# Pirates Adopt a New Tactic:



## Klaatu83

The following news item appeared on 9/27/11:


PIRATES SET FIRE TO SHIP TO DRIVE CREWMEMBERS FROM CITADEL 

The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reported that pirates set a Cyprus-flagged cargo 
ship on fire after the crew took refuge in the citadel. A spokesman for the IMB said 
pirates in two skiffs attempted to seize the MV PACIFIC EXPRESS about 300 nautical miles 
east of Mombasa. The crewmembers locked themselves in the citadel and radioed for help. 
The pirates set fire to the ship in hopes of driving members of the crew out of the 
citadel. According to a spokesman for the Italian Navy, the pirates fled when they saw 
the NATO warship ANDREA DORIA approaching. NATO security teams evacuated the 26 crew 
members from the burning ship and transported them to Mombasa.


----------



## chadburn

It would appear that the German Government are very keen on introducing more proactive measure's against the Pirate's and are seeking the support of other European Union Countries on the introduction of private armed guards aboard ships routed through Pirate infested water's. They would prefer the Military as Plan A, but would settle for Private guards as Plan B. Clearly this new developement is good cause to take a more positive measure's. There are I understand now 400 crew member's being held in terrible condition's by the Pirate group's.


----------



## LouisB

chadburn said:


> It would appear that the German Government are very keen on introducing more proactive measure's against the Pirate's and are seeking the support of other European Union Countries on the introduction of private armed guards aboard ships routed through Pirate infested water's. They would prefer the Military as Plan A, but would settle for Private guards as Plan B. Clearly this new developement is good cause to take a more positive measure's. There are I understand now 400 crew member's being held in terrible condition's by the Pirate group's.


I predicted in another posting that this would happen when the insurance costs began to seriously interfere with freightage costs and end user prices. It's obviously beginning to affect profits and dividends and we can't have that, can we??


LouisB


----------



## Dickyboy

That's attempted murder, and not hostage taking. Pirates should be shot on sight when doing this sort of thing.


----------



## borderreiver

We should go back to the days of Nelson and just blast them out of the world.
Setting fire to ships with crew inside is the last straw.


----------



## Dickyboy

One of the problems, as I see it is that the countries that send navies to patrol pirate areas Impose rules and regulations on the pirates that the pirates themselves don't adhere to. I'm talking about things like human rights, rules of engagement, the rule of law, and the unwritten rules of basic seamanship and humanity. If they refuse to play by those rules, then the Navies/Governments should throw them away as well.
A pirate who surrenders because he is caught or out gunned is still a pirate, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Mike S

For some time now I have been frustrated by the fact that we apply the rule of law to people who do not. I do not care one iota about the fact that they come from an impoverished nation........what I care about is the fact that innocent seamen plying their lawful trade on the high seas are being murdered and held captive.
It is long past the time for the "shoot on sight" rule of engagement to be brought into force.
Use military forces on the ships to do the job. They are taught to shoot straight and hit their targets.


----------



## Thats another Story

I think the rules should change there is to much red tape when a ship is about to be taken. the RN has to inform the uk government on the situation and there is only minutes to act? if a captain of a warship can make that decision on the spot things could turn out different. i do agree blow them out of the water but i have said it before on this site you would have some dickhead put it on youtube and the pirates would show no mercy on the next ship ?with the cuts in our armed forces soldiers are getting out of the army to work on the security firms to man the ships in infested waters of the horn of Africa. for once in this subject i take the {kill them all let god sort them out}stance. thats my morning moan over(Hippy)


----------



## Pat Kennedy

Perhaps the job of protecting merchant shipping from Somal pirates should be contracted to the Russian Navy, who, as this clip shows, are not overly concerned with the pirate's human rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDmdtcyDVlg&NR=1


----------



## chadburn

Pat, they must of had a signal about getting rid of out of date ammunition.


----------



## Gollywobbler

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15103818

According to Auntie Beeb, the bureaucrats have established a chat-room to discuss dealing with pirates. It sounds as if some of the other atrocities have been just as bad as setting fire to the merchant ship.

I believe that in the days of the Raj, this sort of thing was dealt with by:-

1. Shout loudly and slowly in English.
2. If that doesn't work, open fire. 

Doesn't Our Dave want to fix this problem once and for all or something? Surely he'd get plenty of international kudos for doing so?


----------



## Dickyboy

Perhaps I've misread it, but it appears to be supporting the victims of piracy and not the pirates.


----------



## borderreiver

Hear today that some pirates are keel hauling us seamen. The time has come to blast them from the water or land.


----------



## China hand

Said it before. Find them, kill them, bomb their bases. Get the financial bosses, beggar them. Daisycut the whole coast. Poor ickle frustrated fishermen. Exterminate the whole excremental heap. Lots of people probably would not agree.(Ouch)


----------



## Ron Stringer

chadburn said:


> Pat, they must of had a signal about getting rid of out of date ammunition.


I thought much the same, Chief. From the quality of the shooting I think that they definitely needed the practice.


----------



## Boatman25

Gollywobbler said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15103818
> 
> According to Auntie Beeb, the bureaucrats have established a chat-room to discuss dealing with pirates. It sounds as if some of the other atrocities have been just as bad as setting fire to the merchant ship.
> 
> I believe that in the days of the Raj, this sort of thing was dealt with by:-
> 
> 1. Shout loudly and slowly in English.
> 2. If that doesn't work, open fire.
> 
> Doesn't Our Dave want to fix this problem once and for all or something? Surely he'd get plenty of international kudos for doing so?


With what we havnt got any Navy anymore


----------



## LouisB

Gollywobbler said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15103818
> 
> According to Auntie Beeb, the bureaucrats have established a chat-room to discuss dealing with pirates. It sounds as if some of the other atrocities have been just as bad as setting fire to the merchant ship.
> 
> I believe that in the days of the Raj, this sort of thing was dealt with by:-
> 
> 1. Shout loudly and slowly in English.
> 2. If that doesn't work, open fire.
> 
> Doesn't Our Dave want to fix this problem once and for all or something? Surely he'd get plenty of international kudos for doing so?


