# Reuters: Somali Pirates Form Investment Cooperative



## mellian (3 Dec 2009)

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/global_talk/Somali_pirates_booty/2009/12/02/292986.html

Somali Pirates Form Investment Cooperative

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:32 AM

	Article Font Size  

HARADHEERE, Somalia - In Somalia's main pirate lair of Haradheere, the sea gangs have set up a cooperative to fund their hijackings offshore, a sort of stock exchange meets criminal syndicate.

Heavily armed pirates from the lawless Horn of Africa nation have terrorised shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean and strategic Gulf of Aden, which links Europe to Asia through the Red Sea.

The gangs have made tens of millions of dollars from ransoms and a deployment by foreign navies in the area has only appeared to drive the attackers to hunt further from shore.

It is a lucrative business that has drawn financiers from the Somali diaspora and other nations -- and now the gangs in Haradheere have set up an exchange to manage their investments.

One wealthy former pirate named Mohammed took Reuters around the small facility and said it had proved to be an important way for the pirates to win support from the local community for their operations, despite the dangers involved.

"Four months ago, during the monsoon rains, we decided to set up this stock exchange. We started with 15 'maritime companies' and now we are hosting 72. Ten of them have so far been successful at hijacking," Mohammed said.

"The shares are open to all and everybody can take part, whether personally at sea or on land by providing cash, weapons or useful materials ... we've made piracy a community activity."

Haradheere, 400 km (250 miles) northeast of Mogadishu, used to be a small fishing village. Now it is a bustling town where luxury 4x4 cars owned by the pirates and those who bankroll them create honking traffic jams along its pot-holed, dusty streets.

Somalia's Western-backed government of President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed is pinned down battling hardline Islamist rebels, and controls little more than a few streets of the capital.

The administration has no influence in Haradheere -- where a senior local official said piracy paid for almost everything.

"Piracy-related business has become the main profitable economic activity in our area and as locals we depend on their output," said Mohamed Adam, the town's deputy security officer.

"The district gets a percentage of every ransom from ships that have been released, and that goes on public infrastructure, including our hospital and our public schools."

In a drought-ravaged country that provides almost no employment opportunities for fit young men, many are been drawn to the allure of the riches they see being earned at sea.

Abdirahman Ali was a secondary school student in Mogadishu until three months ago when his family fled the fighting there.

Given the choice of moving with his parents to Lego, their ancestral home in Middle Shabelle where strict Islamist rebels have banned most entertainment including watching sport, or joining the pirates, he opted to head for Haradheere.

Now he guards a Thai fishing boat held just offshore.

"First I decided to leave the country and migrate, but then I remembered my late colleagues who died at sea while trying to migrate to Italy," he told Reuters. "So I chose this option, instead of dying in the desert or from mortars in Mogadishu."

Haradheere's "stock exchange" is open 24 hours a day and serves as a bustling focal point for the town. As well as investors, sobbing wives and mothers often turn up there seeking news of male relatives missing in action.

Every week, Mohammed said, gang members and equipment were lost to the sea. But he said the pirates were not deterred.

"Ransoms have even increased in recent months from between $2-3 million to $4 million because of the increased number of shareholders and the risks," he said.

"Let the anti-piracy navies continue their search for us. We have no worries because our motto for the job is 'do or die'."

Piracy investor Sahra Ibrahim, a 22-year-old divorcee, was lined up with others waiting for her cut of a ransom pay-out after one of the gangs freed a Spanish tuna fishing vessel.

*"I am waiting for my share after I contributed a rocket-propelled grenade for the operation," she said, adding that she got the weapon from her ex-husband in alimony.*

--------


lol!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Dec 2009)

Two words.

Scorched.  Earth.


----------



## willellis (3 Dec 2009)

Haha. Spot on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Dec 2009)

Why wouldn't they? All of our organized gangs do the same thing.....


----------



## VIChris (3 Dec 2009)

Cruise missile 1 : Pirate stock exchange 0

Seems to me that for the cost of one ransom, a good number of pirates could be vaporised.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Dec 2009)

VIChris said:
			
		

> Seems to me that for the cost of one ransom, a good number of pirates could be vaporised.



And how is that strategy working out against the Taliban ?

You would kill a bunch of pirates sure. Theres hundreds+ to replace them. 

Net gain : Nothing.


----------



## VIChris (3 Dec 2009)

I would think it's a tougher go against the Taliban, as they're motivated by a sense of twisted ideals, whereas the pirates are motivated more by greed, and the desire to make a quick buck. Make that buck harder to get, and many will lose motivation. Take the fight to their safe zones, and the people who harbor them will be less willing to help out, no? 

Looking at the issue of the Taliban, that's a case of us jumping into a fight that's been raging since before our civilization began, and is a much more uphill battle. On the cosmic scale, the Somali pirates are a much smaller problem, with shallower roots. Most, if not all of them are first generation bandits. It's not too late to make a big dent in their will to fight. That being said, I understand that many chose to plunder, as there is little other opportunity for them to provide for their communities, and piracy seems to be the viable option. I know that providing opportunities to these people will require a major shift in thinking on their part, and a very major effort on the part of the world community. My usual cynicism doubts either will occur in the foreseeable future.

What I don't understand is how it is that they have essentially advertised a bad guys hangout that is left untouched. Should this not be the kind of golden opportunity to deny them more advanced capabilities against the ships upon which they prey?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Dec 2009)

VIChris said:
			
		

> whereas the pirates are motivated more by greed, and the desire to make a quick buck. Make that buck harder to get, and many will lose motivation.



It is much more complex than that. In fact, you are basicaly ignoring the wider issues of the situation in Somalia.




> Take the fight to their safe zones, and the people who harbor them will be less willing to help out, no?



Their "safe zone" is Somalia as a whole. Some pirates are motivated by greed but large numbers are simply trying to make money to survive in a country with nothing in the way of industry or ways to make a living. They have a choice between piracy and starving to death. Do you honestly think that you can convince them to stop by sending a bomb their way ?



> On the cosmic scale, the Somali pirates are a much smaller problem, with shallower roots.



The roots of the piracy problem in the region are much deeper than you think. Nothing short of fixing Somalia in its entirety will stop this.




> I know that providing opportunities to these people will require a major shift in thinking on their part,



The shift in thinking, IMHO, needs to be on our part. We are trying to stop arterial bleeding with a band-aid.......




> My usual cynicism doubts either will occur in the foreseeable future.



You dont see a big line of countries willing to invade Somalia do you ?



> Should this not be the kind of golden opportunity to deny them more advanced capabilities against the ships upon which they prey?



Deny them what exactly ? Blow up one building will accomplish what ?

Kill one pirate and another will take his place. The solution will require much broader involvment that what you are suggesting. It will also seem to require a much better understanding of the problem than you seem to have.


----------



## willellis (3 Dec 2009)

Aviator is right. There are serious issues with that country, or any country enduring a civil war. Monkhouse touched on a great analagy. As far as a "kill'em all, let god sort them out" mentality goes, it is just not realistic to think that in a country of 9 million poor and starving, that no one will fill the boots of those killed. The lure of risk vs reward is too great to pass up. These people see a few hundred dollars a year for income if they are lucky. The word travels fast, as you could imagine, when a group of pirates can pull a few million dollars for a weeks work. Just another Alaskan gold rush, with similar motives even... IMO


----------



## VIChris (4 Dec 2009)

Aviator, you do make good points about the complexity of the situation in Somalia, and I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I mentioned it won't be resolved without action from the rest of the world in my second post.

