LATEST PIRATE NEWS

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by GordMay

“The Tipping Point” by Malcom Gladwell

Book ➥ gladwell dot com - the tipping point

Essay ➥ gladwell dot com - the tipping point

Dang you are good Gord!

[Capt.Fred]

Youtube "Russian Navy vs. Somali pirates"

[CeesH]

Sad but this might be the future for the yacht industry, a Hybrid submarine yacht.

Hybrid 2021 yacht concept by Edwin van der Mark of VANDERMARK — Luxury Yacht Charter & Superyacht News

[sparau]

Originally Posted by Sam Plan B

Strange to say but, piracy is 90% a shore side activity. That is, piracy is an economic activity that cannot survive without the active cooperation of local (quasi) governing authorities....
Drone strikes on the local municipal building and on the largest hillside villas will provide wondrous persuasion. And no, they are not innocent.

Really you would probably be blowing up 10x more cleaners than pirate boss's.

Sure drone strikes are the way things are done (less messy, less chance of post traumatic stress than knifing someone and having to face a human) which explains why the percentage of innocents/civilians in armed conflict has risen so markedly in the last 100 years. ~15% or something WW1, ~50%WW2, 90% Iraq and i believe even more now.

Personally i think the locals need some cash to empower some troops, take the money from the pirates for the populace and cull them at a 1:1 level.

[Bruce626]

The problem is in linking 'innocent' and 'civilians' - the culture in this area is tribal based and everyone in the area is benefiting to a greater or lesser extent from the profits generated by piracy and hostage taking. Since practically no one is in uniform, they can all be classified as 'civilians' to some extent. Still, virtually everyone is complicit in supporting the hostage takers and enabling them to have secure bases with all the support that is required. Describing them as 'innocent' is dubious at best - if you think them innocent, you should review the material written by released and/or freed hostages about their observations of the environment in which they were held for some prolonged time. Surely, to be truly innocent, the people who were not directly involved should have made information available on the location and/or condition of the hostages. Perhaps some basic humanitarian assistance to the hostages would have been appropriate as well, and some assistance in escaping the clutches of the pirates would have been helpful. Alas, one does not find any sort of assistance to the hapless innocent foreign victim of piracy, torture, kidnapping, and etc. by the supposedly innocent indigenous local inhabitants of the area. In a first world country these people would likely be chargeable as accessories after the fact for their active support and failure to participate in stopping an obvious crime in progress. Looked at in this way, one can understand the desire on the part of some for more aggressive rules of engagement and an attempt to target the obvious economic beneficiaries instead of the hapless fishermen turned pirate, kidnapper, and/or terrorist. It is a thorny problem in that the obvious solution to which everyone gives lip service - do not pay the ransom - fails to release the hostages; and of course, eventually someone pays the ransom and thus rewards the very behavior one wants to stop. Since broad brush punitive action does not depend on the relatives of the hostages being willing to see their loved ones slaughtered, it is one solution which that has worked in the past where harsh military action has destroyed the economic and social support structure on which the pirates rely. Eventually the pirate problem will grow to merit wide scale destruction or an egregious incident will trigger such an armed response. Until then the only viable individual action would seem to be to avoid the pirate infected areas of the world as once pirates get beyond the machete waving stage, there is little that an individual yacht can do. It is unfortunate that the pirate publicity is encouraging this criminal behavior in more parts of the world - some effective action might go a long way to stopping the spread of this scourge. Note that for me, cruising a third world area - the central Philippines - slowing or reversing the spreading scourge of piracy is not an entirely academic exercise.

[rtbates]

That news re-enforces my desire to never go near that spot of water, just like I would never venture into Detroit slums after dark...

Don't need to tell me twice!

[carstenb]

Somwhere earlier on this thread someone said that thee solution to this is on-shore not off-shore. Which is correct to a large extent. As long as the local population does not have way of earnings living, there will be lots of volunteers to become pirates (especially if chances of punishment are either being set ashore or a western prison where life is better than at home).

I suspect the answers are two-fold: Make the seagoing part as tough as you can. Catch 'em - hang 'em. yes I know that's not very PC today but it would certainly be a deterrent.

On shore - intelligence is hard to get since anyone not local sticks out like a sore thumb - but certainly some intel can be gotten. use it to attack the guys running the show. Take away their money.

Having said all that - any yacht that is unintelligent enough to sail through the Aden really should have their head examined. Yes it does cost around 10 grand to have your boat shipped - and so what? compared to death or having to pay a 3,4-500 dollar ransom?

Who are we kidding - if you can afford the boat you can afford to have it shipped.

[goboatingnow]

Drone strikes on the local municipal building and on the largest hillside villas will provide wondrous persuasion.

Yes it would and result in 800 hostages being murdered. good call.

Dave

[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).

[SimonV]

Originally Posted by rtbates

That news re-enforces my desire to never go near that spot of water, just like I would never venture into Detroit slums after dark...

Don't need to tell me twice!

I see your point. But what if the Detroit slums became a no go zone during all hours and that was your only rout to continue your life long dream. Just saying.

[Noname]

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?'

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by perchance

It doesn't matter what the UN/UNSC agree upon, China and Russia will veto it anyway.

You have that right!!..they will have played there last card soon!..DVC

[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.

[Lt.]

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.

Thank god I'm not alone with this view.

[MacG]

Maybe not so strict in the US, but generally politicians, indifferently where, have a deadly fear of armed civilians.
Certainly in the EU where the Dutch made way for the strictest gunlaws ever, now being implied by the EU commission as a general issue for all EU countries.

The Breivik-affair is a strong argument for their measurements. As the EU politicians see it. Which means de facto that weapons are in hands of 2 groups:
The military and its sub-organisations and the criminal circuit.

Which underwrites the statement of Bruce626.