# Somali Hijackers



## Marshall_Stack (Mar 26, 2009)

This may not really be a "political" thread, but I know that there are many current and ex-servicemen on this website so I thought I would post it here.

Why can't the the navies patrolling the sea around Somalia put an end to ship hijackings? I know it is a vast expanse of water but with today's technology it seems like there should be better protection. I have not read any accounts of any navy proactively going after the pirates. I don't really even hear about any aid by a navy either except by an Indian warship.

thoughts..?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 26, 2009)

we are scared of lawsuits or the UN?


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 26, 2009)

Alot has to do with international politics and who's territorial waters the incident actually takes place in. That's my theory, anyway.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 26, 2009)

The pirates have been counter-attacked by an international coalition of warships here recently.

Indian navy attacks and sinks pirate ship: India claims pirate ship sunk - CNN.com

Chinese and Dutch navies thwart pirates: BBC NEWS | Africa | Two navies 'thwart pirate raids'

German navy seizes pirate vessel: German navy deters pirate attack - International Herald Tribune

Royal Malaysian navy attacks pirates: Royal Malaysian Navy thwarts pirate attack

The list of navies involved so far is:
* British Royal Navy
Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Chinese Navy
French Navy 
German Navy 
Greek Navy 
Indian Navy 
Italian Navy 
Islamic Republic of Iran Navy 
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force 
Republic of Korea Navy 
Republic of Singapore Navy 
Royal Australian Navy 
Royal Danish Navy 
Royal Malaysian Navy 
Royal Netherlands Navy 
Royal New Zealand Navy
Royal Norwegian Navy 
Royal Saudi Navy 
Russian Navy 
Spanish Navy 
Swedish Navy 
Turkish Navy 
United States Navy
United States Coast Guard *

Soon to join the coalition will be the navy of Pakistan.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 26, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The list of navies involved so far is:
> * British Royal Navy
> Canadian Forces Maritime Command
> Chinese Navy
> ...



With this list of navies lurking around, I'm suprised war hasn't broken out yet, never mind the pirates...


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2009)

LOL...I was looking at the list and thinking the same thing myself!


----------



## ONE_HELLCAT (Mar 27, 2009)

Who knows, maybe the pirates will bring world peace by getting us to work together.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2009)

Shhhhh Hellcat!

They haven't realized that they (the navies) are all working as a team yet... 

Once they realize this, then the politics will start and they won't get along anymore!


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Mar 27, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The pirates have been counter-attacked by an international coalition of warships here recently.
> 
> Indian navy attacks and sinks pirate ship: India claims pirate ship sunk - CNN.com
> 
> ...



thanks for the info and links. With so many navies out there you would think that they would be running into each other.... 

Congrats on your 1,000th post. Do you get some kind of prize?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 27, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> thanks for the info and links. With so many navies out there you would think that they would be running into each other....
> 
> Congrats on your 1,000th post. Do you get some kind of prize?



I ran across an image somewhere of about 8 or 9 of the warships grouped. If I had been thinking, I would have grabbed it...it was pretty cool!

1,000 posts, dang...I hadn't noticed! Perhaps for a prize, we should get a night on the town with one of the girls from the "Breaking News!" thread!!


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2009)

watched a little documentary on the subject the other day according to the doc it started out as a method to stop over fishing by some over zealous fisherman who felt that it was easy pickings because of no Somali presence, so after the fishing boats were held for ransom the light came on to these pirates and they started to go for the bigger fish. Another problem is a lot of unscrupulous folks are also dumping a lot of toxic waste in the area rather then process it. 
Did anyone note the participation of the Iranian Navy


----------



## ccheese (Apr 7, 2009)

The pirates are raking in money hand-over-fist. Only a very few hijackings
have been thwarted. They got three more ships this week !!! What we 
need in the area is someone's carrier strike force....

Charles


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 7, 2009)

I noted the participation of the Iranians, and that of the Russians, in what is essentially a NATO and Commonwealth coalition 8) Wonder if these units are serving literally 'alongside' US/UK units though? The irony would be incredible, and the implications deeply interesting...

EDIT: As for the carrier strike force, it is my understanding that these pirates generally use small civilian vessels for their attacks. How would you identify this and ensure it was not a legitimate civilian vessel before blowing it out of the water? And isn't a CVBG an extremely expensive and wasteful way of doing a job that could be done by an FFG or even one of the new LCS?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 7, 2009)

ccheese said:


> The pirates are raking in money hand-over-fist. Only a very few hijackings
> have been thwarted. They got three more ships this week !!! What we
> need in the area is someone's carrier strike force....
> 
> Charles


Our guys stopped one this week


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 7, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> ...these pirates generally use small civilian vessels for their attacks. How would you identify this and ensure it was not a legitimate civilian vessel before blowing it out of the water?


I would do it by persuading the nations with interests ie anyone getting boarded by pirates to put a Marine or even SF cell on board their ships. It might not even need to be every ship, just enough to keep the pirates guessing.
In the event they do muster the courage (or stupidity) to board, ID as a civilian vessel isn't an issue any longer, nor, I believe, is the issue of sovereignty; isn't a sea-going vessel sovereign ground to whoever's flag its sailing under? (I'm just guessing there)
The Marine or SF crew would obviously be a professional outfit, well-armed and drilled and given the pretty damn substantial construction of ships, 'dug in' to a very safe degree.
At that point, the pirates can either get smart, realise they're in a meat-grinder and surrender or they can start shooting and get whacked.
A couple of captured crews (or a couple of whacked crews) later, the pirates realise it's no longer easy street and the problem _could even_ go away.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 7, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I noted the participation of the Iranians, and that of the Russians, in what is essentially a NATO and Commonwealth coalition 8) Wonder if these units are serving literally 'alongside' US/UK units though? The irony would be incredible, and the implications deeply interesting...
> 
> EDIT: As for the carrier strike force, it is my understanding that these pirates generally use small civilian vessels for their attacks. How would you identify this and ensure it was not a legitimate civilian vessel before blowing it out of the water? And isn't a CVBG an extremely expensive and wasteful way of doing a job that could be done by an FFG or even one of the new LCS?



Maybe have the next MEU be near that area...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 8, 2009)

Heard they just grabbed a US Flagged ship with 20 American citizens onboard. Send in the SEALS. 

1. Save the Crew
2. Save the Ship
3. Dump the pirate remains overboard. 

That's pretty much the mission goals for those guys. 

As for all those Navies working together, it doesn't strike me as odd. Though Govts come and go, Naval Personel tend to be pretty proffesional and long lasting. They usually try to stay out of politics and develop standard operating procedures to avoid running into each other in a bad way. Usually get along well.

As long as you keep the Pakistani and Indian Units seperated. Probably the same for the Iranians and everyone else but the Russians. Let the Ruskies bother with 'em.


----------



## ccheese (Apr 8, 2009)

Since last Saturday the pirates have seized five ships, changing their strategy. 
They have moved their operations further away from the navies
that are patrolling the Gulf of Aden. Since Saturday they have seized a
French tourist ship [which was warned to stay away from the area], a
German ship was taken on Saturday, also. On Sunday a Yemeni tug was
captured and a British ship and a Taiwanese vessel on Monday.

No mention, in today's paper of any American flagged vessels taken.

Charles


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 8, 2009)

It happened. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/world/africa/09pirates.html?ref=global-home

"Loaded with food and medical relief supplies"....if that's not a euphamism for something else, that sort of cargo is solid gold down in that area.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 8, 2009)

freebird said:


> With this list of navies lurking around, I'm suprised war hasn't broken out yet, never mind the pirates...



same here


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 8, 2009)

They need to mount .50 cals on the bow and stern of the cargo ships. Anything gets within 1000 yards, open fire. Stupid pirates!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 8, 2009)

Just in on FOX News.....

FOXNews.com - American Crew Regains Control of Hijacked Ship, One Pirate in Custody

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

I guess the US crew took the ship back!

Pentagon says crew retake US ship from pirates

"The crew is back in control of the ship," a U.S. official said at midday, speaking on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's reported that one pirate is on board under crew control — the other three were trying to flee," the official said. The status of the other pirates was unknown, the official said, but they were reported to "be in the water."


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

It seems that the U.S. flagged merchant ship was able to fend off the pirates and captured one of them. The news says that the cargo ship crew were trained in security and how to deal with pirates. The surprising part is that the crew didn't have any weapons.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

Did the crew members bitch slap the pirates? Swing a pork chop, a used tampon?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2009)

Odds are with you when there are 20 of you and only four of them, armed or unarmed. Sooner or later, they have to get tired. With a well trained crew, they could overpower them and leave them in the drink. Don't know how good a skinny would taste to a shark though...


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Odds are with you when there are 20 of you and only four of them, armed or unarmed. Sooner or later, they have to get tired. With a well trained crew, they could overpower them and leave them in the drink. Don't know how good a skinny would taste to a shark though...



Yeah, I guess you are right. I don't know why they wouldn't give the crew something to defend themselves, maybe at least a Chinese Star.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

*Solution to the pirate problem:*

"Q-Ships"

1. Deploy ships that look harmless and vulnerable. 
2. Pirates approach
3. Mini guns, MK29 Grenade launchers, 40mm guns pop-up from storage containers and behind railings. 
4. The sea is chummed w/pirate meat

.. hell, most of the pirates are armed with machetes and rusty RPG's... a few single shot .50 cals for the good guys and you have a floating sniper school.

Merchant marine sailors are prohibited from carrying fire arms but a para military detachment of Q-Ships would be ideal. it would make a great reality TV series too!

Q-ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> *Solution to the pirate problem:*
> 
> "Q-Ships"
> 
> ...



Absolute Brilliance.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 8, 2009)

I like it, Comiso! Give 'em hell.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 8, 2009)

Latest from FOX....

Pirates are off the ship in a lifeboat, but are holding the captain and another crewman as hostages.

USS Bainbridge is on her way to the area.

TO


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 8, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Heard they just grabbed a US Flagged ship with 20 American citizens onboard. Send in the SEALS.
> 
> 1. Save the Crew
> 2. Save the Ship
> ...



Why separate the Iranians, aren't they allowed to do their but alongside the US and her allies? Otherwise agree with all sentiments expressed here...


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 8, 2009)

Q-ships....right on! As for the crew taking the ship back...Maersk should give them all a raise and an open bar-tab. And some hard-core hand-to-hand combat training. 

Maybe this'll show up as a movie sometime soon, Lord knows Hollywood is out of ideas for new stuff. Or maybe a new FPS, Call of Duty-style!!!

Prayers are still with the Skipper and crewman...prayin that at least one of the pirates has more than half a braincell between his ears...


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

This is a new frontier for PMC's to get more involved in getting contracts to defend maritime activities in pirate infested areas. It has to suck to have to battle thugs with AK-47's with firehoses.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Why separate the Iranians, aren't they allowed to do their but alongside the US and her allies? Otherwise agree with all sentiments expressed here...



