India destroys pirate boat

  I think I watched the same report Remind or at least one on the topic.  I don't remember the part about the dutch but do remember that they said that right now there's something like 250 ships sitting in the ports in Somalia waiting on various demands like ransom, some with hostages as well.

  They also said that it's a real problem getting local help with dealing with it because the piracy is helping the local economy as all of the ships and personal need supplies. Plus the pirates themselves get tons'o money and build huge houses and buy lots of things.  

I understand that the people in the area of that pirate port are eating properly for the first time in years.

If only they could make it a legal toll operation, like the one sold to international interests, called the 407 . Everyone in Somalia might begin to eat well, eh?  So the price of our oil goes back up. At least it would not be further fattening the sheiks, who from their pictures, clearly do not need more food at all. 

  Well unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones perspective it sounds like the "pirates" days of easy boardings (because the civilian crews aren't armed)  may soon be over.  According to news reports the recent uptick in ships being taken have led companies to consider hiring armed mercenaries of the Blackwater type fame.  

  Avoiding naval and police boats is one thing. Going up against those types of people actually on the ship is another thing entirely.   

I'm not sure that Somalia itseld would warrent satellite coverage. I'd be somewhat surprised if there wasn't coverage of the shipping lanes but between that and covering shooting wars I can see the west tasking primary coverage elsewhere. They may get secondary coverage but it wouldn't as on demand as this situation would need.

  I don't think the issue is whether the tanker or even the pirate
ships could be hidden.  There is likely sattelite coverage in the area,
especially since it has been growing more active in recent years.   Say
a 'pirate' ship or suspect ship  is spotted by a sattelite, it would
then have to be a determined that it was indeed a ship out there about
to do something nefarious.  That would take closer observation.  

 I
watched a show once about a Canadian warship that was in the area that
was patrolling for gunrunners coming from the Quatar area and heading
for Africa.  The ship was spotted by satellite, looked suspicious
because of the speed it was going  and the navy ship sent  to intercept
in order to try to determine if indeed it was doing something
criminal.  Even so there are certain rules that have to be followed,
because they can't just blow someone out of the water  or board on suspicion
alone.  The chopper was sent to take close up pictures so a determination could be made. As an aside they did show what a joke the outdated technology was on that chopper (Sea King I think) as they had no ability to send the pictures back to the main ship for a looksee. They had to return to the ship, run the "film" (or whatever it was)  to the authority, run it through some sort of database and then and only then get the go ahead to pursue and board if they could.  By that time the ship in question, a cigarette boat in this case had turned around in an attempt to get back to safe waters. 

 So perhaps in the case of pirate , the same thing
happens, unless it is a known entity that has been proven to have 
involved in other hijackings a determination has to be made as to
whether they're actually going after a ship.  Even if say a group of
ships are spotted by satellite the warships would have to get to the
area they're at.  It's a big area to patrol and most 'pirate' ships are
small vessels to begin with. 

  There's also the issue that by the time the pirate boats
actually show that they're going to hijack something it's pretty much
too late, because the last thing a warship is going to do is start
lobbing missiles at small ships for fear of the larger ship getting
caught in the crossfire.  From reading the article, though it's not
totally clear, it seems that this particular group of 'pirate' ships had
already been caught by whatever observation technology hijacking
another ship at some point and were more then likely tracked from the scene of the 'crime'

I don't see why one would put pirates in quotation marks.  These are criminals siezing vessels on the high seas.  They are, by definition, pirates.

Malcolm, I'm afraid you're missing the forest for the trees. The criminals walk among you.

ElizaQ wrote:

  Well unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones perspective it sounds like the "pirates" days of easy boardings (because the civilian crews aren't armed)  may soon be over.  According to news reports the recent uptick in ships being taken have led companies to consider hiring armed mercenaries of the Blackwater type fame.  

  Avoiding naval and police boats is one thing. Going up against those types of people actually on the ship is another thing entirely.   

The only perspective from which that is "unfortunate" is the perspective of the pirates. 

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Jerry West wrote:

The origins of Somali piracy:

 

"Beyond the immediate need to temporarily send warships to police the troubled waters, a coalition force tasked with fishery protection should be deployed. It could be done under the auspices of the United Nations, African Union, or a coalition of willing states. This option will address a root cause of the piracy problem, rob the modern-day buccaneers of their legitimacy, and be more acceptable to the region as an enduring part of the solution.

First, this option will address the very problem that originally sparked this rise in piracy. The problem of piracy in Somalia originated about a decade ago because of disgruntled fishermen.

Quote:

Webster's Dictionary defines piracy as "robbery on the high seas." By that definition, Somalia is the victim of pirates from all over the world. According to the United Nations, these foreign "fish pirates" plunder Somali waters from about 700 vessels - an armada of commercial buccaneers.

