the somali pirates

[Summa]

last night while I was eating Easter dinner with my gf's parents, her godsister said she was glad the US rescued that pilot and that we should leave Marines in the North/Eastern African seas so they can "kick some ass."

I bit my tongue. The food was great though.

I had a similar experience skyping with my girlfriend's family. They happen to be a very conservative traditional Japanese family. Well lets just say me and squeez come from a bit different household. My gf's sister was speaking (she is one of the upper level graphic designers at AIG), about all of the misconceptions about the company she works for and how great of a place it is to work. I squeezed my leg so hard I found a welt this morning.

In terms of somali pirates, I haven't been keeping up with the story recently, any links to articles that I can read?

[D1st0rt]

Here's the article about it that was on the reddit front page recently:

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-ar...about-pirates/

[Epinephrine]

for starters - manure is not as environmentally damaging as radioactive material. that right there is bad enough as is. but the issue of dumping is a mitigating factor, there's more pressing things. such as the issue of "home defense" - how could it be home defense when they hijack, say, a french cruise yacht? i think the answer has many points. first, and this is stated by dank i think: the pirates don't know who is doing what. you're a dude in a small fishing boat and you see a bigass boat, what are you gonna use to identify it? your african-grade computer? are those OLPC's waterproof?

They aren't doing 'home defense'. They have no source of money, but they have lots of weapons. So what do you do? You do stuff to make money. The pirates themselves have basically admitted that they are just in it for the money. Cause you know, that's what pirates do, and that's what pirates have ALWAYS done. Having pirates is just really a sea version of other parts of Africa, where if you go to the wrong place, the local warlord will take all your money or kidnap you (i.e. the land areas of Somalia).

but look at that - "you have guns, and they don't". really, international governments? you don't allow oceangoing vessels to properly equip themselves for self-defense? you basically turn the airports and airplanes into 1984-esque zones full of dudes with guns, and you ignore the ocean? kudos. and you wonder why 95 hijackings occured this year alone. allow the owner of a boat to defend his property like he's legally supposed to, and these problems would, off the bat, be dramatically smaller. and... our government wouldn't have to do anything! how absurd.

Uhh... it has nothing to do with governments. Companies themselves don't want to be giving their ships crews weapons, because it costs more from an insurance standpoint than just paying the ransoms. Remember, for every ship that gets hijacked, a ton more aren't. This is one of the busiest shipping corridors in the world. Companies also don't want to be liable if say their crews get into firefights with pirates and crewmembers die, guess who the family sues? They can't sue pirates now can they? But if they just pay off the pirates, then no one dies.


If Somalia is so great with anarchy and all, why don't you go live there? Seriously, I mean they are a paradise of a fully working society right? C'mon...

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

first, and this is stated by dank i think: the pirates don't know who is doing what. you're a dude in a small fishing boat and you see a bigass boat, what are you gonna use to identify it? your african-grade computer? are those OLPC's waterproof?

Are you saying that you couldn't tell the difference between a 15-ft yacht and a large fishing vessel or (worse yet) a mega-tanker? Come on. The education system there may be in shambles, but I doubt they'd mistake a '59 Chevy for a schoolbus. Yes, I see what you're saying, but it only goes so far.

but look at that - "you have guns, and they don't". really, international governments? you don't allow oceangoing vessels to properly equip themselves for self-defense? you basically turn the airports and airplanes into 1984-esque zones full of dudes with guns, and you ignore the ocean? kudos. and you wonder why 95 hijackings occured this year alone. allow the owner of a boat to defend his property like he's legally supposed to, and these problems would, off the bat, be dramatically smaller. and... our government wouldn't have to do anything! how absurd.

I hope you're joking. The whole reason shipping vessels aren't armed is because they're supposed to be civvies. Arming people doesn't necessarily solve the problem--you could also argue that having everyone arm up causes an even bigger problem. Who knows who's playing loose cannon? How long until someone mistakes someone else for a pirate and opens fire? Not to mention that as soon as civ vessels start carrying small sidearms, you open up a seaborne arms race of sorts.

(EDIT: Epi's answer is probably better than mine here.)

I don't know what the answer is here--I won't claim to. But I can play armchair diplomat and point out a bad solution when I see one.

[PaulOakenfold]

I understand and agree. Something about white people and other things as well. This that and other things and lots of stuff about things.

heh. almost got my pity & sympathy! but i have found a way to weasel out of it. nice try

[Summa]

After reading a couple of articles and getting a bit up to date, I cannot agree with Jerome's solution. Arming the crew members becomes a giant insurance liability and the potential deaths it may cause may cost more for the company than simply paying off the pirates. If the companies get too desperate and it really starts to effect profits (which it obviously hasn't since no drastic means have been taken), they will probably hire some private security force to either accompany the ships through said treacherous corridor or maybe simply have a few armed members on board.....not too many though....it might cost too much.