We don't get along very well with Iran would be the main point I think he was making. Common sense.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 8, 2009)

On the contrary, isn't working with the Iranians a potentially sound step toward rapprochement and avoiding the need for yet another costly Middle Eastern war? Or has the US already decided to have that war anyways?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

War is sometimes needed especially to stop fascism even if it is Islamo-fascism. If Iran want's nukes I think they can expect war and not just from us but the entire civilized world.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 8, 2009)

Yeah Comiso, Q-ships sounds just what we need now.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 8, 2009)

We will have to agree to disagree on the 'necessity' of this war. I accept it is a possibility, even a probability, but I don't see it as being inevitable. I think that for all of Iran's undoubted threat, there are gesture's like this one, and the talks with the US some weeks back, which show a willingness to engage and offer a possible starting point for dialogue. I also think that certain elements in US politics and society are attempting to ignore these admittedly small and faint opportunities at all costs, and pushing ahead with a war that was planned out and decided upon long ago. Indeed, by refusing to engage with Iran, they are making the war a self-fulfilling prophecy...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> We don't get along very well with Iran would be the main point I think he was making. Common sense.



Yeah, that was the point I was making. They tend to iritate a lot of people. Seem to get along well with the Russians though. Put them in with them to work along side them. Probably make everyone happy.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> We will have to agree to disagree on the 'necessity' of this war. I accept it is a possibility, even a probability, but I don't see it as being inevitable. I think that for all of Iran's undoubted threat, there are gesture's like this one, and the talks with the US some weeks back, which show a willingness to engage and offer a possible starting point for dialogue. I also think that certain elements in US politics and society are attempting to ignore these admittedly small and faint opportunities at all costs, and pushing ahead with a war that was planned out and decided upon long ago. Indeed, by refusing to engage with Iran, they are making the war a self-fulfilling prophecy...



What are you talking about? We've done nothing but talk to them for years. That and the odd embargo. But nobody is going to war with Iran. They are going to get the bomb and the middle east is going to get that much more unstable. The US is not going to invade anybody over owning a nuke. But it will be more common for others in the middle east to want one. And that is probably going to happen. 

The countries in the middle east aren't particularly worried about the Israelis having a nuke, they've had one for decades. No problem. But the Iranians are making them nervous. An Iranian Nuke gives power to a people with a long history of running the show in the middle east. The West has a tendency to come and go in the middle east and the Arabs know it. But the Iranians (Aka, the Persians of Antiquity) have been around a lot longer, been in control of that area way longer and kind of look at the middle east as their own back yard. 

Bush is gone and the US is not going to do anymore than the UN minimum until mushrooms sprout somewhere.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Yeah Comiso, Q-ships sounds just what we need now.



it would be easy to do... an old rust bucket with hidden armaments would mow em down.

hell....

They could charge admission for "Pirate Suppression Cruises"..

2 week cruise:
$1000 and you get a .50 or MK24
$3000 you get a mini gun or 40 mm


*GET SOME!!!!!*
.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> it would be easy to do... an old rust bucket with hidden armaments would mow em down.
> 
> hell....
> 
> ...




Not bad, not bad...


How about we really humiliate them with Girl Scouts firing potato launchers? They could put a notch in their PVC cannon for every loser they kill.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 8, 2009)

All good ideas on Q-ships. I think maybe have marines disguised as sailors, armed with MG's and LAWs.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

Pardon me for reiterating part of a previous post, but I think we could defend against the pirates by catapulting pork chops, used tampons, and Madonna CDs.

BTW, these pirates have no flair for fashion. They aren't like the cool pirates of the past that had a patch over their eye, a parrot on their shoulder, and say stuff like "aarghh Matee".


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> All good ideas on Q-ships. I think maybe have marines disguised as sailors, armed with MG's and LAWs.



yeah.. same concept... it would make them think twice!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

evangilder said:


> I like it, Comiso! Give 'em hell.



you can fly air cover and document it....


----------



## Amsel (Apr 8, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Pardon me for reiterating part of a previous post, but I think we could defend against the pirates by catapulting pork chops, used tampons, and Madonna CDs.
> 
> BTW, these pirates have no flair for fashion. They aren't like the cool pirates of the past that had a patch over their eye, a parrot on their shoulder, and say stuff like "aarghh Matee".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

Gentlemen, all else aside, these folks are pirates, plain and simple. Iran, Sudan, Rodan or Dapper Dan has nothing to do with the fact that these scumbags need to be shot on site if confronted and if a few of these idiots were thrown into the ocean as shark bait I'd bet they would not be as brazen in attacking these merchant ships.

If I was a captian of a military ship and confronted these asses I'd take no prisoners - PERIOD!

"Skinny Shark Bait." SSB - that would be the acronym for dealing with this problem.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 8, 2009)

Got that right. Question, where are there bases of operations? Maybe have a few 130's tear those up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Got that right. Question, where are there bases of operations? Maybe have a few 130's tear those up.


Somalia - the @sshole of the world


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Somalia - the @sshole of the world



Great, if I can recall, there's no government. I still think a few 130's would make those guys think twice.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 8, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Great, if I can recall, there's no government. I still think a few 130's would make those guys think twice.



The boats are small and the coast is large. I think it would be hard to find them.

I'm glad that there hasn't been any leftist rhetoric on this thread spewing out something like "we need to _understand_ them, find out what is bothering them".


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 8, 2009)

Yeah, hard to understand scumbags. These guys sound like cowards though, so a show force could get these scumbags to back off.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 8, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I'm glad that there hasn't been any leftist rhetoric on this thread spewing out something like "we need to _understand_ them, find out what is bothering them"


Don't they all just need a big hug?


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 8, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> The boats are small and the coast is large. I think it would be hard to find them


That's why I think Marine or SF cells on nation-specific assets could work, no need to go looking for them and if they've boarded without permission toting AK-47s, no real ambiguity as to their intentions.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 8, 2009)

Sink em pirates!

Q ships sound like a good idea too.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Apr 8, 2009)

A good photo expose on the events off the Somali coast:

Pirates of Somalia - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Check out the rusty AK-47!



Perhaps I'll be the lone voice in disagreeing about the need to blow up the pirates, for now that is. It's clear that they value the captured vessels more than the people on board. So far, there hasn't been the willfull killing of hostages. Keeping in mind as well, that we have an international naval forces trying to patrol a coastline which is as long as the eastern coastline of the US. The hostages are also of mixed nationalities. If, for the sake of arguement, US ships decide to send a pirate boat to Davy Jone's locker, and the pirates execute Spanish or Greek hostages, this is going to cause a rift betwen allies. A hostage situation should be treated like any other, don't make the first shot. The pirates, I'm assuming, realize the situation all to well, hence why they've been so succesful in capturing ships. It's the ships they're after.

I think the best thing to do _at this point_, is to capture as many of them as possible and bring to them to trial for piracy on the high seas and hand out stiff sentences.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I think the best thing to do _at this point_, is to capture as many of them as possible and bring to them to trial for piracy on the high seas and hand out stiff sentences.



SSB - plain and simple.

If these merchant ships were armed and fought back and carried out "high seas justice" this crap would stop.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> A good photo expose on the events off the Somali coast:
> 
> Pirates of Somalia - The Big Picture - Boston.com
> 
> ...



the spanish and the greeks (fishermen) deserve what ever they get for screwing with the fishing illegally in somali waters , I know people in this country that would do the same to illegal fishing trawlers


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Apr 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> SSB - plain and simple.
> 
> If these merchant ships were armed and fought back and carried out "high seas justice" this crap would stop.



If I'm not mistaken, I believe current maritime laws prohibit the arming of non-military vessels in international waters.




pbfoot said:


> the spanish and the greeks (fishermen) deserve what ever they get for screwing with the fishing illegally in somali waters , I know people in this country that would do the same to illegal fishing trawlers



How do you know they're fishing crews? I was presenting a hypothetical yet very possible scenario. Most of the captured crews at this point belong to large merchant vessels, not fishing trawlers.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> How do you know they're fishing crews? I was presenting a hypothetical yet very possible scenario. Most of the captured crews at this point belong to large merchant vessels, not fishing trawlers.


The reason the piracy started from what I've learned is overfishing and dumping of toxic waste off this unpoliced shore , they started off with fishing boats and moved up to larger fish. as for ordinary guys on normal ships plying there trade I hope they squash the pirates


----------



## usafmd (Apr 8, 2009)

A nonviolent method of handling these guys is to take them off these boats, sink the boat with the ladders, RPG'S, etc and return them to shore. Er, maybe a hundred miles inland, far from some visible landmarks - you get the idea.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I noted the participation of the Iranians, and that of the Russians, in what is essentially a NATO and Commonwealth coalition 8) Wonder if these units are serving literally 'alongside' US/UK units though? The irony would be incredible, and the implications deeply interesting...
> 
> EDIT: As for the carrier strike force, it is my understanding that these pirates generally use small civilian vessels for their attacks. How would you identify this and ensure it was not a legitimate civilian vessel before blowing it out of the water? And isn't a CVBG an extremely expensive and wasteful way of doing a job that could be done by an FFG or even one of the new LCS?


Only the mothership is really hard to identify, their speed boats are too small to hide the weapons. You see 6-8 guys hauling butt towards a freighter and packed with RPGs and AKs, you can take a wild guess.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 8, 2009)

Merchant Marine crews are restricted to fire hoses and other non lethal tactics ... but there is an option!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I believe current maritime laws prohibit the arming of non-military vessels in international waters.


If the ship is under a threat of attack the operator is allowed to arm the ship for defensive purposes. This was done since WW1 and under hostile situations I still believe you could arm commercial merchant ships.


"DEMS" Defensively Armed Merchant Ships.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the ship is under a threat of attack the operator is allowed to arm the ship for defensive purposes. This was done since WW1 and under hostile situations I still believe you could arm commercial merchant ships.
> 
> 
> "DEMS" Defensively Armed Merchant Ships.


Going to be hard to get the rabid socialist slave states to agree that arming people is good.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Going to be hard to get the rabid socialist slave states to agree that arming people is good.



why


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 9, 2009)

Heh. Put some of the more vocal ones on one of those ships, and send them into pirate-infested waters.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2009)

Anybody notice Obama has been pretty quiet on this one. Matter of fact, all the politcos have. An American ship was attacked, siezed and the crew fought back, taking the ship away from the Pirates. 

What's with our Govt? What's up with the Pols? Matter of fact, the MSM is almost avoiding it. Plenty of stuff on Gay Marriage in Iowa, but next to nothing on this event.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Anybody notice Obama has been pretty quiet on this one. Matter of fact, all the politcos have. An American ship was attacked, siezed and the crew fought back, taking the ship away from the Pirates.
> 
> What's with our Govt? What's up with the Pols? Matter of fact, the MSM is almost avoiding it. Plenty of stuff on Gay Marriage in Iowa, but next to nothing on this event.



