Pirates and Idiots


PDA






Blacksmoke
November 20, 2008, 04:12 PM
On CNN, just this afternoon, an interviewee stated that the tanker crews being hicjacked by Somali pirates are not permitted to carry firearms. Apparently, the various nations the tankers call in have laws preventing the private ownership of guns. So, the crew members are defending themselves with high pressure hoses, sonic wave emitters, barbed wire and grease. Meanwhile, the prirates are armed with AKs, RPGs, machine guns.

The interviewee also said one reason they don't want to carry firearms on the tankers is that "we would just be like the pirates."

Yeah, alive.

Meanwhile, the navies of the world cannot figure out what to do with the pirates once they are captured. It seems there is a jurisdicitonal problem. In addition, no nation wants to take on responsibility for the prisoners.

What ever happended to "The Devil's Dance" from the highest yardarm in Portsmouth harbor?

Can the world really be led by such weenies?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pirates and Idiots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scrat
November 20, 2008, 04:14 PM
yep doesnt make sence. Out in open waters you can be armed. However when you go to port you are at the mercy of what ever country you are going to. You would almost need a seperate boat to store the arms when the actual ship goes to port

Shung
November 20, 2008, 04:17 PM
unbeliveable...

Im prestty sure we could hire a bunch of privateers from this board if only someone was really willing to pay for that ! Shooting people on zodiacs from a heavy stable platfrom like a tanker must be a turkey shoot (at least much easier for you than for them)..

and the prisoners question was solved a couple hundred years ago already.. "make no prisoners" ..

btw, i head that you can legally carry weapons in the ship if that is ok with the country which flag you are sailing under.. you just have to turn them down the to port autority you are in, the time of your stay.

The Bushmaster
November 20, 2008, 04:34 PM
If I remember correctly...There is a Grey Hound bus station about 200 miles at sea. Drop them off there...

rcmodel
November 20, 2008, 04:42 PM
I have read that the major players in maritime insurance, such as Lloyd's of London, etc. do not allow armed resistance if pirates want to board your ship.

You are supposed to just give up and go with the flow, and the nice pirates will not hurt you!

Yea! Right!

I still think a couple of Ma-Deuces on the forecastle and a couple on the fantail would go a long way toward cutting down on rubber-boat take-overs on the high seas.

If they can't get close enough to use an RPG, they will go somewhere else, and do something different, I betcha.

rcmodel

Seenterman
November 20, 2008, 04:48 PM
Ok well let the stupid Saudis continue to defend their 100k+ Oil tankers with hoses, and grease just dont cry next time one of them gets jacked to us.

If we send troops to recover that big floating fortune we should get at least a 70% finders fee of the cargo.

All American ships should totally do the two boat thing, get a little dingy to store all firearms on while we pull into foreign ports.

Old Fuff
November 20, 2008, 05:58 PM
Can the world really be led by such weenies?

Sure can.... and we are about to become one of them. :scrutiny: :barf:

PBinWA
November 20, 2008, 06:00 PM
That's why Blackwater bought a ship. They want a piece of the cargo ship defence racket.

I think it's a good move on their part.

JohnKSa
November 20, 2008, 06:08 PM
The interviewee also said one reason they don't want to carry firearms on the tankers is that "we would just be like the pirates."By this logic:

If a man has a scalpel he's just like a surgeon.
A man who happens to own some rope, some gloves and a knife is just like a rapist.
A "normally equipped" woman is just like a prostitute.
A person with a set of wrenches is just like a mechanic.
A person who's had a few and owns a car is just like a drunk driver.
A person with a computer is just like a hacker.
If you take a pirate crew's guns then they're just like a tanker crew.
How did people get so stupid?

More to the point, how could they have reached adulthood and not realized that they're too stupid to open their mouths in public?

Tyris
November 20, 2008, 06:19 PM
I have read that the major players in maritime insurance, such as Lloyd's of London, etc. do not allow armed resistance if pirates want to board your ship.

This is the degree of stupidity I would expect from England. Jolly good.

-T

GEM
November 20, 2008, 06:24 PM
I would suggest that the US Navy make no moves to protect a ship that doesn't have armed personnel. The ship should have a big Gun painted on it to announce the fact.

