Danish Yacht family taken by pirates

[VO5]

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.

Really ?

You can't be serious, can you ?

Do you realise what you have just posted (the last 4 lines) ?

That is the most ridiculous comment imaginable....to think someone is going to venture out to sea...in the expectation of being captured...and being held hostage...in appaling conditions...just to obtain thousands by selling the story?

Now that is bonkers...and not the thread or the dicussion within it.

 

[maxi77]

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.

Oh dear we do have a reality problem, pirates do it for money, terrorists do it for politics and political power, and in some cases religion (which tends to be political power anyway)

The fact they may use similar tactics does not change the motivation

 

[VO5]

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.

Yes because none of it is straightforward kidnapping ransom or extorsion.

It includes threats to life. It includes use of terror to force hostages to submit and comply. Therefore it is no longer what we are fed by the media but something very different. It is terrorism.

I am interested to see how the self appointed "powerful" nations of the world are going to deal with the menace effectively as the menace deserves.

So far all we have had is lip service, posturing and bungling.

 

[VO5]

Oh dear we do have a reality problem, pirates do it for money, terrorists do it for politics and political power, and in some cases religion (which tends to be political power anyway)

The fact they may use similar tactics does not change the motivation

Ok, you mention motivation. Very Good.

Now, where is the effective response? Where ? I see none, only posturing, spin and bungling.

 

[xxyyzz]

We don't summarily execute people in a civilised society, otherwise we would be no better than the 'barbarians' we loathe.

That's all right, they're not in a civilised society.

 

[VO5]

That's all right, they're not in a civilised society.

Correct. Sense at last.

Then if a superior force deployed to deal with the menace and bristling with guns, rockets, missles and manpower makes the menace progressively disappear and manages to keep quiet and not shout or show off.......the other potential menaces can be made to believe the sea has taken them......and if this means sinking the motherships as well......this is a good price to pay to clean it all up and get some peace and the security we are all promised in "The fight against Terrorism"...let's see how this pans out...

 

[Twister_Ken]

Yes because none of it is straightforward kidnapping ransom or extorsion.

It includes threats to life. It includes use of terror to force hostages to submit and comply. Therefore it is no longer what we are fed by the media but something very different. It is terrorism.

It's still not terrorism. By your definition, a bank robbery with bank staff threatened - or even a mugging - would be terrorism.

 

[alant]

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.

So, Pirates do not "terrorise"?

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group."

PIRACY
" Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.

The term can include acts committed in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons travelling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel)."

 

[Zanziba]

I agree that they are mercs who are hired and if we kill them more will appear. If that is the case then returning them to Somalia is not a problem.

What we need to do is either assassinate the leaders if there really is a hierachy and sink their vessels.

Mercs are rather useless without boats?

I know this is ridiculously simplistic and of course is made in jest but seriously, super powers shouldn't in any way be unable to deal with a threat like this.

 

[alant]

I agree that they are mercs who are hired and if we kill them more will appear. If that is the case then returning them to Somalia is not a problem.

What we need to do is either assassinate the leaders if there really is a hierachy and sink their vessels.

Mercs are rather useless without boats?

I know this is ridiculously simplistic and of course is made in jest but seriously, super powers shouldn't in any way be unable to deal with a threat like this.

They'll be raiding Kernow next, just like the Barbary Pirates, & paid off in pasties!

 

[VO5]

It's still not terrorism. By your definition, a bank robbery with bank staff threatened - or even a mugging - would be terrorism.

Yes Ken, when it suits "the authorities" to describe it as an act of terrorism, it is an act of terrorism. When it does not suit them, and they describe it as a robbery, so it becomes a robbery, and so the repporting of all of these events are manipulated to bend the perception of the receptive public to comply with an agenda most suitable and convenient.

For example, how many times have you come across a report of someone run over by a car and reported as having died? The poor blighter did not die, he was killed.

How often do you encounter the description "killed" used appropriately nowadays ? Not very often. Why ? Because the object is not to report the facts factually, but instead to additionally bend the perception of the audience in a society where dumbing down as an instrument used as part of a technique of political and civil control is the norm.

The same applies to the use of "piracy" and "terrorism", it is that simple...

There are people on this board who will argue and argue until they realise and suddenly the lightbulb goes on. ;D

 

[KellysEye]

Heaven forbid that they are all killed but if they were the fact teenagers are involved should sharpen the world's polititicians and navies minds. I don't see why we don't do what solved the pirate problem in 1953. Send a Frigate down the coast and blast every single boat. Then wait for the rest to come back.

 

[Csail]

Is anyone else like me tempted to go and 'get' the pirates.

 

[Whiskey Bravo]

Really ?

You can't be serious, can you ?

Do you realise what you have just posted (the last 4 lines) ?

That is the most ridiculous comment imaginable....to think someone is going to venture out to sea...in the expectation of being captured...and being held hostage...in appaling conditions...just to obtain thousands by selling the story?

Now that is bonkers...and not the thread or the dicussion within it.

I think you'll find that if you go back to the original post, and the first few posts after that, especially #3, you'll find that is what the thread is all about, not some ridiculous discussion about what constitutes the difference between piracy and terrorism, which is what you've turned the thread into. I'm much more concerned about why people would put themselves, and their children, into such a position.

The point about the Chandlers is valid, money talks and SOME people MAY see sailing into an at risk area as an opportunity. Not neccesarily to hope for capture but as an 'adventure' and how they managed to evade capture. You don't really believe, do you, that nobody has ever put themselves into dangerous situations, war zones etc, purely for the chance to write/film about it and sell their story?

