Pirates Attack Another US Ship

[Higgins]

Pirates are still swarming off Somalia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7999350.stm

[petec]

The pirates were captured

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8000447.stm

[Joe270]

The pirates are now threatening to 'slaughter' Americans in targeted attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/world/main4945788.shtml

"We will seek out the Americans and if we capture them we will slaughter them," said a 25-year-old pirate based in the Somali port of Harardhere who gave only his first name, Ismail.

"We will target their ships because we know their flags. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker. We have showered them with rocket-propelled grenades," boasted Ismail, who did not take part in the attack.

I'd say it's about time to start bombing the ports.

First drop leaflets which warn that any act of piracy will result in a bombing run. Then, every time the pirates attack a vessel, drop a jdam on a shore position used by the pirates.

[billythrilly7th]

The pirates are now threatening to 'slaughter' Americans in targeted attacks:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/15/world/main4945788.shtml



I'd say it's about time to start bombing the ports.

First drop leaflets which warn that any act of piracy will result in a bombing run. Then, every time the pirates attack a vessel, drop a jdam on a shore position used by the pirates.

You are sooo Secretary of Defense in the Thrilly and Clary administrations.

[Joe270]

Thanks, Billy.

I'm serious, though. How hard is it to watch the pirates leave one of those anchored 'hostage' ships and go ashore? They probably gather someplace in town.

Blast that spot to kingdom come.

Right now, all the townspeople see are pirates bringing in wads of cash. I figure their popular support will wane when townspeople see the pirates bringing in air raids.

[William Haskins]

http://14.media.tumblr.com/oaDQWwRAbm98xg3mZqG8JbV2o1_500.jpg
.

[Higgins]

Thanks, Billy.

I'm serious, though. How hard is it to watch the pirates leave one of those anchored 'hostage' ships and go ashore? They probably gather someplace in town.

Blast that spot to kingdom come.

Right now, all the townspeople see are pirates bringing in wads of cash. I figure their popular support will wane when townspeople see the pirates bringing in air raids.

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention) specifically forbids collective punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment

[dclary]

http://14.media.tumblr.com/oaDQWwRAbm98xg3mZqG8JbV2o1_500.jpg
.


CLASSIC! :ROFL:

[William Haskins]

however...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20115701d788e970b-500wi

[Sarpedon]

Jefferson would have broken that chart.

[Higgins]

however...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20115701d788e970b-500wi

So far Obama (unlike at least one of the two other Presidents above) hasn't had any warships captured by pirates...so that puts him way ahead so far.

[Higgins]

however...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20115701d788e970b-500wi

However:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Burning_of_the_uss_philadelphia.jpg/220px-Burning_of_the_uss_philadelphia.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burning_of_the_uss_philadelphia.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Oh its all fun and games until your ship blows up.

[Williebee]

Are pirates actually covered by the Geneva Convention? It isn't a war on pirates...

yet.

[Higgins]

Are pirates actually covered by the Geneva Convention? It isn't a war on pirates...

yet.

Villages and their human inhabitants are covered by the convention, as is anyone who is wounded or surrenders to forces employed by governments that have signed the convention.

And:

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation) or of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) are prohibited.
Pillage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillage) is prohibited.
Reprisals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisal) against protected persons and their property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property) are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment) are a war crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime). By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) and II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) villagers in mass retribution for resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement) activity. In World War II, Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross) (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."
Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

[Higgins]

Are pirates actually covered by the Geneva Convention? It isn't a war on pirates...

yet.

If you are at war with pirates, then they aren't pirates. they are legitimate armed forces of some kind.

In any case you can't freely inflict war crimes on a population in general...at least that is the view of the convention.

[astonwest]

Maybe we can set up some no-sail zones...and blow the crap out of any vessel that enters them without permission.

[Joe270]

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention specifically forbids collective punishment.

This is the silliest response I've ever had. My post said 'shore position used by pirates' quite clearly. The next one specified the idea a bit better.

