problem is, the pirates would escape too.

4/14/2009 9:24:15 PM

motherfuckers

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/14/somalia.pirates/index.html

Quote :

"Pirates attack U.S. cargo ship but fail to get aboard "

4/14/2009 9:39:07 PM

This is a perfect opportunity to load a container ship with crates full of marines and let them board the fucker.

4/14/2009 10:13:51 PM

^best idea ever

4/14/2009 10:16:37 PM

Quote :

""The pirates fired rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at the vessel, which sustained damage," said a statement from New York-based Liberty Maritime Corporation, which owns the vessel. The ship was carrying U.S. food aid for African nations, the statement said. "

one of the many reasons africa is struggling to move up.

4/14/2009 10:28:05 PM

^ this is more a symptom than a cause of Africa's problems.

4/15/2009 12:20:23 AM

^ It's neither the symptom or cause. It's the...



CIRCLE OF LIFE

4/15/2009 12:30:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

4/15/2009 12:31:34 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

4/15/2009 12:31:34 AM

Theres something suspicious about this story. How did the captain get away? How did they snipe three people in an enclosed lifeboat in the dark, in a rolling sea?

I bet you $5 this is how they did it:

1) SEAL swims up to lifeboat in dark
2) tosses flashbang, knocks everyone unconscious inside
3) SEAL boards boat, disarms pirates
4) All pirates taken on USS Bainbridge and detained for intelligence, to be used for future ground operation pending UN approval

They probably made up this sniper story to keep their technique out of the media for future operations. They aren't
going to send a guided missile cruiser every time this happens.

4/15/2009 12:53:33 AM

that would be pretty awesome if true

4/15/2009 12:58:04 AM

No, I'm pretty sure they just shot them in the head.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 1:00:02 AM

Lol, I actually think my version is probably accurate, knowing special ops. You can incapacitate people quite easily with non-lethal mechanisms, even more easily than this outlandish sniper scenario. There's also no benefit to telling the truth to the media and compromising future operations.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 1:33:27 AM

honestly that does make sense to me...the sniper story sounds cooler and doesnt actually explain what we did...good diversion tactic...especially with them saying USA is their number 1 target now

4/15/2009 1:38:17 AM

America fuck yeah!

4/15/2009 1:41:36 AM

I can buy the sniper story. These guys really are extraordinarily good.

The Daily Show coverage was pretty good.

"I don't know Jon, I really don't like brazen shows of American force, force which has so often been used wrongly in the past."
"Uh...sure. But it was really fucking cool, wasn't it?"
"Really fucking cool. I'll do you one better. It was cool as fuck."

4/15/2009 1:48:12 AM

lol, if you're been captured by SEALS and it's all over the news that you're dead then you can be pretty well assured that you're not getting out of whatever secret prison you're sent to.

4/15/2009 1:48:37 AM

^^haha

4/15/2009 1:53:39 AM

Fuck this country and its secret prisons. Hell, why are we even talking about secret prisons and torture in this thread? Until we cut that shit out completely we deserve every war casualty and hijacking that comes our way.

4/15/2009 9:27:50 AM

Supposedly the pirates' life boat was being towed since it had run out of gas. So, the ninjas were no further than 75 feet away. At that distance any good ninja could hit a fly. Daniel son caught a fly with chopsticks... and he's not even a ninja. So, I don't see it being impossible.

Plus, this life boat had a fiberglass hull... high powered rifle can slice through it like a hot knife through butter.

Although, with your theory, using ninja smoke bombs and incapacitating pirates with nunchukas would have worked just as well. Either way, the pirates lost and ninjas won.



[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : pic]

4/15/2009 9:51:35 AM

Quote :

" incapacitating pirates with nunchukas would have worked just as well."

I'm sorry your image of pirates must've come from Walt Disney.

But they were threatening to use deadly force on that crew, which opens themselves up to the use of deadly force to stop them. If you don't want your head blown off, don't become a pirate!

We were under no moral imperative to use anything under deadly force to stop them.

4/15/2009 10:09:23 AM

my image of the SEALS came from GI Joe

and it seems that was pretty spot-on in this case

4/15/2009 10:14:03 AM

^^ Hey, I don't disagree. I mean, which is cooler:

1) Shuriken between the eyes

2) Nunchuka to the face


Answer: Both are equally cool.