Because the group hug won't work on pirates - they're out of ideas.

I did see that a Navy destroyer was headed toward that area...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2009)

mkloby said:


> I did see that a Navy destroyer was headed toward that area...



Arliegh Burke Class. If Vegas did odds on this one, what do you think they'd be on an Arliegh Burke Class Destroyer Vs 6 Pirates in a knockoff Boston Whaler with a Hostage?

My guess is there would be a "NL" on it. No line. Or it would be in the several hundred thousands to one range.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 9, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Because the group hug won't work on pirates


That's my idea out the window then...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Arliegh Burke Class. If Vegas did odds on this one, what do you think they'd be on an Arliegh Burke Class Destroyer Vs 6 Pirates in a knockoff Boston Whaler with a Hostage?
> 
> My guess is there would be a "NL" on it. No line. Or it would be in the several hundred thousands to one range.



I think it would be higher. I think if these pirates were getting tagged by 240 rounds from a helo, they would rethink the cost/benefit...


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 9, 2009)

mkloby said:


> ...I think if these pirates were getting tagged by 240 rounds from a helo, they would rethink the cost/benefit...


A helicopter could be open to SAM attack, once they realised it was being deployed in the role. There could also be the ambiguity issue, on seeing/hearing it coming, it wouldn't take long to ditch a bunch of AK-47s over the side, whip out the rods and say "Hey, international community, we were just fishing and minding our own business and these guys shot our boat up!"
Defended ships. They come to you and in doing so, they bring the Declaration of Unambiguity with them.


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 9, 2009)

Well, the gov't has at the very least acknowledged the problem exists. ...and that's about as far as they've gone. So unless they're holding back information in order to not inadvertently tip off the pirates (feasable, but with today's plethora of "unofficial leaks", I kinda doubt it), they still have no clue what to do, since apparently "Kumbay-yah" doesn't translate well into Somali.

White House: Piracy growing problem for international community | NECN


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 9, 2009)

"Kumbay-ah"? How about a merchant ship filled with Marines. Maybe that'll be the language the Somali's speak, superior firepower.


----------



## Freebird (Apr 9, 2009)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I believe current maritime laws prohibit the arming of non-military vessels in international waters.



Not correct, this only applies to major ship systems like a Harpoon SSN launcher or something. In International waters no nation or Navy has juristiction search vessels for personal weapons

*Personal* weapons such as AK-47 or Shotguns are at the discresion of the company ship's master.

It would only be a problem in certain ports, {mainly Europe} but the ships could always take them aboard at Malta or Alexandria en route through Suez.



FLYBOYJ said:


> SSB - plain and simple.
> 
> If these merchant ships were armed and fought back and carried out "high seas justice" this crap would stop.



Exactly....


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2009)

Obama was asked several times by a reporter, during a press conference about the mortgage plan, about the Pirate situation. He refused to comment, sticking to the script. No teleprompter, no answer, evidently.

Clinton, showing at least some common sense, said "Specifically, we are now focused on this particular act of piracy and the seizure of a ship that carries 21 American citizens. More generally, we think the world must come together to end the scourge of piracy,".


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 9, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> "Kumbay-ah"? How about a merchant ship filled with Marines. Maybe that'll be the language the Somali's speak, superior firepower.



Works for me!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 9, 2009)

Looks like a green-light then. 


RabidAlien said:


> Works for me!


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Obama was asked several times by a reporter, during a press conference about the mortgage plan, about the Pirate situation. He refused to comment, sticking to the script. No teleprompter, no answer, evidently.
> 
> Clinton, showing at least some common sense, said "Specifically, we are now focused on this particular act of piracy and the seizure of a ship that carries 21 American citizens. More generally, we think the world must come together to end the scourge of piracy,".



sounds like a reasoned response by both parties let the professional people do their jobs , think about it for a second the navy has been given the parameters with possible FBI hostage negotiaters let them do the job it isn't an episode of Cops or Americas most wanted


----------



## timshatz (Apr 9, 2009)

Think Clinton got it right, she's been around longer and knows the right things to say at the right time. 

Think Obama is an empty suit. But let's at least acknowledge something happened. Far from being an episode of Cops or America's most wanted, an event has happened on the high seas, involving American citizens, an American flagged vessel and an American warship (with FBI agents on it) and the President registers a "No comment". 

Reverse the situation and turn all those individuals into Canadians (with leeway). Wouldn't you expect Harper to at least comment on the situation?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Think Clinton got it right, she's been around longer and knows the right things to say at the right time.
> 
> Think Obama is an empty suit. But let's at least acknowledge something happened. Far from being an episode of Cops or America's most wanted, an event has happened on the high seas, involving American citizens, an American flagged vessel and an American warship (with FBI agents on it) and the President registers a "No comment".
> 
> Reverse the situation and turn all those individuals into Canadians (with leeway). Wouldn't you expect Harper to at least comment on the situation?


I'm sure many would want that but IMHO its grandstanding for the 15sec video clip let the pros do there jobs without hinderence from the suits . I'm sure the pros have their marching orders from the top if not you have cause to worry.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 9, 2009)

Would of expected at least a comment out of him, any other head of state would of made comment - or I would of expected to make comment. Hillary at least said something along the right lines.



FLYBOYJ said:


> SSB - plain and simple.
> 
> If these merchant ships were armed and fought back and carried out "high seas justice" this crap would stop.



Bingo, Q-ships or other methods of self defence would definitely reduce the problems. The Navy patrolling can only do so much as there a huge surface area of ocean to cover plus the pirates can avoid the Navy's and perform their acts elsewhere. Self defence would be a much better solution than the patrolling which is fairly ineffective and can only do so much.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 9, 2009)

I saw a news piece a few months ago that painted a sympathetic view of the pirates. According to the story:

Most pirates are not "professional pirates" they are laborers out of work and recruited by a gang leader.

Most pirates leave their families and villages hundreds of miles behind for the promise of "work' as a pirate.

Most pirates have to invest in the process. It's a co-op. They contract for a period of time and have to supply their own weapons and help pay for fuel and other expenses. If there is no "score" there is no pay. They will actually lose money. It's also a way to keep those involved indentured. 

The funny thing was that the pirate they were documenting was involved in a small but successful raid. He, along with the other pirates, went into town and spent EVERY LAST DIME on booze and hookers. Nothing was sent back to his family. 

Yet they blamed the peer pressure of the situation for the guy spending all his money... If he didnt party with the pirates, they would have looked down on our hero and thought he was weak!

Everybody is a victim except those that are victimized...

.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 9, 2009)

I have also read support for the pirates because "the west has over-fished the area around Somalia and dumps toxic waste (including radioactive matter) onto their shores".


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 9, 2009)

That isn't a justification for piracy - but if true, it is something the West should address.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 9, 2009)

*Five Pirated Crews Who Didn't Fare as Well as the Americans*

5 Pirated Crews Who Didn't Fare as Well as the Americans


_A pirate mothership killed 15 crewmen on this small Thai boat last fall._


----------



## javlin (Apr 10, 2009)

and more are on the way........

"The pirates have summoned assistance - skiffs and motherships are heading towards the area from the coast," said a Nairobi-based diplomat, who spoke on condition on anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. "We knew they were gathering yesterday."

Samaw said two ships left Eyl on Wednesday afternoon. A third sailed from Haradhere, another pirate base in central Somalia, and the fourth one was a Taiwanese fishing vessel seized Monday that was already only 30 miles (48 kilometers) from the lifeboat.

AT&T


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 10, 2009)

Quite an interesting article that says most of what we have said here.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Could 19th-Century plan stop piracy?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 10, 2009)

Interesting, that might work, cut the head off the snake.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2009)

A bit of trivia....

The first Navy destroyer on the scene of the recent pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama is the USS Bainbridge, named after William Bainbridge. Anybody know the unique connection here?


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 10, 2009)

Njaco said:


> A bit of trivia....
> 
> The first Navy destroyer on the scene of the recent pirate attack on the Maersk Alabama is the USS Bainbridge, named after William Bainbridge. Anybody know the unique connection here?



He (William Bainbridge) commanded the frigate _Philadelphia_ which was captured by Tripoli pirates after running aground off Tripoli in 1804.

TO


----------



## mudpuppy (Apr 10, 2009)

That is an interesting coincidence, Njaco! I had no idea of the connection but a quick jump to Wikipedia showed me this:
William Bainbridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I saw a "breaking news" bit this morning that the Captain had jumped the lifeboat but was recaptured by the pirates and brought back on board before the USN could respond. Brave man. Thoughts and prayers to him and his family.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2009)

Thats it TO! Thought it was interesting.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 10, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Thats it TO! Thought it was interesting.



It is.. thanks for that nugget.

i wish we had "Ole Hickory", Andrew Jackson in office now.

.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 10, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> A helicopter could be open to SAM attack, once they realised it was being deployed in the role.


I'm aware of the manpad threat. There is ALWAYS the manpad threat. That doesn't mean you do not utilize your assets.



Colin1 said:


> There could also be the ambiguity issue, on seeing/hearing it coming, it wouldn't take long to ditch a bunch of AK-47s over the side, whip out the rods and say "Hey, international community, we were just fishing and minding our own business and these guys shot our boat up!"
> Defended ships. They come to you and in doing so, they bring the Declaration of Unambiguity with them.


There's an easy solution - did you notice the USN said they will be utilizing their ScanEagle in that area.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2009)

mkloby said:


> There's an easy solution - did you notice the USN said they will be utilizing their ScanEagle in that area.



You talking a Hellfire shot from out of the sun? Definitely fix the problem with regards to the "other pirate forces" on their way to the scene. Didn't know the Scan Ealge carried a payload.

Then again, a 5" 54 fired over optic sights would do the job too. Give the Gunner's Mates a little live fire practice (after the appropiate warning and shots fired across the bow, that sort of thing. Don't want to appear to be savages about this thing).


----------



## fly boy (Apr 10, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I ran across an image somewhere of about 8 or 9 of the warships grouped. If I had been thinking, I would have grabbed it...it was pretty cool!
> 
> 1,000 posts, dang...I hadn't noticed! Perhaps for a prize, we should get a night on the town with one of the girls from the "Breaking News!" thread!!



now thats a good idea


----------



## mkloby (Apr 10, 2009)

timshatz said:


> You talking a Hellfire shot from out of the sun? Definitely fix the problem with regards to the "other pirate forces" on their way to the scene. Didn't know the Scan Ealge carried a payload.
> 
> Then again, a 5" 54 fired over optic sights would do the job too. Give the Gunner's Mates a little live fire practice (after the appropiate warning and shots fired across the bow, that sort of thing. Don't want to appear to be savages about this thing).



