The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

maxi77 said:
No because I never said that she could not carry out anti piracy activities, what I specifically said that as far as I could see she did not have the correct staff or equipment for hostage activities at this time. Yes she has minor armament, but both the helicopter and ship itself are potentially vulnerable to the weapons used by the pirates. Now you keep claiming she should have acted in this case, kindly explain how this could have been done without specifically endangering the two hostages.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless she has rescued hostages held by pirates.

From the MOD (Again, you must have missed it before.):-
"RFA Wave Knight helped secure the release of 13 Yemeni fishermen who had been held hostage for a week and thwarted attempts by pirates to take over two tankers in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday 19 April. "

Vulnerable? This must have been downright reckless then:-
"The British ship [Wave Knight] successfully prevented pirates from boarding the vessel and fired warning shots which caused the attackers to flee ... RFA Wave Knight followed the pirate skiff for six hours..."

I suspect the outcome would've been different if it had been Yemeni fishermen rather than OAPs because the ship would've dared to fire.
 
xxyyzz said:
Nonetheless she has rescued hostages held by pirates.

From the MOD (Again, you must have missed it before.):-
"RFA Wave Knight helped secure the release of 13 Yemeni fishermen who had been held hostage for a week and thwarted attempts by pirates to take over two tankers in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday 19 April. "

Vulnerable? This must have been downright reckless then:-
"The British ship [Wave Knight] successfully prevented pirates from boarding the vessel and fired warning shots which caused the attackers to flee ... RFA Wave Knight followed the pirate skiff for six hours..."

I suspect the outcome would've been different if it had been Yemeni fishermen rather than OAPs because the ship would've dared to fire.
Click to expand...

You still fail to explain what the master could have done in this situation. Thus it would seem you agree with me that in this situation the ship was powerless to act, otherwise she would have done so.
 
maxi77 said:
As you clearly know far more about this than I do how exactly should the Wave Ruler rescued the two unfortunate hostages without risking their lifes. A simple question which you clearly have a fool proof answer to.
Click to expand...

Not fair to shoot the messenger! Wave Ruler's PR apparatus bill her as a pirate buster.

But as I said earlier, sometimes the risk has to be taken that a hostage or two gets caught in the crossfire. The French did it and I expect their flagged vessels are viewed on as a last resort now.

I don't wish it on anyone, but history shows that is you meet terrorism/piracy (I see piracy as not much less that terrorism, but with monetary gain rather than ideological)

Think back to Balcombe Street and the Iranian Embassy, once arse was kicked, few ever tried it again and went for softer countries.

In any hostage rescue the hostages lives are at risk the moment you attempt a rescue. Recently, in North Afghanistan Cpl Harrison, of the Parachute Regiment, died during an operation to rescue New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell and his interpreter Sultan Munadi.

Mr Munadi was killed in the crossfire but Mr Farrell was successfully freed.

Before that, Bombardier Brad Tinnion was killed in Sierre Leone rescuing the Royal Irish Rangers who had been captured.

Rescues are hazardous, but in the long run they act as a robust deterrent and anything is better than watching the perpetrators going about their business unmolested.
 
News update

Just received this in my daily IBI newsletter :

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20091019150330ibinews.html

Kidnapped British couple "ill"

By IBI Magazine

According to international news reports, kidnapped sailors Paul and Rachel Chandler are now said to be ill, and are refusing to eat or drink. The British couple were seized by Somali pirates from their boat, Lynn Rival, on October 23 as they sailed from the Seychelles towards Tanzania. A Royal Navy vessel watched nearby as the couple was taken hostage.

One of the Somali pirates holding the British couple hostage told <>The Times that Rachel Chandler is "vomiting often", perhaps because of tainted water and food. "Sometimes they will not speak to us, and sometimes they refuse to eat or drink," said a pirate named Awali. "They have serious health problems."

The British government has refused to pay the kidnapper's ransom of £4.2m. The military has insisted that if the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker Wave Knight had intervened in the kidnapping, it would have endangered the lives of the Chandlers. The ship was carrying 75 merchant seamen, 25 Royal Navy sailors and a helicopter.

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Service, said that nobody on board was trained in hostage release techniques. "Sailors with pistols couldn't do the job of ensuring the safety of the Chandlers. It was highly frustrating," he said. "They did the best they could, but the security of the Chandlers was the overriding factor."

(19 November 2009)
 
maxi77 said:
You still fail to explain what the master could have done in this situation. Thus it would seem you agree with me that in this situation the ship was powerless to act, otherwise she would have done so.
Click to expand...

"I suspect the outcome would've been different if it had been Yemeni fishermen rather than OAPs because the ship would've dared to fire."

They could have dared to fire, yes, it would risk the hostages lives but their lives are at risk now as well.

At least a few warning shots around the skiff would've counted as an attempt!
 