4/15/2009 10:21:57 AM

I'm sure there was a 4th shot that occurred first chronologically that was probably a split second before the other 3 shots...the purpose of the 1st shot? to knock out the glass so that the other shots wouldn't have the risk of deflecting or refracting and going off target

4/15/2009 11:03:45 AM

yeah, i'm kind of confused how this worked now that i see pictures of the "lifeboat", which is far more modern than what i previously had in my head.

They shot through the walls? wtf?

4/15/2009 11:12:42 AM

Apparently, floating nearby was a grassy knoll. There are reports that shots were fired from the floating grassy knoll as well, but the surviving pirate that was taken into custody was unable to share with the media what he witnessed. Obviously the ninjas will not say a word, in fact, I doubt they have vocal cords.

4/15/2009 11:16:09 AM

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 12:13 PM. Reason : make link work]

4/15/2009 12:13:06 PM

From what I read, 2 of them had their heads exposed up through hatches, probably to get fresh air. The 3rd's head became visible through a window.

Bang, bang, bang.

I bet that Captain needed a new pair of shorts though when that happened.

4/15/2009 12:21:20 PM

^^

does that graph go back to jefferson?

TO THE SHORES OF TRIPOLI

4/15/2009 12:25:55 PM

na it doesnt Jefferson would so win!

4/15/2009 1:01:19 PM

GG for what went down

I do not give props in any way to our commander-in-chief though - he let this situation drag on far too long.

Our previous CIF would've authorized this activity 2 days into it.

4/15/2009 1:43:14 PM

^^, ^^^

4/15/2009 5:49:31 PM

Quote :

"Our previous CIF would've authorized this activity 2 days into it."

he authorized the action on friday, numbnuts

4/15/2009 6:08:40 PM

well he shoulda' taken the first plane over there, parachuted to the boat, and shot the fuckers himself by friday night then! What a pussy!

4/15/2009 7:13:23 PM

i couldve nailed me a pirate from 100 ft...

but thats some crazy ish

4/15/2009 8:22:02 PM

ruh-roh - Limbaugh is going to throw a kink in the right-wing love-fest for Obama's clear action
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/limbaugh-defends-teenage-pirates-somali

Quote :

"RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. They were kids. The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That's the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama."

what a fucking asshole..... god. it's clear Rush doesn't care about being fair, sticking to ideals, etc - all he cares about is being contrarian to Obama, no matter what he does

4/15/2009 11:01:03 PM

you clearly don't understand his genre, which is full of satire.

4/15/2009 11:05:37 PM

yeah, i've heard that. real satirical genius, he is.

4/15/2009 11:07:04 PM

Quote :

"he authorized the action on friday, numbnuts"

On what day did the captain try to swim away from the lifeboat?

If it was before Friday, then Obama does deserve some blame. It's pretty clear his thought-process could/should/would have been "Hmmm, if I can put some distance between myself and these fuckers, the US Navy will turn that thing into driftwood in short order."

I have no idea why this whole deal was not ended then and there. The guy escaped the boat. Why was it not blown to bits at the first chance? I'm hoping there's a legitimate answer, but I haven't heard one.

4/15/2009 11:12:37 PM

yep, Limbaugh is the douchiest fucker on the face of the planet. I thought republicans didn't like poor black teenagers, the only thing that may have been funnier is if the pirates were middle aged arab men, and then Rush say similar comments

4/15/2009 11:34:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure there was a 4th shot that occurred first chronologically that was probably a split second before the other 3 shots...the purpose of the 1st shot? to knock out the glass so that the other shots wouldn't have the risk of deflecting or refracting and going off target"

no - i can tell you from first hand experience, when the military trains with sniper rifles, part of that training includes learning how to fire through glass and compensate for it

4/16/2009 12:21:37 AM

^^^ One of the military leaders were talking about how they had to remain cautious in order to minimize the likelihood of retaliation. Do you honestly think Obama was on the line micromanaging their entire operation?

This is was more delicate than just "kill those pirates."

4/16/2009 12:47:36 AM

GG Seals.

Hmmm. They want revenge huh? African Pirates that now want to take out American ships? Where I have I heard that one before?

