The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

[alant]

Your tactics are utterly donkey-like and fail to address even the very basic requirement of keeping the hostages alive.

Moreover your tactics are at odds with all other hostage situation tactics I've ever heard of. They even differ from the Iranian Embassy Seige which you yourself cited as a good way to deal with hostage situations. They also differ from what people who were there with all the information available decided to do.

It doesn't really help your case that you claimed to have relevant training and then had to admit that you didn't.

It's easy to deter hostage takers. Don't pay them. Shooting the hostages yourself is not the best way to avoid paying the ransom.

I thought we were discussing a situation, just prior to them becoming actual hostages!

Dealing with situations, where they have become hostages, as you have cited, is entirely different!

As some are arguing, a 'shot across their bows', would have at least indicated intent.

You say "Don't pay them". Surely dead 'potential hostages', should a shootout occur, certainly would confirm non-payment, so the pirates would have little reason to continue to attack a RFA vessel, when their own + potential wages were at risk!

 

[sailaboutvic]

Bambola

Of course everybody is allowed to follow their own conscience and spend their own money in any way they like to help these people. I am not too certain anyone is allowed to spend my (tax) money unless the government of the day thinks it is a good idea..

Your money , hang on for a minute it also my money and the chandlers and a few million other .

I suppose your happier that the “government of the days” spend “your money “ re doing there garden or having there moat cleaned out ,well if it was a choose of letting them spend money on DIY or saving these people life I know where I would want my taxes to go .

I am sorry for the Chandlers having had a pirate attack and robbery ..
I know the feeling to look down the barrel of a automatic weapon but if you go to violent dangerous places then

You make it sound as if there had there bag stolen , in case you not notices these couple and in fear of there life .
A great deal of the world now is violent and dangerous including parts of the UK so are you suggesting that we should all just stay in bed .

 

[Theshipscat]

Sounds like 3 spanish Amigos just made $1,000,000.

And what the hell was that last post all about? Totally missed the point or what?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

so what do you sugest , we should just forget them ?, stand back and do nothing , just like the RN did , is that your answer ???

It is in the Hostage taker's interest to keep this in the public eye. Use the publicity to put pressure on the family and the Government. Maybe even cause a group of misguided 'helpers' to put together a big ransom. The hostage takers realise this and release heart rending videos to further this aim.

It is in the Chandler's interest to keep it out of the news, have one or two dedicated experts skillfully negotiating and minimizing the ransom - maybe even convincing the hostage takers that a ransom isn't possible.

So yes, I'm suggesting that it's best to act in the Chandlers interests. You are suggesting we act in the kidnappers interests.

 

[David_Jersey]

It is in the Hostage taker's interest to keep this in the public eye.............

It is in the Chandler's interest to keep it out of the news............

So yes, I'm suggesting that it's best to act in the Chandlers interests. You are suggesting we act in the kidnappers interests.

I think a rather simplistic analysis - full marks for consistency then

Media exposure can work to reinforce the message that the Chandlers are not worth any money (to anyone with the money available)...........whether the kidnappers realising that message is true is a good thing or not only time will tell, and very much depends on how those negotiating with the Pirates use that message (if anyone actually is negotiating).

A touchingly naive belief in the likelihood that this Somali gang will base their decisions on the long term interests of the Somali Pirate Industry - if they did that they would be well ahead of most of British Industry over the last 40 years Dunno about putting the Pirates in jail - if that was the case begging them to take jobs on the boards of a few FTSE 100 companies would seem more appropriate..............

I rather suspect that a 50/50 chance of surviving an RN / RFA rescue at the outset is now looking rather good from the confines of a Somali mud hut.........if only the current circumstances had been patently predictable

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

A touchingly naive belief in the likelihood that this Somali gang will base their decisions on the long term interests of the Somali Pirate Industry - if they did that they would be well ahead of most of British Industry over the last 40 years Dunno about putting the Pirates in jail - if that was the case begging them to take jobs on the boards of a few FTSE 100 companies would seem more appropriate..............

....and yet over years to date the Pirates *have* always acted in the long term interests of the Somali Pirate Industry.

I know you'll find it incredible but if you don't believe me, check.

It's a well documented fact that over years that to date the Pirates have yet to kill a hostage.

