India destroys pirate boat

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
HeywoodFloyd

I meant indepentant of the client vessels. It's one thing to be armed guards and another thing to have a fleet of torpedo boats.

A_J

Webgear wrote:
I can not see why they can't start conducting these types of security operations. They could easily place a number of security guards on each vessel to defend them.

They have the training and weapons, and the will power.

Blackwater and similar firms are already on the job:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4173/blackwater_to_battle_pirates/

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/20081127151733545152.html

Should make remind feel better.

remind remind's picture

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
remind wrote:
right wing nuts are always yelling about taxpayers dollars being spent on health care and social programs etc, but when it comes to capitalist interests and making the rich richer, it is a go...

Perhaps the corporations could pay into a common fund that could be used to hire and equip trained and specialized guards to protect their cargo. There would be employment for hundreds of people, capital expenditures on equipment, investment in manufacturing infrastructure on Canadian soil, and it would help protect the cost of goods to Canadians.

They could even focus recruiting for these positions amongst demographic populations where lower education and/or economic disadvantages would lower their chances of stable long term employment, especially when we consider the downturn that the economy is going through.

Couple of observations.

1. The Canadian CONservative government won't even purchase our military's supplies from Canadian companies, what makes you think oil companies, and shipping lines are going to purchasde Canadian made military equipment, clothing, boots and other?

2. Redundant to the point of our military has no business escorting/safe guarding cargo ships and wasting taxpayers dollars for corporate interests

3. Paying poor people to benefit off of the pillaging of other poor people, is not my idea of positive job creation, nor a solution to economic and environmental devatation wrought by capitalitic fascism.

4. Pirating will  increase as  long as the exploitation and raping of resources continues, as well as the ignoring of environmental damages caused by said actions of corporations.

5. Using poor people as pawns in military actions, be they goverment, or mercenary, has long been in practise, doesn't mean it should continue, or advocated, in order to keep the rich rich and in power.

 

 

Ghislaine

Well, AJ - perhaps we need to slow down globalization and develop a more local economy.

re: your comment about the Maersk Alabama being an aid ship - where was the aid destined for and who financed it? It was my understanding this was a commercial cargo ship?

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy] Obama approves use of force; 3 pirates killed and Captain rescued [/url]:

Quote:
"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told The Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

Sunday's stunning resolution came after pirates had agreed to let the USS Bainbridge tow their powerless lifeboat out of rough water. A fourth pirate surrendered earlier Sunday and could face life in a U.S. prison. He had been seeking medical attention for a wound to his hand, military officials said.

Interviewed from Bahrain, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command chief Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said Navy SEAL snipers killed three pirates with single shots shortly after sailors on the Bainbridge saw the hostage-takers "with their heads and shoulders exposed."

U.S. Defense officials said snipers got the go-ahead to fire after one pirate held an AK-47 close to Capt. Richard Phillips' back. The military officials asked not to be named because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.

"(The snipers are) extremely, extremely well-trained," Gortney told NBC's "Today" show, saying the shooting was ordered by the captain of the Bainbridge.

The SEALS arrived on the scene by parachuting from their aircraft into the sea, and were picked up by the Bainbridge, a senior U.S. official said.

He said negotiations with the pirates had been "going up and down." The official, asking not to be identified because he, too, was not authorized to discuss this on the record, said the pirates were "becoming increasingly agitated in the rough waters; they weren't getting what they wanted."

Just as it was getting dark, pirates fired a tracer bullet "toward the Bainbridge," further heightening tensions, the official said.

At news of Phillips' rescue, his crew in Kenya broke into wild cheers and tears came to the eyes of those in Phillips' hometown of Underhill, Vermont, half a world away from the Indian Ocean drama. It was not immediately known when or how Phillips would return home.

Phillips' crew has said he gave himself up as a hostage to secure their release when the ship was first attacked last week. Obama called the captain's courage "a model for all Americans" and said he was pleased with the rescue.

