The NAvy WERE THERE at kidnap of Lynn Rival

[alant]

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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.[/QUOTE]"

1) One minute, you are saying "Personally, I'm more inclined to think the Mail is inaccurate as it is so often.", then quoting facts from the Mail. Which is it to be?

2) As you have pointed out (presumably finally having read these Mail 'lies') -

"The Wave Knight and the Kota Wajar were still some distance from the Lynn Rival and Chandlers, so there was no danger of the hostages being caught in crossfire."

So, our vessel WAS there prior to the Chandlers becoming hostages - " 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.".

Having read the whole article, Marines were in a position to stop the hostage taking, but aborted at last minute, so someone onboard must have considered the action viable!

"Twice that night, between 10pm and 1am, they went a step further. On each occasion the codeword indicating imminent action – Quickdraw – was repeated over the ship’s intercom. Each time the Marines gathered quickly on deck, their all-black fatigues, balaclavas, night-vision goggles and carbines a picture of professional menace."

‘The Marines were more than capable of seizing the Kota Wajar way before she got near the Chandlers.

‘At that time there were no hostages on board. "

However, they were ordered to abort - why?

"Although the Wave Knight remained darkened, it is inconceivable that the couple could have mistaken it for anything other than a naval vessel and perhaps dared to hope a rescue was imminent."

More fools them, poor buggers!

" ‘The Kota Wajar just sailed off slowly as if to say, “You can’t touch us now. We’ve got the hostages.” They knew they’d won.’ "

Hooray for them!

 

[sailaboutvic]

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. .

your right but so far they are the only ones that the RN stood by and watch and did nothing .

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. .

you may be right again but at less some would had try to help these poor couple

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. .

your still missing the point .... yes we all know the chandlers are grown up people and I am sure they took the risk into account , but like most guys who go sailing climbing , backpacking, or pot holing we all take that and act in a away to reduces the risk after all they wasn’t sailing just off the Somali coast there where over a thousand miles off the coast .

the point here is that a RFA stood by and did nothing at all , because the risk of life as they put it . I wonder what you would say if you was in Imminent danger of your life and the RNLI stood by and did nothing because there would be a risk to your life if they try to rescue you
Read on

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

And this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6936318.ece

Now before anyone say’s, you don’t want to believe ever thing you read in the papers , I don’t but the fact is NOTHING was done to help these couple , The RN try to coved it all up and continue to do so time and time again they have change there story . There no smoke with fire !!


I find it very insulting for some on here to call adventurous people called “stupid arses”

the only part I can fully agree with you is

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

 

[Bajansailor]

I am sitting on the fence here, watching the impressive battle of words going on........ however this statement intrigues me :
‘The Marines were more than capable of seizing the Kota Wajar way before she got near the Chandlers.
‘At that time there were no hostages on board. "

If the crew of the Kota Wajar were not being held hostage at the time, then what were they doing?

 

[alant]

I am sitting on the fence here, watching the impressive battle of words going on........ however this statement intrigues me :
‘The Marines were more than capable of seizing the Kota Wajar way before she got near the Chandlers.
‘At that time there were no hostages on board. "

If the crew of the Kota Wajar were not being held hostage at the time, then what were they doing?

Thought these "the crew of the Kota Wajar" were the pirates.

 

[Bajansailor]

The Kota Wajar is a 24,000 tonne container ship, and she apparently had 21 crew on board when she was hijacked - which presumably means that they then became hostages?

 

[Theshipscat]

The Kota Wajar is a 24,000 tonne container ship, and she apparently had 21 crew on board when she was hijacked - which presumably means that they then became hostages?

My point entirely. One Vic seems to have missed entirely.

There are more hostages than just the Chandlers. You seem to think this can just be sorted out by rescuing the Chandlers. It can't. While the Pirates have hostages they are holding the balls of the authorities. Until the pirates actually kill a hostage there's still a better chance of getting them back alive through negociations. The only quick option would be to respond without regard for the safety of any of the hostages and unless you're a nutter it's not really an option.


It sucks I agree but stop blaming it all on one ship. They were there you weren't and neither were any of the scumbags from the Mail sadly.
And what's it got to do with the RNLI?

 

[Woodlouse]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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.

"

1) One minute, you are saying "Personally, I'm more inclined to think the Mail is inaccurate as it is so often.", then quoting facts from the Mail. Which is it to be?