To my original post, I'm not suggesting the whole problem will be fixed with one raid, ten raids or even a hundred, I know the problem lies deeper than that. To expand my thought further, lets relate it to the war on drugs in north america. It's fairly obvious that raiding meth labs, crack houses and grow ops will never stop the problems we see in our own backyards. Education and social support are required to help stem the demand, but realistically, it's an uphill battle unlikely to be sorted out. That doesn't mean we should just give up the efforts, however. The labs need to be shut down, the pushers need to be locked up, and the grow ops torched. That's all I'm suggesting here. There's a big operation out in the open in the form of that bad guy co-op, and it's existence serves to further threaten the livelihood of all the sailors trying to earn a living in the waters off the Somali coast. Why not shut it down? Similar tactics have been used in the form of predator strikes against Taliban leadership. The results may be questionable, but doing nothing guarantees failure. 

As to your point of comparing the issue to that of the Taliban, I stand behind my feelings on the matter. They are similar problems with much different roots. And while similar tactics may work as band aids to garner small victories - which is all I'm advocating - the root issues must be dealt with differently.

Willellis, I'm not saying kill em all. I'm saying knock out the obvious hot spots. 

Again, just my two bits. And please, don't take anything I'm saying as an attack on your opinions. I find these kinds of debates dicey at best over the internet, as we lose all the nuances of a face to face meeting. I'm sure if we were discussing this over a pint, it could be done so in a constructive manner.

-Chris


----------



## aesop081 (4 Dec 2009)

VIChris said:
			
		

> And please, don't take anything I'm saying as an attack on your opinions.



Far from it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Dec 2009)

I think we should launch just enough tomahawks and hellfires to knock the smug off them.  That's all.  Do it out of sheer vitriol.  The total free for all they have now is unacceptable.


----------



## mellian (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I think we should launch just enough tomahawks and hellfires to knock the smug off them.  That's all.  Do it out of sheer vitriol.  The total free for all they have now is unacceptable.



What difference will that make beyond somehow making some of us feel better?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> What difference will that make beyond somehow making some of us feel better?



Nope, that's it.  Killing for the sake of it.  Just to make them look up every once in a while and wonder if their day is about to end badly.  
Making a difference and making a statement are two different things.


----------



## mellian (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Nope, that's it.  Killing for the sake of it.  Just to make them look up every once in a while and wonder if their day is about to end badly.
> Making a difference and making a statement are two different things.



Even then, would they get the statement? We are talking about a country that is a defacto anarchy where people killing each other, getting bombed by mortars, etc is a regular occurrence. If life goes on for many of them despite all that, what difference or statement would bombing them make?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Dec 2009)

The statement would be "we too can reach out and touch you from time to time.  Fair warning; we shall obliterate you at our leisure".  

I already stated there is no attempt to make a difference with this.


----------



## willellis (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> "we too can reach out and touch you from time to time.  Fair warning; we shall obliterate you at our leisure".


 ;D


----------



## mellian (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The statement would be "we too can reach out and touch you from time to time.  Fair warning; we shall obliterate you at our leisure".
> 
> I already stated there is no attempt to make a difference with this.



Then what is the point then? 

They will continue to do what they need to do to survive, no matter if from time to time get bombed by some country from the other end of the world. Heck, may piss off a few to point of create new terrorists too.


----------



## ballz (5 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Then what is the point then?



I think his point was that he agrees with you, that sending a few good-morning bombs is stupid, hence the "killing for the sake of killing" and "making a difference and making a statement" comments.


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> The statement would be "we too can reach out and touch you from time to time.  Fair warning; we shall obliterate you at our leisure".
> I already stated there is no attempt to make a difference with this.



In 2006, the USAF did a study titled: AIR CONTROL: LESSONS FROM IRAQ 1919-1939.:
It was demonstrated that air control saves money and lives. The first use of air control was in Egypt in 1919. In 1920, the practice was put to use again in the Sudan and then Somaliland. It was in Somaliland that the forces of a rebel leader, Mohammed bin Abdullah Hassan, also known by the British as the “Mad Mullah”, were defeated
by a detachment of six de Havilland DH9As combined with an accompanying force of Camel Corps. This operation was planned by Trenchard as an alternative to deploying a large force of ground troops. Trenchard’s air control operation had lasted only three weeks.:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fdvexEc3pB4J:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_c4f210c9-bd97-42b1-9d0a-580862168d9b/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+air+control+iraq&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESicvAq3qYjzXnTjzVrKCVl0os6RAtUf1jM2CBeo4vi7Je4zuVWUN7O9Gkc6rlrydNXNIfUOEMon5eO6oWQxRruxzKgz8JZBcE9tsU9KlTUJoN3_mpkyd0mNsSPx8MnRmY5C-DlL&sig=AHIEtbQc3FqCicP34CRfSF6qsAhhz7Iswg


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Dec 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think his point was that he agrees with you, that sending a few good-morning bombs is stupid, hence the "killing for the sake of killing" and "making a difference and making a statement" comments.



Ya, not even close.   :

Killing for the sake of psycological deterence, regardless as to how minimal it might be.  As mentioned, these are criminals, not terrorists.  Their basic motivation is greed and self preservation.  Even if it makes them flinchy, a little scared to go out, or even just shuts them up so they don't run their mouths on TV, then it's worth it IMO.  They need to have their safe haven feeling taken away.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2009)

Yes, but the region is a thugocracy.  It would do no harm, and possibly a pile of good, to show the thugs that they can be "got to" at any time.


----------



## ballz (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ya, not even close.   :
> 
> Killing for the sake of psycological deterence, regardless as to how minimal it might be.  As mentioned, these are criminals, not terrorists.  Their basic motivation is greed and self preservation.  Even if it makes them flinchy, a little scared to go out, or even just shuts them up so they don't run their mouths on TV, then it's worth it IMO.  They need to have their safe haven feeling taken away.



OK well I'm with Mellian that's just dumb. Let's just go piss on everybody's front door step that'll won't just piss them off. I wonder how many hostages they'd kill before this vs after this. It would make a difference, it would make things worse.


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ya, not even close.   :
> Killing for the sake of psycological deterence, regardless as to how minimal it might be.  As mentioned, these are criminals, not terrorists.  Their basic motivation is greed and self preservation.  Even if it makes them flinchy, a little scared to go out, or even just shuts them up so they don't run their mouths on TV, then it's worth it IMO.  They need to have their safe haven feeling taken away.



What Zipperhead-cop said goes double for me.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Dec 2009)

Many years ago Libya was a thorn in the side of the West....US!! An attack directed by then US President Ronald Reagan told Muamar Ghaddafi that  would not be tolerated. Libyan antics stopped after that, at least while Reagan was in office.
I think an armed attack by some boys in black might be more effective, you know.,.face to face....but cruise missiles would be fine, or a JDAM,....
What we are doing now is Bob Izumi fishing: Catch and release.

I'm with zipperhead cop on this.


----------



## mellian (5 Dec 2009)

...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.



