About time. Good final resolution

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> About time. Good final resolution

What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!

Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
a ship.

nancy

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > About time. Good final resolution
>>
>> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
>> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
>> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>>
>> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
>> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
>> a ship.
>
>
> IIRC merchant ships generally don't carry arms, Nancy...don't know if it's
> because of law or liability or whatever.
>

They discussed that on Meet The Press this AM. Liability insurance
skyrockets and tankers with flammable cargo can be exploded by gunfire.

I did read where this ship used fire hoses the first time to get the pirates
off, but they came back again. Some fighter planes could easily take care
of them too if spotted in time.

Nancy Young wrote:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > About time. Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> a ship.


IIRC merchant ships generally don't carry arms, Nancy...don't know if it's
because of law or liability or whatever.

That should not be so, at least for US - flagged ships that traverse these
dangerous waters. There should be a sharpshooter or two aboard to use these
muzlim pukes' heads for "target practic" So's their toweled heads would
would explode like a cantaloupe being shot...BAM!


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
>> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
>> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>>
>> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
>> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
>> a ship.

> IIRC merchant ships generally don't carry arms, Nancy...don't know if
> it's because of law or liability or whatever.

In these times, they need to have security. Maybe they didn't,
traditionally. Every little Garda truck picking up cash from the
7-11 has armed protection, not these huge multi million dollar
ships? It's not working! Get with the program, there needs to be
security, at least in those waters.

Seems like it's every week now. I don't get the problem. Hire a
security force.

nancy (not really ranting)

Nancy Young wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> >> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> >> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
> >>
> >> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> >> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> >> a ship.
>
> > IIRC merchant ships generally don't carry arms, Nancy...don't know if
> > it's because of law or liability or whatever.
>
> In these times, they need to have security. Maybe they didn't,
> traditionally. Every little Garda truck picking up cash from the
> 7-11 has armed protection, not these huge multi million dollar
> ships? It's not working! Get with the program, there needs to be
> security, at least in those waters.
>
> Seems like it's every week now. I don't get the problem. Hire a
> security force.
>
> nancy (not really ranting)


This is one case where the Good Guys, e.g the US, wins, and the pukes lose.
A nice feeling, especially on Easter Sunday...some *good* news for a change!

:-)


--
Best
Greg

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I did read where this ship used fire hoses the first time to get the
> pirates off, but they came back again.

I heard that, too. I guess they thought they got rid of the pirates
for good and went back to their jobs. Apparently they don't have
people whose sole job is to watch out. I keep thinking that will
change.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> About time. Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> a ship.
>
> nancy

You've got between 10 and 15 crewmen maintaining a ship that is over several
city blocks long and stands high enough in the water to hide the approach of
a little runabout. Just not enough people to go around to guard, maintain
the ship and sleep. Then there's the lack of armament. Spies in the ports
relay to the pirates any additional security personnel aboard. Just not a
good situation for the good guys and perfect for the bad guys. I wish they
could just shoot out of the water any ship that comes within a mile range.
Janet

Janet wrote:

> You've got between 10 and 15 crewmen maintaining a ship that is over
> several city blocks long and stands high enough in the water to hide the
> approach of a little runabout. Just not enough people to go around to
> guard, maintain the ship and sleep. Then there's the lack of armament.
> Spies in the ports relay to the pirates any additional security personnel
> aboard. Just not a good situation for the good guys and perfect for the
> bad guys. I wish they could just shoot out of the water any ship that
> comes within a mile range.

Well, there's also the problem of *detecting* the incoming vessels. They've
got much too small a radar cross-section to be detected by radar, and I'm
thinking that most of the attacks take place at night, so they couldn't be
seen either, unless you were wearing night-vision goggles and looking in the
right direction. If the seas aren't rough, the pirates' boats can easily
overtake a freighter or tanker.

I'd recommend using a surveillance-fitted P3 aircraft to patrol the area
with an IR camera, or any of several UAV options. But who's going to pay for
it?

I'm told that some Somali pirates told the press that they'd kill the
hostages next time. Forewarned is forearmed, I say: Formulate *some* plan
for defending the ship, because your life depends on it.

