Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

Yep. First time they take on an American-crewed vessel, and they get
their butts handed to them.

Coincidence? I think not.

Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.

On Apr 8, 2:30*pm, RB wrote:
Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. *After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.


According to the Drudge Report the pirates are still holding the
captain and that negotiations are on-going.

I suppose that if the captain is unpopular with the crew these
negotiations will, unfortunately, fail...

Wolfgang

On Apr 8, 2:23*pm, Jeff Wisnia wrote:
Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

"Defense Department officials confirmed that one pirate is in
custody."
"A U.S. official said the status of the other pirates is unknown but
they were reported to "be in the water.""

Ha!

"As for the boldness of the pirates taking a ship operating under a
U.S. flag, Harris said pirates don't care which ship they grab.

"We have not seen it matters at all."

That may change...

Dave

"RB" wrote in message
...
Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.


Probably because the bean counters have figured out that it would cost more
in the long run. Consider on one hand they might pay a ransom and get back
the ship and crew, but if it comes to a fight, and the pirates are able to
blow a hole in the ship they lose everything.

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

On Apr 8, 4:45*pm, "Roger Shoaf" wrote:

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. *You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

--
Roger Shoaf

Imagine the rapid escalation into Q ships, and the bar fights in port.

"Roger Shoaf" wrote:

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

I hope that rifle is a Barrett .50 .

Wes

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:45:25 -0700, the infamous "Roger Shoaf"
scrawled the following:


"RB" wrote in message
...
Jeff Wisnia wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.


Probably because the bean counters have figured out that it would cost more
in the long run. Consider on one hand they might pay a ransom and get back
the ship and crew, but if it comes to a fight, and the pirates are able to
blow a hole in the ship they lose everything.

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

So issue half a dozen RPGs to each vessel operating in the Somalia
area. Pirates need vigorous discouragement. Sink a few dozen pirate
ships, killing all aboard, and they might start to get the hint.

--
You can't do anything about the length of your life,
but you _can_ do something about its width and depth.
-- Evan Esar

Roger Shoaf wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html
What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.


Probably because the bean counters have figured out that it would cost more
in the long run. Consider on one hand they might pay a ransom and get back
the ship and crew, but if it comes to a fight, and the pirates are able to
blow a hole in the ship they lose everything.

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

I wonder how much damage an RPG can do to a typical cargo vessel?

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:45:25 -0700, the infamous "Roger Shoaf"
scrawled the following:

(...)

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

So issue half a dozen RPGs to each vessel operating in the Somalia
area. Pirates need vigorous discouragement. Sink a few dozen pirate
ships, killing all aboard, and they might start to get the hint.

I've heard the argument that the shipping companies are not interested
in starting an arms race. Quoting the article:
'Maersk CEO John Reinhart told reporters. "As merchant vessels we do not
carry arms. We have ways to push back, but we do not carry arms."'

He's pretty adamant about not carrying arms, yes?
Better to lose a few million dollars and a few lives rather than a few
75 million dollar ships and their more expensive cargo.
Petty cash is everywhere and people reproduce, after all.
(Yes, tongue in cheek.)

Most everybody wins in the current situation. The Somali economy gets a boost:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...wrQuWTyotxncHA

Jaded travelers get something spicy to contemplate:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...hip/index.html

Insurance companies losses are probably well offset by the presence of their
best salespirates.
I mean, who wouldn't take advantage of that boogyman?


--Winston


--

Cops don't want robbers. Cops *need* robbers.

Winston wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:45:25 -0700, the infamous "Roger Shoaf"
scrawled the following:

(...)

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a
rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

So issue half a dozen RPGs to each vessel operating in the Somalia
area. Pirates need vigorous discouragement. Sink a few dozen pirate
ships, killing all aboard, and they might start to get the hint.

I've heard the argument that the shipping companies are not interested
in starting an arms race. Quoting the article:
'Maersk CEO John Reinhart told reporters. "As merchant vessels we do not
carry arms. We have ways to push back, but we do not carry arms."'

He's pretty adamant about not carrying arms, yes?
Better to lose a few million dollars and a few lives rather than a few
75 million dollar ships and their more expensive cargo.
Petty cash is everywhere and people reproduce, after all.
(Yes, tongue in cheek.)

Most everybody wins in the current situation. The Somali economy gets a
boost:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...wrQuWTyotxncHA

Jaded travelers get something spicy to contemplate:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...hip/index.html

I bet cruise lines are booking special tours for spinsters.