ScanEagle doesn't carry ordnance... I meant that the UAS could provide ISR and prevent the pirates from dumping arms overboard and claiming innocence as Colin had mentioned.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 10, 2009)

mkloby said:


> ScanEagle doesn't carry ordnance... I meant that the UAS could provide ISR and prevent the pirates from dumping arms overboard and claiming innocence as Colin had mentioned.



Gotcha.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 10, 2009)

Obama has refused comment on this stuation for the second day in a row. What a prick. I am sure the captain's family is encouraged by his silence.


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 10, 2009)

They should keep a gun trained on the lifeboat...Morse-Code the Skipper to dive over again, as soon as he's clear, pump that puppy full of lead. Or HE. Or Seals.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> A helicopter could be open to SAM attack, once they realised it was being deployed in the role. There could also be the ambiguity issue, on seeing/hearing it coming, it wouldn't take long to ditch a bunch of AK-47s over the side, whip out the rods and say "Hey, international community, we were just fishing and minding our own business and these guys shot our boat up!"



Who cares about a manpad threat. That is why our helos are equipped with an ALQ and other countermeasures. There is a manpad threat in Iraq, and we compared to the millions of hours that are flown, relatively few get hit.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 10, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> Obama has refused comment on this stuation for the second day in a row. What a prick. I am sure the captain's family is encouraged by his silence.



IMHO, it is often better in this kind of situation that the politicos pipe down and let the professionals get on with the situation. There is an AEGIS destroyer and a bunch of other ships chasing after a lifeboat in order to rescue this skipper - I don't think anything any politician says will serve to amplify the obvious commitment the US has to getting their guy home safe.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 10, 2009)

How about coming underneath the craft with a submarine and broach it. Seals jump out and get the captain.

Our Commander-in-Chief leaves something to be desired...


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 10, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> IMHO, it is often better in this kind of situation that the politicos pipe down and let the professionals get on with the situation. There is an AEGIS destroyer and a bunch of other ships chasing after a lifeboat in order to rescue this skipper - I don't think anything any politician says will serve to amplify the obvious commitment the US has to getting their guy home safe.



I'm not expecting him to direct the operations or to disclose them. Just acknowledge what is going on and say something for the captain's family, however small the message.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> I'm not expecting him to direct the operations or to disclose them. Just acknowledge what is going on and say something for the captain's family, however small the message.


I'll wager he has contacted the family (btw the blues did well this year)


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 10, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I'll wager he has contacted the family (btw the blues did well this year)



Yeah, you are probably right.

BTW, I had no idea where your flag / country was from. It didn't take long to be jealous. But, you probably don't have hockey down there.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 10, 2009)

Marshall_Stack said:


> How about coming underneath the craft with a submarine and broach it. Seals jump out and get the captain.
> 
> Our Commander-in-Chief leaves something to be desired...



You make it sound oh so simple...

These pirates know that they are dead meat if we go in like that, and if we try to do something like that, the first shot fired by the pirates will most likely be at the Captain, not at his rescuers.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 10, 2009)

evangilder said:


> You make it sound oh so simple...
> 
> These pirates know that they are dead meat if we go in like that, and if we try to do something like that, the first shot fired by the pirates will most likely be at the Captain, not at his rescuers.



You are right. I have been watching too many Hollywood movies.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 10, 2009)

I heard yesterday that other pirates were in other ships heading towards the lifeboat with other hostages that they had, just in case. I believe thats why Petraius was saying he had more ships going.


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 10, 2009)

Would it be too far-fetched to have a Seal team exit a sub (torpedo tubes or DDS), ghost up underneath the lifeboat, quietly take out anybody topside, and storm the thing? Just wondering...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Would it be too far-fetched to have a Seal team exit a sub (torpedo tubes or DDS), ghost up underneath the lifeboat, quietly take out anybody topside, and storm the thing? Just wondering...



easier yet bring in some 4 or more snipers


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Apr 10, 2009)

How about some trained Great White Sharks, swim in and tip over the boat, eat the pirates, rescue the Captain.
Seriously though, I think our Pres. is very reluctant to use force, must use the avenue of discussion and diplomacy first? Time to use Snipers is probably past if the Pirates have the other hijacked ships at the location?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 10, 2009)

Gents, you have to realize it is a covered lifeboat. 4 snipers being able to all get clean shots off at one time on a target that is not clear is a huge risk. And if one misses, I can guarantee you they will kill the captain. They have also closed the portholes that would give any clear shot. 

I am sure that many scenarios are being considered, but as long as the captain is on that life boat with 4 armed thugs, they have to be ultra careful. Considering he offered himself to save the rest of his crew, I think the least they can do is to give him the best chance at getting out alive.

Let's not second guess an operation that is current and on-going. Plus, not knowing who might be reading this, we should be careful about throwing out ideas that may be useful to the bad guys.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Gents, you have to realize it is a covered lifeboat. 4 snipers being able to all get clean shots off at one time on a target that is not clear is a huge risk. And if one misses, I can guarantee you they will kill the captain. They have also closed the portholes that would give any clear shot.
> 
> I am sure that many scenarios are being considered, but as long as the captain is on that life boat with 4 armed thugs, they have to be ultra careful. Considering he offered himself to save the rest of his crew, I think the least they can do is to give him the best chance at getting out alive.
> 
> Let's not second guess an operation that is current and on-going. Plus, not knowing who might be reading this, we should be careful about throwing out ideas that may be useful to the bad guys.


 I agree with all you say I just offerd up the snipers as a more realistic scenario until I watched on the news about the lifeboat


----------



## Freebird (Apr 11, 2009)

evangilder said:


> Gents, you have to realize it is a covered lifeboat .



Is that a fiberglass top?


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 11, 2009)

I don't think Obama's unwillingness to use force should be written of 'weakness' (although it will be anyway). As Evan has pointed out, going in with guns blazing, or using force of any kind is more than likely to result in the captain's death. This one will have to be negotiated in all likelihood. I know that many here support the line that the US never negotiates with tese kind of people, but how rigidly that line is adhered to will depend entirely, IMHO, on how much the US wants their guy back alive...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 11, 2009)

You might be right on this BombTaxi.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> I don't think Obama's unwillingness to use force should be written of 'weakness' (although it will be anyway). As Evan has pointed out, going in with guns blazing, or using force of any kind is more than likely to result in the captain's death. This one will have to be negotiated in all likelihood. I know that many here support the line that the US never negotiates with tese kind of people, but how rigidly that line is adhered to will depend entirely, IMHO, on how much the US wants their guy back alive...



Sure, everyone wants the man back alive. I truly hope that there's a solid plan in place to stop this sh*t after this concludes.

I think what people are concerned with is the Obama administration's seeming lack of will to use force across the board, not just in this case... or at least that is the impression I believe he's giving.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 11, 2009)

Obama's approach is certainly a world away from Bush's - personally I feel it's a change for the better in most respects, but that's just my opinion. I'm not sure what military threat would really be effective in these cases - there isn't a Somali govt as such that can be threatened with armed force, and at present the USN doesn't have the appropriate tactic for the job of fighting piracy - this standoff demonstrates that fact, although I have no doubt the USN and USMC will evolve the necessary procedures and equipment very shortly.

What I am sure of is that if the US tries to end this scenario by force, the captain will be dead within 5 seconds. The French tried storming their yacht the other day and lost a hostage in the process. There is no reason to believe the same won't happen if the Marines go in after this guy. Apart from anything else, how do you get into one of those lifeboats from outside? While the rescuers are scrambling about on the outside, the bad guys have plenty of time to off the captive and cover the very few entrances ready for boarders, I would have thought...


----------



## Amsel (Apr 11, 2009)

The civilized world and especially America need to develop more HUMINT in the region now that it may prove economically sound policy to protect our interests, as well as electronic eavesdropping. As the trends are pointing to fighting forces in anarchy conditions more then other goverments our inteligence agencies need to adapt faster to these conditions. Hit the pirates at their home using our special operations capable forces. A sort of 21st century Lt. Presley O'Bannon style operation.

Since cost will be an issue the goverments should urge maritime companies to use private military companies to do security in the region full time. I know there are plenty of good former Marines from an assortment of nations that already have some of the skills needed to combat piracy.


----------



## ccheese (Apr 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Obama's approach is certainly a world away from Bush's -



I don't think President Bush would have gone in with guns blazing, either.

I think all the talking heads are formulating several plans from A to Z. I
also don't think the navies present will allow the pirates' other ships
close...

Charles


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 11, 2009)

If anything, this has drawn a good number of the pirates and thier boats/ships out into the open with the intention of supporting thier 4 compatriots.

If the standoff ends soon, the Navies can easily round up/take out the others alot easier.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> at present the USN doesn't have the appropriate tactic for the job of fighting piracy - this standoff demonstrates that fact, although I have no doubt the USN and USMC will evolve the necessary procedures and equipment very shortly.



They have the capability - no doubt about it.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 11, 2009)

It wasn't the capability I am questioning, it just seems that right now the application of that capability needs to be thought through a little. That is hardly surprising - it's been about two centuries since any navy had to do serious anti-piracy work.

Personally, I'm not sure if private security contractors are the way forward - I think much needs to be done to address the accountability of these organisations in the broadest sense. I would rather see regular forces placed aboard merchantmen as a temporary measure until the situation is either resolved, or the private contractors have a clear set of ROEs and can be held accountable to them - whichever comes first.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> It wasn't the capability I am questioning, it just seems that right now the application of that capability needs to be thought through a little. That is hardly surprising - it's been about two centuries since any navy had to do serious anti-piracy work.
> 
> Personally, I'm not sure if private security contractors are the way forward - I think much needs to be done to address the accountability of these organisations in the broadest sense. I would rather see regular forces placed aboard merchantmen as a temporary measure until the situation is either resolved, or the private contractors have a clear set of ROEs and can be held accountable to them - whichever comes first.



I definitely have my thoughts regarding application - and I believe that the USN is thinking along the same lines. This problem has an easier solution than you might think...


----------



## Amsel (Apr 12, 2009)

> The official said Capt. Richard Phillips is uninjured and in good condition, and that three of the four pirates were killed. The fourth pirate is in custody. Phillips was taken aboard the USS Bainbridge, a nearby naval warship.


American captain rescued, pirates killed, U.S. official says - CNN.com


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 12, 2009)

Excellent news! The challenge now is to get something together that will stop a repeat of this situation - next time a hostage might not be so fortunate...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 12, 2009)

Good news the captain is safe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2009)

I see a new movie being made!


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 12, 2009)

Excellent news!

And here's to the U.S. Navy's SEALs, good work guys!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 12, 2009)

Right on. Now let's keep this nonsense from happening again.


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 12, 2009)

To all those involved.... 

 to you, Captain Phillips!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 12, 2009)

Well done Navy! 