Sunday's blow to the pirates' lucrative activities is unlikely to stop them, simply because of the size of the vast area - 1.1 million square miles - stretching from the Gulf of Aden and the coast of Somalia. But it could raises tensions in an already lawless area.

"This could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it," said Gortney.

A Somali pirate agreed.

"Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying," Abdullahi Lami, one of the pirates holding a Greek ship anchored in the Somali town of Gaan, told The Associated Press on Monday. "We will retaliate (for) the killings of our men."

Later Monday, six mortar shells were fired toward the airport in the Somali capital of Mogadishu as a plane carrying a U.S. congressman took off, an airport employee at the control tower said.

HeywoodFloyd

I was being glib and describing the armed forces basically as they are now.

The CF does purchase where possible Canadian made goods, the blathering of Elizabeth May notwithstanding.

A_J

Ghislaine wrote:
where was the aid destined for and who financed it? It was my understanding this was a commercial cargo ship?

It has been mentioned in virtually every article:

BBC (link) wrote:
Among the cargo of the 17,000-tonne Maersk Alabama was UN food aid destined for Somalia and Uganda.

Ghislaine wrote:
Well, AJ - perhaps we need to slow down globalization and develop a more local economy.

I'm sure anyone employed in an export-oriented industry would love that, not to mention the folks in Uganda, Somalia or elsewhere awaiting aid.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Not over the top at all just sick of fascist propaganda.

Right. Not over the top at all.

martin dufresne

"Somali clan elders had been trying to negotiate a free passage for the hijackers in exchange for Phillips's freedom."

Why negotiate when you have a clear line of sight, eh?

remind remind's picture

A_J wrote:
remind wrote:
What really pisses me off in this situation, is that Canadian tax payers, are footing the bill to have our navy there escorting oil tankers, and other cargo ships.

Or in the case of the Maersk Alabma, food aid for a starving people.

"Corporate entities" aren't behind this, international law has recognised for many many years the responsibilities of all nations to combat piracy.

Besides, it is also connected to our own welfare.  Canada depends on international trade and especially maritime trade and if ships can't sail safely through the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Indian Ocean or elsewhere with goods, that can have direct consequences on the economy and employment back here.

Why are the people starving A_J?

Food aid but a small portion of cargo. Most likely a tax write off too including it with other cargo.

Way to try and skew optics, on pirating and International law, that would be in our OWN waters, not off the horn of Africa.

Only tangentially connected to home employment,  the money would be better served actually developing Canadian infrastructure, and again not our country's responsibility, it is the shipping lines and the owners of the cargo.

 

Ghislaine, very very few Canadians work on international shipping lines. Moreover, if your example had any validity, then we would be sending a military battle group with individual citizens going into dangerous areas, eh?! You are trying to conflate 2 different things.

 

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

A_J wrote:
remind wrote:
What really pisses me off in this situation, is that Canadian tax payers, are footing the bill to have our navy there escorting oil tankers, and other cargo ships.

Or in the case of the Maersk Alabma, food aid for a starving people.

"Corporate entities" aren't behind this, international law has recognised for many many years the responsibilities of all nations to combat piracy.

Besides, it is also connected to our own welfare.  Canada depends on international trade and especially maritime trade and if ships can't sail safely through the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Indian Ocean or elsewhere with goods, that can have direct consequences on the economy and employment back here.

Why are the people starving A_J?

Food aid but a small portion of cargo. Most likely a tax write off too including it with other cargo.

Way to try and skew optics, on pirating and International law, that would be in our OWN waters, not off the horn of Africa.

Only tangentially connected to home employment,  the money would be better served actually developing Canadian infrastructure, and again not our country's responsibility, it is the shipping lines and the owners of the cargo.

 

Ghislaine, very very few Canadians work on international shipping lines. Moreover, if your example had any validity, then we would be sending a military battle group with individual citizens going into dangerous areas, eh?! You are trying to conflate 2 different things.

 

I agree with you until the end - how am I conflating two different things? The basic idea is should the Cdn military rescue Canadians working abroad? I am talking specifically of hostage situations. Suppose Captain Phillips was Canadian and deliverying UN food aid via his ship.