Kind of makes you wonder why they want to come here?


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2009)

Only certain things they hate, like law and order, freedom,  you know, the useless stuff.  They seem to love our money and consumer goods just fine.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.


yeah we are a hateful lot aren't we? We allow refugees of all natures in, take in the poor and destitute of those nations, then when they commit crimes against my fellow citizens we allow the criminals to stay in Canada.
Yeah we are a hateful lot aren't we? 
They get sick in this country, and we provide FREE health care. Yeah we are a hateful lot aren't we?
I'm shaking my head over your statement, mellian.
We do more than most other nations to help these people then they kick us in the teeth.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.



Pfft,

And their actions do not deserve the ire of the west without criticism....

How arrogant of them, and those that disparage those in the west who vocalize our opinion.

dileas


tess


----------



## mariomike (5 Dec 2009)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> We do more than most other nations to help these people then they kick us in the teeth.



This reminds me a little bit of a broadcast made in Toronto in 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ_okAgAUGE&feature=related

"World political powers focus on Afghanistan as Somalia time bomb ticks:  For the military experts meeting here, Somalia is a time bomb that the world is not giving much attention. Somalia, like Afghanistan, has al Qaida cells, which according to Nathan Mugisha, the commander of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia, are getting stronger.":
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/04/content_12584973.htm


----------



## mellian (5 Dec 2009)

Big Silverback said:
			
		

> I'm shaking my head over your statement, mellian.
> We do more than most other nations to help these people then they kick us in the teeth.



How does this give us an excuse to bomb (at least wanting to opinion wise) folks of a third world country simply out of spite or to give some kind of statement, not caring whether it would resolve the piracy problem there?


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

Not out of spite or any kind of message, other than to get them to think twice before rubbing the worlds nose in their flagrant disregard for international law.  Think of it in terms of your local mugger:  I can't make him stop mugging people, but if he got a red hot poker up his arse every time he mugged someone, he may come to the Pavlovian conclusion that mugging people makes his arse hurt, and he'll perhaps stop doing that.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> How does this give us an excuse to bomb (at least wanting to opinion wise) folks of a third world country simply out of spite or to give some kind of statement, not caring whether it would resolve the piracy problem there?




What are the opinions and efforts, of the local Government, to stop these brigands?

dileas

tess


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

Yet, it not as simple as that. In the case of Somali piracy, the options the metaphor mugger has is starving and homeless due to lack of funds or not enough from farming or some such, or mug someone and getting enough funds survive and live on, a long with their family. Getting hot poker, or beat up by fellow starving/homeless or by thugs, makes no difference in motivation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> Yet, it not as simple as that. In the case of Somali piracy, the options the metaphor mugger has is starving and homeless due to lack of funds or not enough from farming or some such, or mug someone and getting enough funds survive and live on, a long with their family. Getting hot poker, or beat up by fellow starving/homeless or by thugs, makes no difference in motivation.




Yikes,


I am a bit confused.  Please rephrase....

dileas

tess


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What are the opinions and efforts, of the local Government, to stop these brigands?



That it would cost to much political and financially to do what is actually needed, especially seeing how much in the hole US is and some NATO countries are with Iraq and Afghanistan a long with the reminder of what happened last time anything was attempted in Somalia?


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I am a bit confused.  Please rephrase....



From the article...  

"In a drought-ravaged country that provides almost no employment opportunities for fit young men, many are been drawn to the allure of the riches they see being earned at sea.

Abdirahman Ali was a secondary school student in Mogadishu until three months ago when his family fled the fighting there.

Given the choice of moving with his parents to Lego, their ancestral home in Middle Shabelle where strict Islamist rebels have banned most entertainment including watching sport, or joining the pirates, he opted to head for Haradheere.

Now he guards a Thai fishing boat held just offshore. "

Sure, some of those pirates are doing it for greed, but not all of them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> That it would cost to much political and financially to do what is actually needed, especially seeing how much in the hole US is and some NATO countries are with Iraq and Afghanistan a long with the reminder of what happened last time anything was attempted in Somalia?



So,

What you are saying is that due US is and some NATO countries actions with Iraq, Financially and Politically , the Government of Somalia would rather have the Villains continue to raid and Pirate the area where "Western" ships roam.

And that sits well with you.....

Why?

dileas

tess


----------



## VIChris (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.



I don't wonder at all. I know the people you're referring to hate us because we tend to keep their oppression in check. If they take offence to that, I'm not losing sleep over it.


----------



## leroi (6 Dec 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "World political powers focus on Afghanistan as Somalia time bomb ticks:  For the military experts meeting here, Somalia is a time bomb that the world is not giving much attention. Somalia, like Afghanistan, has al Qaida cells, which according to Nathan Mugisha, the commander of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia, are getting stronger.":
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/04/content_12584973.htm



Yes mariomike, as I've come to understand the piracy problem,  the impoverished thugs are being organized by al-Qaeda because it's one of their target areas.  Al-Qaeda refer to the Gulf of Aden as "the throat" and want to keep a "stranglehold" on that area preventing the movement of trade, oil,  supplies to our troops, etc.

Perhaps, I'm oversimplifying; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> That it would cost to much political and financially to do what is actually needed, especially seeing how much in the hole US is and some NATO countries are with Iraq and Afghanistan a long with the reminder of what happened last time anything was attempted in Somalia?



So your solution is to pour more of our hateful Western decadent capitalist money into the deep dark hole that is Africa?  I can't believe you are defending the behavior of common thugs.  Maybe your opinion of our fictional mugger and those like him would change if you'd ever been on the wrong end of a mugging.  Your defense of these alleged people is mind boggling.


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What you are saying is that due US is and some NATO countries actions with Iraq, Financially and Politically , the Government of Somalia would rather have the Villains continue to raid and Pirate the area where "Western" ships roam.



I was referring to countries fighting the piracy. The legal western backed 'government' would not be able to do much about it even if they wanted to as they focus on Islamic insurgents and various warlords. 



> And that sits well with you.....
> Why?



A lot of things in the world does not sit with me, but I not going to advocate bombing them. 



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So your solution is to pour more of our hateful Western decadent capitalist money into the deep dark hole that is Africa?



Last I check, bombing them would also cost money, including all out invasion. It costs money to just fight piracy. So no matter what, it will cost money to deal with and resolve much of the problems of Africa, a long with ignore them in the case of Somali piracy.



> I can't believe you are defending the behavior of common thugs.  Maybe your opinion of our fictional mugger and those like him would change if you'd ever been on the wrong end of a mugging.  Your defense of these alleged people is mind boggling.



Understanding and pointing out what is going on there and why the piracy is happening is not defending them. Bombing the pirate 'stock exchange' is not going to resolve or really dent the entire piracy problem. 

If you are looking for me to chose a side, I chose to fight piracy and support all the Navies that are. 

Just saying there is other means and ways of resolving a problem than bombing someone.


----------



## Fusaki (6 Dec 2009)

I hate to agree with mellian (and I REALLY hate to agree with mellian), but dropping JDAMs on Somalia won't stop the pirate problem.  