And to Captain Phillips as well! 

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 12, 2009)

OOOORAAAHHH!!!


----------



## Bill G. (Apr 12, 2009)

I just have a feeling that this was done without Obama's approval. Shooting pirates/terrorists is just not the way they want to conduct business. 

Obama'a gang look at stuff like this a criminal problem. Plastering the world with wanted posters is more their style.

This was a good way for this to end. Now we need to declare a zone where any small boats will be assumed pirates and attacked. Putting Marines on merchant ships to defend these ships will be a good idea. Pirates will stop attacking when the odds are high they will just be killed. 

Bill G.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 12, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> I just have a feeling that this was done without Obama's approval. Shooting pirates/terrorists is just not the way they want to conduct business.
> 
> Obama'a gang look at stuff like this a criminal problem. Plastering the world with wanted posters is more their style.
> 
> ...



that is silly , they did the job in what I assume is the best manner, they let the military do its job without political interference


----------



## Njaco (Apr 12, 2009)

Navy Snipers Kill Pirates, Rescue Captain Former Hostage Hails 'Real Heroes' in Military
By ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY, AP
MOMBASA, Kenya (April 12) - U.S. Navy snipers opened fire and killed three pirates holding an American captain at gunpoint, delivering the skipper unharmed and ending a five-day high-seas hostage drama on Easter Sunday.
Capt. Richard Phillips was in "imminent danger" of being killed before snipers shot the pirates in an *operation authorized by President Barack Obama*, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.

http://news.aol.com/article/captain-freed-from-pirates


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 12, 2009)

My congratulations to the Navy, that is best way to deal with this criminals. But ss someone say already beside that I think the merchant should be allowed to be arm in some way like in the old days when the spanish galeons had 20 or 30 guns in the broadside.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2009)

I think it would have been better to keep it completely hushed up and use the lifeboat as a lure to get more of the scumbags, but I am glad to hear the captain is alive and well. Very risky to take out three guys at one time when you have a good guy in close proximity. Thank goodness they were great shots. I know they were snipers, but still, getting off a good shot in rough seas could not have been an easy kill.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> I just have a feeling that this was done without Obama's approval. Shooting pirates/terrorists is just not the way they want to conduct business.
> 
> Obama'a gang look at stuff like this a criminal problem. Plastering the world with wanted posters is more their style.
> 
> ...



Bill, it is a criminal problem. What else would it be treated as? And I'm not sure how you can say Obama won't shoot terrorists when he is surging troop numbers in Afghanistan. How about laying off the Obama hate for a moment and actually looking at what he's doing, rather than what you expect him to do?


----------



## Bill G. (Apr 13, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Bill, it is a criminal problem. What else would it be treated as? And I'm not sure how you can say Obama won't shoot terrorists when he is surging troop numbers in Afghanistan. How about laying off the Obama hate for a moment and actually looking at what he's doing, rather than what you expect him to do?



It is an act of war! 

His own base is very opposed to any military action anywhere in the world. They would rather have him just pay the ransom. Or pay tribute as was done in the late 1700's and early 1800s.

The pirates have declared war. We, to my surprise, have responded. It is good that we have. And to the surprise of many France ha responded too to this decaration of war.

Yes, Obama is surging the troops in Afghanistan. I only wonder how long he will stick to this policy. Or when the going gets tough will he cut and run like Clinton in Somolia. 

And look at Obama's visit in Iraq. He couldn't utter a word praising President Bush and his surge policy that turned things around there.

It is good that we used force, deadly force, to free the Captain. Now will Obama have the guts to continue when the next act of piracy happens? Will other nations convince him to join them in just paying the ransom like they do?

Bill G.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> And look at Obama's visit in Iraq. He couldn't utter a word praising President Bush and his surge policy that turned things around there.
> 
> It is good that we used force, deadly force, to free the Captain. Now will Obama have the guts to continue when the next act of piracy happens? Will other nations convince him to join them in just paying the ransom like they do?
> 
> Bill G.


A couple of good points.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill,

It isn't an act of war - the pirates do not represent a sovereign state, and therefore cannot issue a declaration of war against another state.Neither can the US declare war on them , for that matter. It wasn't a war when piracy was last rife, either. Besides, if an Englishman kidnaps an American or vice versa, does that mean the US and UK are at war? Of course it doesn't  Sorry, it just won't wash calling it a war, because it isn't one. War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Piracy - all very catchy soundbites, but not one of them describes a war in the legal sense. 

I wholeheartedly agree that use of deadly force was appropriate and necessary - I wouldn't go so far as to call it good. Will deadly force be used again? I don't know, but I would imagine that were this situation to be repeated, deadly force would be used again - if nothing else, the American public would expect and demand it.


----------



## ccheese (Apr 13, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> I just have a feeling that this was done without Obama's approval. Shooting pirates/terrorists is just not the way they want to conduct business.
> Bill G.



Not according to this morning's Virginian Pilot. The entire operation, including
the use of snipers was done with President Obama's approval. The paper sez,

_*The operation, personally approved by President Barak Obama, quashed
fears that the saga could drag on for months and marked a victory for the
United States, which for days seemed powerless to end the crisis despite
massing warships at the scene.*_

You don't miss a chance to take a swipe at President Obama, do you Bill ??

Charles


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2009)

I think that there are way too many people second-guessing what leaders are thinking and doing. If things had gone sour, people would be quick to blame the president. When things went right this time, I didn't hear anyone heaping praise for making the right decision. 

My salute goes out to the ones who executed this operation with professionalism and skill. I guess I will be the first one in this thread to state that the decision to do what was necessary to get the captain back was a good one. I am sure that the risks were weighed with the benefits and the right opportunity presented itself for a successful outcome.


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2009)

The pirates got what they deserve. Kudos to the Navy snipers. The shipping companies need to put security details on ships passing through that area. I would think their insurance companies would require it.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> The pirates got what they deserve. Kudos to the Navy snipers. The shipping companies need to put security details on ships passing through that area. I would think their insurance companies would require it.


You would think.


----------



## ccheese (Apr 13, 2009)

evangilder said:


> I guess I will be the first one in this thread to state that the decision to do what was necessary to get the captain back was a good one. I am sure that the risks were weighed with the benefits and the right opportunity presented itself for a successful outcome.



You may be the first, but I'll second it. I think it was a great decision, 
and the right one. 

The union that mans the commercial ships is thinking about arming the crew, but only with shotguns. Dumb choice.... shotguns against AK-47's...

Charles


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2009)

I must admit that I thought that British Merchant ships could be armed with small arms. One of the people I worked for had been a deck officer on tankers in the mid 70's and they carried a small number of SLR rifles for dealing with pirates. 
Things must have changed since then but thats progress for you.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 13, 2009)

A few strategically mounted .50s, M-16s for the crew, with the proper training, and the waters off Somalia could be turned into a "skinny" shooting gallery.

Somali pirates for target practice........

Sounds good to me!

TO


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2009)

ccheese said:


> Not according to this morning's Virginian Pilot. The entire operation, including
> the use of snipers was done with President Obama's approval. The paper sez,
> 
> _*The operation, personally approved by President Barak Obama, quashed
> ...



Apparently Obama's "personal approval" was that force could be used only if the Captain's life was in imminent danger. Not much courage required in that "personal approval". But at least he did have that much courage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2009)

ccheese said:


> You may be the first, but I'll second it. I think it was a great decision,
> and the right one.
> 
> The union that mans the commercial ships is thinking about arming the crew, but only with shotguns. Dumb choice.... shotguns against AK-47's...
> ...



Actually I'd take the shotgun for close quarters combat.


----------



## Glider (Apr 13, 2009)

ToughOmbre said:


> A few strategically mounted .50s, M-16s for the crew, with the proper training, and the waters off Somalia could be turned into a "skinny" shooting gallery.
> 
> Somali pirates for target practice........
> 
> ...



I no longer work with John but if I recall they had four SLR's and had been trained by the Army in how to use them. The tactic was a you might guess turn away from the incoming boats and the four trained crew would lie down and fire.
They were quite confident that they from such a position would be able to hit the targets first. You cannot compare the deck of a tanker to a bouncing fast craft as a gun platform. 
Also they were quite accurate. You can get bored on tanker runs and every so often they would lob something into the water and use it as practice.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2009)

Hoo Yah!!!


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2009)

The East India Company back in the 18th and 19th century knew how to handle pirates. They had their own private army and navy. I imagine there are plenty ex US and British servicemen who would like to pick up a little extra change as chaperons for those vessels. Maybe some on this forum?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2009)

Great fricken job by the SEALS! This just shows one reason why they are best!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

Anyone hear that the 4th pirate was a 16yo that had surrendered prior to the sniping? 

Only flaw in the operation that I can see is that it did not result in 4 dead pirates. But perhaps the above question makes the operation flawless. :toothy:

And now the mamby pambies are coming out of the woodwork complaining that our rescue operation jeopardizes the other 200 hostages scattered throughout Somaliland. Quotes are that the pirates treat their hostages "well" and feed the "sumptious" foodstuffs. My God you would think that the pirates are running a day spa!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 13, 2009)

Didn't hear people complaining about the rescue Matt. You'd think they'd be happy that the hostage was rescued.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

Oh... and BombTaxi... you were quick to point out that Bill's declaration of war was improper. Perhaps. But they are considered "enemies of humanity".

It is unfortunate that we quibble over the proper use of legal terms and fail to recognize how these "enemies of humanity" should be properly dispatched. In fact, it is my understanding that your navy is under standing orders NOT to capture these pirates, for fear that if they are subject to death or mutilation by their national laws they might claim asylum under British human rights legislation. Nice. So a war? Nah. Since it makes you feel better, we'll just call it political negotiations with high powered weapons.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Didn't hear people complaining about the rescue Matt. You'd think they'd be happy that the hostage was rescued.



Associated Press April 13 - 

"It "could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it," said Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.

"We are delighted that the captain has been rescued unharmed," Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's Regional Piracy Center in Kuala Lumpur, said Monday.

"But at the same time we are concerned about the safety of the remaining hostages as well as any future hostages," he said.

He did not elaborate, but for families of the 228 foreign nationals aboard 13 ships still held by pirates, the fear is revenge on their loved ones.

Vilma de Guzman, the wife of Filipino seafarer Ruel de Guzman, who has been held by pirates since Nov. 10 along with the 22 other crew of the chemical tanker MT Stolt Strength, said she fears Phillips' rescue may endanger the lives of other hostages.

"It might be dangerous (for) the remaining hostages because the pirates might vent their anger on them," she said. "Those released are lucky, but what about those who remain captive?"

So far, Somali pirates have never harmed captive foreign crews except for a Taiwanese crew member who was killed under unclear circumstances. In fact, many former hostages say they were treated well and given sumptuous food."
_______________________________________________________________


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Anyone hear that the 4th pirate was a 16yo that had surrendered prior to the sniping?