HeywoodFloyd

As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with Canadian Navy ships protecting Canadian Flagged (not owned but flagged) ships. If they're flagged as Liberian, Panamanian, or the like, then go get those Navies to back you up. If Canadian citizens are working on foreign flagged ships, then too friggin bad for you.

A_J

remind wrote:
Way to try and skew optics, on pirating and International law, that would be in our OWN waters, not off the horn of Africa.

'Fraid not.  Whether in Canadian waters, the Horn of Africa or anywhere else in the world, international law considers pirates general "enemies of humanity", and the jurisdiction to deal with them is universal.

remind wrote:
Only tangentially connected to home employment,  the money would be better served actually developing Canadian infrastructure, and again not our country's responsibility, it is the shipping lines and the owners of the cargo.

Guess you don't work in an export-oriented industry that depends on maritime shipping.  Strange that you want to spend money developing infrastructure in Canada, which will inevitably be used by businesses, but not international "infrastructure" (safe shipping lanes) . . . beacuse it is used by businesses.  Besides, protection of maritime trade has been the main raison d'etre of navies for centuries.

Sure, the shipping lines have their responsibilties too - to plan safe routes and carry insurance.  Problem is; routes around the Cape and higher insurance premiums (up twenty-fold according to one of the articles I linked above) add huge costs to moving goods around the world.  But I guess that's okay, they can always cut costs by raising prices, cutting wages or laying folks off.

Ghislaine

Heywood: does Canadian flagged mean they pay taxes in Canada? I seem to recall that Paul Martin's CSL ships are flagged in Libya or somwhere.

remind remind's picture

Well, you can talk that Ghislaine, I am talking about Canada's permanent military navy presence off the horn protecting  cargo vessels, and this was not a Canadian captain nor Canadian aid. So you are speaking hypotheticals while I am speaking realities.

No heywood it is the shipping line's issue, and perhaps the cargo owners, as well as the insurance companies. Spending tax payer dollars on protecting private enterprise around the world, is BS.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Why are the people starving A_J?

 
That's an interesting question...

Quote:
During the Siad Barre regime, Somalia received aid from Denmark, Great Britain, Iraq, Japan, Sweden, USSR and West Germany to develop their fishing industry. The fishing industry comprised either cooperatives which had fixed prices for the catch, which was often exported due to the low demand for seafood in Somalia. Aid money improved the ships and supported the construction of maintenance facilities.[15] After the Barre regime the income from fishing decreased due to the civil war. Some pirates are former fishermen, who argue that foreign ships are threatening their livelihood by fishing in Somali waters. After seeing the profitability of piracy, since ransoms are usually paid, warlords began to facilitate pirate activities, splitting the profits with the pirates.

Maybe they don't like fish? Or maybe when people send them free food, pirates attack the boat. That can't help, now can it?
Anyway, why should the Canadian or American military spend money and resources on piracy instead of the money being spent on Community Petting Zoos and such? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_... Security Council resolution 1838.[/url]

Jingles

[url=http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22399.htm]You Are Being Lied to About Pirates[/url]

Quote:
This is the context in which the men we are calling "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would understand those words.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
these pirates are simply retaliating for decades of toxic waste dumping by foreign ships and foreign overfishing as well

 

I believe that it's only "retaliation" when you return an insult or injury to the person who insulted or injured you. It's not retaliation when you're basically choosing victims at random, based on opportunity and nothing else.

 

Are we to believe that the Maersk Alabama was fishing, or dumping industrial waste? If not, what is this a "retaliation" for?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yeah, that's basically what I said in my post #34 earlier in this thread:

 

"There was an interesting piece by the CBC's Joe Schlesinger the other night about how these pirates are simply retaliating for decades of toxic waste dumping by foreign ships and foreign overfishing as well, both of which has destroyed the local economies."

 

ETA: the CBC video is "Somali pirates: the other side"

HeywoodFloyd

Ghislaine wrote:

Heywood: does Canadian flagged mean they pay taxes in Canada? I seem to recall that Paul Martin's CSL ships are flagged in Libya or somwhere.