Before Somalia descended into chaos, 30,000 fishermen made their livings from the sea. But they can't compete with the modern, foreign vessels, and there is no one to keep the commercial fish pirates out.

Some foreign fishing interests make their own deals, purchasing fishing "licenses" from warlords purporting to represent authority on behalf of Somalia. That's very much like the "diplomacy" practiced by white settlers in the colonial and early United States, when they made "treaties" with bogus Indian "chiefs" who signed away Native American land for trinkets and liquor.

Local and clan militias have replaced national authority in Somalia, which is partially occupied by the Ethiopian military. The Ethiopian invasion and occupation, instigated by the United States in late 2006, has displaced millions, many of whom face starvation. The coastal fishermen are also members of militias. Western media call them pirates, but as one armed sailor told the New York Times: "Think of us like a coast guard."

Somebody needs to guard Somali's water resources, but it certainly isn't the Americans. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, of the U.S. Navy's Central Command, patrols the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean - Somalia's neighborhood. It also bombs Somalis that resist the Ethiopian occupation and targets people the U.S. claims have ties to Al Qaida. But the American fleet does little to interfere with the illegal dumping of radioactive waste in Somali waters or any other crimes against the environment and Somalia's national treasure and sovereignty.

When it comes to piracy, Somalis are on balance the victims rather than the perpetrators. It is estimated that foreigners poach $300 million from Somali fisheries each year. Somalia's armed sailors extort about one-third that amount - $100 million - from the owners of captured ships. So, who are the real pirates?

Thanks for that, MS

Where's Pompey when you need him?

 While Snarfy the Wonder Girl and I  were driving home from school with CBC radio on (no, it's not child abuse, I checked, and was as surprised as you)  and they did a news story about the pirates taking over the oil tanker.  The following is the resulting conversation:

"did he say pirates?"

"Yes."

(long pause)

"Pirates?"

"Yes."

(shorter pause)

"Real Pirates?"

"Yes, real pirates."

(longer pause)

"Pirates that say ARRRRRR?"

"No, they don't say 'arrrrrr' "

I can remember the news being confusing when I was seven years of age.  Oh, it's still confusing at forty nine years of age, but for less entertaining reasons.

Piracy never really went away, you know.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/04/09/9061306-sun.html

There were some 130 piracy incidents in 2008 with 250 hostages taken (most still awaiting ransom or rescue, somewhere in Somalia).

The French Navy stormed a French sailboat being held by pirates in the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia, killing one hostage and two pirates in the operation, a presidential statement said Friday.

The navy also freed four remaining hostages, including one child, who were seized Saturday when pirates boarded their ship, the Tanit. Three other pirates were taken prisoner.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/616832

Doesn't (or shouldn't) government protection extend to Canadians, wherever they are?  Does working on a cargo ship mean that you don't deserve to have your government protect you from being kidnapped or killed?

That was quite the over-the-top reaction.  Are you a Somali pirate?  :p

But ya, I see what you're saying.  If "capitalism" can't form its own navy to protect its interests on the high seas, it's clearly failed.

remind wrote:

It has clearly failed on several fronts, but perhaps your blinders fail to give you a clear enough view. Funny how 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...

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

exactly they keep sayin they dont have money for this or this which would help the ppl but when it comes to their shit aint enuff money in the world.

remind wrote:

It has clearly failed on several fronts, but perhaps your blinders fail to give you a clear enough view. Funny how 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.

Webgear wrote:

Snert wrote:

That was quite the over-the-top reaction.  Are you a Somali pirate?  :p

But ya, I see what you're saying.  If "capitalism" can't form its own navy to protect its interests on the high seas, it's clearly failed.

This has happen already, it is an organization called Blackwater.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Can they operate independantly for blue water operations? I know they've bought a ship.

I am kind of sympathetic to remind's argument that Canadians cannot expect the government to rescue them if they choose to go to dangerous parts of the world. There are risks involved in working on a cargo ship in the Gulf of Aden - or travelleling to any number of countries. Read the advisories by Foreign Affairs and decide whether it is worth the risk.

Then on the other hand, I see stories of someone like Laura Archer (from here on PEI) who was working in Darfur with Doctors without Borders.  Should our tax money via our military help a Canadian citizen who is taken hostage in a country or maritime area they know is dangerous? Presently Beverly Giesbrecht from BC is being held hostage in Pakistan and our tax money is funding behind the scenes negotiations. Should these stop?

I feel sympathetic for people, but at the same time: why go to an extremely dangerous place willingly and then when (foreseeable) things happen expect the Canadian taxpayer (via the military) to rescue you?