In the days of the Raj they strapped them across canons and lit the blue touchpaper - no messing about then. Mind you in those days we had the will to do it - there wasn't any human rights act then and everything ticked along quite nicely.

We get 40% of our food and most of our oil for refining, in ships that sail through pirate alley plus the vessels we use to export our goods to pay for it all go through those waters as well. What would happen if seafarers boycotted the pirated area and refused to sail? I'll tell you what would happen, as food and petrol and power stations ran out, the HR act would be forgotten overnight and the pirates would very quickly meet a bloody end. Any government that did not take drastic steps against the pirate vermin would fall in double quick time.

I can't honestly see the reason that we (and one or two other countries) refuse to do anything worthwhile to stop piracy. The law is clear that if people try to board a vessel underway and they are carrying weapons then it presumptive that they mean to harm you. As in UK domestic law you can use commensurate force to stop them. As they usually carry guns then it becomes a no brainer????

If one side plays by a very restrictive rule book and the other side doesn't it's fairly obvious whose going to win Doh... If it was aircraft that it was happening to on a regular basis it would be a different story but it's not. As usual it's the merchant seafarer who picks up the tab all of the time. After more than thirty years at sea I rapidly learned that the seafarer comes in very low in the social pecking order. This is amazing, as during WW2 around 50,000 seafarers lost their lives keeping this country fed and it is is hardly believable that until well into the war their pay was stopped when the vessel they were sailing on was sunk by enemy action. (amazing but true)



LouisB (MAD)(MAD)


----------



## Thats another Story

all this going on and we are going to slash the RN manpower?{that sounds about right} by 1000 sailors am i in the same world as the been counters??????john


----------



## Ron Stringer

LouisB said:


> In the days of the Raj they strapped them across canons and lit the blue touchpaper - no messing about then. Mind you in those days we had the will to do it - there wasn't any human rights act then and everything ticked along quite nicely.


Oh if only the problem was so simple. In those days they neither knew nor cared about any "sailors" that had been captured by pirates. Today there are 300-400 captives in Somalia - ships' crews that have been taken there aboard the captured ships and are being held for ransom.

Since the pirates do not respect anyone's human rights, how long do you think it might be, following the adoption of your search and destroy policy, before the internet (and our TV screens) were filled with pictures of hostages being tortured and executed? Do we disregard the hostages and write off their lives and freedom as collateral damage, worth sacrificing in the greater good? (Their sacrifice, of course, not ours - we won't be inconvenienced in any way at all). Or do we continue negotiating their release and talking to the pirates and their go-betweens?

Neither approach is desirable but the choice is not too difficult at the moment. Escalate the situation and who knows what would be the outcome?


----------



## Mike S

........"From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli"

Ever heard that before. The US Marine Corp Hymn.........
The Marines sorted out the Barbary Coast Pirates by going ashore, relasing the hostages and the Leader of the invading force took the leader of the pirates and seperated his head from his breath in front of the gathered masses. Just retribution as it was his brother that had been hacked to pieces by the same murderous swine.

That fixed 'em. (Thumb)

Get onto the captured ships, kill the pirates and steam them out to sea.
Then get hold of the leaders and repeat after me........

Otherwise just stop whining and pay the ransom.

Oh yes and make sure it is all done in the Queens English. Well I guess we will allow English as it is spoke elswhere! (Smoke)


----------



## LouisB

Ron Stringer said:


> Oh if only the problem was so simple. In those days they neither knew nor cared about any "sailors" that had been captured by pirates. Today there are 300-400 captives in Somalia - ships' crews that have been taken there aboard the captured ships and are being held for ransom.
> 
> Since the pirates do not respect anyone's human rights, how long do you think it might be, following the adoption of your search and destroy policy, before the internet (and our TV screens) were filled with pictures of hostages being tortured and executed? Do we disregard the hostages and write off their lives and freedom as collateral damage, worth sacrificing in the greater good? (Their sacrifice, of course, not ours - we won't be inconvenienced in any way at all). Or do we continue negotiating their release and talking to the pirates and their go-betweens?
> 
> Neither approach is desirable but the choice is not too difficult at the moment. Escalate the situation and who knows what would be the outcome?



Or do we continue negotiating their release and talking to the pirates and their go-betweens?


And so ad infinitum?

No, we can either take military action against the shore based pirate camps and attempt rescue (it's been done several times before in Africa) or more likely we bite the bullet regarding the existing hostages and pay up and start afresh by applying the methods of ship defence, using deadly force if required.

When we reach a 'no hostage held' situation we could then, using military means, in concert with other countries if required, sanitise that part of the coastal areas where these murderous s*** exist. And no, it should not affect the normal life of innocent citizens - after all a normal person does not walk around with a grenade launcher, or weighed down with automatic weapons.

All the countries with an interest in safe passage for their ships could also donate assistance and money to that part of the world in order to build an infrastructure that would enable a militia/police/gendarmerie to be formed and to encourage local trade and business to exist.

As I've said elsewhere, the biblical saying of "The meek shall inherit the earth"has over the centuries regarding human kind and in the animal world proved to be a lot of wishful mumbo jumbo clap trap! At the moment we are raising a generation who will think that the normal outlook in life is to give in to violence and murder even if you have the ability to protect yourselves. 'Talk nicely and they will go away' B****cks.


LouisB


----------



## ART6

The trouble is the sea is a big place, and the pirates can turn up anywhere. Warships can't be everywhere. Therefore, surely, the way of dealing with piracy is to run ships in convoy with a warship escort. An exclusion zone of, say, ten miles around the convoy, could be declared with the clearly and internationally published statement that any unauthorised vessel entering that zone will be sunk on sight and survivors will be ignored. The convoy will not stop and neither will the escorts.

At the same time, make it very plain to the Somalis that if any hostages remain in captivity or are harmed in any way, then Somalia will be treated to the same experience as Iraq and Libya. In that case any pirates found will be tried in an international court, and if found guilty will be executed.

Sure, that will prejudice their human rights, but it might just preserve those rights for people peacefully going about their lawful business. Then, as others have said, put in place an international effort to help Somalia out of the dark ages.