2) As you have pointed out (presumably finally having read these Mail 'lies') -

"The Wave Knight and the Kota Wajar were still some distance from the Lynn Rival and Chandlers, so there was no danger of the hostages being caught in crossfire."

So, our vessel WAS there prior to the Chandlers becoming hostages - " 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.".

Having read the whole article, Marines were in a position to stop the hostage taking, but aborted at last minute, so someone onboard must have considered the action viable!

"Twice that night, between 10pm and 1am, they went a step further. On each occasion the codeword indicating imminent action – Quickdraw – was repeated over the ship’s intercom. Each time the Marines gathered quickly on deck, their all-black fatigues, balaclavas, night-vision goggles and carbines a picture of professional menace."

‘The Marines were more than capable of seizing the Kota Wajar way before she got near the Chandlers.

‘At that time there were no hostages on board. "

However, they were ordered to abort - why?

"Although the Wave Knight remained darkened, it is inconceivable that the couple could have mistaken it for anything other than a naval vessel and perhaps dared to hope a rescue was imminent."

More fools them, poor buggers!

" ‘The Kota Wajar just sailed off slowly as if to say, “You can’t touch us now. We’ve got the hostages.” They knew they’d won.’ "

Hooray for them![/QUOTE]
Have you actually read that article? The Chandlers were already hostages before the Kota Wajar arrived on the scene. If they hadn't been then it would have been a simple task for the Wave Knight to get to Lynn Rival first.

The Chandlers had been captured by pirates on the 23rd of october. The incident between Wave Knight and the Kota Wajar took place on the 28th of october. I'm getting these dates from the Daily Mail article that you've presented by the way so any inaccuracies are theirs.

So just how exactly was it not a hostage situation? Please tell me, I'm dying to know.

 

[sailaboutvic]

My point entirely. One Vic seems to have missed entirely.

For your info I haven’t missed that at all , you also forgotten the other few hundred hostage held by these pirates . What you missed is that the Wave knight was on the scene before the transfer so where do the hostages on container ship come into it ,

as for my comment on the RNLI , I was using them as a example if one was in Imminent danger of there life , would they stand back and watch on encase someone got hurt , OK bad example on my part , HANDS UP ..
As we all know the RNLI would do every thing in there power to help unlike the RN .

As for the guys standing up for the RN , if there had nothing to hide why didn’t they from day one held there hands up and say ..(we was there but couldn’t help them )


do you have a problem with the Mail ???? how about the Times

 

[sailaboutvic]

We not all going to agree on what’s happen , but one thing is for certain , there are a British couple somewhere out there fighting for there lives , scared witless and RN stood by and done nothing ,
I just wonder if the pirate took a shot at the wave knight hit her with a missile , would they have still been so concern about the chandlers lives , stand by and do nothing ??? I think not .

 

[Woodlouse]

as for my comment on the RNLI , I was using them as a example if one was in Imminent danger of there life , would they stand back and watch on encase someone got hurt , OK bad example on my part , HANDS UP ..
As we all know the RNLI would do every thing in there power to help unlike the RN .

The one time the RNLI came across someone threatening them with a gun they did stand back and let him hang himself. It happened in Falmouth about nine or ten years ago.

If the Chandlers lives were in immediate danger, and merely being in captivity is not life threatening, then action would have been taken.

 

[sailaboutvic]

The one time the RNLI came across someone threatening them with a gun they did stand back and let him hang himself. It happened in Falmouth about nine or ten years ago..

as I said bad example on my part , but lets face it RNLI don't have 50mm guns on board or 30 trained guys

If the Chandlers lives were in immediate danger, and merely being in captivity is not life threatening, then action would have been taken.

So what your saying that the chandles being attack by pirates is not life threatening .. Oh let all stand up and rejoice .. that ok then,

just let us all know what boat you sail so if you should have the missfortune to be just (((MERELY ))) in a life threatening situation we just all stand back and watch .

 

[Brian blue bear]

Many people on this forum seem to be defending the decision not to rescue the hostages on the grounds they may be risking the lives of the hostages, are the govenment not in the opposite position by refusing the ransom demands therefore putting the hostages lives at greater risk, life has to be worth more than money, If I believe, the Government refuse to pay ransom demands since it will send out the wrong message, doesn't the ships inaction also send out the wrong message, and the biggest most significant point I believe is the Pirates are still free to threaten and take many more unlucky seafarers, if any people are killed in that area by those pirates on the heads of the responsible bystanders be it.