Winston wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:45:25 -0700, the infamous "Roger Shoaf"
scrawled the following:

(...)

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a
rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

So issue half a dozen RPGs to each vessel operating in the Somalia
area. Pirates need vigorous discouragement. Sink a few dozen pirate
ships, killing all aboard, and they might start to get the hint.

I've heard the argument that the shipping companies are not interested
in starting an arms race. Quoting the article:
'Maersk CEO John Reinhart told reporters. "As merchant vessels we do not
carry arms. We have ways to push back, but we do not carry arms."'

He's pretty adamant about not carrying arms, yes?
Better to lose a few million dollars and a few lives rather than a few
75 million dollar ships and their more expensive cargo.
Petty cash is everywhere and people reproduce, after all.
(Yes, tongue in cheek.)

Most everybody wins in the current situation. The Somali economy gets a
boost:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...wrQuWTyotxncHA

Jaded travelers get something spicy to contemplate:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...hip/index.html

Insurance companies losses are probably well offset by the presence of
their
best salespirates.
I mean, who wouldn't take advantage of that boogyman?


--Winston




Ah, yes, but following several centuries of tradition,

they could carry Marines...


Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea - especially for
US flagged cruse ships.

Think of the stories passengers could tell!

Might even boost passenger sales?

cavelamb wrote:
Winston wrote:

(...)

I mean, who wouldn't take advantage of that boogyman?


--Winston




Ah, yes, but following several centuries of tradition,

they could carry Marines...


Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea - especially for
US flagged cruse ships.

Think of the stories passengers could tell!

Might even boost passenger sales?

Sounds like 'elephant in your living room' protection.

No pachyderm in the foyer? Good, the plan must be working!

Considering that the pirates tend to avoid cruise ships,
one could better use that job description as a way to
boost enlistment in the Marines.
I can see it now: "Join the Marines; go around the world!"

Be a refreshing change to see service-people returning
from assignment, suffering nothing more serious than a
sore back and chronic smirk.

--Winston


--

Don't *faff*, dear.

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:23:18 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:


Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

Jeff
---------------
Since the pirates appear to concentrate on cargo ships and these
generally have cargotainers on deck, why not arrange a little
surprise package for them?

When the pirates attack, the front of one of the cargotainers
drops open and a TOW missile takes out their speedboat, being
manned by a military TOW team that deserves a light-duty
assignment. Easy to load/transfer between ships, and avoids the
problem of arming civilian crews.

As there is no legitimate reason for small craft to approach
cargo vessels in the open sea, it would appear to be well within
the "rules of engagement" for carrier based helos and planes to
immediately destroy any small craft that attempt to do so, as
well as the motherships that are launching the speedboats which
appear to be operating far beyond their shore based range. Where
is the satellite surveillance when it is needed? Any ship that
is stationary or is sailing in circles in the sea lanes is highly
suspect.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
---------------
Since the pirates appear to concentrate on cargo ships and these
generally have cargotainers on deck, why not arrange a little
surprise package for them?

When the pirates attack, the front of one of the cargotainers
drops open and a TOW missile takes out their speedboat, being
manned by a military TOW team that deserves a light-duty
assignment. Easy to load/transfer between ships, and avoids the
problem of arming civilian crews.

As there is no legitimate reason for small craft to approach
cargo vessels in the open sea, it would appear to be well within
the "rules of engagement" for carrier based helos and planes to
immediately destroy any small craft that attempt to do so, as
well as the motherships that are launching the speedboats which
appear to be operating far beyond their shore based range. Where
is the satellite surveillance when it is needed? Any ship that
is stationary or is sailing in circles in the sea lanes is highly
suspect.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]

The back blast is something you have to see to appreciate.
Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, great play!

Larry Jaques wrote:

So issue half a dozen RPGs to each vessel operating in the Somalia
area. Pirates need vigorous discouragement. Sink a few dozen pirate
ships, killing all aboard, and they might start to get the hint.


The Pirates target is a bit bigger.

US Merchant Marine (love that Marine part) ships and crew from what I've heard can be
armed. In times of war are considered military personnel. Crews are trained in the use
of arms.

One of the reasons that ships are not generally armed is the bs they have to go though
when they port.