----------



## Gollywobbler

*French lady kidnapped in Kenya*

According to the Daily Wail, the Kenyan police reckon that Somali pirates kidnapped the French lady the other day:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...away-Kenyas-coast-French-woman-kidnapped.html


----------



## LouisB

Gollywobbler said:


> According to the Daily Wail, the Kenyan police reckon that Somali pirates kidnapped the French lady the other day:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...away-Kenyas-coast-French-woman-kidnapped.html


As I see it, the main problem is that the majority of people in the UK (and other western countries) have absolutely no idea of the real conditions in certain 'holiday' destinations. In many of these countries the apparent western lifestyle that is advertised is a thin veneer of reality hence the concept of 'all found' holiday villages where everything is supplied and the staff are screened and vetted before employment. The idea of wandering out of the village is not encouraged and is sometimes positively discouraged. 

Of course I realise that poorer countries have to explore every legal business that will bring them income and my comments are fairly broad, however I think that the average westerners perception of the dangers present within some countries is totally different from reality.
This is a concept that most of the more experienced seafarers would readily acknowledge. I certainly hope that this poor woman is returned unharmed. I believe that she is disabled and that what she may be going through saddens me.


LouisB


----------



## chadburn

In a recent report it has been stated that after a land action the Crew of a "Pirate" held vessel have been rescued. The rescued Crew are in poor condition and it appear's that some of them have been tortured. Hopefully this will put the excuse to bed that the so called "Pirate's" are ex Fisherman who have took up another way of earning money. These so called "Pirate's" are Armed Terrorist Gang's and should be treat as such.


----------



## LouisB

chadburn said:


> In a recent report it has been stated that after a land action the Crew of a "Pirate" held vessel have been rescued. The rescued Crew are in poor condition and it appear's that some of them have been tortured. Hopefully this will put the excuse to bed that the so called "Pirate's" are ex Fisherman who have took up another way of earning money. These so called "Pirate's" are Armed Terrorist Gang's and should be treat as such.


The problem as I see it Chadburn is that once the governments concerned recognise openly the true nature of these so called 'pirates' then they are duty bound to take EFFECTIVE action to stop it. We are so wound up in fear of legislation on human rights that we helped to draft (and amend over the years) and has now come back to haunt us, that we are fearful of legally upsetting anybody. Straw men, incapable of protecting their own seafarers due to their inability to take a stand. When has it been unlawful to meet life threatening piracy with deadly force. It's like deadly version of Alice in Wonderland. Human rights legislation was NEVER meant for what is happening today. As you probably realise it is one of the things in life that gets through to me and makes me extremely angry and on occasion irrational. At present living in Rome but have my laptop with me to keep me fuming.  

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

I dont think anyone doubts the masterminds behind the Somali pirates are gangsters of the highest order, but they do have a ready supply of footsoldiers in the form of fishermen who have lost their livelihood. Throw in the state of anarchy in the country and you have a very nice little earner as it were.
What do you do about it though -We cant just go about the oceans shooting up ever boat that we think looks a bit 'piratey'. If they do fire then no reason not to fire back however arming ships with mercenaries - extremely dodgy ground there, not from a human rights point of view but from an international law one. Flag state military - acceptable - assuming of course your flag state has a military. Of course it does rather leave the captured crews open to a bit of retaliation.
Human rights keeps getting brought up and I am not sure why. The problem is not human rights but actual practical international law - if you as a foreigner capture a Somali pirate in Somali waters - where the hell do you prosecute him. it opens up a whole can of worms for international law as in effect what you are saying is we can arrest anyone anywhere if you break our laws.

The root of the problem is Somalia and really that is what we should be trying to sort out, but in the meantime what of the ships. We havent had a successful pirate attack on our vessels which are low in the water laden - our preference is for a corridor of naval vessels. We also have a number of defences which have proven effective - obviously not for detail here


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> I dont think anyone doubts the masterminds behind the Somali pirates are gangsters of the highest order, but they do have a ready supply of footsoldiers in the form of fishermen who have lost their livelihood. Throw in the state of anarchy in the country and you have a very nice little earner as it were.
> What do you do about it though -We cant just go about the oceans shooting up ever boat that we think looks a bit 'piratey'. If they do fire then no reason not to fire back however arming ships with mercenaries - extremely dodgy ground there, not from a human rights point of view but from an international law one. Flag state military - acceptable - assuming of course your flag state has a military. Of course it does rather leave the captured crews open to a bit of retaliation.
> Human rights keeps getting brought up and I am not sure why. The problem is not human rights but actual practical international law - if you as a foreigner capture a Somali pirate in Somali waters - where the hell do you prosecute him. it opens up a whole can of worms for international law as in effect what you are saying is we can arrest anyone anywhere if you break our laws.
> 
> The root of the problem is Somalia and really that is what we should be trying to sort out, but in the meantime what of the ships. We havent had a successful pirate attack on our vessels which are low in the water laden - our preference is for a corridor of naval vessels. We also have a number of defences which have proven effective - obviously not for detail here


Yes, fair enough SM I suppose. However re international law - the piracy business has been going for some time now so surely it is not beyond the legislators combined wisdom to amend the structure of the international agreements to take into account lawful ownership of captured marine brigands in order to lawfully punish them. I do believe it has happened on the odd occasion as the law is. So what's the problem?? Sorry for being pedantic but the whole totally unjust business makes me twitch. Merchant seafarers have never had much international social standing so once again are being trodden underfoot without any hue or cry - unless that is you are a pair of yacht persons who despite multiple warnings, get themselves captured and surprise, surprise the whole world is up in arms. The whole dam shebang is rotten and stinks.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

LouisB said:


> Yes, fair enough SM I suppose. However re international law - the piracy business has been going for some time now so surely it is not beyond the legislators combined wisdom to amend the structure of the international agreements to take into account lawful ownership of captured marine brigands in order to lawfully punish them. I do believe it has happened on the odd occasion as the law is. So what's the problem?? Sorry for being pedantic but the whole totally unjust business makes me twitch. Merchant seafarers have never had much international social standing so once again are being trodden underfoot without any hue or cry - unless that is you are a pair of yacht persons who despite multiple warnings, get themselves captured and surprise, surprise the whole world is up in arms. The whole dam shebang is rotten and stinks.
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


International Law - I believe herding cats is easier. The whole thing gets pretty convoluted, international waters are easier to legislate, but coastal waters is where the real problem with prosecuting lies. 