Why should my tax dollars go to defend such :barf: /

But that isn't going to happen - so just relax and let the pirates kidnap some poor schmuck from Malaysia.

Pull our ships out.

scrat
November 20, 2008, 06:30 PM
I still think a couple of Ma-Deuces on the forecastle and a couple on the fantail would go a long way toward cutting down on rubber-boat take-overs on the high seas.

A couple. shiiiiizzzztttt. i would put two on each side, 2 on the front corners and two in the back corners. then a pair of 5 inch cannons. Yep that should do it. heck maybe even throw in a couple of brownings 30 cal 1919A4 just to make it Fancy.

biggiesmalls
November 20, 2008, 06:49 PM
yup, saw that piece. how retarded does this sound... we're gonna drive the pirates at least 200feet away by making loud noises with this ipod-looking device that some british guy invented... genius i tell you.

ants
November 20, 2008, 07:10 PM
Our press doesn't report it often, but pirate ships are sunk regularly by navies in the Indian ocean.

It happened again yesterday. A frigate from the Indian navy challenged a pirate mother ship, the pirate ship threatened to sink the Indian frigate, a battle was joined and the pirate ship was sent to the bottom. Two inflatables escaped with a small number of occupants. An unknown number of pirates died on the mother ship when it exploded and went down.

The story was carried internationally. http://www.agi.it/world/news/200811191002-cro-ren0014-art.html

Navies around the world fight piracy regularly, but our press just doesn't have a clue. I guess it's not important to give us the big picture.

Fred West
November 20, 2008, 07:12 PM
This is the degree of stupidity I would expect from England. Jolly good.


Here we go again.

Shung
November 20, 2008, 08:03 PM
By this logic:

If a man has a scalpel he's just like a surgeon.
A man who happens to own some rope, some gloves and a knife is just like a rapist.
A "normally equipped" woman is just like a prostitute.
A person with a set of wrenches is just like a mechanic.
A person who's had a few and owns a car is just like a drunk driver.
A person with a computer is just like a hacker.
If you take a pirate crew's guns then they're just like a tanker crew.
How did people get so stupid?

More to the point, how could they have reached adulthood and not realized that they're too stupid to open their mouths in public?

clap clap clap ! I applaude this ! :)

rr2241tx
November 20, 2008, 08:15 PM
Thomas Jefferson knew how to deal with Barbary Pirates: U.S. Marines. Where'd you think that line about shores of Tripoli came from? But, this is the Saudi's problem not ours so for once maybe we will let them solve their own problems. Seems to me like the Code of Hamarabi has some useful guidance on how to deal with the situation and you have to know those gents are not going to have to wait in a long line to meet their 72 virgins if their feet ever touch soil again.

Mauserguy
November 20, 2008, 08:19 PM
I have to say that I don't really understand why this is an issue.

When you have pirates you kill them and attack their port. The disparity in firepower, RPGs against guided missile cruisers, makes discussion of piracy just stupid.

Blow their ships out of the water and level their port facilities inflicting maximum localized damage with the maximum localized cassualties, and you don't have any more pirates (I know, North Korea will condem us as meanies). This whole issue could be ended in about one hour. We've become such pansies it's sad.
Mauserguy

BigBlock
November 20, 2008, 08:21 PM
I think a few of us ought to get together with our rifles and rent a boat. I'm sure I could find a use for a whole tanker of oil....:D

MGshaggy
November 20, 2008, 08:30 PM
This is the degree of stupidity I would expect from England. Jolly good.

Stupidity? Hardly. Try to keep in mind who's interest Lloyd's is trying to protect; Lloyd's. Armed retaliation invites an escalation against pirates armed with RPGs. A good hit can easily sink or severely damage a ship insured by Lloyd's for tens or hundreds of millions. In most of these cases, the priates take good care of the ship and crew to get the ransom, in which case, Lloyd's likely has no liability, or at least less liability (repayment of the ransom) than the full value of the ship and cargo.

I'm not saying its right, its just business.

DCSCO
November 20, 2008, 08:32 PM
The delima is that the pirate ship is just a ship until it attacks. A premature attack could sink a local fishing ship tring to trade for some new porn.