By your definition, the USA has meted out 'collective punishment' vitually every time it has bombed or used a missile on a terrorist camp or stronghold.

That's utter bullshit.

[Kaiser-Kun]

Thanks, Billy.

I'm serious, though. How hard is it to watch the pirates leave one of those anchored 'hostage' ships and go ashore? They probably gather someplace in town.

Blast that spot to kingdom come.

Right now, all the townspeople see are pirates bringing in wads of cash. I figure their popular support will wane when townspeople see the pirates bringing in air raids.

I don't think it would be that easy... These somali pirates used to be fishermen, so most probably, their popular support from those villages comes from friends and family, so they wouldn't stop supporting them easily.

And surely pirates can't be the only villagers in town.. how would you justify bombing the house of an honest fisherman who lives near the pirates, but refused to participate and didn't wanted to leave his hometown?

[jodiodi]

If the pirates live in the villages and are not turned over to authorities by those villagers, then their neighbors are participating in giving aid and comfort to criminals. They become criminals themselves.

That's the argument the government would use for rationale for bombings.

Personally, I think surgical strikes would work better. And if we could offer the honest people something of value in exchange for them turning over the pirates. It's a poor country. Surely we have something they want.

[Kaiser-Kun]

If the pirates live in the villages and are not turned over to authorities by those villagers, then their neighbors are participating in giving aid and comfort to criminals. They become criminals themselves.

That's the argument the government would use for rationale for bombings.

Personally, I think surgical strikes would work better. And if we could offer the honest people something of value in exchange for them turning over the pirates. It's a poor country. Surely we have something they want.

Likewise, I believe a covert operation to get the leader and disband the pirates would be more effective than a nuke. Perhaps a bounty system to start pirates fighting among themselves, and then take out the remains?

[dclary]

If only we could unleash the power of the Kraken!

[jodiodi]

If only! But Harry Hamlin took care of that beastie.

[Joe270]

These somali pirates used to be fishermen, so most probably, their popular support from those villages comes from friends and family, so they wouldn't stop supporting them easily.

Now let me get this straight. If you lived in Somalia, and your fishermen relatives became pirates reviled by the entire international community, and bombs started falling in your village directly as a result of their actions, killing pirate family members and others when the bombs miss their intended targets, you would still support those family members?

That sounds really unlikely to me.

[rugcat]

By your definition, the USA has meted out 'collective punishment' vitually every time it has bombed or used a missile on a terrorist camp or stronghold.

That's utter bullshit.It's not, really. There have been air strikes that destroy a house with everyone in it, including innocent children, based on intel about a "high value" terrorist inside. It goes by the antiseptic name of collateral damage, and the rational behind it is that US citizens matter more than anyone else, no matter how innocent they may be.

From the standpoint of the relatives of those children, the US are the terrorists.

Now let me get this straight. If you lived in Somalia, and your fishermen relatives became pirates reviled by the entire international community, and bombs started falling in your village directly as a result of their actions, killing pirate family members and others when the bombs miss their intended targets, you would still support those family members?


Substitute "terrorist" for "pirate" and Afghanistan for Somalia and you have your answer.

[ColoradoGuy]

The folks at National Review have a solution. Privatize the ocean (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2YyYWQ0ZTQwYjQzZTFiZGViMGUzZTZlOWY5ZDgxMTg=). It being the National Review, it's unclear if they're kidding or not.

[rugcat]

The folks at National Review have a solution. Privatize the ocean (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2YyYWQ0ZTQwYjQzZTFiZGViMGUzZTZlOWY5ZDgxMTg=). It being the National Review, it's unclear if they're kidding or not.At first it reads like satire, but I read it a second time and he might be dead serious.

[Joe270]

[QUOTE]It's not, really. There have been air strikes that destroy a house with everyone in it, including innocent children, based on intel about a "high value" terrorist inside. It goes by the antiseptic name of collateral damage, and the rational behind it is that US citizens matter more than anyone else, no matter how innocent they may be.

From the standpoint of the relatives of those children, the US are the terrorists./QUOTE]

Calling 'bullshit' on this one, RC.

