LATEST PIRATE NEWS

[Jon Hacking]

Originally Posted by Seaduction

The United Nations is having meetings this month in New York to discuss the Global Arms Treaty aimed at identifying "gun runners" and controlling the sale of arms to militants, etc. Does anyone feel this may have an effect on the "pirates?'

Unfortunately, Africa is awash in weapons. In Mozambique you can buy an AK47 & a bag of ammo for $50. So stopping weapon movement inside Africa is difficult, as any fence will have umpteen leaks. I'd rather see a military quarantine of the Somali coast. 30 warships placed 50nm apart would cover Somali's coast with good radar overlap. Inspect any boats entering or leaving & remove any weapons. Without weapons, there'd be no piracy.

BTW, transporting a boat from SE Asia to Turkey costs ~$30K. Too much for us, so we'll be going via South Africa. People seem afraid of the Cape of Good Hope - you need to watch the weather (fronts coming up the coast from Cape Town & creating nasty wind-against-current seas) but we always have to watch the weather. There are 25 cruising boats going that way this year that we know about. It's not that difficult.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by MacG

It was said in the Dutch "Telegraph" that the Dutch Navy will make now 'serious' attempts to fight the Somali Pirates.
Which will mean that before they were not 'serious' - picture of HMS Rotterdam loaded with two Helicopters and other gear to discourage the Somali pirates.

I do not believe in all this bla bla of the media. I know that our leftist Government never will allow any serious attacks on the Somali' s and that the mission of the HMS Rotterdam is merely a way to pour sand in the eyes of the other Navies who intention to suppress the acts of piracy in the Indian Ocean.

As said before, it is a whole civilization that supports the pirates and it is a profitable business for them. It could be ended quickly but not by a soft approach.

And certainly not by a leftist Government with no intention at all. It is strange that ships are not allowed to arm themselves (save for US & Russian).

this is pure nonsense, EUNAVFOR is fully armed, has an aggressive ROE, and was the force that recently decided to take the battle into somalia itself.

The US has virtually no presence in the Gulf of Aden as its not a strategic route for its commerce.

The US actions to date have resulted in virtually nothing and the Russians have acted twice, and are just interested in youtube hits

get a grip and actually read about whats happening there

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Bruce626

The UN arms treaty is not just to control arms to 'militants' but to anyone - and is likely, like most 'gun control' legislation, to only affect the honest law-abiding citizens of the world who will voluntarily comply. The criminal, insurgent, terrorist obtain their guns mostly from the black market (often via corrupt government officials) and or by taking these weapons from the police or armed forces - or are part of politically connected militias who are provided arms through government sources.

actually most militants have been armed by western or Russian nations directly, i.e. Mughadeen , Iraq etc.

Even in first world countries where the government, police, and armed forces are relatively nonpolitical and honest, one finds criminals with guns. It is just not possible to stop this traffic by the passage of laws and the establishment of bureaucracies - smugglers move drugs throughout the world; traffickers move slaves throughout the world; and both these groups want to be armed - so does one seriously expect that weapons will not continue to be moved throughout the world by people with the ability and a huge profit motive to do so?

Anyone who wants an illegal gun badly enough will always be able to obtain such weapons; indeed, it is relatively inexpensive to manufacture a simple blow-back operated sub-machine gun in one's garage - something like the British STEN made cheaply and easily in WWII.

A reasonable summary

Somehow, every gun control regime seems to leave guns in the hands of repressive governments who kill more of their own citizens than even criminals; government connected militias; and criminals for which the possession of a firearm is typically a lesser offense than the murder, rape, and/or robbery which they are prepared to commit with any weapon at hand.

Nope , dont agree, gun crime is not common in many countries with aggressive anti-gun laws. Civilised societies do not allow widespread ownership of guns, the safety of society is "contracted" out to law enforcement. The same way "justice" is contracted out , rather then have people strung up from the nearest tree by a "posse".

[

The only way to stop the killing is for the honest average citizen to be armed - with knowledge and firepower - at least equal to that possessed by governments and the criminal underworld. One only need look at the news coverage of Syria to see that governments cannot be trusted with the weapons that they are allowed to buy - and no UN treaty is going to change that.

nonsense, pure NRA speak, engaging in an citizens arms race solves nothing

Take the US, everyone "could" be armed with quite heavy calibre firearms, Theres more police then you can shake a stick at, more laws , more enforcement then anywhere Ive lived. Your argument would suggest that there should be no crime, yet the US has significant crime stats up near the top for civilized countries. Your argument fails.