Dropping bombs worked in Lybia (and Kosovo, Iraq '91, ect) because there was a centralized authority to target and coerce.  What are you going to target in Somalia? Haradeere?  That will work once, but by the time the smoke clears the rest of the pirates will have decentralized themselves into the countryside.  Then what?  Bomb every tin hut within 50km of the beach?  Fighting piracy doesn't justify genocide.

Maybe a better idea would be for a Private Military Company to establish a shipping corridor and monitor it by a fleet of armed UAVs.  The corridor would be well away from coastline so fisherman would have no reason stray into the area and the company would be given the legal authority to use lethal force against small boats with armed men entering the area.  Now, I'll admit that I don't know who would pay for this or the details in how it would be implemented.  I'm not an expert on international law or the legality of lighting up pirate ships on the high seas.

My point is just that indiscriminate violence is not good enough.  In this situation, the only effective deterrent is targeted violence.  Because of the decentralized nature of the pirate threat,  you need to kill individuals as they are caught in the act.  

No pirate will be stopped if he thinks his chances of living or dying are the same regardless of his individual actions.  The only thing what will stop him is the knowledge that chances of dying actually increase whenever he goes out on the water, but decrease if he finds another line of work.

So, looking back on this post I can't help but thinking: I might agree with mellian, but does she agree with me? >


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So, looking back on this post I can't help but thinking: I might agree with mellian, but does she agree with me? >



Why would I not? I completely agree with what you said, apart from the private corridor thing as it does not seem realistically possible.


----------



## ballz (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Your defense of these alleged people is mind boggling.



That's really putting words into somebody's mouth. Where did she "defend" anything they did/do?

She doesn't agree with killing a large mass of people for the sake of killing a large mass of people while knowing it won't make a difference. I don't either. That's mind boggling? The surface area of a human lung is the same as a tennis court. That's mind boggling. A cubic mile of fog contains one gallon of water. That's mind boggling. An electron pops in and out of existence at random. That's mind boggling. I have a Rubik's cube. It's mind boggling. 

Not agreeing with dropping a bomb or two on a bunch of random hungry people, that does not quite measure up to my definition of "mind boggling."


----------



## bdave (6 Dec 2009)

Mellian,

How do you propose we stop the Somalians from pirating?

Your points are:
-Not all of them do it for greed
-The problems lies too deep to solve by investing any money (peaceful solution not exactly possible)
-Bombing them is bad because bombing people who can't help their situation is immoral.

However, you don't offer a solution.
Killing people is bad, yes. And some of them do it out of necessity but that doesn't make them right.
A criminal might break into my house and steal my television and sell it. His motivation is he had a tough life and knows nothing else. He might have kids to feed.
The thing is, it's still illegal and that doesn't make *him* right. The world doesn't work like that.
If someone breaks into my home, and steals my stuff, and i can do something about it (i have several cans of whoop ass that i am willing to offer to our surely hungry guest, in my cupboard), then i will.
While i sense a certain distaste for the west, in your posts, I do agree that bombing innocent people is wrong.
However, bombing criminals is A-OK.
An attack on our people is an attack on us. I really could not care less what some criminal is thinking or feeling.
We all have problems. We all need a way to put food on our table and we all need shelter to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
All that being said, WE come first. 
We can be myself, my loved ones, my friends, my country (wo)men and my country.
If some guy, who has problems, decides to mess with something i hold dear, well then it is him versus me.
I don't care about his problems when he is causing problems for me.

If bombing is what it takes to stop Somalians from being pirates (aka criminals), then so be it.
Until *someone offers * a BETTER solution, it is the *only* solution we got.
Don't invest money into that shit hole, fine. However, stand by and doing nothing? No.
You might think that sending JDAMs their way won't really act as a deterrent but as far as i know, doing nothing acts even less as a deterrent.
Real people with real lives are in danger. I'm not gonna let some misplaced pity get in the way of protecting what comes first: Us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2009)

Hijacking back to the economics, this from the Associated Press:


> A parcel of land here that sold for $12,000 two years ago now costs more than $20,000. The price of a nice pair of men's shoes has gone up from $20 to $50.
> 
> The reason: pirates.
> 
> The influx of millions of dollars in ransoms has changed life in this coastal Muslim community, driving prices up and creating a schism between the pirate haves and have-nots. As piracy ramps up again with the end of the monsoon season, the lifestyle of the pirates _ big houses, fast cars and easy drugs _ is decried by both religious leaders and ordinary villagers ....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2009)

Wow, just wow.


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

I _*knew*_ that I should have bought that property in Somalia when I had the chance, instead of blowing all of my money on booze and women.


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

bdave said:
			
		

> How do you propose we stop the Somalians from pirating?



I have no solution, and I would be a fool to say that I had one. I just point out that bombing them serves no real purpose, that is all. Whatever the solution may be, it requires a lot of political will and the finances to spend, and at present, there is no country willing to do anything about it apart from sending naval ships and fight piracy when it happens, rescue hostages, etc.


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Hijacking back to the economics, this from the Associated Press:



Going from practically nothing to millions in short few years would make any economy go out of whack and attract many from all walks of life.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's really putting words into somebody's mouth. Where did she "defend" anything they did/do?
> 
> She doesn't agree with killing a large mass of people for the sake of killing a large mass of people while knowing it won't make a difference. I don't either. That's mind boggling? The surface area of a human lung is the same as a tennis court. That's mind boggling. A cubic mile of fog contains one gallon of water. That's mind boggling. An electron pops in and out of existence at random. That's mind boggling. I have a Rubik's cube. It's mind boggling.
> 
> Not agreeing with dropping a bomb or two on a bunch of random hungry people, that does not quite measure up to my definition of "mind boggling."



Then please allow me to rephrase, as I find your argument sound.  The word "defend" is hereby withdrawn, and is replaced with "justify".  All better?  These guys aren't pirating for subsistence, it's not like they're pinching a loaf (he he) of bread from a grocery store, they're making mega bucks, the motivation is greed, not necessity.


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Dec 2009)

I still think we should use them as a place to destroy old nukes  ;D just like another place that will remain unnamed cough*Iran*cough.


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> These guys aren't pirating for subsistence, it's not like they're pinching a loaf (he he) of bread from a grocery store, they're making mega bucks, the motivation is greed, not necessity.



Those at the top of heap, most assuredly, and they need and deserve to be dealt with swiftly, surely, and harshly.

Those at the bottom are perhaps motivated by necessity.

I can sympathize somewhat with them, but not too much.


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Then please allow me to rephrase, as I find your argument sound.  The word "defend" is hereby withdrawn, and is replaced with "justify".  All better?  These guys aren't pirating for subsistence, it's not like they're pinching a loaf (he he) of bread from a grocery store, they're making mega bucks, the motivation is greed, not necessity.



I am not justifying either, just understanding. What is driving the piracy to continue is certainly greed, but for many who get involved is because of necessity. We are no better here if something similar happens. Until they have better economic alternatives, it is going to be hard weaning them off it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

You have convinced me.  Let us not punish these people.  After all, they're only taking other peoples property at the point of a gun, and then selling it back to them at bargain prices.  And they're only doing it because us vile decadent western devils aren't guaranteeing everyone in Africa a job with our hateful money.  Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## bdave (6 Dec 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.







			
				mellian said:
			
		

> I have no solution, and I would be a fool to say that I had one. I just point out that bombing them serves no real purpose, that is all. Whatever the solution may be, it requires a lot of political will and the finances to spend, and at present, there is no country willing to do anything about it apart from sending naval ships and fight piracy when it happens, rescue hostages, etc.