I think there is a huge amount of difference in 'being involved in anti piracy operations' and 'firing warning shots' and actually engaging in a full on battle. Rescuing 13 yemenis also, does not categorically prove that the pirates were engaged. Iranian Embassy? Big difference there, too, it was on our own soil.

I honestly do think that international politics severly limits what the RN is allowed to do.

I'm sure there are many here who would love to see the RN blow a few of these pirates out of the water.

It's not that easy, is it?
 
More here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...li-pirates-kidnap-british-couple-1820543.html


.............................
"Once in the launch the Chandlers were surrounded by pirates, making it impossible for the Navy vessel to open fire without risking the lives of the British couple, the MoD claimed.

The crowded launch took the couple to the pirates' mother ship, the previously hijacked container vessel Kota Wajara, while the crew of the Wave Knight attempted unsuccessfully to head them off. Some reports suggested that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel managed to get within 50 feet of the pirates.

The Wave Knight was crewed by 25 Royal Navy personnel and 75 merchant seamen but, while equipped with a helicopter, has only limited weaponry which is intended for defence.

The MoD was anxious yesterday to play down expectations that the crew of the RFA vessel should have taken on the pirates.

A spokesman said: "Everything was done with the safety of the Chandlers in mind. We do not comment on operational detail but RFA Wave Knight did very well under the circumstances."

The MoD said that the couple were already in the hands of the pirates when the RFA vessel was close enough to see what was happening.
"
.................
 
Bajansailor said:
Just received this in my daily IBI newsletter :

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20091019150330ibinews.html

Kidnapped British couple "ill"

Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Service, said that nobody on board was trained in hostage release techniques. "Sailors with pistols couldn't do the job of ensuring the safety of the Chandlers. It was highly frustrating," he said. "They did the best they could, but the security of the Chandlers was the overriding factor."

(19 November 2009)
Click to expand...

what a load of c**p frist the gov said the yacht was found with no one on board . and only weeks after ward when the truth come out they where force to admit that the RN stood by and watch it all happen . bloody cowards .. that what i say , it wasnt long ago that they where paradeing a group of drug smuggles they stopped . arrr yea for got drugs are worth a lot more then two british lives .
 
Flipping ‘eke! The RFA’s never had so much publicity in its life!

(even since the 1982 Falklands Incident when the acronym RFA was hardly mentioned in the press, one of their vessels was tragically lost, another very seriously damaged, and moreover a number of their personnel killed or injured in various incidents, including some of the Chinese crew of two RFA vessels).

The ‘Silent Service’ is submariners; the 'Secret Service' is the RFA - (of which no one has ever heard!) – their motto: “Ready For Anything”; or “Ready For F…A…”!

Or people think you’ve mispelt RAF by mistake. Strangely, often Army personnel would have heard of the RFA, because they used to be transported around by them quite a lot, at one time.

It appears the RFA is normally kept very low key.

So this thread means quite a lot of publicity for them… ok, statistically, no one reads these fora – there are 61 million persons in the UK, and so far there’s been just over a 4000 views to this thread – ie statistically no one…!

But that’s still an ‘eke of a lot of publicity for the RFA. Amazing!
 
xxyyzz said:
"I suspect the outcome would've been different if it had been Yemeni fishermen rather than OAPs because the ship would've dared to fire."

They could have dared to fire, yes, it would risk the hostages lives but their lives are at risk now as well.

At least a few warning shots around the skiff would've counted as an attempt!
Click to expand...

And just what would that have achieved?

What would you have said if the pirates had then killed one of the hostages?

The reality was that the civilian part of the RN was exposed to a situation they were neither trained nor equipped to deal with. Rather typical of the present government.
 
not trained ... your having a laugh ...

I just like to Rephrase my last posting it was a bit strong to call all on board cowards I am sure there would had been quite a few seamen who would had be very happy to have a go and help this couple . It the guy who given the order not to do any thing is the coward .

As for “””civilian part of the RN was exposed to a situation they were neither trained nor equipped to deal with”””

They where armed and there was trained RN sailor on board maybe not trained to SAS standards but nor are our boy in Afghanistan . But let face it you don’t have to be SAS to stop these thief .


OH what was it that captain pinning said “””” The Commanding Officer of RFA Wave Knight, Captain Pilling, said:
"Our primary role is refuelling and aviation operations, but we are fully capable of conducting anti-piracy operations in and around the Horn of Africa. We have been on station for over a year providing support to many nations, and we remain committed to helping ensure maritime security."“””

SO PLEASE STOP DEFENDING WHAT HAPPEN …

We have just sent out a big message to the so called pirates . Guess what it is
 
Major Catastrophe said:
No, of course it isn't. But I deplore inaction in emergency situations
Click to expand...