The pirates have good business plan. Hold the property for ransom, feed the crew well collect a lot of money. If they start killing they attract a lot of attention.

The report I heard is the current defence stragity is not to be the easiest ship to hijack.

Shung
November 20, 2008, 08:37 PM
Simple.. create a killbox in that area.. Ask every merchant ship planning to cross that kill box to declare itself, and use some kind of transponder.. anyone entering the killbox without autorisation is declared hostile.. and sunk !

rocinante
November 20, 2008, 08:42 PM
You would almost need a seperate boat to store the arms when the actual ship goes to port

Sounds like a good business opportunity. Kind of like checking your guns in and out before you go to town. A floating arms rental business would make more sense.

At least the somalia pirates seem to be taking a business like attitude and do not appear to be doing a lot of wanton murder.

FourNineFoxtrot
November 20, 2008, 08:42 PM
I honestly don't understand why nobody has thought to issue some Letters of Marque yet.

Privateers are usually the best pirate hunters. Navies are great against other navies, but jurisdictional issues and the problem of bringing their firepower to bear are always troublesome. Navies are predictable, and the bulk of their combat forces are warships, too large for effective shallow-draft and brown-water pirate hunting. Privateers, on the other hand, tend to be a lot more flexible and mobile. And if there was some manner of agreement in the international community to let sanctioned privateers cross jurisdictional boundaries, the pirates wouldn't stand a chance.

Even more fundamentally, refusing to arm cargo ships is just the height of stupidity. Insurance premiums and the technicalities of maritime law are apparently more important than human lives these days.

Hell, if these people were really smart, they'd put out a few Q-ships. Retrofit some freighters with some light gun mounts, maybe a 5-inch gun in case they run into something big, and a few of something like the Bofors 40mm (or whatever they use now) for use against the small boats. Conceal these under tarps or in fake cargo containers, and once the pirates show up, run out the guns. Maybe have a helicopter gunship aboard (concealed, of course), so they can chase down any fast boats that try to run.

There has been piracy since men first built things that float. The first ship ever built was likely a trader; the second ship ever was likely built to capture the first ship. It isn't like piracy is new or difficult to understand and fight. We've just forgotten how... or rather, lost the political will and fighting spirit to bother.

Maelstrom
November 20, 2008, 08:51 PM
For the right price, I'm available. Ten years out of the Marine Corps and I'm about ready to be shot at again.

MikePGS
November 20, 2008, 08:54 PM
You all need to go to APS and get in on the APS Pirate Hunt Logistics thread :neener:

Huddog
November 20, 2008, 08:58 PM
My last year of law school as part of my admiralty class, an easy A, my group had to do a presentation on piracy. That was more than 5 years ago and this same debate was on going. Piracy has never really stopped. Somalia has been an active safe haven for piracy for years now and will continue to be until someone cleans out that den of thieves and cutthroats. My real question is why has the US press decided it is an issue at this point. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist but it doesn't pass the smell test that it suddenly needs attention when it has been a problem for a long time.

cobra2411
November 20, 2008, 09:11 PM
Ok, how about this... Follow the gun laws of the country of registry. When in port guns are secured and the responsibility of the captain. A list of arms can be provided and inspections can be made, but the weapons can't be taken or crew detained because of differing laws. This way at sea they can defend the ships.

Ignition Override
November 20, 2008, 09:17 PM
Most ships are registered in Liberia or Panama.
Do these names seem familiar?

Congratulations to the Indian Navy ship.
Luckily for them the pirates opened fire first.

Did the Indians use anything larger than the 30 mm cannons, and at what range?

zombienerd
November 20, 2008, 09:44 PM
I'm a Merchant Sailor, and I think I can constructively add to this thread.

I saw a few questions worth answering..

1) Q: Why is the media all of the sudden on this like white on rice?
A: The frequency of attacks, as well as the types of "targets" that have been taken. Both have escalated severely in the past year since Somalia's government is no longer effective.

2) Q: Why use a Ipod to defend yourself?
A: Well, it's 100% legal everywhere, and gets the job done most of the time. The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) can cause permanent hearing loss if you're not careful operating it. The "Tone" that it emits for deterrence causes extremely uncomfortable feelings inside your body cavity, making a lot of people jump into the water (at least it did in my company's test of it). Now, when the pirates realize it's only sound, they can come back a second time prepared, or just start shooting RPG's at you from a distance.