I actually believe the fact there is such a large naval presence in the area does prove just how seriously the problem is being taken and I do believe that there are attempts at clarifying the law and I share everybody's frustration with it - it is unfortunately the way of things in this particular field. So as it stands we have to deal with situation as is not as we would like it to be.


----------



## Rob Pithers

These things are never easy, but if a system of defense was stated, it should be stuck to. What I refer to is that I was on Queen Mary 2 last year going through 'pirate alley'. (As a passenger, I thought I would hate it as a busmans holiday - absolutely loved it, but that's another story.) We were told our speed was our defense and went like the clappers, but also found we had constant helicopter cover from a British? warship (hull down on horizon). We also had a Naval Liason Officer landed on board. My point is that the much slower (and more vulnerable) cargo ships and tankers only benefited because we were there. Not much is said if a tanker gets taken, but the QM2?? Could that possibly be why money is no object?
Rob


----------



## LouisB

Rob Pithers said:


> These things are never easy, but if a system of defense was stated, it should be stuck to. What I refer to is that I was on Queen Mary 2 last year going through 'pirate alley'. (As a passenger, I thought I would hate it as a busmans holiday - absolutely loved it, but that's another story.) We were told our speed was our defense and went like the clappers, but also found we had constant helicopter cover from a British? warship (hull down on horizon). We also had a Naval Liason Officer landed on board. My point is that the much slower (and more vulnerable) cargo ships and tankers only benefited because we were there. Not much is said if a tanker gets taken, but the QM2?? Could that possibly be why money is no object?
> Rob



There is now huge American involvement with the ostensible 'British' flagged Cunard passenger vessels. Very many American passengers so therefor and to maintain the British ethos of that particular vessel a British protective screen from either an RN or RFA vessel nearby does wonders for business and prevents pressure from the US authorities and possible serious embarrassment if something were to happen. On the other hand a normal commercial cargo vessel would not enjoy this treatment. It would be impossible to do so to every vessel however, that does not mean a high value, both monetary and diplomatically, ship should be treated as any other, nor should it be in our present restrained system. From what I've been told, other countries have tried universal equality but it didn't work - the rest of the world overtook them.

LouisB


----------



## Peter Eccleson

We should not forget that pirates and terrorists rely on civilisation and ethics to shock and scare us into giving them what hey want! De facto, we should not apply the same rationale in dealings with them........but civilised behaviour dictates that we do......rules of engagement etc.
Remember what happened to the pilots of one of the 9/11 airliners when they opened the cockpit door to stop a terrorist from cutting the throat of a flight attendant - they suffered the same fate!
Pirates choose that lifestyle so should pay the consequences if caught on the open seas or elsewhere. Sink them and let them take their chances swimming ashore! 
Not PC but my view.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Ah you mean just ignore the very principles that make us the 'good guys' and turn ourselves into being just like them (but with God on our side of course) - should we mock them as they drown? or maybe we could keep it in the realms of reality. 

Fully agree with you on PCs though - Macs are much better


----------



## Coastie

LouisB said:


> As I've said elsewhere, the biblical saying of *"The meek shall inherit the earth"* has over the centuries regarding human kind and in the animal world proved to be a lot of wishful mumbo jumbo clap trap! At the moment we are raising a generation who will think that the normal outlook in life is to give in to violence and murder even if you have the ability to protect yourselves. 'Talk nicely and they will go away' B****cks.
> 
> 
> LouisB


Indeed Louis B, it DOES say "The Meek shal inherit the Earth", but it does NOT say *The Weak *shall inherit the earth!!

I believe, as seen on that yootoob video, the Russian Navy have the right attitude to those pirates...........sink them.


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Ah you mean just ignore the very principles that make us the 'good guys' and turn ourselves into being just like them (but with God on our side of course) - should we mock them as they drown? or maybe we could keep it in the realms of reality.
> 
> Fully agree with you on PCs though - Macs are much better


Depends if you or they are the original antagonist and of the general moral values of the majority of the inhabitants of planet earth. What happens in war for example - do we work by guile and subterfuge or do we go into battle with our bright uniforms and British pride that we are right (and die quickly, but proud). Surely only the bad guys work with falsehoods and deception to gain their ends. Of course we couldn't do that as we would be reduced to the bad guys morals. ???

I'm sorry SM but to my fairly realistic mind your statement doesn't hold up - to my mind at least. I am not prepared to put people into danger for obscure moral values that do not make sense in a realtime situation.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Coastie said:


> Indeed Louis B, it DOES say "The Meek shal inherit the Earth", but it does NOT say *The Weak *shall inherit the earth!!
> 
> I believe, as seen on that yootoob video, the Russian Navy have the right attitude to those pirates...........sink them.


oh Gawd not again - No they didn't - the footage is real the story isn't - they arrested the pirates and sank their boat - same as everyone else


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

LouisB said:


> Depends if you or they are the original antagonist and of the general moral values of the majority of the inhabitants of planet earth. What happens in war for example - do we work by guile and subterfuge or do we go into battle with our bright uniforms and British pride that we are right (and die quickly, but proud). Surely only the bad guys work with falsehoods and deception to gain their ends. Of course we couldn't do that as we would be reduced to the bad guys morals. ???
> 
> I'm sorry SM but to my fairly realistic mind your statement doesn't hold up - to my mind at least. I am not prepared to put people into danger for obscure moral values that do not make sense in a realtime situation.
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


Its got nothing to do with falsehoods and deception and a great deal to do with reality and a basic set of morals that are not obscure but define our very culture. We dont leave people in the water to drown, we dont kill them in cold blood, we don't fire unless fired upon/have no other option, we do fire warning shots and guess what that is not going to change because that is who we are. Do you really want to belong to a society that does those things - I dont.
This never ending litany of how we should become more like the people we are trying to defeat - apart from the irony of it - it just has no place in the real world. You hear it every day , 'just shoot them', 'turn the whole area into a glass bowl' and the forever bizarre 'try doing it in their country'