Sorry to say it, but those who aid and abet terrorists are guilty of that. So they die, that's perfectly justifiable. They are equally guilty. If they are stupid enough to put their children into that line of fire, that's their fault, not ours.

Don't go blaming the US for 'collateral damage', which is anything but, IMHO. Frankly, I consider any village or town which hides and supports terrorists fair game. Carpet bomb the place, they are all sympathizers so they can join the yeehawists in their version of heaven.

I could care less that terrorists and their supporters consider the US a terrorist outfit, the whole damn world agrees with us, 'cept for the loony fringe and the terrorists themselves.

[rugcat]

Frankly, I consider any village or town which hides and supports terrorists fair game. Carpet bomb the place, they are all sympathizers so they can join the yeehawists in their version of heaven.That's pretty much how the thinking went at My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre) in Vietman. (Link included for those too young to have heard about it.)

I could care less that terrorists and their supporters consider the US a terrorist outfit, the whole damn world agrees with us, 'cept for the loony fringe and the terrorists themselves.I understand that's your position. However, I don't consider those who are appalled at the killing of women and children a loony fringe

[Joe270]

That's pretty much how the thinking went at My Lai in Vietman

Nice, accusing the USA of atrocities which haven't even been committed yet.

Typical.

Nice high-horse ya got there, too bad you have no answers for the problem at hand, but you're mighty quick to suggest we're rapists and pillagers in the process, whatever that might be.

Crock of shit of the first order. Get a grip on reality.

[rugcat]

Nice, accusing the USA of atrocities which haven't even been committed yet.

Typical.

Nice high-horse ya got there, too bad you have no answers for the problem at hand, but you're mighty quick to suggest we're rapists and pillagers in the process, whatever that might be.

Crock of shit of the first order. Get a grip on reality.I could say the same to you. I haven't accused the US of atrocities. I simply pointed out that your mindset and suggestion: Carpet bomb the place, they are all sympathizers so they can join the yeehawists in their version of heaven.
is pretty much identical to those who actually did commit atrocities. "Everyone at My Lai is an enemy sympathizer, so fuck them" was what lead to that.

Yeah, sometimes I do get on a high horse, esp when i hear someone casually suggesting it's fine to carpetbomb villages, villages full of non combatents, people just like you and me and our kids, because they don't turn against their own.

[Joe270]

is pretty much identical to those who actually did commit atrocities. "Everyone at My Lai is an enemy sympathizer, so fuck them" was what lead to that.

Nice of you to accuse me of genocide, but you need to refer back to what I stated on bombing the terrorists/pirates. And, yeah, fuck them.

Go ahead and sing kumbaya and lament how 'we just don't understand their pain' bullshit.

Run with that, it suits ya.

Yeah, sometimes I do get on a high horse, esp when i hear someone casually suggesting it's fine to carpetbomb villages, villages full of non combatents, people just like you and me and our kids, because they don't turn against their own.

Exactly. You nailed it.

I would turn on 'my own' if they were stupid enough to bring the entire military might of the planet to wipe my village off the planet and 'my own' were murderous thugs engaged in international criminal activity.

How in the hell can you possibly continue on your completely nonsensical argument when I have shown the absolute comedic value of it?

It is juvenile and silly. But go dredge up more isolated incidences of atrocities committed by by US forces to bolster your claims that our military actions are hideous.

Sorta makes me sick to my stomach, but go on and blow your skirt up.

[Don]

It's not, really. There have been air strikes that destroy a house with everyone in it, including innocent children, based on intel about a "high value" terrorist inside. It goes by the antiseptic name of collateral damage, and the rational behind it is that US citizens matter more than anyone else, no matter how innocent they may be.

From the standpoint of the relatives of those children, the US are the terrorists.

Substitute "terrorist" for "pirate" and Afghanistan for Somalia and you have your answer.
Or substitute "freedom fighter" for "terrorist" or "merchant marine" for "pirate." It's all a matter of perspective.

Calling 'bullshit' on this one, RC.