I really would like somebody to try to give a 'valid' reason for taking children, or anybody else, into a known area of danger. Hopefully in this case there will be a happy outcome, but turgid discussions about whether they're victims of pirates or terrorists certainly won't do much to help.

 

[xxyyzz]

Is anyone else like me tempted to go and 'get' the pirates.

Yarrr!!! Get me rum, a gun and a ship and we'll sort 'em out me hearties!

 

[lenseman]

Yarrr!!! Get me rum, a gun and a ship and we'll sort 'em out me hearties!

Yay forgettin' thee 'bacci.

 

[VO5]

I think you'll find that if you go back to the original post, and the first few posts after that, especially #3, you'll find that is what the thread is all about, not some ridiculous discussion about what constitutes the difference between piracy and terrorism, which is what you've turned the thread into. I'm much more concerned about why people would put themselves, and their children, into such a position.

The point about the Chandlers is valid, money talks and SOME people MAY see sailing into an at risk area as an opportunity. Not neccesarily to hope for capture but as an 'adventure' and how they managed to evade capture. You don't really believe, do you, that nobody has ever put themselves into dangerous situations, war zones etc, purely for the chance to write/film about it and sell their story?

I really would like somebody to try to give a 'valid' reason for taking children, or anybody else, into a known area of danger. Hopefully in this case there will be a happy outcome, but turgid discussions about whether they're victims of pirates or terrorists certainly won't do much to help.

I am very aware as is everybody reading this thread what initiated it. There is no need for you to come in at this stage like a self appointed thought policeman to remind us of the fact. The discussion is not ridiculous. It points out the cardboard cutout hypocrisy that permeates scenarios such as these in which governments go to great lengths to induce citizens to believe that corps of trained men and women exist to protect us when needed.

In the end analysis none of it true. Not anti terrorism, or homeland security, or the war against crime, or drugs, or any other fanciful notion we are expected to take as given.

I have explained very clearly (and if you do not understand it I will explain it again, for your personal benefit and my satisfaction) how this time there is a decided rewluctance to deal with a very serious problem that affects everybody because the mission is percieved as too difficult. For this reason, and to pacify critics, the terorists who are terrifying seafarers are described as pirates, thus minimising their status.

The problem is that their status as very dangerous and malevolent organised groups cannot be minimised. Attempts can be made to discredit their status by brushing them off and calling them pirates. Pirates they are not. The media persists in bleating from a point of view of hand wringing helplessness that is grist to the mill of those paid to do their job properly and engage this menace squarely with the resolve to rid us of the nuisance.

Enough warnings have been given to seafarers about the risks.

Those who do not take heed of these warnings whilst the situation continues and deliberately meander into areas that are not safe are at risk of being taken.

Now you wonder why people would disregard warnings and venture into dangerous waters. The answer is simple. They don't believe it may happen to them. They believe themselves to be immune. They think luck plays a part in all this. They think they know best. None of their assumptions prove themselves to be correct. The risks are enlarging every day that passes and the danger is widening and spreading.

As for adventure, I don't think so.

But on the other hand, considering the quality of thought often expressed on these boards I would not be surprised to learn that some people would consider venturing into danger as an adventure.

As for those who venture in the full knowledge of the risks and dangers beforehand and who go inwith their eyes wide open, that arena is reserved for professional reporters and journalists, not for ordinary sailors.

I hope and expect this serves to clarify your thinking.

 

[Twister_Ken]

The naval patrols have specifically stated that they cannot protect all shipping in the area and especially not small leisure vessels. The Danes were very foolish. Piracy (kidnapping and extortion) not terrorism.

TK out.

 

[ocean_groover]

Semantics, schematics. Share your khat around, we might get the distinction.

 

[lyralicious]

I am very aware as is everybody reading this thread what initiated it. There is no need for you to come in at this stage like a self appointed thought policeman to remind us of the fact. The discussion is not ridiculous. It points out the cardboard cutout hypocrisy that permeates scenarios such as these in which governments go to great lengths to induce citizens to believe that corps of trained men and women exist to protect us when needed.

In the end analysis none of it true. Not anti terrorism, or homeland security, or the war against crime, or drugs, or any other fanciful notion we are expected to take as given.

I have explained very clearly (and if you do not understand it I will explain it again, for your personal benefit and my satisfaction) how this time there is a decided rewluctance to deal with a very serious problem that affects everybody because the mission is percieved as too difficult. For this reason, and to pacify critics, the terorists who are terrifying seafarers are described as pirates, thus minimising their status.

The problem is that their status as very dangerous and malevolent organised groups cannot be minimised. Attempts can be made to discredit their status by brushing them off and calling them pirates. Pirates they are not. The media persists in bleating from a point of view of hand wringing helplessness that is grist to the mill of those paid to do their job properly and engage this menace squarely with the resolve to rid us of the nuisance.

Enough warnings have been given to seafarers about the risks.

Those who do not take heed of these warnings whilst the situation continues and deliberately meander into areas that are not safe are at risk of being taken.

Now you wonder why people would disregard warnings and venture into dangerous waters. The answer is simple. They don't believe it may happen to them. They believe themselves to be immune. They think luck plays a part in all this. They think they know best. None of their assumptions prove themselves to be correct. The risks are enlarging every day that passes and the danger is widening and spreading.

As for adventure, I don't think so.

But on the other hand, considering the quality of thought often expressed on these boards I would not be surprised to learn that some people would consider venturing into danger as an adventure.

As for those who venture in the full knowledge of the risks and dangers beforehand and who go inwith their eyes wide open, that arena is reserved for professional reporters and journalists, not for ordinary sailors.

I hope and expect this serves to clarify your thinking.

I remember why I stopped reading these forums now.

Out