alant
Well-Known Member
"We don't summarily execute people in a civilised society, otherwise we would be no better than the 'barbarians' we loathe."
"http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/ShotatDawnWW1ArmyExecutio.html"
Really?
Danish Yacht family taken by pirates
- Thread starter Sea Devil
- Start date
"We don't summarily execute people in a civilised society, otherwise we would be no better than the 'barbarians' we loathe."
"http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/ShotatDawnWW1ArmyExecutio.html"
Really?
VO5
Well-Known Member
Yes agreed, but additionally I suspect we are all being told lies.
Have you not heard all the Western Governments braying like donkeys about the fight against terrorism ?
Have you noticed that when a passenger plane is hijacked it is called terrorism?
But when a ship with a crew and cargo is hijacked it is called piracy.
Are they not one and the same thing ?
So why difference in nomenclature ? Use of language ? No. The change of nomenclature is used to mask how the public should view the threat, according to a manipulated and spun perception, like a sleight of hand magicians perform in front of an audience.
The use of the term Piracy is deliberately intended to channel away our perception of what it really is.
The use of the term Piracy diverts attention to what it really is : TERRORISM.
Do not these governments continue to bray like donkeys about tackling terrorism ?
They are not tackling this situation at all are they ?
Why not ?
If you consider the problem carefully, you will see the reality that it is genuine terrorism, really nasty.
This fight against terrorism is just sound bites, excuses, nothing else.
The reality of fighting terrorism is a reality these donkey governments are unable to face because it is REAL.
But they are happy to face invented terrorist threats and minor sporadic misdemeanors quite willingly.
Why would this be the case ?
Because percieved terrorism adds grist to the mill of worldwide control of peoples as part of a dumbing down process to make people manageable, submissive, suibservient, dumbed down and ultimately dominated amd malleable.
But facing and dealing effectively and decisively with real terrorism is another matter isn't it ?
That explains the collective reliuctance to effectively root out this menace.
Have you not heard all the Western Governments braying like donkeys about the fight against terrorism ?
Have you noticed that when a passenger plane is hijacked it is called terrorism?
But when a ship with a crew and cargo is hijacked it is called piracy.
Are they not one and the same thing ?
So why difference in nomenclature ? Use of language ? No. The change of nomenclature is used to mask how the public should view the threat, according to a manipulated and spun perception, like a sleight of hand magicians perform in front of an audience.
The use of the term Piracy is deliberately intended to channel away our perception of what it really is.
The use of the term Piracy diverts attention to what it really is : TERRORISM.
Do not these governments continue to bray like donkeys about tackling terrorism ?
They are not tackling this situation at all are they ?
Why not ?
If you consider the problem carefully, you will see the reality that it is genuine terrorism, really nasty.
This fight against terrorism is just sound bites, excuses, nothing else.
The reality of fighting terrorism is a reality these donkey governments are unable to face because it is REAL.
But they are happy to face invented terrorist threats and minor sporadic misdemeanors quite willingly.
Why would this be the case ?
Because percieved terrorism adds grist to the mill of worldwide control of peoples as part of a dumbing down process to make people manageable, submissive, suibservient, dumbed down and ultimately dominated amd malleable.
But facing and dealing effectively and decisively with real terrorism is another matter isn't it ?
That explains the collective reliuctance to effectively root out this menace.
alant
Well-Known Member
"Definition
Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, rape, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction."
VO5
Well-Known Member
No, no, and NO.
Piracy does not involve taking hostages in exchange for a ransom or a concession of some sort. It involves raiding and looting and fighting and killing.
Terrorism involves taking hostages in exchange for a ransom or a concession of some sort.
Therefore, it is clear that what is developing is the latter, not the former.
Piracy does not involve taking hostages in exchange for a ransom or a concession of some sort. It involves raiding and looting and fighting and killing.
Terrorism involves taking hostages in exchange for a ransom or a concession of some sort.
Therefore, it is clear that what is developing is the latter, not the former.
lyralicious
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, your lack of basic understanding of the problems in Somalia shows your lack of research or experience. By the way, yes I've been to Africa several times (in fact I was in Eritrea and Sudan last year) and the Middle East and I live in India now, but that is irrelevant.
I'm not sure from where your assertion that I expect Somalia to be 'upgraded' to European standards comes. If you believe their values are lower than Europe's (a statement I find patronising and arrogant) are you seriously advocating we should lower ours?
I can only infer from your comments that you want the world's naval forces to act irresponsibly by blasting 'pirates' out of the water. What do you think will happen to the 600 or 800 hostages currently waiting to be released in Somalia if they do that?
