NEWS: Pirates Attack Cruise Ship Off Somalia

I read that whole article on the economist and the ony thing I understood was accusations, suspicions, and fears, by a London defense and security consultant. I don't see anything there on terrorism. It says a strange number of ethinc people are asking for diving training, big whoop. If I gathered 15 arabs to go for diving class I bet you would accuse them of training for terrorism too.

It seems to me you just wish to accuse them of terrorism because they are "possibly" Muslim. It's ok, it means the propoganda is working to "wash your brain".

I don't know about many other "terrorist" organizations, but from what
I have read from the following article it would seem there really is not any Al-Qaida presence in Somalia.
Source. yahoo.com

"The only reason Western powers say that al-Qaida is in Somalia is because they are afraid that Somalia will become an Islamic state and they will do everything they can to stop that," Aweys says. "I believe there's not even one person in Somalia connected to al-Qaida. We are one clan, one color, one language. We would not accept foreigners (al-Qaida) here."
..........

I ask him about the March 2005 United Nations report that claimed Somalia has become a haven for jihadists and has no fewer than 17 mobile terrorist training camps on its soil.

"The FBI, people like you (journalists) and other groups who are often in the shadows always say al-Qaida is in Somalia," says Aweys, dismissively.

Interim President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed "also said two years ago there were al-Qaida training camps here. Well, the FBI came here, journalists came here and there were no training camps. It's just not true. We all know each other in Somalia. We would know if al-Qaida was here."

Besides I would assume if they wanted to inflict casualties, and incite "terror" they would have used mortars to bombard the decks and upper levels. RPG's will only do moderate damage to a cement wall, I would doubt they have the ability to punch a hole into a ships hull. Im sure there is a nasty scar though.

These were just a bunch of thieves with a boat most likely hoping the stereotypes ofignorance and fear in Westerners would make them "stop and do anything the robber/bad man says". Ah well it had a happy ending.

Originally posted by DYepes
I read that whole article on the economist and the ony thing I understood was accusations, suspicions, and fears, by a London defense and security consultant. I don't see anything there on terrorism.

You missed this part Dyepes

But according to a new study* by Aegis Defence Services, a London defence and security consultancy, these attacks represent something altogether more sinister. The temporary hijacking of the Dewi Madrim was by terrorists learning to drive a ship, and the kidnapping (without any attempt to ransom the officers) was aimed at acquiring expertise to help the terrorists mount a maritime attack. In other words, attacks like that on the Dewi Madrim are the equivalent of the al-Qaeda hijackers who perpetrated the September 11th attacks going to flying school in Florida.

economist.com...

The first paragraph ties in the pirate side of the story.

Wow, REAL pirates.
I thought they all died off when the internet was born.
Anyone suppose these guys download MP3's from kazaa?

Originally posted by DYepes

I don't know about many other "terrorist" organizations, but from what
I have read from the following article it would seem there really is not any Al-Qaida presence in Somalia.

Sorry I skipped over this part first time around.

read this perhaps it will explain things better for you

In February 2005, Porter Goss, head of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), said that the war in Iraq had provided opportunities for the training of terrorists who may then take their new-found skills overseas. Referring specifically to attacks on US soil, he added: "Al-Qaeda is intent on finding ways of circumventing US security." But the danger is not limited to the US mainland and US interests are not the sole targets, as the attack in Istanbul, Bali, Madrid and Casablanca testify. On the same day in 2002, there were attacks on a tourist hotel in Kenya and a failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter flight. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were both struck by powerful bombs. Each of these four attacks had a link to Somalia.

Since the 1990s, US officials have said that Al-Qaeda was active in Somalia, at the very least supporting local, radical Islamist groups and setting up training camps in the country. While the US does not claim that Al-Qaeda was directly involved in the 1993 attacks on US forces in Mogadishu, it points to the fact that Osama bin Laden did issue a fatwa (ruling) against the US mission to Somalia. The ruling described the United Nations' humanitarian mission as an act of aggression and declared that it was incumbent on good Muslims to attack and kill the soldiers of occupation where possible. With the deaths of 18 US special forces troops - and hundreds of Somalis - in October 1993, the Clinton administration removed US troops from the country as quickly as possible.

www.janes.com...