[Jerome Scuggs]

sending vessels through a known dangerous area without weapons is stupid. if it's economically unviable to arm them - them blame governments for the regulatory policies that make it more expensive to protect your ship.

http://features.csmonitor.com/global...eed-firepower/

looks like private companies are doing the opposite of what Epinephrine says they are doing, and in fact beefing up their defenses and adding weaponry.

edit: and Conc - seriously, it's hard to mistake someone for a pirate. not many innocent people routinely scale the sides of ships with automatic weapons and illegally board crafts.

edit 2: though perhaps, for the sake and safety of Batman, shooting ship-scalers should be banned after all.

[PaulOakenfold]

Including the Armed crew member headaches that will arise in customs.

[Exalt]

just some quick thoughts on the situation

1. as we know, after 1994 the country of somalia collapsed. i've mentioned how the small area of somaliland has, more or less, become a self-sustained society. i find this interesting because one of the key arguments against 'anarchism' is that an anarchist society could not sustain a self-defense force. this is interesting because this non-existent defense force just hijacked a U.S. ship.

2. after the collapse in 1994, ships from different countries - including the U.S. and England - began illegally dumping all sorts of awesome chemicals off the coast of somalia, destroying their fishing waters.

3. the ship that was recently hijacked, the maersk alabama, was a ship that belonged to the U.S. department of defense. you know, the same kind of ship that had been illegally dumping off somalia for over a decade.

so there's the mainstream media's version - and i think you see my version. just tossing these points out there. what i see is a nation that has managed to build itself up, sans government, to the best of its ability - even with so many odds against it. and this act of 'piracy' is merely an act of self-defense, propagated by a force that, according to mainstream political theory, should not even exist.

this is stupid and a bias thread "the ship was illegally dumping off somalia for a decade" no it wasn't, also 17 miles off any coast in international waters, not somalian waters

basically the pirates were testing the US government for the first time ever, they hijack ships all the time just never US merchant ships or US anything... well they tried it thinking obama wouldn't do anything

and then they got a shitstorm known as the Navy SEALS who killed all but one, wounded the last guy, and took the captain home safe

US Navy didn't want to blow them out of the water because of the prisoner, so they sent in a SEAL team, pretty simple... what you won't hear again is any somalian anything hijacking any US ship again for a very long long time

lesson learned here people: if that was a russian or chinese ship, do you think those governments would send in a special forces team? No, they would blow the ship out of the water along with the prisoners. The US took our man home and gave a strong message to the somalian pirates. Its all political.

[Exalt]

sending vessels through a known dangerous area without weapons is stupid. if it's economically unviable to arm them - them blame governments for the regulatory policies that make it more expensive to protect your ship.
.

Read up on rules and regulations before you speak about anything. I was in navy so fortunately I know why these things happen. They don't carry firearms because of insurance companies. Insurance premiums are raised 3 times as much if the ship carries arms, and the US government is one of the very few countries who even allow merchant ships from their country to carry firearms for protection.

No one wants to pay 3 times the amount just to carry firearms.

The other issue with that is the psychological effect it has. If you are getting mugged, if you don't have a weapon then the mugger most likely wont kill you, they will just rob you and leave you there. If you both have a weapon then there will be a firefight, and its more likely that innocents will die int he process. Psychology 101.

[Jerome Scuggs]

so basically it's too expensive to save money? circular logic gives me migraines

[Epinephrine]

http://features.csmonitor.com/global...eed-firepower/

looks like private companies are doing the opposite of what Epinephrine says they are doing, and in fact beefing up their defenses and adding weaponry.

Okay so you found some random article which claims one unnamed company has started issuing rifles. What's your point?

That article has not come anywhere close to proving your point that it's somehow the fault of governments and regulations that ships aren't armed. In fact in the article it states pretty clearly that it's tradition that merchant ships aren't armed because the companies don't want their crews carrying weapons. Nice try though Jerome

[PaulOakenfold]

My Uncle was part of the Blackhawk Down Rescue Mission. I understand the implications of staying there, but we really shouldn't have left, the place is ungoverned, and is in shambles.

The American Empire shall prevail.


Did anyone else listen to NPR about this very subject today?

Edit Here it is: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103019475

[Exalt]

They aren't doing 'home defense'. They have no source of money, but they have lots of weapons. So what do you do? You do stuff to make money. The pirates themselves have basically admitted that they are just in it for the money. Cause you know, that's what pirates do, and that's what pirates have ALWAYS done. Having pirates is just really a sea version of other parts of Africa, where if you go to the wrong place, the local warlord will take all your money or kidnap you (i.e. the land areas of Somalia).

Also very misinformed. Read up before you speak. The somalian pirates make in excess of $150,000 a year and drive very very very nice cars. Why do they do it? They get paid by rogue governments like russia, who spends millions and millions a year on funding these operations. How do you think these somalians get the weapons or the wherewithall to even think of doing stuff like this? They get government funded, and they get paid very well for it. Yes, the country as a whole is a shithole, but the pirates are living like kings. It is not something that will be fixed even if the country as a whole was on par economically with the rest of the world.

[Epinephrine]

so basically it's too expensive to save money? circular logic gives me migraines

Companies aren't stupid. They know exactly how much it costs. Currently it's cheaper to pay off the rare hijacking rather than pay for all the headaches of arming and training crews and paying for insurance and potential liabilities. When that equation changes in the other way, there will certainly be changes afoot.