That may change in the future but at the moment the people involved in this will be (rightly) dealing with the situation as it is. Not the situation as it potentially could be one day.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

For me the bit that really marked you out as a total ****ing nutter was when you said you weren't happy that everyone went home alive in the Iranian RIB drama.

Ah, now there I have to correct you as I actually have been proved sane by CME in London; I even have a letter somewhere saying things to that effect.

Anyway I thought you thought I backtracked on what you thought I thought?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Ah, now there I have to correct you as I actually have been proved sane by CME in London; I even have a letter somewhere saying things to that effect.

Anyway I thought you thought I backtracked on what you thought I thought?

Sorry about that GOG, bit rude, I probably owe you a beer at some point!

PS Thanks Lancastrian, very useful!

 

[grumpy_o_g]

No problems Toad - it would be a boring world if no-one had any strong feelings...

 

[dvideohd]

Get a perspective....

Just a matter of time before one or all of the Pirate's targets "hostages" are killed.

When people are armed with AK47s, Rocket Grenades, and other sharp objects, -- and are using them - then someone is going to get hurt. Even people who are careful - when cleaning guns - get hurt and die every year. Same thing is true in Driving, Lawnmowing, and gutter cleaning...

Rocket Propelled grenades belong in video games and wars. Not recreational boat hijacking.

**********

It's an industry... and as long as the cash stream keeps on - it will continue. Having ships patrol might make you feel better.. but as long as there are boats, excited teenagers, and guns - this business will continue.

So the Royal Navy or US Navy can make headlines by confronting a cheap boat with teenagers and "seizing it".... it has NOTHING to do with stopping Pirates - but at least it can boost TV ratings a bit and give broadcast announcers something to talk about...

************

How about an honest effort stop some pirates for real? Go resieze some big boats our of "harbor". I think a certain Mr. Nelson did understand the concept of "cutting out" expedition...

How about tracking the cash channels and doing some account hacking. Thought you had some funds? Whoops.. they're gone!!!! perhaps donated to "save the children"??

***************

I know that our sailors understand this action all too well.... Politicians willing to go beyond vote gathering rhetoric would be nice - perhaps actually work to stop the problem... I am sure that fishing jurisdiction is in there too... but if you poach my garden vegetables - that does not give the right to seize my family SUV and hold my family hostage.

If this business continues - and it is a BUSINESS... then are going to be a lot of dead sailors at some point... and I include teen age boys suckered out to do a Pirate Lark as well... I would certainly rather they not get hurt, either...

--jerry

 

[steveparker]

When steveparker suggested I was an "Internet warrior", I replied that "My training was to attack immediately, dominate with fire and seize the day", which of course every soldier is trained to do , from the company cook upwards. If you saw that as 'hostage training' I'll let it go as general ignorance as to how soldiers are trained.

I trust an apology will be forthcoming. Not that I care one jot what you think. But I do care that you tell lies about what I said.

As you're taking someone to task for misrepresentation here, it seems a reasonable thing to ask that you find anything I posted above that in any way suggested YOU were an internet warrior. I suggested it was easy to be an internet warrior, not that you were one. I don't know you, and I didn't claim to. I was talking about all the people above who reckoned the RFA should have waded in and came up with such exciting scenarios about it.

I trust an apology will be forthcoming? Nah, don't worry, I'm not in the business of needing apologies.

Anyway, what's all this about: "My training was to attack immediately, dominate with fire and seize the day"? Unless you are George Patton your training was very clearly to obey orders. Other people determined how to dominate and seize the day. And this is what you belligerent people don't seem to get. The RN and the RFA will obey orders from people who understand all the machinations involved better than most RN captains, or even internet captains. We have to factor in the huge issue of the commercial shipping and all other involved nations. The ships are still using this route, you notice? That means that effectively they recognise they can still make sufficient profits from it, even with the risk. The UK just doesn't have the imperial authority to escalate this whole deal unilaterally and create a situation where pirates will henceforth routinely kill sailors to warn off rescue attempts. That might mean that a zillion tons of commercial shipping has to be re-routed.

Have you taken even half of the real-world consequences into account here when you happily state that the boys should have gone in? THIS is the problem with this thread. You guys on the side of instant action just aren't taking in the big picture in any way.

I go back to my original points that the RFA captain was NOT ALLOWED to get involved if it risked hostage lives, and I add to that that there are all sorts of very involved diplomatic reasons why not.