It appears that he had an ice pick driven through his hand during the initial raid and had negotiated his removal from the liferaft for treatment. Just heard on the news that he will be tried in the US. Wonder how much that will cost me?  I will gladly donate one .22LR bullet. Rifle shot would be gratis.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 13, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Man... .22LR... are you mafia?
> 
> at least spring for a .45!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't want to waste the additional 7gr of powder and 200gr of lead.


----------



## renrich (Apr 13, 2009)

How about a 22 short so it just kind of richocets around inside of the cranium.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 13, 2009)

renrich said:


> How about a 22 short so it just kind of richocets around inside of the cranium.



Thats what i meant by the "mafia' reference but ur right it would be 22 short


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 13, 2009)

Navy 'Pirate Hunters' docu-series greenlit by Spike TV

A new Spike TV pilot will document the U.S. Navy's efforts to combat pirates -- like those making news in the five-day standoff that culminated in Sunday's rescue of American sea captain Richard Phillips -- Variety reports. Pirate Hunters: USN, from 44 Blue Prods. (The True Story of Black Hawk Down), will focus on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden, where Phillips was taken captive by a band of Somalians. The producers will have cameras aboard warships the USS Boxer, which was on the scene for this week's standoff, and the USS San Antonio.

Navy 'Pirate Hunters' docu-series greenlit by Spike TV | TV, movie and music news | Television | EW.com

.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 13, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Associated Press April 13 -
> 
> "It "could escalate violence in this part of the world, no question about it," said Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command.
> 
> ...



I see. Unfortunately, to my knowledge his life was in danger, with an AK in his back. We did the right thing. and hopefully this will serve as an deterent for other pirates.


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2009)

does it matter if it escalates because of rescuing a sea-Kapaitän ? A country no-matter how powerful goes to keep and protect it's own and it's termed unfair ?

sorry but this kid needs his hands cut-off. what has the world done to pirates through all the ages, ~ guys no-quarter given, any similar looking small vessel out of any somalian port needs to be sunk


----------



## Amsel (Apr 13, 2009)

> MOGADISHU (Reuters) – Somalia's militant Islamist rebel group al Shabaab said Monday it fired mortars at a plane carrying a U.S. lawmaker, a day after U.S. snipers killed three Somali pirates and freed the American ship captain they had been holding hostage.
> 
> An al Shabaab spokesman said his group fired at the plane carrying Representative Donald Payne as he left the anarchic Horn of Africa country following a rare one-day visit by a U.S. official. Payne's plane took off safely and no-one was hurt.
> 
> ...



Somali militants fire at U.S. lawmaker


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 13, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Oh... and BombTaxi... you were quick to point out that Bill's declaration of war was improper. Perhaps. But they are considered "enemies of humanity".
> 
> It is unfortunate that we quibble over the proper use of legal terms and fail to recognize how these "enemies of humanity" should be properly dispatched. In fact, it is my understanding that your navy is under standing orders NOT to capture these pirates, for fear that if they are subject to death or mutilation by their national laws they might claim asylum under British human rights legislation. Nice. So a war? Nah. Since it makes you feel better, we'll just call it political negotiations with high powered weapons.



Why do I quibble over legal terminology? How do you explain the fact that enemy troops captured in the *War* On Terror are nor treated as prisoners of *war*? Oh, that's right, you call them 'enemies of humanity' and international law no longer applies. I never fail to be astounded by the conservative demand that we all live by rule of law - unless that rule interferes with the execution of foreign policy. It must be a Nixon thing...

Calling a group of people 'enemies of humanity' does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to them - even if it removes your own moral scruples. Oddly enough, if you kill plenty of Somali pirates, they will probably kill plenty of hostages too - and then the status of the conflict becomes a moot point, because the good guys have lost anyway. While 'skinny shooting galleries' will no doubt boost FOX ratings immensely, they will become infinitely less entertaining when the skinnies respond by killing the hostages and taking a pop at the navy too. These guys are utter scum - but you're proposed solution will just see hostages killed. And as many of these hostages are not American, you might find that their deaths send American credit in the world go down the pan as well. 

As for British immigration legislation? It's crap. It doesn't work properly. Steps are been taken to fix it without actually stopping the entry of economic migrants which this country thrives on. The naval standing orders I cannot comment on - it's not information I have any access to.

Call it what you like Matt, it ain't a war, and simply shooting Somalis in boats will not make the problem go away. While East Africa as a whole continues to be one of the most unstable hellholes on the planet, this kind of thing will continue to go on, no matter what nationality commits the actual crimes. Piracy is just one symptom of a massive regional illness which will not be cured by just lancing a few boils...


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 13, 2009)

I'm guessing al Shabaab is a militia. I wonder how long they'll keep attacking before we retaliate.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 13, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Why do I quibble over legal terminology? How do you explain the fact that enemy troops captured in the *War* On Terror are nor treated as prisoners of *war*? Oh, that's right, you call them 'enemies of humanity' and international law no longer applies. I never fail to be astounded by the conservative demand that we all live by rule of law - unless that rule interferes with the execution of foreign policy. It must be a Nixon thing...
> ..


They are treated as prisoners of war! The problem is that the war is not over yet and no country wants them. If I was captured by any country in the world as a POW I would hope it would be by the U.S. The problem is not with the conservatives but with the neo-conservatives and the idiotic liberals who have done more damage to the western world then any enemy could ever hope to achieve in a thousand years. Strength trumps weakness in the real world.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 13, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Why do I quibble over legal terminology? How do you explain the fact that enemy troops captured in the *War* On Terror are nor treated as prisoners of *war*? Oh, that's right, you call them 'enemies of humanity' and international law no longer applies. I never fail to be astounded by the conservative demand that we all live by rule of law - unless that rule interferes with the execution of foreign policy. It must be a Nixon thing...



The vast majority of the fighters encountered in the prosecution of the GWOT could hardly qualify for Prisoner of War status as lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and Law of Armed Conflict.

I'm not throwing around any fancy names for them such as "enemy of humanity"... I'm just pointing out they don't meet the established criteria of a lawful combatant. Why should they be granted Prisoner of War status?


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 13, 2009)

Who here actually believes that the pirates "leveled the AK-47" at the back of the captain?

I'd prefer to think that they had a shot and took it... why prolong the event?

I'm sure it's on video tape.

.


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2009)

does it really matter C ? the 3 paid with their lives, and there will be more following suit


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2009)

Erich said:


> does it really matter C ? the 3 paid with their lives, and there will be more following suit



I think it matters in the context that it's a statement of our conviction. There's a big difference between:

"We have ZERO tolerance for pirates, and we will turn your heads into a crimson mist at the earliest opportunity"

and

"We followed rules of the rules or engagement and acted only when the captains life was in eminent danger."

Certainly its prudent to try to negotiate but if we said we took them out cause we had the chance... were taking a stand.

.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 14, 2009)

Back in the old days we used to endorse pirates quite a bit. Some of the best pirates were sometimes privateers who were hired to harrass British shipping. And vice versa I'm sure. These Somalians are doing it all wrong.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2009)

To some, it may matter, to others, they only see that the three idiots were executed without a trial. For me, the more we send to Davy Jones' locker, the better.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 14, 2009)

Pirates vow to kill U.S., French sailors - CNN.com


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2009)

It's almost funny how they get all twisted when someone power-checks 'em...

And have they already forgotten that the Indian Navy has put some of the biggest hurt on them?


----------



## Wayne Little (Apr 14, 2009)

Well...I don't have any sympathy for them.....


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 14, 2009)

and so it goes on

Pirates seize Greek ship - CNN.com


----------



## renrich (Apr 14, 2009)

There is only one answer to this type of behavior. Make the result of the behavior too costly for them to continue the behavior. Put armed guards on the ships and when possible, hunt the pirates down and kill them. The problem is age old and the solution is age old. Supposedly the pirate leader said something about "killing the infidel." The media is not making a big deal about that but what would be the reaction if one of the Seals said something about "killing the raghead SOBs"? Wonder what rifles were used? Would a type of M16 have offered a sure enough kill? My guess is that it was a 308.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> There is only one answer to this type of behavior. Make the result of the behavior too costly for them to continue the behavior. Put armed guards on the ships and when possible, hunt the pirates down and kill them. The problem is age old and the solution is age old. Supposedly the pirate leader said something about "killing the infidel." The media is not making a big deal about that but what would be the reaction if one of the Seals said something about "killing the raghead SOBs"? Wonder what rifles were used? Would a type of M16 have offered a sure enough kill? My guess is that it was a 308.



I'm sure the media would be quick to critcize the SEAL. And your right, putting armed guards on the ships heading through the area would be the best detterent.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Calling a group of people 'enemies of humanity' does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to them - even if it removes your own moral scruples. And as many of these hostages are not American, you might find that their deaths send American credit in the world go down the pan as well.
> 
> ...



Before you get your knickers in a knot, I did not label them with this term. It is internationally recognized.

"Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of _*jus cogens*_, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be *hostis humani generis *(enemies of humanity)."


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> Wonder what rifles were used? Would a type of M16 have offered a sure enough kill? My guess is that it was a 308.



Doubt it. Probably .338 Lapua or .50cal.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 14, 2009)

I think they got what they deserved. They gave no consideration to this man, or his family while they held a gun to his head. Who knows how the situation would have ended had they made it to Somalia. If the ransom would not have been paid, do you think they would not have killed the captain? This is a problem that has gone on long before this situation, it is the lack of dealing with these pirates directly that has emboldened them to commit more and more hijackings IMO.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 14, 2009)

Fill in the blanks.....

The only good _______ is a dead _______ !

a) terrorist
b) pirate
c) all of the above.
d) none of the above (this choice only if you're a far left nut job)

That's right, (c) is the correct answer.

TO


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Doubt it. Probably .338 Lapua or .50cal.



it was only 75 feet away... i cant imagine a .50 cal from that short distance..
but i think they had to shoot through windows so maybe they needed the extra mass and energy..


3 'phenomenal shots' ended pirate hostage crisis - CNN.com
.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 14, 2009)

At the distance and the location that the SEALs were positioned, they did not use .50 cals....

Matt is correct in that they were using .338...


----------



## bigZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Coming to TV soon:-

Pirate Hunters Come to Spike


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

75yds... didn't expect that short distance. But who said pirates were smart. Anyone who has worked on a ship knows that 75ds broadside to a large capital vessel is like standing outside of a highrise building.

 Dumbasses. Chewing too much Khat makes skinny stupid.


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> 75yds... didn't expect that short distance. But who said pirates were smart. Anyone who has worked on a ship knows that 75ds broadside to a large capital vessel is like standing outside of a highrise building.
> 
> Dumbasses. Chewing too much Khat makes skinny stupid.



75 *feet!*

unless its a misprint..