 

Yes. They would pay Canadian taxes and be subject to Canadian maritime regulations (which bar things like dumping in international waters etc).

If that's the case, then the navy should be explicitly available if necessary to offer protection to them.

HeywoodFloyd

remind wrote:

No heywood it is the shipping line's issue, and perhaps the cargo owners, as well as the insurance companies. Spending tax payer dollars on protecting private enterprise around the world, is BS.

What about the lives and safety of the crews?

remind remind's picture

Guess snert is not aware, though this is usually the case with right wing people anyway in respect to any subject, this one notwithstanding, of the disposal of waste from all ships into the oceans, bilge waste which is full of oil and other toxins, plastics, and  the bigger they are the more human produced waste too.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Snert wrote:
Are we to believe that the Maersk Alabama was fishing, or dumping industrial waste? If not, what is this a "retaliation" for?

 

I doubt it's against the Maersk Alabama specifically, but against all shipping lines generally for their past (and continuing?) abuse of these waters.

remind remind's picture

HeywoodFloyd wrote:
remind wrote:
No heywood it is the shipping line's issue, and perhaps the cargo owners, as well as the insurance companies. Spending tax payer dollars on protecting private enterprise around the world, is BS.

What about the lives and safety of the crews?

No heywood still the responsibility of the employers, just as any other employer is responsible for their employes safety and not the military.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Guess snert is not aware, though this is usually the case with right wing people anyway in respect to any subject, this one notwithstanding, of the disposal of waste from all ships into the oceans, bilge waste which is full of oil and other toxins, plastics, and  the bigger they are the more human produced waste too.

So you're agreeing that in this case, I am aware?
Thanks. That's big of you to admit.
Meanwhile, wouldn't any ship that's already crossing the Atlantic dump its bilge there? Unless they're just sadists who despise marine life, of course. As I read it, the dumping of wastes is from European ships who, one would assume, aren't crossing open ocean.
Where, though, do you suppose the pirates dump THEIR bilge water and wastes?

HeywoodFloyd

True. However, employers on domestic soil have a relationship with the RCMP and/or local police forces to help protect their employees. Consider in Edmonton that building owners/managers can designate the EPS as a designated agent for the owners. Same goes for EMS and Fire Protection services. Building owners must have fire proctection systems but they are not on the nut for a whole fire service, except through their taxes.

What you're proposing is shipping companies contracting to companies like Xe (Blackwater) or the like. They would operate without any oversight on the high seas. Is that really what is in the best social interest?

A_J

remind wrote:
Guess snert is not aware . . . of the disposal of waste from all ships into the oceans, bilge waste which is full of oil and other toxins, plastics, and  the bigger they are the more human produced waste too.

This would apply equally to the very ships of these fisherpersons-cum-pirates, no?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

I doubt it's against the Maersk Alabama specifically, but against all shipping lines generally for their past (and continuing?) abuse of these waters.

 

Then we should visit righteous justice on all African nations generally for this piracy!

 

Quote:
They would operate without any oversight on the high seas.

 

Until, in a category-5 storm of irony, the left started demanding that the Navy oversee the Blackwater ships. Wink

Webgear

I am in agreement with a majority of Remind’s comments. She does have many valid points and concerns that need to be addressed.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Good to see all these fine capitalists here advocating the spending of Canadian tax payers dollars on foreign ship's protection, as next time they decry tax payer's dollars being spent on taxpayers this thread will stand as testimony to their hyporcrisy.

 

Again, Canada's commitment to this has its origins in decades-old agreements between nations to police piracy on the high seas, and, more formally, from UN Security Council resolution 1838.

 

You really seem to want to believe that we're doing this because Stephen Harper owes one of his golfing buds a favour, and you seem to be enjoying winding yourself up about it, but there you go. If you need to next assert that the UN is just a well-known front for Capitalism, don't hold back.

remind remind's picture

At least they are dumping their watse in their own pond then, eh, and are 1000 of the size.