Wes

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:23:18 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html

Jeff
---------------
Since the pirates appear to concentrate on cargo ships and these
generally have cargotainers on deck, why not arrange a little
surprise package for them?

When the pirates attack, the front of one of the cargotainers
drops open and a TOW missile takes out their speedboat, being
manned by a military TOW team that deserves a light-duty
assignment. Easy to load/transfer between ships, and avoids the
problem of arming civilian crews.

As there is no legitimate reason for small craft to approach
cargo vessels in the open sea, it would appear to be well within
the "rules of engagement" for carrier based helos and planes to
immediately destroy any small craft that attempt to do so, as
well as the motherships that are launching the speedboats which
appear to be operating far beyond their shore based range. Where
is the satellite surveillance when it is needed? Any ship that
is stationary or is sailing in circles in the sea lanes is highly
suspect.

Since so few of the ships bear U.S. flags, I think each U.S.-flagged
ship should get a military escort through the area. 2 or 3 Coast Guard
cutters should handle the U.S. (only) traffic.
That might encourage American ship owners to reconsider their "flags of
convenience"

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:35:38 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Roger Shoaf" wrote:

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

I hope that rifle is a Barrett .50 .

Wes
There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?

Thank You,
Randy

Remove 333 from email address to reply.

Randy wrote:

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:35:38 -0400, Wes wrote:

"Roger Shoaf" wrote:

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle, but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

I hope that rifle is a Barrett .50 .

Wes
There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?


Have you ever fired the M-72?


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

Randy wrote:

There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?

I've never touched a LAW though I remember studying one in my 'guide book for marines'
long ago.

I'd rather be holding onto a Barrett in .50 BMG, trying to dump a few pirates or at least
hit something vital in their boat. Standoff distance counts. I have a feeling that if a
vessel fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.



Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:

Randy wrote:

There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?

I've never touched a LAW though I remember studying one in my 'guide book for marines'
long ago.

I'd rather be holding onto a Barrett in .50 BMG, trying to dump a few pirates or at least
hit something vital in their boat. Standoff distance counts. I have a feeling that if a
vessel fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:29:08 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Randy wrote:

There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?

I've never touched a LAW though I remember studying one in my 'guide book for marines'
long ago.

I'd rather be holding onto a Barrett in .50 BMG, trying to dump a few pirates or at least
hit something vital in their boat. Standoff distance counts. I have a feeling that if a
vessel fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.

If the vessel fired back properly, there wouldn't be any pirates to
pick more prey. The only good pirate is a...

--
I define comfort as self-acceptance. When we finally
learn that self-care begins and ends with ourselves, we
no longer demand sustenance and happiness from others.
-- Jennifer Louden

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:29:08 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Randy wrote:

There's always LAW rockets, do we still use those? Why throw the book
at them when you can fire a LAW at them?
I've never touched a LAW though I remember studying one in my 'guide book for marines'
long ago.

I'd rather be holding onto a Barrett in .50 BMG, trying to dump a few pirates or at least
hit something vital in their boat. Standoff distance counts. I have a feeling that if a
vessel fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.

If the vessel fired back properly, there wouldn't be any pirates to
pick more prey. The only good pirate is a...


MOVIE pirate?

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited


How about a more powerful laser that just cooks them?

"RB" wrote in message
...
Roger Shoaf wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Jeff Wisnia wrote:
Don't confuse what I'm about to write with something the first lady
said, but today I'm prouder than ever to be an american...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html
What I want to know is why don't merchant vessels allow armed crews?
Some sort of international maritime law, or what?
Seems to me an arms locker of some sort on a ship ought to be a Good
Thing. After a couple rounds the pirates might look for a different
line of work. The survivors, that is.


Probably because the bean counters have figured out that it would cost
more
in the long run. Consider on one hand they might pay a ransom and get
back
the ship and crew, but if it comes to a fight, and the pirates are able
to
blow a hole in the ship they lose everything.

Think about being a sailor on a big cargo ship. You might have a rifle,
but
the pirates have rocket propelled grenades.

I wonder how much damage an RPG can do to a typical cargo vessel?

International maritime law prohibits the arming of merchant vessels. An
exception is made if they are classed as armed merchant cruisers. In
practice, the captain of most ships has a pistol or rifle, which is
tolerated.


Steve R.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited


How about a more powerful laser that just cooks them?

killing and maiming are ok, blinding is not. (I'm not a lawyer, nore a
priest, so I don't care to discuss the actual morality of this)

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited
==========
There is some debate on this point.