[edit on 11/5/2005 by shots]

This plays into a conspiracy theory that I have been entertaining for a while. I'll make this brief.

Sudan has been in civil war for a while, but finally came to a truce. Southern Sudan, which is less Muslim and has a great deal more wealth, is autonomous and will hold a referendum on independence in 2011. John Garang, a S. Sudanese rebel leader who became VP of Sudan, died in a helicopter crash in July- probably an assassination intended to ensure the failure of autonomy and the success of the independence referendum.

S. Sudan, as long as it gets control of the Kordofan and Blue Nile provinces, has the capacity to supply the energy needs of Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia through its natural gas and hydro-electric capacity (if somebody builds a few more dams). This would be the key to building a regional economy that could stabilize the region and make them extremely valuable to India and the United States.

Here's where Somalia comes in: Ethiopia doesn't have ports, Eritrea could be threatened by the North Sudanese, and Kenya's population centers are all concentrated inland near the arable land- they just wouldn't be able to support the relationship between the new "colonies" and India/The US. So there are basically only a few options for a port: Djibouti, Mogadishu, or Dar'es Salaam.
Dar'es Salaam, Tanzania is too far away, AIDS presents too much of a problem, and being that close to Zimbabwe would mean that push would eventually come to shove with Mugabe.
Djibouti you run into the Muslim problem, and being right off the coast of Yemen presents security problems.
That leaves Mogadishu, Somalia. Still Muslim problems there, but it's close enough, you don't have problems with the neighbors, and we can come up with plenty of excuses to go in.

Long story short: I think that problems with Somalia will increase, the line about Al Qaida retreating to Africa will definately come up, and eventually we're going in. In 5-10 years we're going to be getting into East Africa in a big way and getting pretty cozy with India, with the goal of securing mineral deposits there.
When the price of oil and natural gas make asphalt the same price as concrete, paving in asphalt will be history and we'll be looking to secure cement suppliers in Africa and South America and box the Chinese out. If we don't want to share, we've got to shake up borders and build economies to disassociate the vital regions from debts or make it possible for them to pay their debts.

This = Gulf of Tonkin

but you never know. I think you have the motivations and casus belli down well.

My only question is regards the level of commitment you'd get from either USA or India. Not what they'd find convenient, but what risks they'd take for this. And it would be risky.

For those screaming that this shouldn't be called "terrorism" :

Do you think they must be one OR the other, but not both? Do you think they have to "blood out" of the pirate codes, and then "blood in" to a terror network?

If you interviewed these pirates, do you think they're rooting for the Bush White house???

Are they requiring guys to end their religious afflitilations in order to become pirates:

OK, you guys can join us if you want, but you have to immediately CEASE BEING PRESBYTERIANS, or feeling any loyalty to presbyterian leadership. Oh yeah, you must now root for Pittsburg from now on. . . .

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If you interviewed these pirates, do you think they're rooting for the Bush White house???

Are they requiring guys to end their religious afflitilations in order to become pirates:

OK, you guys can join us if you want, but you have to immediately CEASE BEING PRESBYTERIANS, or feeling any loyalty to presbyterian leadership. Oh yeah, you must now root for Pittsburg from now on. . . .

Who cares? Terrorists SPEND money on terrorism. Pirates STEAL money for THEMSELVES. Do you disagree with what I said about the difference between piracy and terrorism earlier? Do you think all burglars or convenience store robbers are terrorists? The only difference between these people and convenience store robbers is a sea and a boat. The ideology behind thievery is pretty standard.

Zip

[edit on 11/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Hilarious. You fulminated on the issue of other posters misinterpreting their motivation. And when I start asking questions, you immediately say "who cares."