The whole point is that Pirates look for easy targets. If all your "access points" have razor wire, you have firehoses ready to spray, an attentive watch team, and a lot of deck lighting turned on, the pirates will not even bother. This has been shown. 95% of the ships that have been captured were too relaxed. They were easy targets.

3) My standpoints:

I would LOVE for my company to say "ok, get some guns" (and we have on more than one occasion gotten shotguns and/or "blackwater type" security teams for SD of pirates) But the fact is most places we NEED to pull in, WILL NOT allow us to if we have even a single firearm on board. So far the only ports that have allowed it was Port Suez, and some port in the UAE...

For now, seeing I'm not allowed any firearms, I've collected a few personal defense items that I keep in case the SHTF. I have a 75mw laser pointer to blind, a few pocketknives that are kept "shaving sharp" and balanced for throwing, and next to the door in my room is a really heavy chain. I know none of these are all that great vs an AK, but at least it's something. It only takes one pirate not paying attention to get his throat slit and then I have an AK... One vs 4-5 is great odds when they are all spread out, I know the ship, and they do not.

I'd like to think I could "Rambo" this if it came down to it, but I realize I'm a mortal man who can screw up too. I often wonder if anyone else on my ship would actually help if I started to fight back.

So, "lets arm all our ships with M2's and lots of other guns"? Yep, the average mariner is going to be able to handle those with military proficiency. Sure, there's a few former military on these boats (myself included) but do we really want to chance taking offensive action (rather than evasion) when most people out here would probably shoot themselves in the foot when staring down an enemy barrel.

I'm not against it, but it's just not practical.

The only thing we can do is get more Naval involvement to the point of setting up Convoys and Escorts, a la WWII. Nobody passes this point until this date, and when you all go, there will be a few destroyers with you.

Problem solved.

withdrawn34
November 20, 2008, 10:59 PM
Well, looks like the Indian Navy decided to do something about it recently.

Indian navy sinks suspected pirate 'mother ship' (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gB7YMEDuCwwY9ncDOtPAkEI4-H2wD94I5IQO0)

buttrap
November 20, 2008, 11:20 PM
International law forbids arming merchant ships while private armed fighting ships have the legal status of being pirates. The letters of Marque idea is banned under the Agreement of Paris from the late 1840s also. Pretty much international laws at sea are like D.C gun control laws,only the good guys follow them.

statelineblues
November 20, 2008, 11:30 PM
WOOOHOOOOOOOOO! PIRATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pirates are awesome

I trust you are talking about the Pittsburgh variety...

ar10
November 20, 2008, 11:36 PM
Having done some sailing over the years. Guns are not illegal on the open seas, can carry a howitzer if you can get on your boat. It's the ports that nail you, and every port that I'm aware of will not allow guns on your person or boat when you dock. The one gun you can have is the 12ga that shoot a life line from one ship to another for rescue. I also know one sailor who decided to enter Canadian waters and was checked. He had a gun on board and he lost his gun and boat.
The US is the only country I'm aware of where you can carry a gun aboard your own boat.

bgeddes
November 20, 2008, 11:40 PM
A friend of mine ( we grew up hunting and fishing together, and were awarded our Eagles together) is/was a ships captain. He hauled oil up the west coast for a good while, on big tankers. He told me his policy for his crew was exactly in line with Zombienerd. Mostly because he can not be sure that everyone is the kind of person he wants armed at sea.

However, in a recent conversation about piracy, he said, you can't let them near the boat. Pick a smart course, good crew on watch, simple defense as deterrence, and he had a few surprises for bad guys. His idea was to pick the moment and maximize knowledge of conditions to even the field.

Zombienerd has expressed the same basic concepts. Awareness and preparedness first, resources positioned for the SHTF situation.

zombienerd
November 21, 2008, 12:36 AM
I forgot to mention that certain vessels (such as the ones I'm on) are highly unlikely to be boarded if you see them coming. My ships are extremely maneuverable, we have two bow thrusters (one is 360 degree) and two stern azimuth (360) thrusters, we can spin this ship in circles without changing our position. If a small craft comes along side to board, it is our policy to try to run them over. We can swing our bow or stern, or both at the same time, extremely quickly... Faster than most guys could throw the grappling hook.