Have you sailed in the GoA recently, or across the Arabian Sea? I have. Pirates and fishing boats look very similar until you get very, very close to them. I had the good fortune to spend a week with one of the Royal Navy warships in Salalah last March and the consensus among the crew was that piracy stems from the lawlessness of the country, a problem which needs to be dealt with politically. They said the ragamuffins they encounter at sea are simply poor and desperate cannon fodder sent out to sea by the piracy lords who are only interested in the loot (hostages).
I agree with Neil - shooting up the hired hands on the skiffs is not the way forward.
Based here in Cochin the subject of piracy comes up daily and we all make it our business to stay up to speed on what is happening, through various channels open to us, not least the ex Indian Navy commander who runs the show at the marina. (Quest were moored opposite us when the Blue Water Rally came through in January. Several non rally boats that left a few weeks ago have now come back - some are going round the Cape, some are returning to Thailand and some are having their yachts transported to the Med.)
There are no one line solutions to this problem.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Sounds like kidnapping to me, not terrorism, which is - generally - blowing up or shooting up soft targets.
lyralicious
Well-Known Member
Indeed! We are no better than the barbarians, but we should at least try to be better, shouldn't we?
maxi77
Well-Known Member
No No No NO
Terrorism is the creation of a sense of terror usually by violent acts to persuade a population of people to obey a non elected government, or to oblige an external goverment to give political concessions.
Piracy is a wholly commercial operation. Cetainly there seem to be no politcal demands from the hostage takers so on that basis they are not terrorists.
lyralicious
Well-Known Member
VO5
Well-Known Member
You agree with me then ?
Coincidentally the government of Somalia is ineffective. It is as if in reality it did not exist, and therefore there is a power vaccum in which the "pirates" overwhelm their government's ability to act.
Then this means that the pirates, taking advantage of this power vacuum create teror to persuade the sea going population to obey them.
In this case political concessions are not the object. The object is ransom money. as for pirates not being terrorists, this is a nonsense.
Terrorists use terror to achieve their objectives.
They terrify their victims.
Their victims are the hostages they have captured and hold.
For the unfortunate hostages the experience is one to be terrified of, because what they experience is terror, and not the opposite.
As a case in point the experience of the Chandlers illustrates the use of terror, including forceful separation of a husband and wife, and even the threat to kill them.
And incidentally pirates are not businessmen.
These pirates are not pirates pure amnd simple, they terrorise their hostages and even threaten to kill them. They subject them to terror. Therefore, they cease to be pirates and are now terrorists.
VO5
Well-Known Member
I am sorry to disappoint you.
They are not pirates.
They are terrorists.
Pirates fly the Jolly Roger.
The Jolly Roger has never been spotted in any of these terrorist incidents, or encounters or sightings.
Nor do they wear earrings, eye patches or brandish cutlasses or have parrots.
Zanziba
Well-Known Member
They do, however, collect "Pieces of Eight"
VO5
Well-Known Member
No, they don't.
Peices of eight are part of history.
They are no longer legal tender.
Nor can they be recognised as currency.
They are not exchangeable, transactable, attributable, recognised, divisible, established, negotiable.
A formal market does not exist in them as mediums of exchange or a store of value.
Therefore peices of Eight are not money, but collectable curiosities instead.
Terrorists do not terrorise to acquire collectable curiosities. They terrorise to acquire tangible CASH.
Peices of eight are part of history.
They are no longer legal tender.
Nor can they be recognised as currency.
They are not exchangeable, transactable, attributable, recognised, divisible, established, negotiable.
A formal market does not exist in them as mediums of exchange or a store of value.
Therefore peices of Eight are not money, but collectable curiosities instead.
Terrorists do not terrorise to acquire collectable curiosities.
They terrorise to acquire tangible CASH.Zanziba
Well-Known Member
No, they don't.
Peices of eight are part of history.
They are no longer legal tender.
Nor can they be recognised as currency.
They are not exchangeable, transactable, attributable, recognised, divisible, established, negotiable.
A formal market does not exist in them as mediums of exchange or a store of value.
Therefore peices of Eight are not money, but collectable curiosities instead.
Terrorists do not terrorise to acquire collectable curiosities.
I was making a reference to currency in general.
VO5
Well-Known Member
I was making a reference to currency in general.
Currency is defined as a medium of exchange and a store of value that is recognised as such, that depending on its place in the pecking order in the global economy is defined as major or minor and for which a formalised market exists to provide recognition, acceptance, price and liquidity.