Thats pellet gun range.. the lifeboat was under tow..


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

Aaahhh... the ole "you must be getting sick with the sea state, perhaps we can tow you to hell..." trick ehh? 

I effing love it!!!!


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 14, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Aaahhh... the ole "you must be getting sick with the sea state, perhaps we can tow you to hell..." trick ehh?
> 
> I effing love it!!!!




Dude... great title... "Towed to Hell"


----------



## Bill G. (Apr 14, 2009)

Any good marksman can hit a fairly small target under 100m with an M-16. A trained sniper can do even better.

The .223 round of an M-16 will do instant fatal damage when it penetrates a skull. The very high speed of the round will make mush of a brain. Another plus for the high speed is the fact you have that fraction of a second less movement of the target to worry about. The round will be there in less than one tenth of a second.

So I wouldn't rule out the SEALs using the M-16 with scopes to shoot the pirates.

I have qualified Expert with the M-16 in both the Army Guard and US Air Force. With I stationary target, I am certain I could hit it at that range. Now with the motion of ship and lifeboat, I could most of the time, I think, hit a person sized target, but I have not trained doing that. So I am glad I wasn't shooting. 

Bill G.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

Definitely wasn't 5.56x45. Definitely.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 14, 2009)

Think they were using 7.62 or .300?


----------



## Torch (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm thinking a possible solution would be the convoy method. Have merchant ships group at a designated area and proceed with an escort thru the targeted area. Atleast you would have control of the enviroment and a pretty good chance of being consistant with controlling the pirates.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 15, 2009)

Torch said:


> I'm thinking a possible solution would be the convoy method. Have merchant ships group at a designated area and proceed with an escort thru the targeted area. Atleast you would have control of the enviroment and a pretty good chance of being consistant with controlling the pirates.



Think they are doing that now. Many ships avoid convoying because they have to wait for one to form and that may take days. Each day cost tens of thousands of dollars. So, the Captians just jack up the speed and try to run through. That also costs money but the cost is not as great as sitting. 

All a dollars and sense issue.


----------



## renrich (Apr 15, 2009)

Article in latest "American Rifleman" about a new Barrett rifle in 338 Lapua. A potent weapon. That rifle could have been what was used but probably not. I would be surprised if an M16 was used, especially if there was a windshield. Interesting how history connects. The Navy DD, Bainbridge, is named for a USN Captain, who, if memory serves was once CO of USS Constitution and may have fought against pirates from Tripoli. "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute."


----------



## Torch (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm pretty sure if the shipping owners got together it might work, I know it costs thousands to hold but at the rate they are being shipjacked they are into the millions for ransom and the extended stay in the pirates hands.


----------



## Torch (Apr 15, 2009)

Read that article in the Rifleman also,nice. What the Navy used will be total speculation until somebody leaks it or a report gets released, could of been anything in their inventory, from 5.56 to .50...... I would think that not knowing exactly what yardage they would be shooting from I would bet either .308 or .300win mag.


----------



## Amsel (Apr 15, 2009)

> MOMBASA, Kenya – Somali pirates fired grenades and automatic weapons at an American freighter loaded with food aid but the ship managed to escape the attack and was heading Wednesday to Kenya under U.S. Navy escort, officials said.
> 
> Despite President Barack Obama's vow to halt their banditry, and the deaths of five pirates in recent French and U.S. hostage rescue missions, brigands seized four vessels and over 75 hostages off the Horn of Africa since Sunday's dramatic rescue of an American freighter captain.


US food aid ship escapes Somali pirate attack

I guess a ship and crew can fetch a million dollars. No wonder they are concerned about the Navy intervening with this lucrative extortion. Arming ships with 20mm and 40mm guns would help alot. Even a M2 would be great.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 15, 2009)

I think we need to step up going after these thugs.


----------



## Bernhart (Apr 15, 2009)

"Canadian warship based at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt thwarted a pirate attack in the Arabian Sea Saturday and on Sunday came to the rescue of Somali refugees.


HMCS Winnipeg, part of a NATO-led counter-piracy mission known as Operation Allied Protector, saw three small pirate skiffs closing in on an Indian merchant vessel, the Pacific Opal, in the Gulf of Aden.


The warship was escorting another vessel nearby when the Pacific Opal radioed for help.


The Canadian ship's commanding officer, Cmdr. Craig Baines, immediately ordered the ship's Sea King helicopter to investigate. The helicopter flew between the threatened vessel and the pirates to scare them away.


The helicopter crew hung a two-foot-by-three-foot red stop sign from the side of the aircraft that says "Stop" in Somali.


"We hung it right beside (the chopper's) C-6 machine gun and they (got) the idea that we don't like what they're doing," said Baines, in an interview with the Times Colonist from the ship Sunday.


It was enough to make the skiffs pull back, but the helicopter stayed with the vessel until the pirates were no longer a threat.


Pirates are common along the coast of Somalia, threatening commercial vessels travelling through the Horn of Africa, said Baines.


He said the pirates try to overtake a ship and hold it ransom until the owner gives them money.


"There's huge amounts of money at play so they are willing to take large risks to be successful," said Baines.


But pirates are deterred by any military presence because they know the navy can overpower them, said Baines.


"They want nothing to do with us, so as soon as we come on scene, they'll break away and do something else," he said.


The pirates often disguise themselves as fishermen, he said.


They are often toting AK-47s or grenade launchers, but Baines said there was no indication these men had weapons.


Baines said he was surprised to see so much action since the crew just arrived in the Gulf April 2.


"This highlights the importance of our mission and the efforts to make a difference with our coalition partners in the fight against piracy and international terrorism," said Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, in a news release.


A day after warding off the pirates, HMCS Winnipeg brought supplies to a vessel full of hungry and thirsty Somali refugees who had been at sea for two days.


The helicopter crew spotted an overcrowded vessel of 51 people including women, children and a baby, trying to get from Somalia to Yemen.


HMCS Winnipeg, with a crew of about 240 officers and non-commissioned members, has been at sea since Feb. 5 and is expected to return to Esquimalt Aug. 21.


The majority of the crew's families are in the Victoria-area, said Baines, who is originally from Comox, B.C."
kinda like this reponse


----------



## RabidAlien (Apr 15, 2009)

Rock on, Canada!


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2009)

the idiot-sticks in the small inflatables are really trying to get world fear now by threatening US coastal shipping............. big talk, interesting scenarios will happen very soon for them


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 15, 2009)

Agree Erich, fairly soon, because of their threats and the fact they have stepped up their attempted hijackings, these morons will have to deal with the combined might of a several nation Navy coming down on them, if not just the US Navy.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 17, 2009)

Got this via e-mail today


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 18, 2009)

That's damn funny and all too true! Good one Evan!


----------



## ToughOmbre (Apr 18, 2009)

Excellent Eric!

Also saw this memo come across my PC.

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2009)

A few more


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 18, 2009)

One more


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 18, 2009)

Good ones.


----------



## Bill G. (Apr 18, 2009)

Those are very good!

One of these days the pirates are going to learn don't mess with any ships flying the Stars and Stripes.

The only good Pirates play for Pittsburgh. The rest are just future fish food.

Bill G.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 18, 2009)

Good ones guys!


----------



## Freebird (Apr 19, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> Agree Erich, fairly soon, because of their threats and the fact they have stepped up their attempted hijackings, these morons will have to deal with the combined might of a several nation Navy coming down on them, if not just the US Navy.



It's great that the captain has been saved. However, we shouldn't forget that there are still hundreds of sailors held captive.

Somali pirates holding 300 sailors captive: Russian report


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 21, 2009)

That is very true Freebird. By taking more and more sailors hostage, and with the media coverage this is situation is now receiving, these pirates are forcing the hands of the rest of the world. All they are doing is drawing more and more attention to their terrible acts, and bringing a swifter resolution.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 23, 2009)

I can't vouch for the authenticity of this, but I suspect it is mostly true.
______________________________________________________________

_*I got this from a friend who still works with the military as an advisor.



Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. Obama wouldn't authorize SEAL teams to go to the scene for 36 hours, going against on scene commander's recommendation.

2. Once the SEALs arrived, Obama imposed restrictions on their Rules of Engagement that they couldn't do anythingunless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger

3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to Rules of Engagement restrictions.

4. When the navy Rigid Inflatable Boat came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to Rules of Engagement restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the Rigid Inflatable Boat, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. Obama specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge Captain and SEAL teams.

6. The Bainbridge Captain and the SEAL team Commander finally decide they had the operations area and on scene commander's authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.

7. Obama immediately claimed credit for this "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with Obama, it's Bull ****.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on scene commander decided he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday’s dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and [1] declared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin yesterday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.*_


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 23, 2009)

Interesting, once again proving how politics can muck up a military operation.


----------



## javlin (Apr 23, 2009)

And I would believe that account morso than what the media put out Matt,Fox and all the rest.Four days?too do what was seconds?


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Apr 23, 2009)

Once again, I can only find the political mismanagement in this situation as another criticism of the Obama administration. I just hope that Obama can wise up and let the commanders on the field make their own decisions in the future.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 23, 2009)

Matt Whoever opened their mouth should be charged under military justice that is a breech of security further


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 23, 2009)

you have to watch this short clip!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJTjmUyP1T0_

,


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm watching the episode right now.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 25, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> you have to watch this short clip!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJTjmUyP1T0_
> ...




It's been removed, Comiso, for video violation rights I guess.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 25, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Matt Whoever opened their mouth should be charged under military justice that is a breech of security further



IF they are in the military. Politics as usual. But the result is telling is it not?


----------



## tpikdave (Apr 29, 2009)

In fact, many former hostages say they were treated well and given sumptuous food." ?????????????????????????????

Goat's butt and eyeballs perhaps? ....She really needs to check into that more closely. Sumptuous? God help us.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Apr 29, 2009)

Maybe the pirates cook up some mean "grog"?

It was in the news today that a Russian warship captured a Somali pirate ship with 22 pirates and arms. Didn't say much else though....


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 29, 2009)

.


----------



## javlin (May 4, 2009)

This is too funny.....

From a distance the large ship on the horizon looked like the perfect target, ripe for a successful spot of piracy.

But as Somali pirates sped toward the vessel sailing near the Seychelles Islands on Sunday, they were horrified to see two boats and a helicopter set off from their target and launch their own counter-attack.

FOXNews.com - Oops! Pirates Captured After Threatening Wrong Ship - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


----------



## RabidAlien (May 4, 2009)

I can only solemnly say.....



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 4, 2009)

Sucks to be them.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (May 5, 2009)

It's amazing how in this day and age of technological advancement, some of the oldest tricks in the book such as turning into the sun to blind your opponent, can still be applied.

vid of the capture:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvYY7OZdLAM_


----------



## Gnomey (May 5, 2009)

Great to see, funny how something so simple can fool them. Should try it more often.