To understand whats happening in Syria, ones need to look at all the issues at play there, its not as simple as its painted in Fox News. and are you saying that governments shouldn't have weapons, ( There'd be a lot of unemployed solders in the US therefore), or maybe , you just mean , the governments that "we" don't like at any particular time , shouldn't have them , even though in general "we" gave them all their weapons in the first place.


Your views are right-wing, conservative and naive.

And please this isn't a flame against you, just that reactionary post.

The solution to pirates and the middle east is going to be

Messy
complicated
diplomatic with a big stick
an outcome not necessarily to our liking

after all we the western word created these messes

Dave

[MacG]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

this is pure nonsense, EUNAVFOR is fully armed, has an aggressive ROE, and was the force that recently decided to take the battle into somalia itself.

The US has virtually no presence in the Gulf of Aden as its not a strategic route for its commerce.

The US actions to date have resulted in virtually nothing and the Russians have acted twice, and are just interested in youtube hits

get a grip and actually read about whats happening there

Dave

I did not discuss any US/Russian military action.

I quoted the 'Telegraph' and the fact what Dutch politics dictate.

The whole issue however is pretty hopeless so I will leave this discussion for what it is.

[Noname]

Originally Posted by Bruce626

The UN arms treaty is not just to control arms to 'militants' but to anyone - and is likely, like most 'gun control' legislation, to only affect the honest law-abiding citizens of the world who will voluntarily comply. The criminal, insurgent, terrorist obtain their guns mostly from the black market (often via corrupt government officials) and or by taking these weapons from the police or armed forces - or are part of politically connected militias who are provided arms through government sources.

Even in first world countries where the government, police, and armed forces are relatively nonpolitical and honest, one finds criminals with guns. It is just not possible to stop this traffic by the passage of laws and the establishment of bureaucracies - smugglers move drugs throughout the world; traffickers move slaves throughout the world; and both these groups want to be armed - so does one seriously expect that weapons will not continue to be moved throughout the world by people with the ability and a huge profit motive to do so?

Anyone who wants an illegal gun badly enough will always be able to obtain such weapons; indeed, it is relatively inexpensive to manufacture a simple blow-back operated sub-machine gun in one's garage - something like the British STEN made cheaply and easily in WWII.

Somehow, every gun control regime seems to leave guns in the hands of repressive governments who kill more of their own citizens than even criminals; government connected militias; and criminals for which the possession of a firearm is typically a lesser offense than the murder, rape, and/or robbery which they are prepared to commit with any weapon at hand.

The only way to stop the killing is for the honest average citizen to be armed - with knowledge and firepower - at least equal to that possessed by governments and the criminal underworld. One only need look at the news coverage of Syria to see that governments cannot be trusted with the weapons that they are allowed to buy - and no UN treaty is going to change that.

[mausgras]

The original post that prompted this thread was a report about the plight of the many hostages that are the victims of pirating.

I don't want to give the impression I am undervaluing this aspect of the issue but this report taken in isolation may give the impression that this is the "main problem". In fact hostage taking is only small cheese for the pirates. While a small number of hostages came from private yachts the vast majority are crew members on the cargo vessels and oil carriers which are the real target of the pirates.

Some may have their ransom paid by the ship owners or an insurance company but the majority are from flag of convenience nations and their families are not able to pay large ransom sums.

If there is a "villain" somewhere in the system you do not have to look much farther than the insurance companies who are more than willing to pay a $3 million extortion claim instead of the $30 million payout to the shipping company for the loss of their oil tanker. As we all know this only encourages further pirating.

A lot more could also be done by Interpol in tracking down the money trail and freezing assets of the big players. Like the drug trade it is not a solution by itself but would make life a lot more difficult for the paymasters behind the pirates

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

actually most militants have been armed by western or Russian nations directly, i.e. Mughadeen , Iraq etc.



A reasonable summary



Nope , dont agree, gun crime is not common in many countries with aggressive anti-gun laws. Civilised societies do not allow widespread ownership of guns, the safety of society is "contracted" out to law enforcement. The same way "justice" is contracted out , rather then have people strung up from the nearest tree by a "posse".

[

nonsense, pure NRA speak, engaging in an citizens arms race solves nothing

Take the US, everyone "could" be armed with quite heavy calibre firearms, Theres more police then you can shake a stick at, more laws , more enforcement then anywhere Ive lived. Your argument would suggest that there should be no crime, yet the US has significant crime stats up near the top for civilized countries. Your argument fails.