It's quite fun to watch too :) but you can get dizzy if they go full throttle with it.

Blacksmoke
November 21, 2008, 02:09 AM
Good work, India!

It is time they carried a Big Stick in their oceans. Indian hegemony on the high seas. There is a vaccum into which they project their power and take a seat among the greater nations on the world stage.

jackdanson
November 21, 2008, 02:32 AM
Yeah, good for India. Saw an Indian spokesperson on TV and he seemed to have more cahones than any of the americans/western europeans.

Zoogster
November 21, 2008, 03:06 AM
The US is the only country I'm aware of where you can carry a gun aboard your own boat.
The US is not much better for those not citizens of the US, meaning it really is no different as a nation. Foriegn vessels cannot simply import weapons into the US by having them on thier vessel.

Some other nations will allow thier own citizens to have weapons on thier vessels. So the US really sets no unique example.

A few nations friendly to firearms just changed recently.
Yemen for example was very friendly towards small arms until earlier this year. Now the government is extremely anti-gun. Almost a complete reversal.
Yemen if you look at a map is just on the other side of the Gulf of Aden, across from Somalia.
A coincidence?
If you were a vessel traveling through the Gulf of Aden, and you chose to be well armed, entering ports in Yemen should have been no problem.
Now that has changed, with Yemen seeing international pressure to crack down heavily on legal gun ownership. The government has responded by doing exactly that. It has gone from a place with more firearm freedoms than even the US, to practicly outlawing arms, and arms dealing altogether this year.

The number of ports a private vessel with arms could enter decreased further.

Europe and even antis in the US are hard at work increasing gun control laws and attitudes throughout the world.
Gun rights groups should be just as diligent. The UN has also been drafting many laws, and has influenced the US gun laws significantly. ITAR restrictions stem directly from UN pressures.
ITAR restrictions are then enforfed by the ATF.
(Small arms restrictions really are a strong abuse of ITAR, as it was imposed to allow restriction of things like classified material.)

Brian Dale
November 21, 2008, 03:37 AM
If a small craft comes along side to board, it is our policy to try to run them over.If we ever meet, sir, the beer is on me.

Mp7
November 21, 2008, 04:37 AM
Sounds like a THR squad is forming - to be sent to the somali coast.

All .308 calibered equipment is welcome,
also .50bmg rifles.

(bring cleaning equipment for saltwater is corrosive)

Maybe the pirates stockpile of 7.62 x 39 ammo
could be our booty :)

Hi Ho! Lock & Load.

KD5NRH
November 21, 2008, 05:02 AM
Uh, dude, it's Somalia. If we're going to take on the pirates, why not just take the whole darn country?

BHP FAN
November 21, 2008, 05:09 AM
To discourage pirates a few warships camoed as ''cargo ships'',armed to the teeth [kinda the same concept as Air Marshals] might be a good idea.

BHP FAN
November 21, 2008, 05:11 AM
''...Uh, dude, it's Somalia. If we're going to take on the pirates, why not just take the whole darn country?''

True,but why would we want it?

foghornl
November 21, 2008, 07:52 AM
Sounds like it is time for some of the Lloyds Of London top board of directors membership to become part of the crew on a tanker.

Betting their policy would change PDQ after a few of their top dogs sat in the Somalia Pirate HQ {ahem} "Hospitality Suite" for a while....

If the US Navy is going to get involved, maybe it is time to 'un-mothball' some of those WWII PT-Boats. IIRC, those boats had depth charges (not really needed here) flip-over torpedo tubes, some asorted .30 & .50 cal Brownings, and 40MM Bofors Cannons.

Shung
November 21, 2008, 08:08 AM
right, that is what we need ! a couple of PT-Boats !

Golden Hound
November 21, 2008, 08:26 AM
This is one _____ world we're living in if third world incompetents from a primitive hellhole in Africa are allowed to pose any threat to shipping vessels. A hundred years ago, there would have been no question as to what should be done with them. Their boats would have been sunk and any who managed to survive would have been captured and executed. Nowadays with the tolerant, enlightened one-world government, we have to think about the pirates' feelings. It's just not fair to them to shoot at them with big bad evil scary guns. We should just let them have their way and rape our ships.