But all thieves are NOT terrorists.

Most thieves are not armed when they commit a burglary.

And if they were, it wouldn't be with a rocket launcher.

Let me try a different question. if there were two cruise liners on the horizon, which do you think the Somali pirates would choose, one from the United States, or one from Paraguay?

Is their choice politically motivated? At what point does crime-for-profit become an agenda?

The young Stalin filled the coffers of the Bolsheviks during the Revolution by a "policy of expropriation." In other words, he robbed banks loyal to the majority party.

So was Stalin a-political, since his crimes were motivated by greed?

Was he a thief, but not a pirate?

.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Hilarious. You fulminated on the issue of other posters misinterpreting their motivation. And when I start asking questions, you immediately say "who cares."


But all thieves are NOT terrorists.

Most thieves are not armed when they commit a burglary.

That's because burglarizing things does not require a victim to be present. Robberies, by definition, do require a victim to be present.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And if they were, it wouldn't be with a rocket launcher.

Yeah, they used canons in the old days. What, are you gonna rob a cruise line with a Gerber Gator? Maybe a boxcutter.

EDIT: Concerning canoes, different pirates used different approaches. Period.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Let me try a different question. if there were two cruise liners on the horizon, which do you think the Somali pirates would choose, one from the United States, or one from Paraguay?

Were the pirates Somalian? I dunno, is this a trick question? Let's say "United States" because they might surmise that there could be more booty on it.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Is their choice politically motivated? At what point does crime-for-profit become an agenda?

The young Stalin filled the coffers of the Bolsheviks during the Revolution by a "policy of expropriation." In other words, he robbed banks loyal to the majority party.

So was Stalin a-political, since his crimes were motivated by greed?

Was he a thief, but not a pirate?

.

Hey, you don't like the term "terrorist," and neither do I. I've spoken many times on ATS about how much I hate that stupid, useless term. In short, no, without a declared agenda, this is not "terrorism." A suicide bomber doesn't typically broadcast their motives before they explode because it can detract from the amount of damage that they intend to do, but 90% of communication is nonverbal anyways, right? So... Who knows what their intentions were - they utterly failed in their mission. At the moment, they have not "terrorized" anybody and are therefore not "terrorists."

Zip

[edit on 11/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot
At the moment, they have not "terrorized" anybody and are therefore not "terrorists."
Zip

Really?

Do you have psychic powers, so that you know that not the captain, no one amongst the crew, experienced so much as an uptick in blood pressure during this little training exercise?

Not even the fat old Americans and other tourists who were passangers?

None of them were terrorized?

Apparently, it is only terrorism if you succeed at killing a few thousand, eh?

Or maybe you are just rooting for the other team . . .

Suppose they were just garden variety pirates. that actually is a form of terrorism, or the European imperial powers would not have issued "Letters of Marque" against each other during times of peace.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by Zipdot
At the moment, they have not "terrorized" anybody and are therefore not "terrorists."
Zip

Really?

Do you have psychic powers, so that you know that not the captain, no one amongst the crew, experienced so much as an uptick in blood pressure during this little training exercise?

Not even the fat old Americans and other tourists who were passangers?

None of them were terrorized?

Apparently, it is only terrorism if you succeed at killing a few thousand, eh?

Or maybe you are just rooting for the other team . . .

Suppose they were just garden variety pirates. that actually is a form of terrorism, or the European imperial powers would not have issued "Letters of Marque" against each other during times of peace.

***Long, Wheezing Sigh***

Well, it goes back to the age old question, what is a damn "terrorist?" Are you a "terrorist" when you first decide to "terrorize" someone, or are you only a "terrorist" after you have succeeded in your "terrorizing" schemes?

Hell, what makes up a political gain, anyway? The kids in Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" were making a statement about society when they beat up the homeless man, is this political? Are they terrorists?

Bah! There are pirates all over the damn place. Just because some pirates go after a cruise liner, they aren't automatically terrorists.