I am not advocating being nice to pirates, far from it - nor do I have any sympathy for them but this idea of shooting them up at every opportunity and leaving them to drown flies directly in the face of the culture that we represent. If we are the forces of 'good' then we have to behave that way and the price of that can be high


----------



## Derek Roger

Satanic Mechanic said:


> I dont think anyone doubts the masterminds behind the Somali pirates are gangsters of the highest order, but they do have a ready supply of footsoldiers in the form of fishermen who have lost their livelihood. Throw in the state of anarchy in the country and you have a very nice little earner as it were.
> What do you do about it though -We cant just go about the oceans shooting up ever boat that we think looks a bit 'piratey'. If they do fire then no reason not to fire back however arming ships with mercenaries - extremely dodgy ground there, not from a human rights point of view but from an international law one. Flag state military - acceptable - assuming of course your flag state has a military. Of course it does rather leave the captured crews open to a bit of retaliation.
> Human rights keeps getting brought up and I am not sure why. The problem is not human rights but actual practical international law - if you as a foreigner capture a Somali pirate in Somali waters - where the hell do you prosecute him. it opens up a whole can of worms for international law as in effect what you are saying is we can arrest anyone anywhere if you break our laws.
> 
> The root of the problem is Somalia and really that is what we should be trying to sort out, but in the meantime what of the ships. We havent had a successful pirate attack on our vessels which are low in the water laden - our preference is for a corridor of naval vessels. We also have a number of defences which have proven effective - obviously not for detail here


Do the shipping companies not share their ideas on defences which have proven effective ??


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Derek Roger said:


> Do the shipping companies not share their ideas on defences which have proven effective ??


yes we do Derek - but its all pretty secretive and done at a certain level between certain companies

also we get quite a lot of kit on trial basis. 

There are so many options on this one. The one that causes the most sleepless nights is the mercenaries, some of them are serious yeehah's and if they fire up a boat with no warning shots it sends most into a cold sweat of what happens next. So we have rules of engagement, video footage -all sorts. Many charterers will not take the chance with them and the companies that do use them keep it very very low key indeed such is the controversial nature of them

Which is what I am getting at with this idea of arming up the ships and leaving people to drown - it is not a reality nor will it be. But for us it is still a very serious problem and we have to work within whats acceptable, its all very well saying what we should do but there are rules we have no option but to work within - and that is just a fact and the rules are not going to get changed anytime soon/ at all


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Exactly, what does get forgotten a wee bit is that the combined naval effort has actually reduced the attacks dramatically. 

The legal and logistical problems of prosecution are a nightmare, but are essential until as you say Somalia returns to some sort of 'normality'


----------



## LouisB

R651400 said:


> What is more disturbing than gung-ho mercenaries is the thought of shipping company financed privateers operating against the pirates from their own well-armed craft!
> Statistics show there are presently 1000 Somali pirates awaiting trial in 20 different countries. Prosecutions in Germany and France have carried sentences up to ten years and until Somalia returns to some form of normality this must be one if not the only realistic answer to this problem.


I don't know what the objection is? Of course any counter piracy force - no matter who is the sponsor will be well armed. You appear to use the expression 'from their well armed craft' as though this is unfair. The pirates could avoid these 'well armed craft' by not attacking or attempting to attack in the first place. They are the 'baddies' people guarding unarmed merchant sailors are the 'goodies'. If somebody attacks me with a machete and I have a pistol I don't expect that person to demand I give up my superior weapon for a machete to even things up. This is the politically correct Alice in Wonderland world that some people live in. I hear this all the time from the middle east uprisings - people fighting an organised army who cry foul when the army of the day fights back. Oo er missus.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Rob Pithers

Quote-'' We dont leave people in the water to drown, we dont kill them in cold blood, we don't fire unless fired upon.''
SM, I agree with what you say, but my point is they ARE firing upon 'us', but we're not firing back. But once they were sunk and/or disarmed, I wouldn't be happy sailing into the sunset leaving men - of whatever persuasion - in the water!
Rob


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Rob - I think their are a few concurrent conversations on this whole subject!!

Just to clarify my stance:

No problem firing back if fired upon - depending whose firing back - not comfy with mercenaries.
There are other effective means than firing back - we use them and they have worked.
Captured pirates should be prosecuted - appreciated there are some complex legal issues here - but they are not human rights ones
The naval operation has dramatically reduced pirates and this should be acknowledged.
The real root of the problem is Somalia itself together with a previous disregard for the local fishermen by foreigners - this must be part of the overall solution.
All the 'lets go all scorched earth' attitude does not have any bearing on reality and is not particularity helpful in terms of the real ongoing problem


----------



## Derek Roger

I would think that in the case of tankers that the fire or Butterworth pump with a large addition of heat ( via the Butterworth heater ) to the fire monitors or other correctly positioned outlets would be quite effective . 

In addition to the present high tech methods ; sound being one ; which are available there are things the Ships Crew can do however at the end of the day if a ship is captured the crew and company face a horrible and very costly future until things are sorted out ( if ever )

Given that scenario I see the necessity to arm ships operating in the danger zone ( unless they have close naval protection ) with at least three personel being well trained in the use of firearms and having enough fire power to be effective .

A quick show of force will tend to avert a boarding .

The key being to avert a boarding ; it is not important that the pirates be killed or drowned . 

It would be very stupid for a vessel after being subjected to a failed attack to attempt to rescue the attackers if their craft is disabled .

I agree with SM that at present perhaps the best tactic would be to use the exsisting multi naval protection ( perhaps a convoy concept )

As an aside is it only off Somalia that there exsists a problem . Is the South China Sea and Nigerian coast now safe .