As the pirates are not the regular constituted forces of a legal
government that is signatory to the Geneva convention, it appears
they are not covered, i.e. no name, rank, serial number
protection, etc. It appears that soft point bullets, laser, gas
etc. would be legal.

There can't be more than a few hundred of these individuals and
the combined navies of the US, UK, France, German, Japan, China,
and Russia can't/won't get control of the situation??????? Is
this creating the pretext for another run at the occupation of
Somalia?

The United States is responsible for much of this as they have
subverted/overthrown at least 2 governments that appeared to be
gaining control of the political situation.

As there is currently no nation of Somalia, a close blockade of
the pirates' ports/bases of operation on the [geographic
expression] Somalia coast with searching of the so-called fishing
boats as they enter and leave port should be adequate. The
pirates at sea will quickly starve or run out of fuel, and the
pirates ashore are not a problem, except to their neighbors.

If nothing else I suggest sending in the Waco BATF unit to deal
with the problem.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited
==========
There is some debate on this point.

As the pirates are not the regular constituted forces of a legal
government that is signatory to the Geneva convention, it appears
they are not covered, i.e. no name, rank, serial number
protection, etc. It appears that soft point bullets, laser, gas
etc. would be legal.

There can't be more than a few hundred of these individuals and
the combined navies of the US, UK, France, German, Japan, China,
and Russia can't/won't get control of the situation??????? Is
this creating the pretext for another run at the occupation of
Somalia?

The United States is responsible for much of this as they have
subverted/overthrown at least 2 governments that appeared to be
gaining control of the political situation.

As there is currently no nation of Somalia, a close blockade of
the pirates' ports/bases of operation on the [geographic
expression] Somalia coast with searching of the so-called fishing
boats as they enter and leave port should be adequate. The
pirates at sea will quickly starve or run out of fuel, and the
pirates ashore are not a problem, except to their neighbors.

If nothing else I suggest sending in the Waco BATF unit to deal
with the problem.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]




well, you are seeing the quandry of asymetric warfare - we know how to
easily eliminate the problem - Rome showed us the way when they dealt with
the problem of Carthage - the real question is, do we want to do that -

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited

Only..and I repeat..ONLY by national parties representing a nation.

If Beadix and Sloan Pirate Preventers Inc. decided to blind an entire
boatload of pirates..no one would give a ****.

Gunner


"Liberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so
would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their
methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining
power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The
problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group,
they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of
wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some
want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second
Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting
rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and
complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture
that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political
correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the
competing factions of Islamic
fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join
forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core,
and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:56:21 -0500, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:09:10 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited
==========
There is some debate on this point.

As the pirates are not the regular constituted forces of a legal
government that is signatory to the Geneva convention, it appears
they are not covered, i.e. no name, rank, serial number
protection, etc. It appears that soft point bullets, laser, gas
etc. would be legal.

Lovely!


There can't be more than a few hundred of these individuals and
the combined navies of the US, UK, France, German, Japan, China,
and Russia can't/won't get control of the situation??????? Is
this creating the pretext for another run at the occupation of
Somalia?

Sure. Iraq and Afghanistan are no fun any more. Let's go play in
Somalia again and lose more boys there, too! sigh


The United States is responsible for much of this as they have
subverted/overthrown at least 2 governments that appeared to be
gaining control of the political situation.

In Somalia?


As there is currently no nation of Somalia, a close blockade of
the pirates' ports/bases of operation on the [geographic
expression] Somalia coast with searching of the so-called fishing
boats as they enter and leave port should be adequate. The
pirates at sea will quickly starve or run out of fuel, and the
pirates ashore are not a problem, except to their neighbors.

g


If nothing else I suggest sending in the Waco BATF unit to deal
with the problem.

Bwahahahahaha! Can we just give Somalia the entire division?


--
I define comfort as self-acceptance. When we finally
learn that self-care begins and ends with ourselves, we
no longer demand sustenance and happiness from others.
-- Jennifer Louden

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:57:30 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

The United States is responsible for much of this as they have
subverted/overthrown at least 2 governments that appeared to be
gaining control of the political situation.

In Somalia?
---------
If you can, do a Lexus/Nexus search, but google will get you
most of the information.