Good to see all these fine capitalists here advocating the spending of Canadian tax payer's dollars on foreign ship's protection, as next time they decry tax payer's dollars being spent on, let's say; "taxpayer's", this thread will stand as testimony to their hypocrisy.  Also, we all know and understand the whole Canadian flag flying thing is a red herring. The major shippings lines puposefully do not fly the Canadian flag, gives them much more impunity to pollute and break worker's rights.

remind remind's picture

Guess you can't read either snert!

Quote:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1838 is a United Nations Security Council resolution that calls on nations with vessels in the Somali piracy region to apply military force as a means of repressing acts of piracy.

We don't have naval vessels loitering around the horn of Africa, they went there to do the policing, at the tax payer's expense. 

And again, there is NO decades old agreements to police international waters, nor other countries waters, it is up to nations to police their own waters, in fact other nations are not legally able to police international waters, nor other country's waters.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

"9.   Calls upon States and regional organizations that have the capacity to do so, to take part actively in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, in particular, consistent with this resolution and relevant international law, by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft, and through seizure and disposition of boats, vessels, arms and other related equipment used in the commission of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia, or for which there is reasonable ground for suspecting such use;

Sounds like an open invitation to anyone who doesn't approve of piracy. IOW, anyone but you.
Frankly, having already cheered on the pirates upthread, I have to wonder how much of this "taxpayer expense" business is just a red herring on your part. I get the distinct feeling that, were it to come down to Canadian hostages and Somali pirates, we could count on you to root for the pirates.
Quote:
Though I will say; "go pirates go".

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

time to end all the bustas like snert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i67euACNhmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwgiprDBtA

 

Ill let my boi K'Naan speak for me, my childhood n this issue as well. So plz Stfu watch n u cant say shit.

Snert Snert's picture

Well.  It's all clear now.  Who we in the west have been calling "pirates" (brainwashed, no doubt, by the corporate press), the people of Somalia think of as their "Coast Guard".

It's that simple.  Not "pirates", but "the Coast Guard"!  Just like Canada has a Coast Guard.

A few differences, though.  Just small ones.  Like, whereas our Coast Guard finds boaters in trouble, like say stranded with a broken rudder,  their Coast Guard finds boats that aren't having any trouble at all.  And where our Coast Guard helps those stranded boaters, and for free, their Coast Guard is actually why boaters are stranded in the first place, and they charge $1,000,000 for their "help" (which consists primarily of 'un-stranding' those boaters).

There are some other differences as well.  Whereas Canada's Coast Guard patrols only Canadian waters, the Somali "Coast Guard" has recently been extending its operations as far south as the Coast of Kenya.  No thanks necessary, Kenya!!  Just doin' their job!

Oh, and the big difference.  Canada's Coast Guard exists to help save lives, whereas the Somali Coast Guard has been known to murder captives in cold blood when "helping out" or when the "rescue fee" isn't paid.  Yes, that's right.  Rexdale's "boi" is telling a giant fib when he claims that nobody is ever killed.  It's a lie that must comfort many.

And the giant irony of this ad hoc Somali "Coast Guard"?  Somalia, despite a government in tatters, actually has a real Coast Guard, which is two members short after they were killed by the volunteer Coast Guard in 2007.  Guess what the ship that the volunteer Coast Guard boarded was carrying?  Guess.  Illegally caught fish?  Nope.  Nuclear waste?  Nope.  Food aid.  Go figure.

"go pirates go".

Ghislaine

Perhaps Newfoundlanders would have been better off operating as pirates to protect the Grand Banks from being decimated by foreign trawlers...

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Ghislaine wrote:

Perhaps Newfoundlanders would have been better off operating as pirates to protect the Grand Banks from being decimated by foreign trawlers...