India is a primitive and economically deprived country but they have one thing that the "first world" does not have anymore - balls. The first world needs to take a page from the playbook from India, the Arabs, and other people of the East who still live by an efficient, if brutal, code of justice. Europe ties its own hands with their laws - and if Barack Obama becomes president, we'll probably have our own American ships bending over backwards to be kind and tolerant to the pirates (who are, after all, just trying to make a living for themselves because they've been oppressed by the evil white Western world.)

I say - bring back the Teddy Roosevelt mentality in all areas of government. But Europe is far beyond ever having anything like that. They have been too dominated by socialism and one-world-ism for too long.

woodybrighton
November 21, 2008, 09:22 AM
loads of merchant crews are cheap dirt cheap and barely trained 20 crew on a super tanker?
thats enough to run it but not to stand an effective anti piracy watch if the ship owners want to pay for more crew like thats going to happen:uhoh:

ants
November 21, 2008, 12:34 PM
I think the world is missing a great opportunity.

The largest ship currently held is a Saudi ship, as are several others.
The pirates have attacked the Islamic empire.
We should unleash worldwide Islamic anger upon the pirates. Allah Akhbar!

withdrawn34
November 21, 2008, 01:33 PM
India is a primitive and economically deprived country

While I appreciate the point you were trying to make in your entire post, this statement simply isn't true and is kind of insultory towards India. They're nothing like they were even a decade ago.

Clipper
November 21, 2008, 01:41 PM
...The U.N. just issued sanctions against pirates...That'll stop 'em.

:barf:

John-Melb
November 21, 2008, 02:19 PM
I understand there's a mob at Crib Point - Victoria - Australian looking to sell an old Australian Oberon class pig-boat. Torpedoes might be harder to come by, but a whole look of fun looking!

Zoogster
November 21, 2008, 02:42 PM
It's just not fair to them to shoot at them with big bad evil scary guns. We should just let them have their way and rape our ships.

Far less simple than the mindset which is present in anti-gun restrictions at home.


Insurance policies limit what people can and cannot do. Violating the policy can void the insurance claim. If you resist pirates and that is against the terms of the insurance then any and all damage is not covered by them. Additionaly they can drop all coverage of you, and in many lines of work and business you need insurance to have a license and legaly operate.
So lose your insurance, and you lose your ability to even operate.

So insurance policies are extremely powerful.

Insurance companies look at everyone as numbers. Certain actions give more predictable numbers than others.
Self defense could result in no damage, no hostage taking, and even reduce the amount of future piracy. It could also result in an expensive hole from an rpg in the side of the ship, paid for by the insurance company.
Currently surrendering to the pirates causes no damage to the ships, making insurance liable for no damage. Whether anyone is harmed, or other things take place matters less than the numbers. They are not insuring crew lives, they are insuring the ship.
Whether people or businesses are secure in thier property matters far less.


Further, many of the restrictions on arms are due to internationly imposed restrictions on small arms.
Restrictions produced in the UN, EU, and by various agreements between rulers of peasants throughout the world.
The US government itself is a very active participant in working to curb the flow of arms to mere common people. The premise is often to keep them out of the hands of criminals, terrorists etc
In reality it is just to make various regions of the world easier to control, both by thier own governments or invading occupying forces.
Disarmed populations are easier to control with armed forces.

(Our own ITAR system has been abused to include small arms export restrictions. Restrictions then enforced by agencies such as the ATF. Restrictions in place to keep small arms from leaving America and going to regular peasants, who may resist tyranny.)


The laws imposed to that effect end up impacting many segments of the international community. Including shipping in international waters.
This may actualy lead to the UN and similar bodies imposing more laws and projecting more control over the seas and oceans. Creating international law outside of national borders that will set a precedent for restricting you and I even in international waters.

So this could become a great way for the UN to establish that it sets binding laws even in international waters on all matters. The type of laws that could eventualy make it illegal for you to exit US territorial waters with "small arms" and enter international controlled waters.
Currently it is illegal to export without going through an official process already. So leaving the waters to go to a nation without declaring the firearms and taking the legal steps is already restricted by relatively recent restrictions.
However such UN changes could make it illegal to even go fishing at sea in international waters with small arms.