Bob

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> I did read where this ship used fire hoses the first time to get the
>> pirates off, but they came back again.
>
> I heard that, too. I guess they thought they got rid of the pirates
> for good and went back to their jobs. Apparently they don't have
> people whose sole job is to watch out. I keep thinking that will
> change.
>
> nancy


Cruise ships have been using long-range acoustic devices (LRAD), that
emit high frequency noise to deter potential attackers. On the Oceania
Nautica, a ship's officer was not using protection and he lost hearing
in both ears. The LRAD was effective.


Becca

Becca wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> I heard that, too. I guess they thought they got rid of the pirates
>> for good and went back to their jobs. Apparently they don't have
>> people whose sole job is to watch out. I keep thinking that will
>> change.

> Cruise ships have been using long-range acoustic devices (LRAD), that
> emit high frequency noise to deter potential attackers. On the
> Oceania Nautica, a ship's officer was not using protection and he
> lost hearing in both ears. The LRAD was effective.

What a shame about that guy. What was he thinking. I'm
wondering how they keep the noise from the other people on
board. And is it something that could be useless if the pirates
wear ear plugs. (laugh) I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm
picturing Somalian pirates with those bright yellow plugs.

nancy

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" >
> : in rec.food.cooking

>> They discussed that on Meet The Press this AM. Liability insurance
>> skyrockets and tankers with flammable cargo can be exploded by
>> gunfire.
>
> Thanks for answering Nancy's question. After I read her original
> response I was about to Google it to see if I could find the answer
> myself. I figured it had to do with liability etc.

Being me, it doesn't really change my question, why are they
allowing this type of thing to happen when they are well aware
of the problem. If you can't use guns, use something else, as in
the water cannons. Just saying Oh well, we can't have guns because
of liability issues, so let the pirates have their way doesn't work for me.

I love the safe room thing. No hostages, not much for the pirates
to gain.

nancy

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:16:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> About time. Good final resolution

i was happy to hear about that myself.

your pal,
blake

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> About time. Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> a ship.
>

Nancy,
Article in NY Times said the ship owners decided it was cheaper to pay
ransom for the cargo and crew than to pay the huge increase in insurance
costs that arming the ships would bring.

Jon

Bob Terwilliger > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> I'm told that some Somali pirates told the press that they'd
> kill the hostages next time.

Pirates in other parts of the world (China Sea) already have -- especially
those ships that thought the additional security they'd paid would provide
them the necessary safety. The pirates got close in to the ship and then
strafed the command area with a machine gun. The pirates then borded the
boat and executed any surviving crew. Bodies were dumped overboard and the
ship was taken to the pirates safe harbor where the good were off-loaded. I
read about it in Forbes (or one of those type magazines) in the late-90s
that was writing about how the shipping industry wasn't coping well with
this "new" calamity.


> Forewarned is forearmed, I say: Formulate *some* plan
> for defending the ship, because your life depends on it.

That's hoping for a lot. Unless you have a crew that's already learned how
to fight and kill, you're already at a disadvantage. Why do you think four
to six pirates can take on fifteen? They don't care if they kill someone and
the crew know it.

The Ranger

On Apr 12, 9:24*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > About time. *Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. *Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. *Look, pirates are trying to board. *Shoot them!


American freight crews are not armed.

N.

On Apr 12, 9:16*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> About time. *Good final resolution

Absolutely.

I never read howcome the lifeboat was "being towed by the [whatever
Navy ship]" .... when did that occur? Because the last I read on
Friday, the pirates fired on the Navy crew when their small boats got
too close to the lifeboat. Did the Seals attach a rope, or what?

Anyway, good news.

I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
of mercenaries for on-board protection.

N.