 

both of u racist ignorant ppl need to listen yes they are saving lives. The nuclear waste will kill millions of africans if they ransom ppl they doing it cuz they starving because the 1st world white countries caused shit in them. It aint personal just business. Realize that b4 talking shit like newfoundlanders should do this both of them are straw men because they seek to use points not really related because you act as if the situation in boht countries is the same when it aint. So chill on that n yes it may have a coast guard but fucc a puppet gov you just dont realize ignorant ppl dont and never will

Ghislaine

Well, Rexdale - they can say it ain't personal and that it is just business. What about those being hold hostage with an AK-47 to their head? Kind of difficult for them and their families to not take it personally, I would think.  What would your advice be to a Canadian held up in such a situation?

How the hell is what I wrote racist? I was making a tongue-in-cheek joke about the raw deal Nfld. has gotten over the past century.  If you read my posts on this thread, you'll see that my preference for "dealing with this situation" is for Cdn ships to stop going near that area and more generally to move to a more local economy where we know that Canadian environmental and labour standards are present every step of the way (these still need improvement as well).

Cueball Cueball's picture

AK47's are far to heavy to hold against someones head for a long period of time. In anycase, we usually only hear the heartrending tales about the "victims family" when they are our family, not our victims.

They picked up some radio chatter from the guys surrounded in the boat with that American captain. One of them said, "we are surrounded by warships, I can't talk now. Pray for us."

Ghislaine

yes, Cueball.  And the reason they were surrounded by warships is because they had an American captain at gunpoint.

It is not just Europeans and Americans that are hostages, there are families [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090414/ap_on_re_af/piracy] of many nationalities [/url]:

 

Quote:

 

On Sunday or Monday, they took two Egyptian fishing trawlers. Maritime officials said the Irene carried 21 to 23 Filipino crew and the fishing boats 36 fishermen, all believed to be Egyptian. A carrier the size of the Sea Horse would need at least a dozen crew, although the exact number was not immediately available.The Yemeni Embassy in Washington said its coast guard exchanged gunfire Monday with 14 Somali pirates who had hijacked a 23-foot Yemeni fishing vessel. Its forces freed 13 Yemeni hostages and detained two pirates, while the rest fled on a boat, the embassy said.

 

However, when you read [url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html] this story [/url], the entire situation is clearer.

 

Quote:

The Somali coastline used to sustain hundreds of thousands of people, as a source of food and livelihoods. Now much of it is almost destroyed, primarily at the hands of these so-called ministers that have sold their nation to fill their own pockets."

Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.

"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said.

"What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."

And we should butt the hell out of that process - but not abuse the situation in the meantime as is presently happening with illegal toxic dumping and fishing. Our ships should stay away from that area and anyone found to be dumping should be prosecuted. However, considering that we are unable to even prosecute
those who dump in our waters (or enact effective legislation) I am not hopeful.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am not the one arguing that these guys are environmentalists. Is anyone, here? I don't think so. I think someone is pointing out the along with the destruction of the the environment comes the destruction of traditional means of survival, and then when faced with the possibility of not surviving they turn to other means. That said, I guess they are not so stupid as to have missed the connection between the destruction of the environment and their present circumstances and are more than willing to point this out.

Your point I guess would be that they are just greedy, I suppose, not hungry and angry and aware of the cause of their hunger and anger.

I see you are now turning the topic around now to blame the Somalis for their own plight. As if to say "its not our fault that their ministers were for sale when we bought their compliance in our plan to dump our shit in their water." Just because we are unscrupulous, doesn't mean that we can't hold them up to a higher standard that we demand from ourselves. Such sensitivity to our own hypocrisy would require scruples, after all.

Ghislaine

Cueball wrote:

Your point I guess would be that they are just greedy, I suppose, not hungry and angry and aware of the cause of their hunger and anger.

I see you are now turning the topic around now to blame the Somalis for their own plight. As if to say "its not our fault that their ministers were for sale when we bought their compliance in our plan to dump our shit in their water."

Um, no. My point was to recognize the roots of this situation (illegal fishing, toxic dumping by other countries and their governmental instability) and to suggest our best move as a country would be stay away from the area and prosecute any Canadians who are contributing to the mess by dumping or fishing. I did not blame Somalis for their own plight - I said that we should not interfere by installing some puppet regime à la Afghanistan - which is what a lot of people are now suggesting is what needs to happen.  I could not imagine a worse possible "solution" than outside countries going in and trying to install a "stable" government in Somalia.