Laws that can then be enforced by our very own Coast Guard (now part of the Dpartment of Homeland Security) if they find you in violation.

Antis have had some trouble quickly removing our rights through our legal system. Removing them through international pressures and treaties though may be much more effective.

Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now.

MJRW
November 21, 2008, 03:08 PM
This thread makes me sad. Not because of the topic or the content but because so much of the spelling and grammar is so lazy as to be near offensive.

scrat
November 21, 2008, 03:49 PM
well im an offender when it comes to spelling and grammar. but then im not writing to tell people about their spelling and grammar. As a context this is a very good thread. So much to hear and learn on this subject. Pirate hunting Someone get a boat. Shieeet id be dow for it. MA DEUCE no problem.

scrat
November 21, 2008, 04:06 PM
excellent article on pirates.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Somali-Pirates/ss/events/wl/093008somaliapirates;_ylt=Au11lBZQsflQ6J6q0fjdu_4V6w8F#photoViewer=/081121/photos_wl_africa_afp/277f886ef5a24669f7157a4888b78e2b

leadcounsel
November 21, 2008, 11:12 PM
When did the average human stop taking measures into his/her owns hands, such as using real tools for self defense.

The solution is to put a few armed Soldiers with real hardware on deck. $50,000 in arms can prevent these hijackings. Mount a .50 M2 on each side, and a squad of Soldiers with AK47s, RPKs, M49s, M4s, and bolt action hunting rifles.

Anyone without authorization to board gets shot if they get within a 1/2 mile.

BHP FAN
November 21, 2008, 11:16 PM
Wow,Zoogster nailed it!
''Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now...''

Just Jim
November 22, 2008, 12:28 AM
The Pirates in Somalia have stolen 150 million from people this year alone. The Pirates in Washington have stolen trillions.

jj

Roadwild17
November 22, 2008, 01:40 AM
Its not that hard, someone make an escort company. Free markets and all.

Build a ship that is armed and can service a chopper. From the pictures Ive seen, a .50 cal will tare there "ships" apart. Maby have a 30mm cannon incase something a little bigger comes along, and your good to go.

Freelance Tax Collector
November 22, 2008, 02:42 AM
It seems that in a lot of places, pirates and narcotics smugglers may not necessarily be after ransom of a crew, they're after the ship itself. They could give a crap about ransom so they just tie weights to the crew/passengers and roll them over the side.

brigadier
November 22, 2008, 02:48 AM
People need to learn to boycott.

Brian Dale
November 22, 2008, 03:21 AM
Maybe I'm dense. To act against piracy by people from a lawless, third world hellhole, whom do we boycott? :confused:

Golden Hound
November 22, 2008, 03:31 AM
All of the high-quality consumer goods coming from Somalia. I know it's a status symbol to have "Made in Somalia" on the tag of your shirt but I'm willing to sacrifice some style points to do the right thing.

Also, lay off the Somalian .308 surplus. I know it shoots better than that Lithuanian crap, and it's cheaper, and cleaner, but you don't want that blood on your hands, man.

And - lastly - boycott Somalian food. Hey, if THEY can do it, you can do it.

Let's band together, folks.

HIcarry
November 22, 2008, 03:43 AM
I have read that the major players in maritime insurance, such as Lloyd's of London, etc. do not allow armed resistance if pirates want to board your ship.

Isn't this similar to the advixe routinely given to hijacked planes before 911?

Ok well let the stupid Saudis continue to defend their 100k+ Oil tankers with hoses, and grease just dont cry next time one of them gets jacked to us.

I think the cost of a supertanker is closer to a 100 million +, and that doesn't include the cost of the oil it transports.

If we send troops to recover that big floating fortune we should get at least a 70% finders fee of the cargo.

Actually, if I understand Maritime law correctly, if you rescue the boat you can claim salvage rights and get the whole thing.....cargo and ship.

Wow,Zoogster nailed it!
''Rulers do not like commoners with small arms, period. So international support always will exist, and always has existed. Rulers are in agreement that the peasants should not have items which could harm thier armed forces.
It has just not been feasible to implement such legislation before the structured global government network we have now...''