Again, I think that the word "terrorist" is a stupid word, and as we refer to these people, we should name their actual crimes and leave the political ideology (EDIT: ... and victim reaction) out of it. Since when has a person's motivation been required in the description of their crime?

Zip

[edit on 11/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by Zipdot
Since when has a person's motivation been required in the description of their crime?
[edit on 11/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Hate crimes
attempted murder
1st, vs. 2nd or 3rd degree murder (capital murder, in TX)
Conspiracy
racketeering
extortion
distribution of stolen goods
perjury
contempt of court.

Motivation is the sole of crime. (Cicero said that first, not me.) It is the difference between involuntary homicide, and murder, between criminal negligence, and arson. It is why Amy fisher got off from attempted murder rap of Mrs. Buttafucco, but The DC snipers did not for their victims.

I could go on, but I don't think you're reading my posts very closely.

Hell, I don't think your even reading your own posts very closely at this point.

I think the Navy should use a cruise ship, yacht or frieghter to lure the pirates and mount some weapons in a stealth way and then go hunting

Or they should mount a 5 inch deck gun and maybe a few .50 cals or even a few 25mm MK38s on cruise ships


Lets see how aggresive and bold the pirates are after a 5 inch salvo comes over their bow or they have some 25mm holes in their hull Heck I bet a well trained crew member with a Barrett MA82 could make those pirates decide to go pick on a different ship.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by Zipdot
Since when has a person's motivation been required in the description of their crime?
[edit on 11/5/2005 by Zipdot]

Hate crimes
attempted murder
1st, vs. 2nd or 3rd degree murder (capital murder, in TX)
Conspiracy
racketeering
extortion
distribution of stolen goods
perjury
contempt of court.

Motivation is the sole of crime. (Cicero said that first, not me.) It is the difference between involuntary homicide, and murder, between criminal negligence, and arson. It is why Amy fisher got off from attempted murder rap of Mrs. Buttafucco, but The DC snipers did not for their victims.

I could go on, but I don't think you're reading my posts very closely.

Hell, I don't think your even reading your own posts very closely at this point.

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Hate Criminals!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Racketeers!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Extorters!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Attempted Murderers!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Perjors!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Contemptors of Court!"

"Citizens, be on the lookout for some Terrorists!"

I did not comment on the importance of motivation in relation to a crime. I was strictly speaking about the hitherto necessary lack of a requirement of including motivational descriptions in *SUSPECTED* criminal titles. The crimes you listed are beyond allegation - for instance, a person can be arrested for "homicide" and then be tried and convicted for committing "manslaughter" or whatever, after the motivation has been discovered and proven. In the case of terrorists, the "terrorism" nametag is secondary to the actual crime and often, as in this case, used pre-emptively as a descriptor of the individuals who are without actual proven guilt, as they are merely alleged to have committed certain crimes at this point. As their criminal activity at this point is unproven, certainly their possible motivations for allegedly committing the crimes are as well under examination.

Terrorists are primarily guilty of regular crimes - offenses and conspiracies to commit offenses. "Terrorism" is not a "regular" or objective offense and as such I think that its usage as the definition of a separate crime from the principle crime[s] that a "terrorist" is alleged to have committed is unnecessary. I hold a similar stance with regard to the "hate crime" classification.

These ambiguous and meaningless words detract from the corporeality of the actual crimes and are misused by the public and the media as a result, reducing the value of the actual crimes even as the adjective descriptions were originally intended to compound such value.

I cannot find any reference to any such quote from Cicero, by the way.

Zip

[edit on 11/6/2005 by Zipdot]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Suppose they were just garden variety pirates. that actually is a form of terrorism, or the European imperial powers would not have issued "Letters of Marque" against each other during times of peace.

What?