To understand whats happening in Syria, ones need to look at all the issues at play there, its not as simple as its painted in Fox News. and are you saying that governments shouldn't have weapons, ( There'd be a lot of unemployed solders in the US therefore), or maybe , you just mean , the governments that "we" don't like at any particular time , shouldn't have them , even though in general "we" gave them all their weapons in the first place.


Your views are right-wing, conservative and naive.

And please this isn't a flame against you, just that reactionary post.

The solution to pirates and the middle east is going to be

Messy
complicated
diplomatic with a big stick
an outcome not necessarily to our liking

after all we the western word created these messes

Dave

The only thing that is happening in Syria is that Russia and China have said that they would protect Syria and Iran if they are attacked...The world is drawing up allies and it looks like(the poorer parts) Africa is leaning on China in a very heavy way...Any one that watches Fox news aint watching the news...most of Africa has been armed by Russia(Victor Boot and the like) and I have never ever seen an Ak47 and ammo sell for $50.00,maybe $300.00 hell you cant even buy a SKS for that kind of money...I have sold many a Japaniese truck(technicals) to Africans from all over the continent and I know what they will pay for certain items and if they could get Ak's for 50.00 they would be homemade Pakistan junk,you know like the junk knifes they export all over the world for $1.00...(Dave I know you didnt make the AK price referance )I doubt one could get one of the Paki knockoffs for $50.00,more like 250.00,the price for the AKs Mexico buys for there army(from Russia) is 300.00 and they have to buy in lots of 1000...As far as the Gulf of Aden not being of interest to the US that is just plain silly..It is a main transport route for 12 percent of the worlds oil...The US has a Joint task force operations center in Djabouti(sp?)...the gulf of Aden is vital to US and world oil interest,more reason to beatup on pirates...DVC

[Jon Hacking]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

...The US has virtually no presence in the Gulf of Aden as its not a strategic route for its commerce...Dave

I agree it's not a strategic commerce route for the US & I don't know what the US military has actually accomplished there, but I do know the US is in the NW Indian Ocean. The 2 times we've recently sailed to the Seychelles ('07 & '09) there were mini-flotillas (10-12 ships) of the multinational force there on R&R, each led by a pair of hi-tech US missile boats. And a friend who has just completed her Annapolis degree is now en-route to that area, deployed on a US Navy ship.

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The US has virtually no presence in the Gulf of Aden as its not a strategic route for its commerce.

The US actions to date have resulted in virtually nothing and the Russians have acted twice, and are just interested in youtube hits

get a grip and actually read about whats happening there

Dave

Dave, I've seen you say this over and over again in "pirate" threads. Not that I care to have a pissing match over who is doing what over there, or whether or not it is working, etc, but I thought I would set the record straight on there not being a US role for those interested. My wife was deployed on a carrier battle group from Sept 2010-April 2011, and among other things they participated and led in several actions against piracy, including a nice multinational action with the S. Koreans, who apparently don't mess around ...anyway CTF 150 and 151 are part of the Combined Maritime Forces, which is part of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and Navy Central Command.

The point is that it is a team effort- of which the U.S. plays an important role.

Frank

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Jon Hacking

I agree it's not a strategic commerce route for the US & I don't know what the US military has actually accomplished there, but I do know the US is in the NW Indian Ocean. The 2 times we've recently sailed to the Seychelles ('07 & '09) there were mini-flotillas (10-12 ships) of the multinational force there on R&R, each led by a pair of hi-tech US missile boats. And a friend who has just completed her Annapolis degree is now en-route to that area, deployed on a US Navy ship.

Any and all sea lanes are of vital importance to not only the USA but the developed world as a whole...All of Africa and Aisa are about to be thrust into the lime light of the world stage ...we have secured the Gas Stations of the world and now its time to go and fight the "big fight" or the "main event" if you will...Not to belittle the efforts of the ones who have been fighting in the middle east but the "big show is about to begin" and the gulf of Aden is part and parcel of the "big show"...DVC

[ty.gregory]

Interesting conversation. On a smaller scale, how many cruisers have we heard about that end up paying a "bounty" to get their dinks back? It all comes back to money. Getting your dink stolen, getting kidnapped/pirated in our travels, I suppose, is a risk and a price we pay for sailing the seven seas. If my $3000.00 dink were stolen and I could get it back for $300.00, I too would be very tempted to pay the price. Ah, come on--I'd pay it. And I'd be doing a dis-service to all other cruisers by doing so.

It would make me angry, yes. In either case, I don't think that mass distruction of hillside villages would be my response in the case of piracy.