Bombing serves as a deterrent.
Do you think doing nothing is more beneficial?

If yes, explain why.


----------



## Fusaki (6 Dec 2009)

This thread is frustrating me.



> Bombing serves as a deterrent.
> Do you think doing nothing is more beneficial?
> 
> If yes, explain why.



I don't need to provide an alternative solution to the piracy situation in order to point out that indiscriminately dropping JDAMs on Somalia is a waste of money, ordinance,  is morally wrong, and would do absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem.  Dropping bombs is NOT a deterrent and would do nothing to disrupt pirate operations:



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Dropping bombs worked in Lybia (and Kosovo, Iraq '91, ect) because there was a centralized authority to target and coerce.  What are you going to target in Somalia? Haradeere?  That will work once, but by the time the smoke clears the rest of the pirates will have decentralized themselves into the countryside.  Then what?  Bomb every tin hut within 50km of the beach?  Fighting piracy doesn't justify genocide.
> 
> My point is just that indiscriminate violence is not good enough.  In this situation, the only effective deterrent is targeted violence.  Because of the decentralized nature of the pirate threat,  you need to kill individuals as they are caught in the act.
> 
> No pirate will be stopped if he thinks his chances of living or dying are the same regardless of his individual actions.  The only thing what will stop him is the knowledge that chances of dying actually increase whenever he goes out on the water, but decrease if he finds another line of work.



But this thread isn't about piracy anymore.  It's a pissing match between personalities.

Gay.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

bdave said:
			
		

> Bombing serves as a deterrent.






OK Mike......The site has gone wonkie.


I had to amend this post, as everything I spent my time typing has disappeared........



I'll try again:




I have to agree with mellian and Wonderbread here.  Bombing without putting boots on the ground serves absolutely no purpose and is a great expense for nothing positive in return.  

About the only thing we can do is to arrest all pirates who are conducting illegal activities in International waters and bring them to justice and incarcerate them.  We can not invade a "Sovereign Nation".

Anyone who thinks Air Superiority, without Ground Forces, is in anyway effective in fighting a war or crime, is not facing reality.  How do you even know if the target you bomb is in fact the target you want?  How do you even know if you have hit the target that you want?  Perhaps it was somewhere else.

If you want to bomb, then you had better be prepared to invade and control the Ground.  If you do invade, how long do you expect to stay and clean up the mess?  This isn't Mcdonalds.  It would take several decades.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> This thread is frustrating me.



Me too, for the same reasons.




			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't need to provide an alternative solution to the piracy situation in order to point out that indiscriminately dropping JDAMs on Somalia is a waste of money, ordinance,  is morally wrong, and would do absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem.  Dropping bombs is NOT a deterrent and would do nothing to disrupt pirate operations:



Completely, 100% correct.




			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> But this thread isn't about piracy anymore.  It's a pissing match between personalities.



Equally correct.




			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Gay.



Absolutely. Well said. +300 MPs.


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't need to provide an alternative solution to the piracy situation in order to point out that indiscriminately dropping JDAMs on Somalia is a waste of money, ordinance,  is morally wrong, and would do absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem.  Dropping bombs is NOT a deterrent and would do nothing to disrupt pirate operations:
> 
> But this thread isn't about piracy anymore.  It's a pissing match between personalities.



I completely agree on both points.



> Gay.



That was not necessary thought.


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

bdave said:
			
		

> Bombing serves as a deterrent.



But what kind of bombing?

A 500 pounder through the roof of every one of the pirate leaders might. It might also have little effect beyond an for accelerated promotion programme for some of the lower-level ones. What about family members in those houses, though?

Indiscriminate bombing of a starving population will not solve anything, as there will never be a shortage of people desperate enough to do anything to feed themselves and their families regardless of the risk. If it has any real effect, it will likely be the opposite of what we seek. And it is also immoral.

Not all of the Taliban supporters are really Taliban supporters. Some are accepting money for digging holes in roads as their only means of providing for their families. Some of them are killed or captured, but this does not seem to discourage all in that situation. Of what value would indiscriminate bombing be under those circumstances?

We go to great lengths to preserve the lives of innocents in Afghanistan, and rightly so.

We also put great effort into dealing appropriately with those who most definitely deserve it, and that requires a high degree of precision.

Ships passing through the region need to be armed, which requires an enlightenment of politicians in numerous countries.

The current catch-and-release policies need to be corrected.

And there has to be a political will internationally in order to strike known pirate strongholds, by air, sea, and on land.[/quote]


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Dec 2009)

> But this thread isn't about piracy anymore.  It's a pissing match between personalities.



Agreed.

No one is going to convince the other to adopt their point of view. State your opinion and move on. If you have nothing fresh to add, don't post.

Thanks

Army.ca Staff


----------



## mellian (6 Dec 2009)

I agree with Loachman and basically what I was trying to say.


----------



## mariomike (6 Dec 2009)

Re: Bombing in Somalia, FYI from last year, if interested:
"US bombs Islamist town in Somalia: The US has launched an attack against a "known al-Qaeda terrorist" in southern Somalia, the Pentagon says.": 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7274462.stm

"US Somali air strikes 'kill many' ":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6243459.stm

"The Somali Connection: A Terrorism Crackdown in Australia":
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1914644,00.html

2007: "U.S. Strikes In Somalia Reportedly Kill 31
Official Says Dead Were Civilians From Village Targeted In Hunt For Alleged Al Qaeda Suspects";
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml

"US Reportedly Bombs Somalia: 
May 26, 2008
Associated Press
MOGADISHU, Somalia - Airstrikes, possibly by U.S. planes, caused explosions in a remote area in southern Somalia, officials said May 26. There was no immediate information on casualties."
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-reportedly-bombs-somalia.html

Time Magazine. Sept 2009: "After a U.S. Air Strike, Somali Peacekeepers Pay":
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1924902,00.html

I think this is from today:
"Al-Qaeda leader among 10 killed in Somalia air strike
An air strike in Somalia on Thursday, which insurgents blamed on the United States, killed at least 10 people, including Al-Qaeda’s military leader in the war-torn country, a rebel spokesman and residents said.":
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/8833377.asp?gid=231&sz=19879


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

Okay, to be clear here I'm not advocating day and night arclight style blanket bombings.  But just maybe a 500 lb LGB in the centre of the Piracy Stock Exchange might convince people that investing in piracy is bad.

Nah, never mind.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2009)

mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.



And it didn't become about personality pissing until this little piece of bait was tossed in the water.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Okay, to be clear here I'm not advocating day and night arclight style blanket bombings.  But just maybe a 500 lb LGB in the centre of the Piracy Stock Exchange might convince people that investing in piracy is bad.
> 
> Nah, never mind.




My thoughts exactly.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And it didn't become about personality pissing until this little piece of bait was tossed in the water.





			
				mellian said:
			
		

> ...and people wonder why some of those countries and people hates the west.




Bingo.

+3000 points.