That's certainly true, but so is this:

They are not insuring crew lives, they are insuring the ship.

Unless someone, either the ship's owners or the insurance companies (either of which is highly unlikely) is held responsible for the crew physical safety, the driving force behind such "policies" will continue to be the value of the ship, not the humans driving it. I find it somewhat analgous to the "police don't have an obligation to protect you" but we're going to prevent you from carrying/having a gun to protect yourself.

nachosgrande
November 22, 2008, 04:11 AM
Love your logic, JohnKSa. Reminds me of the kid that was asked if playing video games made him violent and he replied that he wish that were true, because if it were then playing Monopoly would make him a millionaire.

Aimpoint 223
November 22, 2008, 04:12 AM
Just my thought about the current trend of the piracy. As long as there's demand for their good there will always be pirate around. Also the insurance company's policy has also encourage them as well!

JohnKSa
November 22, 2008, 03:59 PM
...if it were then playing Monopoly would make him a millionaire :D That's great!

BTin
December 2, 2008, 07:35 PM
What if a terrorist gets a hold of one of these loaded tankers, and then threatens to ram it in to the coastline? If they planted bombs on board, then you lose either way. Either oil spill here, or oil spill there. Seems like a pretty effective weapon to me.

I am sure that making anti-gun or anti-piracy legislation would fix the problem though. :)

withdrawn34
December 2, 2008, 07:47 PM
What if a terrorist gets a hold of one of these loaded tankers, and then threatens to ram it in to the coastline? If they planted bombs on board, then you lose either way. Either oil spill here, or oil spill there. Seems like a pretty effective weapon to me.

They wouldn't be able to make it to shore before they were blown to pieces by some country's navy's aircraft or vessel.

Matrix187
December 2, 2008, 07:58 PM
Easy solution: Mount some twin M2HB's loaded with a mix of tracers, incendiary rounds, and AP bullets on each ship

HarleyFixer
December 4, 2008, 12:25 PM
BTW: Blackwater has a ship headed to Somalia to do exactly what some of the members here have proposed. I guess corporate security is allowed to do what the private citizen ie ships CPT cannot?

gym
December 4, 2008, 04:05 PM
I am in, $1000 a day, tax free, and they pay for food ammo and of course lodging. A dozen men with 50's should do it. To protect a Billion dollar ship full of crude. That's petty cash to these guys. I'm sure thet are already hiring on through the usual contractors. Two shifts should do the trick. By the way those ships run between a half billion and up for a supertanker. I don't think they would even blink for another 50 grand per day.

withdrawn34
December 4, 2008, 04:39 PM
BTW: Blackwater has a ship headed to Somalia to do exactly what some of the members here have proposed. I guess corporate security is allowed to do what the private citizen ie ships CPT cannot?

I suppose that is certainly one solution, since you cannot have any firearms on board a ship (otherwise it couldn't dock in most foreign ports). Hell of a lot more expensive than just have a few well-trained and well-armed guys on board, though.

The protection ship can just break off right before docking, I suppose. On the other hand, I hope they are ready because its likely the pirates will try to attack with as much force as possible to disable the protection ship.

cassandrasdaddy
December 4, 2008, 05:07 PM
there is some reluctance to fire guns on tankers. an nd could be bad

Ky Larry
December 4, 2008, 07:48 PM
There was an article in our "BIRDCAGE BUGLE" (Actually the Lexinton Herald Leader) today about a failed hijacking of a luxury liner. The Captain used some sort of acoustic weapon and accelerated away from the pirate vessel.There was a photo of the pirate vessel. It was an old wooden power boat with 4 men in it. Four men. In a wooden tub. Surely our world leaders must be high on drugs. One person on a ship armed with an AK-47 or m-16 could have repelled these bozos. A dozen High Roaders armed with deer rifles in thier bass boats could wipe out The pirates entire navy. One modern destroyer could solve the pirate problem once and for all. The governments of the world should be ashamed of them selves. Was it Thomas Jefferson who said "Millions for defence but not one penny for tribute?" If Andy Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Harry Truman were president today, would Somalia, Iran, or OPEC be problems?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pirates and Idiots" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!