The US wants a government in Somalia, but it must be "our" [kind
of] government. In the two cases I am referencing, it appears an
Islamic type theocratic government was about to take control,
with (it appears) the support of the majority of the Somali
people. [However as Chairman Mao pointed out "political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun."]

Other than their geographic location near major oil
transportation sea lanes, does Somalia have any mineral assets
that could be the reason for the US re-colonization efforts and
internal interference such as oil, uranium or precious metals?
The record shows that if the only thing you have is people and
misery, i.e. Haiti, the US has no interest.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:57:30 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

The United States is responsible for much of this as they have
subverted/overthrown at least 2 governments that appeared to be
gaining control of the political situation.

In Somalia?
---------
If you can, do a Lexus/Nexus search, but google will get you
most of the information.

The US wants a government in Somalia, but it must be "our" [kind
of] government. In the two cases I am referencing, it appears an
Islamic type theocratic government was about to take control,
with (it appears) the support of the majority of the Somali
people. [However as Chairman Mao pointed out "political power
grows out of the barrel of a gun."]

Other than their geographic location near major oil
transportation sea lanes, does Somalia have any mineral assets
that could be the reason for the US re-colonization efforts and
internal interference such as oil, uranium or precious metals?
The record shows that if the only thing you have is people and
misery, i.e. Haiti, the US has no interest.

I think Rush is interested in something Haiti has but he is currently
patronizing the Dominican Republic.

WRT piracy:
Article by Commander John Patch, retired USN

"
The Somalia example again illustrates the inefficacy of solely sea-based
anti-piracy efforts. The Officer of Naval Intelligence reported in 2006 that
Somalia's Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) seized control of Harardhere, the
coastal village at the center of piracy. The courts' spokesmen asserted they
were in full control of the village, the era of banditry and piracy was
over, and the actions of pirates were unlawful, unacceptable, and
un-Islamic.19 After locals were threatened with swift administration of
Sharia law, piracy abruptly ceased off Harardhere-until Ethiopian forces
pushed UIC elements from the region. It is ironic that Ethiopian military
operations designed to oust the radical Islamist threat reintroduced an era
of significant Somali piracy. "

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...?STORY_ID=1694

wrote:

According to the Drudge Report the pirates are still holding the
captain and that negotiations are on-going.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Not anymore.

Cheers to the Seals!

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
wrote:

According to the Drudge Report the pirates are still holding the
captain and that negotiations are on-going.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Not anymore.

Cheers to the Seals!

Wes

Made my Easter...

In article , "Bill Noble" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited

What part of the Geneva Conventions prohibits doing that _to_pirates_ ?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Bill Noble" wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
om...

"Bill Noble" wrote in message
...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Wes wrote:

fired back, the pirates would pick different prey.


A high power laser to blind the idiot steering the pirate's boat
would be a great idea.

--

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited

What part of the Geneva Conventions prohibits doing that _to_pirates_ ?


I missed that part, too. I thought they had reclassified 'Pirate' as
terrorists, anyway. terrorists should have no rights, including air to
breathe. They are a cancer on this earth.


--
And another motherboard bites the dust!

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:02:42 +0000 (UTC), (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Noble wrote:

there is the geneva conventions - what you suggest (blinding by laser) is
specifically covered and prohibited

The Geneva conventions may not apply to pirates, but it's still a really
bad idea to put lasers that powerful into the hands of someone who hasn't
been *really* well trained in their use. The moment the beam touches
something bright and shiny, it's not the pirates who are getting blinded.


Thats why all the lazer crews wear those nifty safety glasses.


"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

Since the pirates appear to concentrate on cargo ships and these
generally have cargotainers on deck, why not arrange a little
surprise package for them?

When the pirates attack, the front of one of the cargotainers
drops open and a TOW missile takes out their speedboat, being
manned by a military TOW team that deserves a light-duty
assignment. Easy to load/transfer between ships, and avoids the
problem of arming civilian crews.

As there is no legitimate reason for small craft to approach
cargo vessels in the open sea, it would appear to be well within
the "rules of engagement" for carrier based helos and planes to
immediately destroy any small craft that attempt to do so, as
well as the motherships that are launching the speedboats which
appear to be operating far beyond their shore based range. Where
is the satellite surveillance when it is needed? Any ship that
is stationary or is sailing in circles in the sea lanes is highly
suspect.


How about dumping a couple hundred gallons of burning gasoline in the
water and burning the pirate's boat, and all aboard?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!