I am with Kat on this one.  Send a message, and bomb these thugs.  Troops on the ground, is not always the right answer.  What do we do, surround the compound and play loud music until they stop take off their bandanas and eyepatches?  

dileas

tess


----------



## Journeyman (6 Dec 2009)

A large percentage of the piracy appears based out of Basaso, Somalia.

The mayor of Basaso, Abidrahman Mohamoud Haji Hasan, is a Canadian-Somali; much of his family lives in Ottawa.

Basaso is in Puntland State. The President of Puntland, Abdirahman Mohamed Mohamud Farole, is an Australian-Somali; several of his key family members live in Melbourne Australia.


Perhaps if western countries simply got tired of being doormats -- nice safe countries to 'store' their families, while they support Islamist, anti-western, or simply criminal activities in the homeland......


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

I 100% agree with Kat.

His example and this one,


			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> indiscriminately



Get a grip lad, you know that isn't what the serious posters meant......................


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...
> Get a grip lad, you know that isn't what the serious posters meant......................



Rubbish.

The so called serious posters advocate a policy that is illegal, immoral and, almost certainly, aims to accomplish nothing. They advocate, in short, stupidity. Now, sadly, stupid policy is fairly common - especially in the West. So is policy that is illegal and immoral. But common does not mean smart or right.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

I see your rubbish and raise your post as garbage. :-*

I hardly think for a second those that posted things like "scorched earth" meant the innocents involved.  You know what that person does as well as I do and that he did his bit putting his life on the cheque if required for his tour........

Having said what you said I guess you think we should pull out everything form Afghanistan that might kill from above?

To try and get this thing back on topic,...............................Is there anyone here who thinks we should just let the piracy continue unabated and consider it part of the cost of doing business?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I see your rubbish and raise your post as garbage. :-*
> ...




Fill your boots. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Illegal + Immoral + Pointless = STUPID.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Having said what you said I guess you think we should pull out everything form Afghanistan that might kill from above?



I guess you missed this??


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Is there anyone here who thinks we should just let the piracy continue unabated and consider it part of the cost of doing business?



Pointless question. Piracy is not continuing unabated. The international flotilla is abating it. Pirates are being, at least, slowed.

*Abate* -_v.tr._ To reduce in amount, degree, or intensity; lessen.

That's what's being done, piracy is being reduced in amount, degree and intensity. More can be done: more smart things; more moral things; more legal things. Bombing is not included in that list.


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2009)

We have various governments spending millions to patrol the gulf of Aden and surrounds, because these merchant ships are being ransomed for millions when they are captured by the pirates. This is becoming quite the little industry in of itself. 

It has been suggested multiple times to put armed teams on the ships from point A to point B, but the merchant ships are decrying this solution because of costs and the perceived notion that they should not carry arms. 

This is dumb. If you are going to ship in this area either protect yourself or live with the consequences. We have to stop playing by imaginary rules the other guys don't know about and don't care about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

> Quote from: Bruce Monkhouse on Today at 15:48:50
> 
> 
> > Having said what you said I guess you think we should pull out everything form Afghanistan that might kill from above?
> ...




Doesn't matter! You are tossing up weak strawmen.

What’s at issue here is a “small facility” that _Reuters_ describes as being : _”open 24 hours a day and serves as a bustling focal point for the town. As well as investors, sobbing wives and mothers often turn up there seeking news of male relatives missing in action.”_

We don’t just bomb “bustling focal points” where “sobbing wives and mothers” gather: not in Afghanistan and not in Somalia, either. If we do we are wrong and stupid.

If someone has *sensible* suggestions about how to better address the piracy problem I’m sure they can be sensibly discussed somewhere – I doubt here is the place.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

If anyone would like to consider another POV, look here. It is from the spring of this year.

--------------------
Bronwyn Bruton, a democracy and governance specialist with extensive experience in Africa, is an international affairs fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She was born in Swaziland and spent most of her childhood in Botswana. Prior to her fellowship appointment, Bronwyn spent three years at the National Endowment for Democracy, where she managed a $7-million portfolio of grants to local and international nongovernmental organizations in east and southern Africa (priority countries included Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Sudan). Ms. Bruton has also served as a program manager on the Africa team of the U.S. Agency for International Development's Office of Transition Initiatives, as a policy analyst on the international affairs and trade team of the Government Accountability Office, and as a program officer at the Center for International Private Enterprise.

Ms. Bruton holds an MPP, with honors, from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

This, reproduced in three parts under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the November/December 2009 issue of _Foreign Affairs_ is an article about Somalia – same author as I cited above – that, while not related directly to piracy illustrates the difficulties of _any_ simple solutions to _any_ of Somalia’s problems:

PART 1 of 3

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65462/bronwyn-bruton/in-the-quicksands-of-somalia?page=7


> In the Quicksands of Somalia
> *Where Doing Less Helps More*
> 
> Bronwyn Bruton
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

PART 2 of 3 (also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act)



> THE GRIP OF TERROR
> 
> For decades, Somalia was little more to Americans than a pawn in the Cold War. Then, in 1992, U.S. televisions were flooded with images of dying Somali children, the victims of brutal warlords and their civil war. With Operation Restore Hope, the U.S. government set out to respond not only to the humanitarian emergency but also to the clarion call of a new era of peacemaking and multilateral cooperation. Initially intended as a relief effort, the mission soon got mired in Somalia's violent internal politics. On July 12, 1993, U.S. forces mistakenly attacked a peaceful meeting of clan elders, killing 73 civilians. The mission had derailed, and a few months later it hit bottom when a Somali mob desecrated the corpses of U.S. soldiers. The incident, known as "Black Hawk down," was a bewildering assault on the American public's self-image, not to mention a low-water mark of the Clinton administration, and it left the Americans and the Somalis distrustful of each other. For close to a decade afterward, the U.S. government effectively let Somalia be.
> 
> ...




Edit: format


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2009)

PART 3 of 3 (also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act)



> PARSING THE PLAYERS
> 
> Backing off this way entails risks, including the possibility that al Shabab will cement, if only temporarily, its hold on southern Somalia. But this is the only way to ensure that the growing tensions within al Shabab and the latent tensions between al Shabab and al Qaeda will play out. Exploiting these tensions is the most reliable and cost-effective means of fighting terrorism in Somalia.
> 
> ...



So, it is hideously complex and, as some have said before doing *less for* Africa may be the better way, for now, anyway.


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Having said what you said I guess you think we should pull out everything form Afghanistan that might kill from above?



I do not know where you got that from.

I recently spent some time working with things "that might kill from above" (and did). We were much more discriminate than several people have suggested that we should be in Somalia, and rightfully so. I have no qualms about anything in which I may have been involved. None.

I see no reason to operate - or even _*suggest*_ that we operate - in anything less than a legal, moral, and effective manner.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I see no reason to operate - or even _*suggest*_ that we operate - in anything less than a legal, moral, and effective manner.



Nor am I, but somehow, according to some posters, for some strange reason, dropping things on [color=]legitimate[/color] targets in Afghanistan is somehow different than dropping bombs on legitimate targets in Somalia..........I don't get it.

[ and for the record I am staying away from this thread this evening as I am engaging in Rye]


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nor am I, but somehow, according to some posters, for some strange reason, dropping things on [color=]legitimate[/color] targets in Afghanistan is somehow different than dropping bombs on legitimate targets in Somalia..........I don't get it.
> 
> [ and for the record I am staying away from this thread this evening as I am engaging in Rye]



I could do with a wee dram myself.     ;D

Let me see.  We are engaged as members of NATO, at the invitation of the Afghan Government in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.  As such we do attack legitimate targets.