Sorry to say it, but those who aid and abet terrorists are guilty of that. So they die, that's perfectly justifiable. They are equally guilty. If they are stupid enough to put their children into that line of fire, that's their fault, not ours.

Don't go blaming the US for 'collateral damage', which is anything but, IMHO. Frankly, I consider any village or town which hides and supports terrorists fair game. Carpet bomb the place, they are all sympathizers so they can join the yeehawists in their version of heaven.

I could care less that terrorists and their supporters consider the US a terrorist outfit, the whole damn world agrees with us, 'cept for the loony fringe and the terrorists themselves.
So if a bunch of people, say, came in and deposed our leaders and ran our country with a puppet government to gain control of our national resources, then any village or town that harbored the military people who did that would be fair game? That's exactly the rationale bin Laden expressed for 9/11. It was wrong in London (there's the Godwin reference), it was wrong in Dresden, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and My Lai as well.
That's pretty much how the thinking went at My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre) in Vietman. (Link included for those too young to have heard about it.)

I understand that's your position. However, I don't consider those who are appalled at the killing of women and children a loony fringe.
When RC and I agree on something, you know it has to be the truth. :) He just didn't take it far enough, IMO.

When the gang warfare between Crips and Bloods takes out innocent bystanders, it's not called "collateral damage," it's called murder, and the murderers have blood on their hands, I don't care whose orders they were following.

[waylander]

Yeah great.
Go bomb a village - wipe it off the map
And in the area around it you have just created 5 times as many terrorists and terrorist supporters as you took out.
Ever heard of 'hearts and minds'?

[Zoombie]

I'm pretty sure I am against the destruction of entire towns, cities, or villages...

It just strikes me as a bad idea, ethically and tactically.

[Higgins]

This is the silliest response I've ever had. My post said 'shore position used by pirates' quite clearly. The next one specified the idea a bit better.

By your definition, the USA has meted out 'collective punishment' vitually every time it has bombed or used a missile on a terrorist camp or stronghold.

That's utter bullshit.

You yourself said the villagers would find that getting bombed made them quit doing business with the pirates. That's collective punishment. If your target is pirates or terrorists that's perfectly okay with the conventional idea of individual punishment.

The Wikipedia on the 4th Geneva Convention says:

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment) are a war crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime). By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) and II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium) villagers in mass retribution for resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement) activity. In World War II, Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Red_Cross) (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

[Higgins]

Nice of you to accuse me of genocide, but you need to refer back to what I stated on bombing the terrorists/pirates. And, yeah, fuck them.

Go ahead and sing kumbaya and lament how 'we just don't understand their pain' bullshit.

Run with that, it suits ya.



Pirates aren't terrorists. If you simply declare anyone who does anything you don't like a terrorist and declare it is a good idea to expend lots of munitions on them, I don't think you have a shred of rational rhetoric left to support you.

[Higgins]

At first it reads like satire, but I read it a second time and he might be dead serious.

I think they are serious. They understand some of the economic aspects of piracy. I don't see how the substitution of one agency (a consortium to extract tarrifs from ships transiting an area of the ocean under the "control" of the consortium) and its demand for protection money ...(ie substituting a consortium for the pirates)for the pirates (who are doing what the National Review recommends and extending their private ownership over ships at sea)...In fact most shipping firms are probably now getting a better deal by dealing with the pirates than they would from some other agency that claims "private (ie piratical) ownership" over a region of the ocean and all the ships that transit it. What damages would the consortium extract from ships that transitted but didn't pay? How would they know when that happened?

It seems the pirates themselves are a more economical solution to the National Review's problem of extending private ownership over a critical region of the ocean, than some other agency.

A view of pirate rationality (cited in the National Review):

http://www.peterleeson.com/The_Invisible_Hook.pdf

[astonwest]

If the pirates live in the villages and are not turned over to authorities by those villagers, then their neighbors are participating in giving aid and comfort to criminals. They become criminals themselves.

That's the argument the government would use for rationale for bombings.
That was the entire rationale for going into Afghanistan earlier this decade...