Stopping crime is one thing, becoming more ugly than the "bad guys" is another.

I believe guns do kill people.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by tropicalescape

Any and all sea lanes are of vital importance to not only the USA but the developed world as a whole...All of Africa and Aisa are about to be thrust into the lime light of the world stage ...we have secured the Gas Stations of the world and now its time to go and fight the "big fight" or the "main event" if you will...Not to belittle the efforts of the ones who have been fighting in the middle east but the "big show is about to begin" and the gulf of Aden is part and parcel of the "big show"...DVC

What " big show"

Dave

[Jon Hacking]

Originally Posted by ty.gregory

...I don't think that mass distruction of hillside villages would be my response in the case of piracy. Stopping crime is one thing, becoming more ugly than the "bad guys" is another...

Your opinion, Ty. But I notice that folks are quick to say "Don't do that, it's bad!" without providing an alternate (better) solution. IMHO, if you don't have a better solution, your opinion ... loses value.

I don't think anyone is talking about "mass destruction of hillside villages". I've heard folks talking about targeted attacks against the Warlords (who I see as the real problem) & possibly other military centers or those directly involved. I've also read that anyone close to these sources of piracy money is also complicit (which I also agree with) so collateral damage of a targeted strike would be minimal. And I myself have suggested quarantining the coast to prevent arms flowing into the Indian Ocean (which would be military, but mostly non-violent).

I think the point you're trying to make is that Somalia needs more than a military solution, & in that I would agree with you. Somalia needs a long-term fix, & that probably involves a lot of aid & possibly help forming & maintaining a working government.

But before that can happen, the real problem makers (the Warlords) have to be removed. They're evil enough (again, IMHO) that I have no problem with a military solution for that part. But we also need a short term solution to make shipping (& especially cruising) safe again, as any long-term fix is going to take a long time.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Jon Hacking

I think the point you're trying to make is that Somalia needs more than a military solution, & in that I would agree with you. Somalia needs a long-term fix, & that probably involves a lot of aid & possibly help forming & maintaining a working government.


.

Heh!

My dad worked in Somalia in the early sixties for the US Corps of Engineers = aid.

The place is still a s*it hole.

Now if they could just discover Unobtanium there would be a reason to help them more and teach them dimocracy and the rule of law. But that takes lots of money to give to all, along with food, clothing, shelter, power, clean water, healthcare, justice etc.

[Bruce626]

goboatingnow wrote:

1) "yet the US has significant crime stats up near the top for civilized countries. Your argument fails." ==> Not if one performs a more detailed analysis of where these crime stats come from. The areas with the crime are usually minority areas - often black - where where is a large gang presence and contention over the distribution of illegal drugs. In general these are more liberal states like New York and California, or Washington, DC; and specifically in these minority urban sub-cultures: NYC, SF, LA, Chicago where 'gun control' has been in vogue for many years. Outside of these areas, in right to carry states, there is a much lower incidence of crime. The statistics show that contrary to what many 'liberals' contend, the right of honest and law abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun has not resulted in increased crime, but has helped to lower the rates of criminal activity.

2) "maybe , you just mean , the governments that "we" don't like at any particular time , shouldn't have them , even though in general "we" gave them all their weapons in the first place." ==> No, I mean repressive governments who are willing to turn heavy weapons on their own citizens who wish to protest against government policies or the lack of free and fair elections. And, no, "we" didn't give most of these governments their weapons - I see no evidence that the USA has armed Russia, China, Burma, North Korea, or many other repressive governments. Indeed, repressive governments have existed long before the USA became a world power, and they have never needed any help in arming their minions to protect themselves from their citizens.

3) "Your views are right-wing, conservative and naive." ==> I see nothing wrong with this except perhaps for the 'naive' which is unsubstantiated. One could note that your views seem left-wing, liberal, and equally 'naive' (i.e. based on a different set of selective information). People are entitled to form and express diverse opinions - no problem there. I find it odd you want to bring the NRA and Fox news into the discussion - I reside in the Philippines and am not an NRA member, nor is Fox news typically available here (although some cable providers offer it if one pays for it - no cable on my catamaran).

4) "after all we the western word created these messes" ==> I think not. Criminals and thugs all over the world are perfectly capable of engaging in their nefarious activities without the assistance of the "western world". Many of these cultures have been engaging in such behavior long before the "west" became a major force in the world. Individual decisions to engage in criminal activity are just that - individual. Each person has the free will to behave in an ethical or evil manner; their decisions lie with themselves and not with anyone else.