We have not been invited into Somalia, by any government, to fight the Taliban, AQ, or pirates.  There may be 'suspected'/'alleged'/whatever targets in Somalia, but as we are not engaged in anyway in fighting them, they would not be legitimate targets for us at this time.

However, in International Waters, there are laws against "Piracy" and world navies are now enforcing those laws on any acts in those International Waters.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

OK, I lied a little. [its early]

"We" haven't been invited into Pakistan................................


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Nor am I, but somehow, according to some posters, for some strange reason, dropping things on [color=]legitimate[/color] targets in Afghanistan is somehow different than dropping bombs on legitimate targets in Somalia..........I don't get it.



A few of the bombing advocates have been less than specific regarding target selection.

And then there was Page 1 of this thread.

Dropping on even otherwise legitimate targets on Somalian soil may not be completely legal, however I doubt that too many objections would be raised so long as no innocents were injured or killed.

Blowing pirate boats out of the water would probably raise little but cheers around the planet.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> A few of the bombing advocates have been less than specific regarding target selection.
> objections would be raised so long as no innocents were injured or killed.



I addressed that.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Blowing pirate boats out of the water would probably raise little but cheers around the planet.



Yea, because they would never ever put a bunch of kids on one of those boats.........


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I addressed that.



Not that I saw.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Dec 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> OK well I'm with Mellian that's just dumb. Let's just go piss on everybody's front door step that'll won't just piss them off. I wonder how many hostages they'd kill before this vs after this. It would make a difference, it would make things worse.



I take that is a request, not a screen name?  You may find out that doing nothing is often worse that doing something.  



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't need to provide an alternative solution to the piracy situation in order to point out that indiscriminately dropping JDAMs on Somalia is a waste of money, ordinance,  is morally wrong, and would do absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem.  Dropping bombs is NOT a deterrent and would do nothing to disrupt pirate operations:



I suppose my quick "Scorched. Earth." has the feel of indiscriminate.  It was just a quick glib comment.  However, I would agree that hucking bombs around willie-nillie wouldn't work.  Oddly, I'm pretty sure any country that takes the time to address these clowns will probably have discretion?  
As for not disrupting operations?  Seriously?  You eliminate the leadership (rudimentary as they are) and you don't see that as being helpful?  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> How do you even know if the target you bomb is in fact the target you want?  How do you even know if you have hit the target that you want?  Perhaps it was somewhere else.



How do we do it now?  How do the Israelis do it?  HUMINT, surveillance etc.  Seriously, did this just turn into Rabble.ca?  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have not been invited into Somalia, by any government, to fight the Taliban, AQ, or pirates.  There may be 'suspected'/'alleged'/whatever targets in Somalia, but as we are not engaged in anyway in fighting them, they would not be legitimate targets for us at this time.



And what Somalian government is going to go to the UN and ask for assistance to get a nice, jammy permission slip to send in NATO?  If that Gong Show is going to get squared away, somebody is going to have to take some initiative.  Doubtless, it will be the Americans, and doubtless everyone will bitch about them when they finally do do something.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> However, in International Waters, there are laws against "Piracy" and world navies are now enforcing those laws on any acts in those International Waters.



Definitely would support more of that, and the arming of merchant vessels.  However, we both know that the stooges on the boats are not the ones that need to get zapped.  The head of the snake needs to get chopped.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The so called serious posters advocate a policy that is illegal, immoral and, almost certainly, aims to accomplish nothing. They advocate, in short, stupidity. Now, sadly, stupid policy is fairly common - especially in the West. So is policy that is illegal and immoral. But common does not mean smart or right.



Seems to me to do nothing, letting them literally get away with murder and having a free for all is immoral and stupid.  But it is certainly easier.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

> How do the Israelis do it?  HUMINT, surveillance etc.



We have been trying for years to cut off the head of AQ.  Where is Bin Laden?



> Seriously, did this just turn into Rabble.ca?



Only if you insist.



You know darn well what the legalities of the matter here is.  Don't pull the "Bomb them into oblivion" card and say that it can be 100% "surgical".   And don't forget that this is a society that lives on the principles of vendetta/revenge.


----------



## bdave (6 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Okay, to be clear here *I'm not advocating day and night arclight style blanket bombings*.  But just maybe a 500 lb LGB in the centre of the Piracy Stock Exchange might convince people that investing in piracy is bad.
> 
> Nah, never mind.



This goes without saying.
If anyone here thinks I meant "Hey, let's bomb Somalia all over, with total disregard for the innocent civilians" then you are probably assuming too many things about us "west" folks.
Notice in my post i mentioned the word 'pirate' and 'criminal' several times.
Gather information (via surveillance or spies or whatever you want) and then pick the right targets and blow them to smithereens.
In all cases, I don't doubt that large explosions would have severe psychological effect on the pirates and potential pirates.

If surgical bombing is not possible, then all that is left is to arm the ships that frequent those waters.
If the ships refuse to be armed, then it's their problem?
Considering the state of Somalia, i don't think there is a 100% percent perfect solution.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have been trying for years to cut off the head of AQ.  Where is Bin Laden?



Gee, if the org. you worked for actually were what their name implied you might actually be able to say he was long dead.....




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know darn well what the legalities of the matter here is.  Don't pull the "Bomb them into oblivion" card and say that it can be 100% "surgical".   And don't forget that this is a society that lives on the principles of vendetta/revenge.



Gee, another one who knows where ZC has been and yet, somehow, thousands of innocent civilians weren't bombed into obliviation by his hand.
When you headin' over?.......oh yea, some as I.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have been trying for years to cut off the head of AQ.  Where is Bin Laden?



Seriously?  Bin Laden is the only benchmark of success for aerial int gathering and human intelligence?  Seems to me that our UAV folks in the Sandbox did a pretty good job without turning the Kandahar Province into an episode of Gundam Seed.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You know darn well what the legalities of the matter here is.  Don't pull the "Bomb them into oblivion" card and say that it can be 100% "surgical".



I bet the first few salvos could be.  Then you open up Crimestoppers Somalia and let them rat each other out.  Again, seems to me that before a Tomahawk gets hucked out, people might have had some eyes on for a while?   



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And don't forget that this is a society that lives on the principles of vendetta/revenge.



Yes.  Seems to me we could learn a few things from them.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Yes.  Seems to me we could learn a few things from them.




So?  You now advocate we lower ourselves to their standards?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..........actually be able to say he was long dead.....




Don't you love it when someone has numerous serious health issues, outlives us all?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  You now advocate we lower ourselves to their standards?



I would suggest that our Western arrogance and shortsightedness has gotten us into the mess we are in today.  When one society consistently demonstrates that they are weak, over-forgiving, soft on crime, have no national cohesiveness and have ridiculous entrenched laws (such as the Multiculturalism Act for starters) that only serve to split our country and create mini islands of individuals, then we deserve to be treated like the bitches that we act like.
  
These pirates demonstrate by word and deed that they think they are the alpha wolves and can do whatever they want.  I merely suggest that they be shown their place; petty thugs and thieves.