----------



## LouisB

Derek Roger said:


> I would think that in the case of tankers that the fire or Butterworth pump with a large addition of heat ( via the Butterworth heater ) to the fire monitors or other correctly positioned outlets would be quite effective .
> 
> In addition to the present high tech methods ; sound being one ; which are available there are things the Ships Crew can do however at the end of the day if a ship is captured the crew and company face a horrible and very costly future until things are sorted out ( if ever )
> 
> Given that scenario I see the necessity to arm ships operating in the danger zone ( unless they have close naval protection ) with at least three personel being well trained in the use of firearms and having enough fire power to be effective .
> 
> A quick show of force will tend to avert a boarding .
> 
> The key being to avert a boarding ; it is not important that the pirates be killed or drowned .
> 
> It would be very stupid for a vessel after being subjected to a failed attack to attempt to rescue the attackers if their craft is disabled .
> 
> I agree with SM that at present perhaps the best tactic would be to use the exsisting multi naval protection ( perhaps a convoy concept )
> 
> As an aside is it only off Somalia that there exsists a problem . Is the South China Sea and Nigerian coast now safe .


There have just been several seamen working on a supply vessel, captured by Nigerian pirates. I am living in Rome at the moment and it was being shown on local t.v. I have not seen it mentioned elsewhere however. 


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## 5036

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Rob - I think their are a few concurrent conversations on this whole subject!!
> 
> Just to clarify my stance:
> 
> No problem firing back if fired upon - depending whose firing back - not comfy with mercenaries.
> There are other effective means than firing back - we use them and they have worked.
> Captured pirates should be prosecuted - appreciated there are some complex legal issues here - but they are not human rights ones
> The naval operation has dramatically reduced pirates and this should be acknowledged.
> The real root of the problem is Somalia itself together with a previous disregard for the local fishermen by foreigners - this must be part of the overall solution.
> All the 'lets go all scorched earth' attitude does not have any bearing on reality and is not particularity helpful in terms of the real ongoing problem


I'm 100% with SM and to expand further, what happens if our shoot the b***k b******s policy works? We have a humanitarian nightmare of Biblical proportions conveniently forgotten by we, the victors. Not a good or equitable solution.

What would happen if we, the west, got together and let it be known to the Somalians that they would get protection for their fisheries and help to promote them. Hope for a future? It might just work. But to continually kick them, gung ho, US style, in the gonads is not an option.


----------



## Peter Eccleson

SM - yes, mock them as they drown! Absolutely we should! Just as a good friend of men was shot by a child of just eight years old.........whom, because of his civilised ways he could not believe would put a bullet in him. God forbid you ever find yourself at the wrong end of a gun barrel in the hands of what appears to be a child....or even an adult who doesn't have our 'civilised values'. I have faced it in Mozambique - and can tell you that it is not exactly something to be PC or MAC about. Believe me, I was pleased that someone else took the initiative for me and got me out......else my political correctness and sense of 'right' from 'civilised wrong' could have cost me dearly! Think on SM and don't be so hasty to make judgements where I take it you have not been.


----------



## Coastie

Nicely said Peter.


----------



## Peter Eccleson

nav said:


> I'm 100% with SM and to expand further, what happens if our shoot the b***k b******s policy works? We have a humanitarian nightmare of Biblical proportions conveniently forgotten by we, the victors. Not a good or equitable solution.
> 
> What would happen if we, the west, got together and let it be known to the Somalians that they would get protection for their fisheries and help to promote them. Hope for a future? It might just work. But to continually kick them, gung ho, US style, in the gonads is not an option.


Nav - you can hardly apply Western logic to a country that is tribal and rules by the gun. The 'fishing rights' you refer to are not exactly EU standards......besides, they make more money from hijacking and rule of the gun than they do from fishing. Sort our Africa's corruption issues first then there will be hope......until then be a pragmatist - there is no logical solution!


----------



## LouisB

Peter Eccleson said:


> SM - yes, mock them as they drown! Absolutely we should! Just as a good friend of men was shot by a child of just eight years old.........whom, because of his civilised ways he could not believe would put a bullet in him. God forbid you ever find yourself at the wrong end of a gun barrel in the hands of what appears to be a child....or even an adult who doesn't have our 'civilised values'. I have faced it in Mozambique - and can tell you that it is not exactly something to be PC or MAC about. Believe me, I was pleased that someone else took the initiative for me and got me out......else my political correctness and sense of 'right' from 'civilised wrong' could have cost me dearly! Think on SM and don't be so hasty to make judgements where I take it you have not been.


Yes, it makes me wonder what would happen today in our moral world if some of tactics the N. Koreans were alleged to have used in the Korean war were played out again in front of the worlds media? Young children were sent towards the UN lines weighted down with explosive fragmentation devices. Initially these children reached the lines and detonated the bombs, causing massive casualties (shades of the Iran/Iraq war here) It appears that the situation didn't last for very long as 'steps were taken' There are many verifiable cases of this happening if you care to peruse the net. I myself am quoting from an ex NS soldier I met while serving my apprenticeship, however in more recent theatres of way there are many verifiable reports of similar things happening.

Obviously you would have to shoot them otherwise if you soul searched and dithered a human shield of youngsters would effectively negate a modern powerful army, In fact it would be useless trying to defend yourself if you were not prepared to use deadly force against these, probably deeply indoctrinated youngsters.
I wonder how the BBC would report it if it were to happen again,as in Korea 'British child killers' perhaps? As has been previously stated, don't take a PC moral position unless you have experienced these situations personally. I haven't thank goodness but I know some who have.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Peter Eccleson

LouisB - judge not by our own standards! As an ex seafarer and world marketeer I have tried to live by that ethos. 
Look at India today, a country with massive prospects as an International powerhouse....but corruption reigns. What is human life by Western standards? Who would mutilate children for financial gain? 
What of China? Below their communist idealism and capitalist commercial face of the 21st century lies a culture of corruption and deceit. Add countries closer to home, South Africa,Zimbabwe, Nigeria,Rwanda .... Even closer former Eastern European nations.....come on, where do we draw the line on 'civilisation'? Where do our moral standards end? On a dark street in Sheffield perhaps with an elderly pensioner going about his business on his way to midnight mass? 
Maybe it's in support of an Islamist cleric who needs a house in an expensive London suburb with room for a large family paid for by the State whist he preaches hatred for the country that feeds him and longs for (to say away from) the county that actually practices his beliefs!
Happy New Year!


