Somali Hijackers

[Njaco]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[Glider]

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

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]

Hoo Yah!!!

 

[renrich]

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]

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