Peices of Eight do not fall into either category.
They remain a collectable curiosity and nothing else.
Zanziba
Well-Known Member
I understand that they were used as a financial bartering chip in times yonder.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
That's quite a terrorist bee you have under your bonnet, VO5.
I repeat, holding people for ransom is kidnapping.
Holding vessels for ransom is (probably) extortion.
Whatever, they're all criminals.
I repeat, holding people for ransom is kidnapping.
Holding vessels for ransom is (probably) extortion.
Whatever, they're all criminals.
VO5
Well-Known Member
That's better....
Don't stick your tongue out to me or you will incur my displeasure and the I will not teach you anything.
Barter is the precursor to currency. Barter involves the exchange of goods and services for other goods and services. The problem with the barter system is that it cannot accomodate differences in values straight off.
Therefore currency had to be created to overcome this problem, and, in effect, to provide liquidity.
Bartering chips are not currency. They remain part of the bartering system.
This occured because the chips contained a basis for intrinsic value, which is a fundamental value.
However, an intrinsic value can only be established when a standard exists.
The expected standard (which could not be guaranteed) was size and purity of gold.
As additionally the size was not standardised and purity not assayed, the value or rather the "price" was arrived at by consensus and not by market.
For this reason also Peices of Eight were additionally not a currency in the strictest sense of the definition of what a currency really is and represents.
Whiskey Bravo
Well-Known Member
This thread has gone completely bonkers. Who cares if it's piracy, terrorism or anything else.
The plain fact of the matter is that if there was nobody to attack, then we wouldn't keep hearing about kidnappings etc. Obviously commercial traffic needs to keep sailing, with the protection of navies who are there to do a job.
The same navies have refused to protect yachts so for the forseeable future 'pleasure craft' should keep away. I don't really care if upsets somebody's plans for circumnavigation or whatever, putting oneself and others into danger for no good reason is just plain stupid. If it involves children it's criminal. It doesn't help when the Chandlers are paid thousands of pounds to 'sell their story', it just encourages others to take a chance with the possibility of financial benefit.
The plain fact of the matter is that if there was nobody to attack, then we wouldn't keep hearing about kidnappings etc. Obviously commercial traffic needs to keep sailing, with the protection of navies who are there to do a job.
The same navies have refused to protect yachts so for the forseeable future 'pleasure craft' should keep away. I don't really care if upsets somebody's plans for circumnavigation or whatever, putting oneself and others into danger for no good reason is just plain stupid. If it involves children it's criminal. It doesn't help when the Chandlers are paid thousands of pounds to 'sell their story', it just encourages others to take a chance with the possibility of financial benefit.
VO5
Well-Known Member
I missed this post. It deserves a detailed reply.
Like you, I am also well travelled. For this reason, based on what I have observed and experienced I have an overview. My overview conflicts with yours. My view is not patronising and arrogant. My view is brutally realistic.
Somalia is part of the Third World. It is unfortunate but it is a fact.
Now let's see...what happens when this problem is ignored and ignored and not adressed seriously and decidedly ? Do you think the number of hostages held in Somalia are going to increase or decrease ? Do you think the actrivity will not spread ?
Do you think the activity will not intensify ?
This problem has to be dealt with, decisively, and quickly, before it becomes endemic.
The crew of the RN vessel are service personnel. They obey orders as a consequence of the political will of their masters. They are not engaged to express or excercise free will. They are bound to orders. Additionally, being bound to orders has another effect, which is to justify what is being done and why. But this may not be fundamentally correct or even true. It may be the message passed down which creates the opinion, but that does not make it correct. It is the effect of political expediency and not of practical need.
Of course they are going to have opinions such as they hold. But the fact of the matter is that these bums are wreaking havoc on the ocean and cocking a snook at the navies sent to deal with them. Then if what these navies are enacting does not function it is foolish and pointless to persist and tactics, really effective tactics must be carried out to eradicate this menace, as soon as possible as a matter of urgency otherwise there is no point in having navies at all, is there ?
I do not believe that ragamuffins are poor and desperate and therefore resort to terrorism. They resort to terrorism because so far all they have encountered are soft targets.
If they should encounter really hard targets it would be another story. The word would spread around that the game is over, and the ragamuffins and their masters would have to give up.
All these dangers, these unadressed dangers have been known for a long time. Therefore in the absence of being afforded protection it is foolish to venture out in dangerous waters.
It would be wiser to go the other way and face natural dangers rather than man made dangers as a result of dereliction of will and resolute conviction to sort out this persistent nuisance once and for all.