Full article: Doh! Pirates captured after attacking the wrong ship - Times Online


----------



## RabidAlien (May 5, 2009)

From The Onion:


Somalia Cruise Ship Advertisement - BYO Ordinance

Here's a bit of humor I found floating on the onion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about a Somalia cruise package that departs from Sawakin (in the Sudan) and docks at Bagamoya (in Tanzania). The cost is a bit high but it seems well worth it. What I found encouraging and enlightened is that the cruise is encouraging people to bring their own high powered weapons along on the cruise. If you don't have weapons you can rent them right there on the boat. They claim to have a master gunsmith on board and will have reloading parties every afternoon. The cruise lasts from 4-8 days. All the boat does is sail up and down the coast of Somalia waiting to get hijacked by pirates. Here are some of the costs and claims associated with the package:

$800.00 US/per day per person, double occupancy (4 day minimum).

- M-16 full automatic: rental $25.00/day ammo at 100 rounds of 5.56 mm armor-piercing ammo at $15.95

- Ak-47 rifle: no charge. Ammo at 100 rounds of 7.62 mm com block ball ammo at $14.95

- Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper rifle: rental $55.00/day. Ammo at 25 rounds 50 cal armor piercing at $29.95.

- Crew members can double as spotters for $30.00 per hour (spotting scope included). [see testimonial suggestion below]

- They offer RPG's at $75 bucks and $200 for 3 standard loads.

- Mounted mini-gun available @ $450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire.

- Free complimentary night vision equipment.

Meals are not included but seem reasonable. Coffee and snacks on the Lido (top) deck from 7pm-6am.

They offer group rates and corporate discounts, and even offer a partial money back if not satisfied.

Text from the ad:

"We guarantee that you will experience at least two hijacking attempts by pirates or we will refund half your money including gun rental charges and any unused ammo (mini gun charges not included). How can we guarantee you will experience a hijacking? We operate at 5 knots within 12 miles of the coast of Somalia. If an attempted hijacking does not occur we will turn the boat around and cruise by at 4 knots.

"We will repeat this for up to 8 days making three passes a day along the entire length of Somalia. At night the boat is fully lit and bottle rockets are shot off at intervals and loud disco music beamed shore side to attract attention. Cabin space is limited so respond quickly. Reserve your package before April 29 and get 100 rounds of free tracer ammo in the caliber of your choice."

Here are a few testimonials:

FUN FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY!!" ---- Stan, Denver, CO USA

"I got three confirmed pirates on my last trip. I'LL never hunt big game in Africa again." ----Lars, Hamburg, Germany

"Six attacks in 4 days was more than I expected. I bagged three pirates and my 12 yr old son sank two rowboats with the minigun. PIRATES 0, PASSENGERS 32! Well worth the trip. Just make sure your spotter speaks English. There was some confusion who we were shooting at one point." --- Ned, Salt Lake City, Utah USA

"I haven't had this much fun since flying choppers in NAM. Don't worry about getting shot by pirates as they never even got close to the ship with those weapons they use and their crappy aim--reminds me of a drunken 'juicer' door gunner we picked up from the motor pool back in Nam." ----"Chopper" Dan, Toledo, Ohio USA.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 5, 2009)

Good pick, RA. 

In that regard, here is an idea of what the rescue operation would have ended like had Bush been the president still instead of Obama the Messiah.  
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pirateheadline01.jpg


----------



## Matt308 (May 5, 2009)

Good one, Focher.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 5, 2009)

Nice bro, where you'd find that?


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 5, 2009)

eh, just looked up somailan pirate parodies on google, found it a couple of rows down. though I thought it was a real article at first, hehe.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 5, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> eh, just looked up somailan pirate parodies on google, found it a couple of rows down. though I thought it was a real article at first, hehe.



With the media swinging to the left, it might as well be.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 5, 2009)

Excellent!


----------



## Gnomey (May 5, 2009)

Good ones 

Here is Foch's picture embedded...


----------



## Njaco (May 5, 2009)

Priceless!! Ahhh, the good, ole days!


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 5, 2009)

Hey, thanks for embedding it Gnomey. Would have done it myself, except I don't know how to.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 5, 2009)

*We're coming after the Somali pirates, and Hell's coming with us!*

*U.S. Navy Unveils New High-Tech Ship Called USS Freedom That Can Fight Pirates*

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 

The United States Navy unveiled a new high-tech ship it says can chase down pirates off the coast of Somalia faster and more aggressively than previous vessels could.

The USS Freedom can go up against massive enemy fleets and is one of the fastest ships in the Navy to date, its commander said in a FOX News "America's Newsroom" exclusive.

"It's more than an evolutionary step forward, it's a revolutionary step forward," Cmdr. Michael Doran told FOX News on Tuesday. "It's highly automated and it's very fast. ... For a piracy mission, we can go out there and cover more water with fewer ships."

The USS Freedom has a modular design and requires fewer crew members, he said — about 40 total. It can go up to 45 mph.

"What we can do is we can go out there and cover more water with fewer ships because of the sprint speed of the ship," Doran told FOX News. "We can tailor the ship to perform that counter-piracy mission."

Some are calling it the Navy's corvette.

"It is kind of like driving a sports car around," Doran said. "All of my friends have told me, 'drive it like you stole it, drive it like you stole it."

TO


----------



## Messy1 (May 5, 2009)

This may be a pic of the USS Freedom. Found it online. Cool info TO.


----------



## comiso90 (May 5, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> This may be a pic of the USS Freedom. Found it online. Cool info TO.



It looks like a shoe!
I'm sure she has teeth but give me a Fletcher Class any day..

.


----------



## Messy1 (May 5, 2009)

It looks like a fast, strong ship for its size.


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 5, 2009)

You got the pic right Messy.

comiso, I hear what you're saying. The old warships were much better looking!

But the "Freedom" will be kickin' some "skinny" ass, hopefully real soon.

TO


----------



## Messy1 (May 5, 2009)

I agree, they do not look near as mean as the Fletchers did.


----------



## Torch (May 5, 2009)

That thing looks like a cross between a PT boat on steroids and an Italian luxury speed yacht. cool..


----------



## GrauGeist (May 5, 2009)

I'm not sure if I like the Freedom or not...

I think I'm too much of a traditionalist!

If it were up to me, this is what I'd use to deal with those rat-bastards:


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 5, 2009)

True Grau, but how about this monster.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 5, 2009)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> True Grau, but how about this monster.


The Yamato was definately a beast, but my money would be on the 'Jersey!


----------



## Njaco (May 5, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The Yamato was definately a beast, but my money would be on the 'Jersey!




No argument here! 

Why are they all suddenly starting to look like ironclads? Even the new "New York" that has some Twin Towers metal in it, looks similar.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 5, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The Yamato was definately a beast, but my money would be on the 'Jersey!



No arguments there, I just wonder how many pirates will crap there pants seeing that thing.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 5, 2009)

true guys, though I always prefer safety in numbers.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 5, 2009)

I'm sure the sight of her bearing down on them at 33 knots would be enough to make them soil themselves, but it would be those 16" shells screaming in from 20 some-odd miles away that would be the icing on the cake...


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 5, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm sure the sight of her bearing down on them at 33 knots would be enough to make them soil themselves, but it would be those 16" shells screaming in from 20 some-odd miles away that would be the icing on the cake...



True GG, but we'd have a helluva time trying to identify the bodies.


----------



## javlin (May 5, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> True GG, but we'd have a helluva time trying to identify the bodies.




What Bodies??fish foood,fish fooood my friend


----------



## RabidAlien (May 6, 2009)

javlin said:


> What Bodies??fish foood,fish fooood my friend



And its even environmentally friendly! So NOBODY can complain!!!! Except fellow pirates...which would serve very well to mark them as future meals...!


----------



## Messy1 (May 6, 2009)

you nailed it Njaco. the new ships are starting to look like Sounthern ironclads. Maybe the south was going for the stealth approach?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 6, 2009)

Perhaps it's the South's way of getting back at the North. "The South shall rise again!"


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2009)

interesting cross stealth fighter bomber design.....wonder if the Fletcher class can fly ? ....... probably. wonder how many small missiles she holds within ?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 6, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> you nailed it Njaco. the new ships are starting to look like Sounthern ironclads. Maybe the south was going for the stealth approach?


Well...they did have *stealth* actually...

The CSS Hunley, a submarine, is pretty dang stealthy...


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 6, 2009)

Hey, true Grau. Unfortunately, the southern form of "stealth" had the tendency to do the following.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 7, 2009)

Once the bubbles quit coming out, it became VERY quiet and darn near impossible to detect.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 7, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Hey, true Grau. Unfortunately, the southern form of "stealth" had the tendency to do the following.



Cut them some slack bro, the Hunley only sank two, wait three times. Hmm, it's bad when one of the designers, which the sub is named after, gets his crew killed by forgetting to close the seacocks.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 7, 2009)

RabidAlien said:


> Once the bubbles quit coming out, it became VERY quiet and darn near impossible to detect.



Oh yeah RA, completely motionless once all the air's out.  

Vassili: That's true, but its also pretty bad when one of the commanders accidentally steps on the handle for the diving planes while the sub is in motion with the hatches open, and five of his crew ends up dead.


----------



## Messy1 (May 7, 2009)

And it has been raised again, and is currently in a museum I believe.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 7, 2009)

Yeah, that's true Messy, it's down in Charleston. Actually got to see it a couple of years back with our Grandpa. It was pretty cool seeing it up close, but it did leave you with a bit of a haunting feeling as your looking at it.


----------



## Messy1 (May 7, 2009)

I cam imagine. Would like to see it. Was down that way years ago as a Boy Scout. We stayed a few nights aboard the Yorktown, but that was long before the Hunley was found. Any pics?


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (May 7, 2009)

Nah, sorry Messy. Don't think we took any pictures when we were down there (we must have been 11 or 12). If we did have a camera, I have no idea where'd it be. 
You got to spend a few nights on the Yorktown, cool! What was it like?


----------



## RabidAlien (May 7, 2009)

...stupid double-posts


----------



## RabidAlien (May 7, 2009)

Ferdinand Foch said:


> Yeah, that's true Messy, it's down in Charleston. Actually got to see it a couple of years back with our Grandpa. It was pretty cool seeing it up close, but it did leave you with a bit of a* haunting feeling as your looking at it.*



Funny how that happens alot around Civil War stuff...


----------



## Messy1 (May 7, 2009)

I bet going to some of the battlefields would give you a haunting, eerie feeling.


----------



## Messy1 (May 7, 2009)

Sorry, I'll try not hijack this Hijacking thread anymore.


----------



## RabidAlien (May 8, 2009)

Oooooooooooo, bad pun, BAD PUN!!!


----------



## Messy1 (May 8, 2009)

Sorry. Couldn't resist.


----------