----------



## LouisB

(Scribe)


Peter Eccleson said:


> LouisB - judge not by our own standards! As an ex seafarer and world marketeer I have tried to live by that ethos.
> Look at India today, a country with massive prospects as an International powerhouse....but corruption reigns. What is human life by Western standards? Who would mutilate children for financial gain?
> What of China? Below their communist idealism and capitalist commercial face of the 21st century lies a culture of corruption and deceit. Add countries closer to home, South Africa,Zimbabwe, Nigeria,Rwanda .... Even closer former Eastern European nations.....come on, where do we draw the line on 'civilisation'? Where do our moral standards end? On a dark street in Sheffield perhaps with an elderly pensioner going about his business on his way to midnight mass?
> Maybe it's in support of an Islamist cleric who needs a house in an expensive London suburb with room for a large family paid for by the State whist he preaches hatred for the country that feeds him and longs for (to say away from) the county that actually practices his beliefs!
> Happy New Year!


I myself totally agree with your sentiments Peter. It is unfortunate that there are those whose reason for being seems to be in trying to convert everybody to a state of pure political correctness. This is a world of course where there is constant debate and little else of material value. It appears these days that many left leaning journalists, when their arguements are floored in debate, then point out, this or that is 'moraly wrong'. When asked how do you quantify morals, they become flustered and quickly change the subject. One mans meat .........etc.


LouisB.


----------



## ART6

Going by all of the posts in this thread there seems to be some majority view that human moral values should apply (as distinct from "human rights"), otherwise it makes us as bad as the bad guys. Therefore, we should not arm merchant ships and open fire on anything that appears threatening unless fired upon first, and should do so even then only sufficiently to deter rather than to kill. In other words, let them fire first and then respond, possibly by turning a Butterworth hose on them.

The difficulty I have with all of these ideas is that on, say, a tanker, an RPG in the hull or pump room could have devastating consequences for everyone on board. A modern automatic weapon can happily put a number of bullets right through the hull or superstructure plating of the average merchant ship. Both can be fired from a much greater range than a ships fire or Butterworth pumps could ever manage. So if you let the attackers fire first in order to prove their intent you stand a good chance of paying dearly for it.

OK, so fire first, and arm the ships with effective lethal weapons in the hands of trained personnel. But if you are going to fire first, how can you be sure that the fishing boat half a mile away is a pirate and not just the fisherman it appears to be? Who makes that decision, and how is he qualified to do so? If we are to have moral standards (and the human race would have long ago died out without them) then we simply can't go about shooting up anything about which we are uncertain.

Then there is the issue of what to do when a pirate attack is clear beyond question? Do we attempt to arrest them, or rescue them if we have managed to sink their craft? I don't see the difference here between this and a war situation -- the purpose is to render the enemy helpless and, preferably, dead. That way the threat is eventually removed and high moral standards can be restored. I have never been in such a situation, so I can't speak from experience, but I fancy that if I had managed to sink a pirate craft I would not be at all inclined to rescue the crew. I would, I suspect, lean towards the view that they took the risk and should pay the price. I didn't ask them to attack me, and if they did so and got killed in the process, then tough s**t!

The problem is what to do about piracy. The sea is a big place, and warships can't be everywhere. Convoy systems probably wouldn't work since shipping companies would not want the loss of income that would result from hanging about for the formation of the next convoy or traveling at a speed other than the most economic one for their ships. The only long term answer I can imagine (and have suggested earlier in this thread, as has SM later) is to sort out Somalia. After all, it was considered appropriate to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and to attack Libya to create regime change, so what's different about Somalia? 

I don't suggest an open war -- rather an occupation with the clear intention of helping them to create a working government, law, and economy, while being careful to protect whatever religion they follow. Possibly I am being naive, but I wonder if the millions that have been paid in ransoms could have been better used in assisting towards that.


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Pretty much my take on it Art. Couple of points though - in terms of shooting back from a merchant vessel it's not so much high morals as practicalities. The only practical way to arm merchant vessels assuming the flag state can't is by using the euphemistically named "private security". We also have a practical limit on the ordinance carried. The military have strict rules of engagement for a number of reasons but for us it is simply to ensure we have a legal right to open fire, it follows therefore that any discharge of weapons has to be do***ented. The ideal scenario is that an attack is prevented using warning shots only and the military are informed. As you say if it has to be taken to the next level it is not for us stop and pick people up - but again the military are informed. The actual sinking of vessels I would suggest is a tad outside our remit. Basically if we insist on carrying armed guards their primary role is to prevent boarding through warning shots - not as extra judicial executioners. From a legal perspective it is a bit of a mine field , the potential consequences for us shooting up an innocent are substantial.


----------



## LouisB

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Pretty much my take on it Art. Couple of points though - in terms of shooting back from a merchant vessel it's not so much high morals as practicalities. The only practical way to arm merchant vessels assuming the flag state can't is by using the euphemistically named "private security". We also have a practical limit on the ordinance carried. The military have strict rules of engagement for a number of reasons but for us it is simply to ensure we have a legal right to open fire, it follows therefore that any discharge of weapons has to be do***ented. The ideal scenario is that an attack is prevented using warning shots only and the military are informed. As you say if it has to be taken to the next level it is not for us stop and pick people up - but again the military are informed. The actual sinking of vessels I would suggest is a tad outside our remit. Basically if we insist on carrying armed guards their primary role is to prevent boarding through warning shots - not as extra judicial executioners. From a legal perspective it is a bit of a mine field , the potential consequences for us shooting up an innocent are substantial.


I think case law is required to establish precedent that can be referred to. At the end of the day the legal system in most civilised countries go along with proportional force - this equates of course to the reasoning that if you think your life is immediately endangered then lethal force can be used to stop that threat. I would think that to any sane person the site of a boat trying to board you and seen to be carrying automatic weapons and possibly an rpg or two would be grounds enough to shoot the sods. Maybe a little discussion first over coffee - I shouldn't imagine so. Remember we are not talking about distant vessels that may or may not be fishermen, we are referring to a 30 knot boat coming up to your quarter and full of armed thugs - I personally don't give up easily especially if the answer to it is simple and easy - argue it out later if you must but if I have a substantial weapon in these cir***stances I will use it. Butterworth booster my backside, where on earth do you guys come from?


LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Your missing the point Louis, if we have to use firearms we have to justify its requirement, otherwise we are open to all sorts of legal recourse - the master in particular. Depending on the company there is a feeling that it just not worth the hassle ,leave it to military vessels to do the shooting and spend the money on alternatives.

We left the days of the butterworth hose behind a good while ago - this may be of some interest .

http://www.shipping.nato.int/SiteCollectionDo***ents/BMP4_web.pdf


----------



## ART6

LouisB said:


> I think case law is required to establish precedent that can be referred to. At the end of the day the legal system in most civilised countries go along with proportional force - this equates of course to the reasoning that if you think your life is immediately endangered then lethal force can be used to stop that threat. I would think that to any sane person the site of a boat trying to board you and seen to be carrying automatic weapons and possibly an rpg or two would be grounds enough to shoot the sods. Maybe a little discussion first over coffee - I shouldn't imagine so. Remember we are not talking about distant vessels that may or may not be fishermen, we are referring to a 30 knot boat coming up to your quarter and full of armed thugs - I personally don't give up easily especially if the answer to it is simple and easy - argue it out later if you must but if I have a substantial weapon in these cir***stances I will use it. Butterworth booster my backside, where on earth do you guys come from?
> 
> 
> LouisB. (Scribe)


So there you are, sailing along about your lawful business, and this high speed thing comes haring in your direction. Given your position that would be suspicious, but how do you know it is filled with armed thugs? Lots of people have high speed boats nowadays, and can you really see them and their weapons from a quarter of a mile away? What if there is an apparently innocuous boat and it's apparently a fisherman in trouble that is signalling you for help? Surely the pirates might soon wake up to the possibilities of decoys?

I don't have a clue of the answers to all of this. I just think it's a bit more complex than shooting the bleeding lot of 'em and thinking about it afterwards, although that is the solution that appeals to me!


----------



## John Dryden

I would bet there is a lot more unreported piracy throughout the world.Small coastal vessels,fishing boats etc..the large vessels we read about are probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Anyway I hope that the unfortunate seamen held hostage by these criminals get back home and in the meantime don,t fret too much over some of the gung ho methods suggested here.


----------



## LouisB

ART6 said:


> So there you are, sailing along about your lawful business, and this high speed thing comes haring in your direction. Given your position that would be suspicious, but how do you know it is filled with armed thugs? Lots of people have high speed boats nowadays, and can you really see them and their weapons from a quarter of a mile away? What if there is an apparently innocuous boat and it's apparently a fisherman in trouble that is signalling you for help? Surely the pirates might soon wake up to the possibilities of decoys?
> 
> I don't have a clue of the answers to all of this. I just think it's a bit more complex than shooting the bleeding lot of 'em and thinking about it afterwards, although that is the solution that appeals to me!


Hi Art6,

Well even at a quarter of a mile away when looking through a pair of 10 x 50's it would be crystal clear. Also semi dugouts or even steel boats coming up fast on either quarter would make themselves fairly obvious. There are plenty of weapons around these days that will fire stun grenades if you want to make your intention known (even the police have them). This is academic of course if you see an rpg being touted - that is the time to send them to pirates nirvana.

LouisB. (Scribe)


----------



## Derek Roger

Satanic Mechanic said:


> Your missing the point Louis, if we have to use firearms we have to justify its requirement, otherwise we are open to all sorts of legal recourse - the master in particular. Depending on the company there is a feeling that it just not worth the hassle ,leave it to military vessels to do the shooting and spend the money on alternatives.
> 
> We left the days of the butterworth hose behind a good while ago - this may be of some interest .
> 
> http://www.shipping.nato.int/SiteCollectionDo***ents/BMP4_web.pdf


Good publication .


----------



## ART6

As an armchair expert and keyboard warrior who is never likely to face piracy at sea or to try to find a way of dealing with in in managed ships, I am tempted to wonder if "Q" ships of the types used in the two world wars might be an answer. An apparent merchant ship plodding along at economical speed, but with a military crew and shutters than can be dropped in seconds to reveal a whole range of ordnance including a couple of Phalanx guns. Let the pirates attack and then give the b*****ds the works! Dead pirates ain't no risk any more!

Perhaps if the pirates never knew if the ship they were planning to attack was a "Q" ship they might exercise some caution, or even b****r off home and stay there?


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Derek Roger said:


> Good publication .


and a live one Derek - it gets updated frequently


----------



## Coastie

ART6 said:


> As an armchair expert and keyboard warrior who is never likely to face piracy at sea or to try to find a way of dealing with in in managed ships, I am tempted to wonder if "Q" ships of the types used in the two world wars might be an answer. An apparent merchant ship plodding along at economical speed, but with a military crew and shutters than can be dropped in seconds to reveal a whole range of ordnance including a couple of Phalanx guns. Let the pirates attack and then give the b*****ds the works! Dead pirates ain't no risk any more!
> 
> Perhaps if the pirates never knew if the ship they were planning to attack was a "Q" ship they might exercise some caution, or even b****r off home and stay there?


I remember my mother telling me about a couple of those Q ships which used to sail out of Holyhead here.

Bloody good idea Art 6!(Pint)


----------



## stores

Surely setting fire to Ships and killing Crews becomes an act of War, ? just shoot to kill is the only answer, jf enough Pirates do not return it may deter other would be Pirates.


----------



## Coastie

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Although looking at whoelse is reading this, I think we're about to get a tirade as to why our thoughts should NOT be the case!B\)


----------



## Satanic Mechanic

Act of War!!! - no - countries do that. Criminal Gangs carry out criminal acts.

How do you know there aren't 'Q Ships'? - manned by military - important that. The military can do whatever they want as far as I am concerned - unlike the merchant vessels they have a government behind them and thus far they have done a rather good job to say the least of not only dramatically reducing piracy in a bloody huge area but also bringing criminals to justice rather than just shooting up the oceans thereby maintaining our credentials as 'the good guys'. You really should appreciate the huge effort made rather than looking for ways to make it worse, thats the way of the past - a bit like paired up coastguard stations


----------

