the somali fishermen have lost their fishing grounds due to invasion by foreign trawlers and factory ships that suck up any fish around .
fish is often the only source of protein for somalis - and the fish have been stolen from them .

remember when the governmant of iceland sent out gunboats to chase british trawlers fishing in their waters ?
the canadian navy and coastguard boarded portuguese trawlers that were caught fishing in canada's 20o mile zone and brought them into canadian ports where the captains had to face canadian justice (it was dubbed "the halibut war" ) .

somalia does not have a functioning governemnt that can go to the U.N. in new york to launch "formal protests" - the people of somalia are left on their own fighting for their survival .

the somali coast is a dumping ground for all kinds of refuse from foreign nations all over the world (including "leftovers" from uranium used in atomic power-stations ) - and now we are surprised that some somalis refuse to die of starvation and resort to piracy ?

if that would happen in U.S. waters i don't think that the U.S. coast guard and navy would stand by idly - problem is : the somalis do not have a coast guard or navy . so the somali fishermen have to fight for themselves .
(i believe there are some a2k'ers that have stated that they would fight to protect their own property without waiting for their governemnt to do it ) .

i wonder how many a2k'ers would willingly let their families die of starvation without trying some desparate act (that the well-fed of the world find so dispicable) ?

i am wondering (not really) where the pirates get their weapons from ?
did they perhaps buy them on a flea-market ?
i have no doubt that some weapons' manufacturers and middle-men are making good money selling weapons to those pirates .

i certainly do NOT support piracy ... but i also do NOT support letting millions of people die of starvation .
'nuff said !
hbg


one of many articles dealing with illegal fishing by foreign trawlers in somali waters :

http://www.geocities.com/gabobe/illegalfishing.html

Quote:
The Illegal Fishing Issue

Somalia's coastal communities who eke marine resources are appealing to international community for help to keep foreign ships, which engage in illegal fishing out of their country's territorial waters. This is a critical time for the world at large in particular international organisations to integrate Somali people with their environment and safeguard their natural resources. The illegal fishing along the Somali coastline heightened after the disintegration of the Horn of African country into clan-based states following the overthrow of communist dictator Siad Barre almost a decade ago.

Taking advantage of a lack of patrolling securities, the foreign ships use prohibited fishing methods like drift nets, dynamites, breaking coral reefs and destroying the coral habitats where lobsters and other coral fish live. According to Somali Fisheries Society and Somalia Marine Resource Management, which monitor the country's marine environment, the illegally fishing vessels stay away into deeper waters during the days but come closer to the shore at night. They apply their destructive fishing techniques, which reduce the local population's harvest and damage nets and traps set by local fishermen. On several occasions, there have been reports of large amount of fish floating near the shore. Similarly, the Ocean Training and Promotion (OTP) has collected information that more than 200 foreign vessels have since 1991, been engaged in illegal fishing in the Somali coastline.

Some of these fishing vessel come to exploit from the developed and developing countries, which were thousands of miles away in particular those whose fisheries resources were drastically overexploited or are under reservation. Some of them use very sophisticated factory-fishing vessels, which are modeled for distant-water fishing. Their concern is short-term outlook and refusal to acknowledge ecological limits is devastating. Somalia does not only experience political displacement but also resource displacement.

The distant-water fishing vessels include those sailing under flags of conveniences such as China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Honduras, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Pakistan, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand and Yemen had allegedly fished within 12 miles Somali waters. These vessels are in search of Dolphin fish, Grouper, Emperors, Tuna sp., Mackerel sp., Snapper, Swordfish, Shark sp. Herring and of course, other valuable in Somali coastal water species.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 06:12:48