You guys might be great in a crisis, judging by your own claims, but the very fact that you're not capable of identifying all the issues involved for the UK here speaks for itself about why we don't want you deciding what to do in a hostage situation.

Remember this: the Royal Navy exists to protect the interests of Britain. Think about that. Then think about it again. Think about how complex that is. Think about the Enigma code and how we couldn't give away the fact that we were reading some of it. Many times it looked like the RN was either cowardly or inept.

Please think about the huge issues involved with a diplomatic machine like the Royal Navy, and please understand that it's far more than just some self-licensed militia. YOU don't want it to be other than it is, you really, really don't. And anyone who thinks they do just ain't got the complexity of it all yet.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

YOU don't want it to be other than it is, you really, really don't. And anyone who thinks they do just ain't got the complexity of it all yet.

I agree, that sums up the whole situation doesn't it. For many years now (the media only picked it up recently) some Somalis have been scamming money off shipping companies.

They've avoided killing people, they’ve avoided the catastrophe of sinking a tanker or large ship and their financial demands have been so low that insurers would rather pay-up.

The reason the situation has gone on so long is that the current situation is because the alternatives are so dramatically worse. All nations agree and all nations handle the situation in exactly the same way.

 

[tyce]

Why did the Wave Ruler not detect the pirates earlier, it would seem they did not know they were there until they had boarded the yacht.
When i operated in those waters in Merchant ships we were aware of any fast moving small boats within a very large radius.

 

[alant]

I agree, that sums up the whole situation doesn't it. For many years now (the media only picked it up recently) some Somalis have been scamming money off shipping companies.

They've avoided killing people, they’ve avoided the catastrophe of sinking a tanker or large ship and their financial demands have been so low that insurers would rather pay-up.

The reason the situation has gone on so long is that the current situation is because the alternatives are so dramatically worse. All nations agree and all nations handle the situation in exactly the same way.

Presumably, they haven't watched a recent programme which showed a Danish Naval Vessel 'rescuing' a merchant vessel off Somalia. They sank the pirate boat with shots from both the mothership & a helicopter. Hardly the same response you seem to suggest is universally adopted by "all nations" & I would not class Denmark as a gunhappy renagade country.

Why the different rules?



"Please think about the huge issues involved with a diplomatic machine like the Royal Navy,"
"Diplomatic machine" - hang on, since when did the Navy stop being the Navy & start behaving like an MP? What is the whole purpose of its existance?
Diplomacy? Leave that to the fatcats of Whitehall.

What "huge issues"?
Tell that to the Chandlers.
What bigger issues are there, than the lives & safety of our own citizens, by all & any means?
From an earlier Sea Lord - WSC - "Action this day", not inaction!

We also now have an even more difficult empasse, since we (UK) supposedly have declared that we WILL NOT PAY RANSOM.
Explain how we now get out of that conundrum!

 

[Clarky]

You're right, we do. It almost invariably achieves the survival of the hostages.

Steve.

The incidence of hostage taking by the pirates is now so frequent that robust action is called for to stop it.Clearly these pirates dont want to be shot ,because they can easily toddlle off and get some more hostages,so in my view Wave Knight should have intervened with some fairly heay fire around the pirate skiff.If they were within 50 feet then shooting the engine to disable it wouldnt have been too difficult.
One of the worst things in my view is the outright lieing by the Navy afterwards denying their ship was nearby ,and then the statement by Mark Stanhope the Sea Lord when he implied that sailors with pistols could not do anything,was just more lieing,as clearly there is a 30mm canon on board,RN personnel with more automatic weapons, to cover up what was in fact a huge failure in leadership.
It would be interesting to know if Mr Stanhope was the one that made the decision to do nothing and watch.
I am not surprised the ordinary sailors on board were so embarrassed they went to the press.
One of the most important facts to remember is there is no chance of any military intervention in Somalia,so once the pirates got to the mothership ,the Chandlers were doomed.
I think the best thing would be for us to pay off all our sea lords and then advertise in France for some replacements who have some bottle and dont spend all day brown nosing politicians.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Why the different rules?

Are you saying the situation was identical? They sank a skiff with hostages on board? Seems unlikely. I very much doubt they sank a large ship either.

More detail explaining why these situations are equivalent.

 

[alant]

Are you saying the situation was identical? They sank a skiff with hostages on board? Seems unlikely. I very much doubt they sank a large ship either.