----------



## mariomike (6 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have been trying for years to cut off the head of AQ.  Where is Bin Laden?



There is speculation, but no proof, that he may be dead. As far as AQ, Ray Kroc passed away, but McDonald's is still in business. That's a poor analogy, I know.


----------



## Stukov (7 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I would suggest that our Western arrogance and shortsightedness has gotten us into the mess we are in today.  When one society consistently demonstrates that they are weak, over-forgiving, soft on crime, have no national cohesiveness and have ridiculous entrenched laws (such as the Multiculturalism Act for starters) that only serve to split our country and create mini islands of individuals, then we deserve to be treated like the bitches that we act like.
> 
> These pirates demonstrate by word and deed that they think they are the alpha wolves and can do whatever they want.  I merely suggest that they be shown their place; petty thugs and thieves.



Your shortsightedness, lack of intuition and narrow-mindedness is a ghostly reminiscent of those who have tried to hold back the progress of society by whatever means fancied them; be it fear or ignorance. Ideas which value no higher then petty barbarianism are the reason society and individuals alike are held back from achieving not only the full, unilateral potential available but also utilizing potential in the most effective manner.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2009)

Says someone who has always had a good sleep knowing the shepherd is keeping the wolves away......


----------



## mariomike (7 Dec 2009)

Whose side are you on, Stukov?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> Your shortsightedness, lack of intuition and narrow-mindedness is a ghostly reminiscent of those who have tried to hold back the progress of society by whatever means fancied them; be it fear or ignorance. Ideas which value no higher then petty barbarianism are the reason society and individuals alike are held back from achieving not only the full, unilateral potential available but also utilizing potential in the most effective manner.



Wow.  Sweet quote.  That would look awesome on the back jacket cover of a sociology text book.  
Personal attack aside (easily brushed off by your lack of completed profile) on what personal experience do you challenge my comment?  I see every day the effects of our "liberal democracy" and where it is going.  Seems to me the lefties have had a free run since the 70's.  Are we better off now than we were back then?  
And it seems to me that the good people of Singapore thrive and survive just fine.  Being barbarians and such, you know.  



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Whose side are you on, Stukov?



He is likely on the side of the illusion of what Canada is supposed to be.  One of the sheeple I risk my life for.


----------



## Stukov (7 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> He is likely on the side of the illusion of what Canada is supposed to be.  One of the sheeple I risk my life for.




I don't recall ever asking you to, you're a police officer correct? You earn a salary to uphold the laws of this land, not to "protect me". 

I also mentioned nothing of the Liberal government, or of democracy for that matter.


----------



## mariomike (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> You earn a salary to uphold the laws of this land, not to "protect me".



I wish I had a nickel for every time a 911 caller said, "I pay your salary".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever asking you to, you're a police officer correct? You earn a salary to uphold the laws of this land, not to "protect me".



 :rofl:  Thank you for that.  Awesome.  

Okay, go for it Stukov.  What is your big plan for Somalia?  Or did you just come on this thread to wax leftist?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2009)

ZC, don't bother.

Once Mommy stops changing his diapers he may understand....


----------



## Stukov (7 Dec 2009)

Can you develop back pains from sitting on the moral high horse for too long?


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> Can you develop back pains from sitting on the moral high horse for too long?



No but your eyes will remain crossed by always looking down from your nose....

dileas

tess


----------



## Scott (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> Can you develop back pains from sitting on the moral high horse for too long?



Or if you're going to contribute nothing to this thread you can always go into the warning system.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## ballz (7 Dec 2009)

Stukov said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever asking you to, you're a police officer correct? You earn a salary to uphold the laws of this land, not to "protect me".
> 
> I also mentioned nothing of the Liberal government, or of democracy for that matter.



Ok I think we, pro and anti "blow somalia up" people alike, can agree to just leave this guy out of our pissing contest.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I take that is a request, not a screen name?  You may find out that doing nothing is often worse that doing something.



Don't worry about my jewels, if you've got nothing better to try and attack me on besides my screen name I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment. I don't care whether you're an MP, Infanteer, or JTF2, avert your eyes from my zipper, zipperhead_cop.

I never said do nothing. I would support doing something. I would support troops on the ground. I would support building and stabilizing the country to take the legs out from underneath whatever it is that is driving piracy. I would support going after the heads of the piracy in a slightly more sophisticated operation than 500 lb bombs. And if there is a decision to put troops on the ground in Somalia, in all likelihood given the time frame, my feet would be there. If that happens, then you can worry about my nuts.

I'm done with this one, played itself out. I can watch monkeys on YouTube throw their own s**t at each other. ZC, if you had any of your own feces left to throw, direct it towards my inbox.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Don't worry about my jewels, if you've got nothing better to try and attack me on besides my screen name I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment. I don't care whether you're an MP, Infanteer, or JTF2, avert your eyes from my zipper, zipperhead_cop.



Come on.  You pick a screen name like that and don't thing anyone is going to make a play on words with it ever?  Lighten up, Francis.  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I never said do nothing. I would support doing something. I would support troops on the ground. I would support building and stabilizing the country to take the legs out from underneath whatever it is that is driving piracy. I would support going after the heads of the piracy in a slightly more sophisticated operation than 500 lb bombs. And if there is a decision to put troops on the ground in Somalia, in all likelihood given the time frame, my feet would be there. If that happens, then you can worry about my nuts.


  

I'm sure the command appreciates you volunteering us for another highly involved mission and stepping up to lead Roto Zero.  And I'm sure your men will appreciate that you don't see air support as "sophisticated" and won't be utilizing it.  I'm with you.  Bayonet charges are sweet!  



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm done with this one, played itself out. I can watch monkeys on YouTube throw their own s**t at each other. ZC, if you had any of your own feces left to throw, direct it towards my inbox.



PM inbound.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I would suggest that our Western arrogance and shortsightedness has gotten us into the mess we are in today.  When one society consistently demonstrates that they are weak, over-forgiving, soft on crime, have no national cohesiveness and have ridiculous entrenched laws (such as the Multiculturalism Act for starters) that only serve to split our country and create mini islands of individuals, then we deserve to be treated like the bitches that we act like.



I agree with you there; but is that our problem, or that of pirates somewhere half way around the world?  We do have a serious problem with our own society, but it is not the sole result of pirates in Somalia.  Why deflect the discussion from Somali pirates to our own problems at home?




			
				Stukov said:
			
		

> Your shortsightedness, lack of intuition and narrow-mindedness is a ghostly reminiscent of those who have tried to hold back the progress of society by whatever means fancied them; be it fear or ignorance. Ideas which value no higher then petty barbarianism are the reason society and individuals alike are held back from achieving not only the full, unilateral potential available but also utilizing potential in the most effective manner.



Stukov

That is right out to lunch.  I can't make any sense of what you are rambling on about.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I agree with you there; but is that our problem, or that of pirates somewhere half way around the world?  We do have a serious problem with our own society, but it is not the sole result of pirates in Somalia.  Why deflect the discussion from Somali pirates to our own problems at home?



I was directly responding you your decidedly non-pirate oriented comment here:


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  You now advocate we lower ourselves to their standards?



But yes, a refocusing of the topic was needed.


----------