Cueball Cueball's picture

As always we only ever start talking about our complicity in this kind of thing when "they" (whoever "they" are) are pointing guns. When not, it is business as usual. So, I really hope you are not making some kind of appeal on the basis that they may be right, but its just that you don't like their "method".

Ghislaine

I don't know who you are including in "we", but I don't include myself in there. I have believed for many years that "we" (meaning Canada) should de-globalize and move our economy to a more local level due to environmental and human rights concerns.

"They" are point guns at many other people - of many nationalities, such as Yemeni and Egyptian. So, I am not sure who the we and they are in your scenario. There is tribal and civil upheavel within Somalia, no functioning government and illegal fishing and toxic dumping occuring in their waters by many countries. 

I would agree that the media only notices such things (for the most part) when the guns come out.  I would agree that I don't like the methods of violence hostage taking and ransom notes, but I can understand that those acting in this way have few options and little power. I would prefer Canada remove itself from this situation rather than trying to make matters worse by becoming complicit in some sort of international puppet government. I would also prefer that we decline the UN's invitation to patrol the area with our warships.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
The nuclear waste will kill millions of africans if they ransom ppl they doing it cuz they starving because the 1st world white countries caused shit in them.

 You're making the same mistake they are. "First world white countries" aren't some kind of club or group, any more than all "brown" countries are or all Muslim countries are. You can't just lump them all together for convenience.

 If you choose to believe Wikipedia, the waste dumping was carried out by two known firms, in a dodgy agreement with the government of the day:

Quote:
The European Green Party followed up these revelations by presenting before the press and the European Parliament in Strasbourg copies of contracts signed by two European companies -- the Italian Swiss firm, Achair Partners, and an Italian waste broker, Progresso -- and representatives of the then "President" of Somalia, the faction leader Ali Mahdi Mohamed, to accept 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million (then about £60 million).

I'm sure we'd all agree that those firms are responsible and should be held accountable.

But in light of knowing who's responsible, how does it make any kind of sense, and how is it defensible, for Somali pirates to hijack a Korean freighter, or a privately owned craft, or a ship full of food aid? None of those are responsible for the dumping. And no, they're not "partially responsible" because they're white.
Can you connect the dots between a Swiss/Italian firm dumping toxic waste, and the kidnapping and murder of a Korean sailor for money? If not then you're cheering for thugs.

"go pirates go".

martin dufresne

Snert: ""First world white countries" aren't some kind of club or group..."

Yeah, you'd have to be some sort of commie pinko or dormant Al-Qaida cell in order to think anything like that...

martin dufresne

But but... don't these pirates know that with a few cameras and appropriately mistreated women, they could make millions on our screens... to the cheers and applause of liberals?Sealed

remind remind's picture

Uh, first world white countries are a "club" snert, and yes they can be lumped together..

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That report by the CBC's Joe Schlesinger last week pointed out that the pirates are acting out of pure desperation - that the pirates are folks who have lost their jobs in the local fishery and other occupations because the local economy has been totally wrecked by foreign overfishing and toxic waste dumping. They've discovered that piracy pays.

Desperate people do desperate things, no?

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

Uh, first world white countries are a "club" snert, and yes they can be lumped together..

However, would you include Yemen, China and Egypt in that category? Pirates are holding their ships and citizens hostage and the Yemeni coast guard has reacted with force. I think the point is that a "we" and "they" summary of this situation is extremely simplistic and ignores the position of many non-white and non-first world countries. Not least of which is Kenya, which is having to legally deal with a lot of the fall out. 

remind remind's picture

Not speaking of that aspect ghislaine, merely rebutting a false position of snert's that white countries are not clubs, when indeed they are. Having said that, I would encourage you to think about Yemen, China and Egypt, and think about  who they are monetarily and/or power wise affiliated with.

Pages

Topic locked