Holding back in these circumstances is *not* inaction. You have to weigh up all the possible consequences for all the other current and future hostages if you choose to escalate the situation from one where execution of hostages currently has no immediate value to one where it might become routine. Yes, no doubt we'd all like to go piling in with 50cal machine guns and teach the motherf*ckers a lesson, but we'd be very stupid to do so, and we wouldn't be acting in the best interests of any hostages if we did. The game as it stands has the Navy etc at a huge disadvantage, and better strategies have to be worked out. But that will come about through intelligence-gathering, not through needlessly sacrificing the lives of hostages to warn pirates that we don't f**k around.

Given that the stated priority at present is the survival of the hostages, I'd like to hear someone come up with a coherent strategy that differs from what's being done at present, rather than just the usual gung ho nonsense that is flying around here accompanied by emotive references to Nelson etc. It's very, very easy to be an internet warrior, and it's really not very impressive, especially when it involves a load of insulting of people you've never met, as has been the case a few times above.

The people who really know about hostage rescue are the special forces, and their rules of engagement are generally pretty clear. You go in all guns blazing when there is a critical risk to the hostages from not doing so. If there isn't, then no matter how much you want to, you don't. If you can negotiate, then you do so. These pirates aren't yet generally executing hostages, so there's no justification for anyone in the Royal Navy (even less the RFA) to make them think they need to. It would be very easy for them to up the ante and start routinely executing a couple of hostages every time they take a freighter, just to show everyone they ain't messing around. Why wouldn't they, if they think the Navy might just have a go? I would, wouldn't you, if I was a pirate. That would be the next logical step to take. Is that what we all want to happen here?

Personally, I applaud the Navy for its intelligent and measured approach. It must be goddamn heartrending to be in that position. Thank christ some sensible people who know all the details are in charge.

Cheers,

Steve.
 
maxi77 said:
And just what would that have achieved?
Click to expand...
In the past pirates have surrendered after a burst of gunfire in their general direction, it's also possible it would have achieved nothing, but we know what doing nothing achieves.

maxi77 said:
What would you have said if the pirates had then killed one of the hostages?
Click to expand...
I would have said it was unfortunate but that is one of the risks you take when sailing in pirate infested water.

maxi77 said:
The reality was that the civilian part of the RN was exposed to a situation they were neither trained nor equipped to deal with. Rather typical of the present government.
Click to expand...
You say neither trained nor equipped, but they _HAVE_ acted when the hostages were Yemeni fishermen, the truth is that the Navy (or the RFA if we must draw the distinction) is more willing to risk killing a Yemeni fisherman than an old biddy.

What you say would be fair enough if they hadn't acted in the past, but they have in a very similar situation.
 
steveparker said:
You're right, we do. It almost invariably achieves the survival of the hostages.
Click to expand...

I suppose if the being held hostage isn't considered much hardship, then there's no problem viewing it as a kind of expensive holiday.

Except people are killed by them and do have guns stuffed in their faces and do spend months in fear of their lives.
 
steveparker said:
It's very, very easy to be an internet warrior
Click to expand...

Hmm, I am, or have been, a little more than "an internet warrior."

My training was to attack immediately, dominate with fire and seize the day. In my experience you do not even have to actually fire directly at the other side, as the fact you will shoot back, deters most irregular forces and criminals.

These pirates have never executed anybody and are unlikely to do so, because the moment they do it within sight of an armed ship with the will to open fire, it is 'game over' for them.

As I have stated before, a hostage being caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate consequence of robust action, but one death may prevent many in the future as pirates will be reluctant to deal with flagged vessels that are capable of fighting back. They will increasingly seek softer targets, ie. ones they can attack out of sight of a navy or fleet auxiliary.

Only yesterday it was reported that many commercial ships now carry armed guards and they have already repelled several attempts. From what I have read, once the shooting starts, the pirates immediately withdraw without firing a single shot. They are robbers, not terrorists with a political agenda and have the overwhelming desire to fight another day.

Ironically, it is reported today that gun battles have broken out amongst the pirates as they fight among themselves for the loot.

I maintain that some intensive and robust action will seriously diminish the pirate threat and just standing by as the pirates pillage a boat and and then remove hostages sends a clear message that their piracy can take place unmolested even in front of a 'warship'.

Think of this, if you were sat in your little yacht and ten sailors opened fire above your head with SA80's, you would be either jumping overboard or crawling into a foetal position as the crack of overhead bullets and their impact with the water is a very sobering and frightening proposition.

Faced with that, it is a very brave man who then decides to emerge with a hostage. Holding a hostage and threatening them with an AK47 is actually very difficult thing to do, let alone pull the trigger. Now, this is where it gets interesting, I have actually seen someone try it, and they very quickly realised that to hold a hostage and threaten him with a rifle is not the easiest or safest thing to do for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top