The original function of a letter of marque (or Letter of Reprisal) was to right a private wrong. For example, when a Dutch merchant has his goods stolen in Germany, and he cannot gain satisfaction for his loss through legal or diplomatic means, he can be granted a Letter of Marque by the Dutch government. Such a letter allows him to "capture" a German merchant to compensate him for his loss. Since the early 18th century it was no longer in use as a means to right a private wrong. The function of the letter of Marque had changed. These letters were now used by governments, as an instrument of State, to augment the National Navy. This gave the state a naval force which could attack the commerce of the enemy at no cost to public funds. The ships captured had to be brought before an Admiralty Court and tried to ensure they were a legal prize, and not the property of a neutral state.

It's funny that you mention letters of marque -- they had very little to do with politics and very much to do with civility, criminality, and property. A letter of marque, by its nature, was intended to be observed by the target country in a situation of reciprocity. An eye for an eye, as it were. What is to be gained politically by such agreement and equality?

Privateers who had been granted a letter of marque had the legal ability to hunt pirates (my great-something grandfather was a privateer for England, actually), but this was only for purposes of civil settlement and not political gain.

Let me break it down for you:

- If a nation's navy moved aggressively against another nation's vessels, this was an act of war.

- If a nation's civilians moved aggressively against any vessels, this was an act of criminality. These people were pirates.

- A nation's civilian merchant could be granted a letter of marque to act aggressively against another (SPECIFIC) country without facing criminal charges in his home country, but this would often not affect his status as a criminal to the offended country. If the civilian moved aggressively against a country not named in the letter, without regard to previous piracy on that country's part, the civilian became a criminal in both his home country and the offended country (basically, he would have become a pirate at this point.)

I could be wrong, but I believe that at no time did any European country subsidize civilian acts of aggression against other countries' civilian vessels for political purposes during peace time. In other words, "terrorism" is and always has been a criminal act in the "terrorist's" home country as well as the offended country, in Europe.

Zip

[edit on 11/6/2005 by Zipdot]

I wouldn't give Shots too much grief over this. When I saw the report on what happened the first thing I thought was that it was an attempted terrorist attack. This is without knowing the origin of the men that attacked the ship. They didn't just try and stop the ship to board it. Then approached the ship with guns blazing. Then even fired a rocket propelled grenade. Does that sound like pirates to you? My guess... and its a guess... is that if they had captured that ship they would have executed a bunch of passengers and possibly sank the boat and tried to shoot anyone that jumped in the water. This doesn't sound like a robbery. Lucky the captain was smart and was able to avoid capture. He even tried to run one of the boats over which I thought was amusing.

Watching this covered on the news yesterday, the talking head said that recently the State Dept. issued a travel warning for ships in the waters off Somalia. Pirates, it seems are active in the area. The pirates have even attacked UN relief boats recently.

Seems like they were on the money, for this one. Makes me re-think how much they know about some of these "specific threats" that they issue every once in a while, where nothing materializes. I won't be so quick to pooh-pooh warnings anymore.

There is a short video on the incident, that mentions the State Dept. warnings, at this link. The video button is right next to the story.
www.foxnews.com...

Has anyone heard reports that the cruise ship repelled them with "some kind of accoustic device"? I heard this on abc.net.au/newsradio. I heard it on the radio, so I don't know if there will be anything on the website yet.

Pirates are pretty bad in areas like somalia and indonesia (no offence to you guys).
From the guys here at the MN college the only defence most ships have is a fire hose at like 4 barr pressure.

Though I believe you can carry your own weapon, BTW , the rights a captain has over the crew are quite amazing.
He can kill in defence of a mutiny if needs be.

Originally posted by fingapointa
Has anyone heard reports that the cruise ship repelled them with "some kind of accoustic device"?

Yeah, I heard about it several times. As a matter of fact, the reporter in that short video on Fox mentions it also.

What they did was to pump out loud blasts to make it sound like they were firing back at the pirates.

Apparently, the crews of these cruise ships are well trained in escape maneuvers. They were given all the credit for getting out of there with no casualties and very little damage. Face it - they have to be. Those cruise ships are a lot like floating piggy banks.