More detail explaining why these situations are equivalent.

You continue to bleat about "hostages".
That is what the Chandlers became, not what they were!

There were none when the Danish Navy took action, because they prevented the pirates from taking any. In the same way our Navy could have done.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...escued-pirate-hostages-order-attack-came.html

I believe, its check mate!

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

You continue to bleat about "hostages".
That is what the Chandlers became, not what they were!

You are the worst debater in the history of the Human race. Read up your posts. For weeks your case has appeared to be that the Chandlers should have been rescued from the skiff and that the RFA were cowards not to do so.

It turns out you're actually saying that the "Kota Wajar" originally had no hostages on board and was vulnerable to a boarding from "Wave Knight" and that the Wave Knight decided not to board a sitting duck.

Personally I find the Mail article impossible to believe. (And the Mail have had some corkers - remember when they described two white women found not guilty of a crime committed by two Black women as 'getting off on a technicality'!) Ask yourself, for what possible reason would the Navy decide to avoid some quick glory at limited risk to themselves?

But yeah, I am strongly of the belief that as long as we don't end up with a environmental catastrophe or a bloodbath of British Troops/Sailors then attacking pirates is a good idea. So if the RFA missed a "sitter" then their action was wrong.

Personally, I'm more inclined to think the Mail is inaccurate as it is so often.


Edit:

Ahhh, you're wrong even the Mail accepts the Chandlers were already hostages:

According to our source the pirates, still apparently believing that they were up against a mere supply ship, appeared almost contemptuous when they finally drew alongside the Chandlers’ yacht and hailed the kidnappers on board.
In horror and disbelief, Wave Knight’s crew watched as a line was thrown from the Lynn Rival. The yacht was then casually hauled in and moored alongside the Kota Wajar together with the pirate skiffs.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Anyway, what's all this about: "My training was to attack immediately, dominate with fire and seize the day"? Unless you are George Patton your training was very clearly to obey orders. Other people determined how to dominate and seize the day. And this is what you belligerent people don't seem to get. The RN and the RFA will obey orders from people who understand all the machinations involved better than most RN captains, or even internet captains.

Why is there this impression that all the Armed Forces can do is obey orders? Someone has to give them and, to do that, they have to work out what's needed and make a call. A Major would be far more used to telling people what to do than being told, although he would probably issue general instructions at that level - Corporals tell people where to stand and what to shoot at - and that's really organisational planning - you don't want your entire squad clearing one room or shooting at one target for example.

When a crew of Managing Directors, Salesmen, Project Managers get together at the weekend for a yacht race, they have a Skipper in charge and the crew are expected to follow orders, they don't suddenly become unthinking robots because of that though and I can't see why the Armed Forces are regarded differently.

The military recognise that the stakes are very, very high, with peoples lives at a potentially high risk, so they make the controls greater I would agree. You can't load a gun unless ordered by a specific person perhaps but even that's no different to saying you can't go into a high-risk area in industry without being approved. I can't just walk into one of our data-centres for example, and I can be ordered out at any time, despite the fact that my department pays for several thousand of the systems them and that I am fully cognisant of the risks. If I need to be there I'm allowed in, otherwise not - it's exactly the same discipline as the services would have.

 

[Theshipscat]

What "huge issues"?
Tell that to the Chandlers.
What bigger issues are there, than the lives & safety of our own citizens, by all & any means?
From an earlier Sea Lord - WSC - "Action this day", not inaction!


As I've already mentioned elsewhere the Chandlers aren't the only hostages out there. They might be the only british yachting hostages but that doesn't mean the Navy should risk the lives of other nationalities by blowing up a bunch of Prirates to save them.

Furthermore if the Chandlers had been accidently killed in an attack the Daily Mail and it's small minded readership would be first to jump on the back of the Navy with cries of recklessness.

As has been pointed out by several people on here, the Chandlers are grown ups they knew the dangers where they were sailing and they took the risk. They were very unlucky to get caught out. However if they'd been a couple of young backpackers who'd strayed into dangerous territory you'd being calling them stupid arses.

If you really want to go down your route and show the Pirates that the British Nation is not to be messed with they should have blown the Pirate vessel, yacht and all out of the water. They then could've sunk the mother vessel killing any survivors in the water hostage or otherwise with machine gun fire. That would've showed them.

I wish the Chandlers all the best and pray they survive the ordeal.