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 6:57 AM. Reason : /]

4/16/2009 6:54:48 AM

Quote :

"^^^ One of the military leaders were talking about how they had to remain cautious in order to minimize the likelihood of retaliation. Do you honestly think Obama was on the line micromanaging their entire operation?"

Retaliation by whom? Other pirates at some point in the future? If he thinks it's our job to save hostages like this, it seems silly not to give a "kill 'em as soon as you can" order.

Of course, I don't really blame Obama, because I'm probably the lone voice of dissent here on this entire operation. When American citizens travel abroad, it is in no way the obligation of the U.S. government to protect them from criminals or rescue them if they get in trouble. And to intervene in this situation now brings in a slew of unintended consequences.

4/16/2009 7:06:33 AM

How is it not the government's responsibility to defend their citizens?

Particularly citizens who are currently performing a fairly vital economic function during a recession?

It's in the government's best interest to make sure that commonly used shipping lanes are free and clear of any hindrance.

4/16/2009 7:14:00 AM

Quote :

"How is it not the government's responsibility to defend their citizens?"

It is the government's responsibility - within their borders and embassies. But to take on the defense of every American citizen who gets in trouble around the world is a fool's mission. It also necessarily requires selectivity because everyone recognizes that's impossible. Then, you are arbitrarily deciding who is worth saving which is a morally questionable policy, and additionally you open yourself to unintended consequences and entrapments of all kinds as we will soon find out.

Our government already issues warnings at airports saying something to the effect of, "If you travel to this country, not only can we not promise your safety, we also may not come to your rescue."

Simply put, the role of our military is to protect and defend the Constitution, and the integrity of our borders.

How does saving an individual American in trouble abroad fit either of those? Unless, of course, your principle becomes "We will defend all Americans everywhere" which is patently stupid, or even worse, "We will defend some Americans abroad sometimes, based on your economic or cultural importance."

It would be much better to simply say, "You leave our borders, you leave our protection. Godspeed."

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 8:03 AM. Reason : a]

4/16/2009 7:58:43 AM

Did this not happen in international waters? I don't think it's overreaching to have our navy get involved with a situation like this in international waters.

The one thing that does kind of make me scratch my head is the overly centralized decision making loop involved in this operation. Ultimately (if you set aside the press frenzy), this was a minor incident in the grand scheme of things. But President, the Commander of CENTCOM, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the DoJ, and the White House/NSC were all involved -- just to pull the trigger on three kidnappers holding a hostage at gunpoint?

4/16/2009 9:33:45 AM

Well, they don't call it international waters for nothing. The structure of American government was such that this was supposed to be the only time you did call the President. Floods in New Orleans, riots in New York, a recession, call the Governor. But a ship is lost at sea? Get the President in here! We must invade the Barbary Coast!

4/16/2009 9:49:42 AM

Quote :

"When American citizens travel abroad, it is in no way the obligation of the U.S. government to protect them from criminals or rescue them if they get in trouble. And to intervene in this situation now brings in a slew of unintended consequences."

I think there are several extenuating circumstances though that differentiates this situation.

1) This is a US-flagged vessel and is under the legal jurisdiction of the United States government per centuries of maritime law and tradition.

2) Anti-piracy activity is a textbook responsibility of the United States Navy or any navy for that matter, particularly since this occurred in international waters. We're not trampling on anyone's sovereignty in this case. We're enforcing our own national sovereignty by defending American territory and enforcing our laws in our legal jurisdiction.

3) There's precedence for this in US history: we've engaged in anti-piracy campaigns before. Its just that we haven't had to do one in a century or two.

4) The US Navy already had a presence in the area. It's not as if we sent a carrier battle group around the globe to deal with this hostage crisis. We already had a significant military presence in the area sent specifically to deal with this issue. I would argue that if anything, it would have been irresponsible and negligent of the government to NOT send a US vessel to help the Maersk Alabama when the distress signal was sent.

Yes, shooting these guys may not have been the best approach or outcome (versus exchanging their freedom for the good Captain), but to say that the government shouldn't have been involved at all in this situation doesn't make any sense to me.

I agree with BobbyDigital though, I am curious and questioning about the command loop on this entire issue.

4/16/2009 12:38:46 PM

set em up

4/16/2009 1:26:49 PM