 

[alant]

The Kota Wajar is a 24,000 tonne container ship, and she apparently had 21 crew on board when she was hijacked - which presumably means that they then became hostages?

Highjacked when?

Are you sure any crew were aboard?

The Mail report an exchange of fire, which is remarkable if they were known to be onboard.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

While the Pirates have hostages they are holding the balls of the authorities. Until the pirates actually kill a hostage there's still a better chance of getting them back alive through negociations. The only quick option would be to respond without regard for the safety of any of the hostages and unless you're a nutter it's not really an option.
It sucks I agree but stop blaming it all on one ship. They were there you weren't and neither were any of the scumbags from the Mail sadly.

Well said.

 

[alant]

Who/why/how did the Chandlers get taken?

"It sucks I agree but stop blaming it all on one ship. They were there you weren't and neither were any of the scumbags from the Mail sadly."

Neither the Mail, or anyone else is blaming the Ship.

Questions & speculation is rife, because of the fog of deceipt & mealymouth variations of facts, which appear to have been given by the First Sea Lord et al, seemingly completely different to versions given by 'matelots' who were actually there.

The facts are, that the Chandlers are now hostages in Somalia, under continuous threat of execution, with pirates attempting to get a vast ransom from a UK Government which has declared they will NEVER PAY RANSOMS.

SO, what do we do now?

We can't pay (officially or unofficially), the pirates do NOT have any political element, there is no central government of pirates we can negotiate with, or do we now start thinking about other gung ho special forces stuff.

Since we are now further in the mire, particularly the Chandlers, it shouldn't be too difficult for the truth to be told. We have every right ( & please don't come up with nonsense like 'official Secrets Act etc) to know why our RN seems to have allowed Britich Citizens (albeit foolhardy), to have been taken from under the noses of a rescue party.

Who/why/how, made/took the decision?

I have a vested interest in asking this, because I have a son in the RN, likely to be on pirate patrol/boarding parties off Somalia & want some reassurance that his life will not be wasted because of someone at eg Northwood, having a bad hair day!

 

[Clarky]

Many people on this forum seem to be defending the decision not to rescue the hostages on the grounds they may be risking the lives of the hostages, are the govenment not in the opposite position by refusing the ransom demands therefore putting the hostages lives at greater risk, life has to be worth more than money, If I believe, the Government refuse to pay ransom demands since it will send out the wrong message, doesn't the ships inaction also send out the wrong message, and the biggest most significant point I believe is the Pirates are still free to threaten and take many more unlucky seafarers, if any people are killed in that area by those pirates on the heads of the responsible bystanders be it.

Exactly right ,this is a dreadful example of poor leadership.
The logic behind it escapes me,if we dont pay ransons then cleary the Chandlers lives are being put at risk by not trying to rescue then when trained personnel were available.The pirates wont keep them forever will they ?
I think the Sealord Stanhope should be made to account for both his decision making and his attempts to cover up the facts which is pretty indicative of his guilt over the dreadful decision making.
In my view the odds were pretty high on a successful military intervention from Wave Front given the facts that we know now.

 

[Woodlouse]

In my view the odds were pretty high on a successful military intervention from Wave Front given the facts that we know now.

And yet, even with all the facts we now know, the commanders on the scene decided that military intervention was too risky. Personally I'd take the judgement of a trained man on the scene over the opinion of someone who'd read a newspaper article.

 

[sailaboutvic]

And yet, even with all the facts we now know, the commanders on the scene decided that military intervention was too risky. Personally I'd take the judgement of a trained man on the scene over the opinion of someone who'd read a newspaper article.

there so trained that they should by and did nothing , didnt try to stop them , didnt even try and slow therm down ...

Oh I'm so sorry woodlouse they did do some thing , they lied to the british people not once or twices but three times . and that a fact nothing to do with what was report .

 

[alant]

Personally I'd take the judgement of a trained man on the scene

And yet, even with all the facts we now know, the commanders on the scene decided that military intervention was too risky. Personally I'd take the judgement of a trained man on the scene over the opinion of someone who'd read a newspaper article.

"Personally I'd take the judgement of a trained man on the scene"

Surely, thats the point.
Was any such decision to abort, made by a 'trained man' on the scene?
Or, made by someone several thousand miles away, who is relying on 2nd/3rd hand info & has a back seat driver in Whitehall/etc.

Thank God Nelson didn't have a satellite telephone, we'd now be speaking some dago language!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Heading inexorably towards 300 posts! A record?