On Apr 13, 8:50*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> > "Ed Pawlowski" >
> : in rec.food.cooking
> >> They discussed that on Meet The Press this AM. *Liability insurance
> >> skyrockets and tankers with flammable cargo can be exploded by
> >> gunfire.
>
> > Thanks for answering Nancy's question. *After I read her original
> > response I was about to Google it to see if I could find the answer
> > myself. *I figured it had to do with liability etc.
>
> Being me, it doesn't really change my question, why are they
> allowing this type of thing to happen when they are well aware
> of the problem. *If you can't use guns, use something else, as in
> the water cannons. *Just saying Oh well, we can't have guns because
> of liability issues, so let the pirates have their way doesn't work for me.
>
> I love the safe room thing. *No hostages, not much for the pirates
> to gain.
>
> nancy

Safe room? What happens then when the pirates take the ship to a dock
on the Somalia coast, and off-load the booty? Sink the ship? Blow it
up? How do the safe-room occupants become safe?

N.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 9:16 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> About time. Good final resolution

Absolutely.

I never read howcome the lifeboat was "being towed by the [whatever
Navy ship]" .... when did that occur? Because the last I read on
Friday, the pirates fired on the Navy crew when their small boats got
too close to the lifeboat. Did the Seals attach a rope, or what?

Anyway, good news.

I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
of mercenaries for on-board protection.

N.

In the very early 80s, when I was a young banker, I was in a position to
advance working capital to a man who had formed a security company well
before they were all that fashionable.

I was intrigued as to his business operations - the Viet war had concluded
and he was ex-special forces. He formed a company that employed similar
operatives (though not with his business brain)

They were employed to join ships at the Western end of the Straits of
Malacca and travel to the other end, exiting in Sing or getting off as the
vessel turned North.

Anyone else who tried to "join the ship" en route had their throat cut and
was thrown back overboard to float back in to a village where he may have
been known.

Worked well for a time but the practice was discontinued.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Apr 12, 9:24 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> About time. Good final resolution
>> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
>> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
>> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
>
> American freight crews are not armed.
>


Are there many American crew members.... or American cargo ships. A lot
of ships are registered off shore for tax purposes, and crews are made
up of people from all over Asia.

Arming crews is going to cause all sorts of problems. There are lots of
countries that don't want armed crews arriving in their ports. There
would have to be all sorts of reciprocal deals, and before anyone
suggests that American crews should be armed, think about how you would
feel about armed Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani crews arriving in US ports.


FWIW, I came across some interesting things in another news group. Some
people think that the Somali pirates hold the moral high ground and
cited a news clip interview with some Somali dude who would have us
believe that the piracy is a righteous act of protest against foreigners
for dumping toxic waste on their shores and foreign fishing boats
plundering their fish stocks. Since Somalia has no real government,
there is nothing authority to stop them. They also blame the west for
the situation in Somalia.

Of course I think that is all a huge crock of shit. Somalia is in that
situation because of their own internal strife. They have no one to
blame for their problems but themselves. I allow no credibility to the
argument that they are acting in protest, legitimate or otherwise. It is
a matter of gangs of outlaws in a lawless land.

My first suggestion would be a naval blockade. Allow them a few miles
off their coast for fishing and sink any ship that crosses that line.
the second suggestion would be to level the towns where the pirates are
located.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 9:16 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> About time. Good final resolution

Absolutely.

I never read howcome the lifeboat was "being towed by the [whatever
Navy ship]" .... when did that occur? Because the last I read on
Friday, the pirates fired on the Navy crew when their small boats got
too close to the lifeboat. Did the Seals attach a rope, or what?

Anyway, good news.

I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
of mercenaries for on-board protection.

N.

First reasonable move.

Did you hear the phone interview from the Admiral? IIRC he said "follow our
recommendations and hire armed security guards" Piracy should NOT be
allowed.

Just blow them out of the water!

Dimitri

Dave Smith > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> My first suggestion would be a naval blockade. Allow them
> a few miles off their coast for fishing and sink any ship that
> crosses that line. The second suggestion would be to level
> the towns where the pirates are located.

Good, even-handed suggestions, both.

How much of that cost is Canada willing to take on in either case?

The bombing of those towns sympathetic to the pirates would only be several
million (US) dollars and -- I believe -- require an act allowing it from our
congress but would certainly be cheaper than stationing any ships along
Somalia's coast.

The Ranger

Dimitri wrote:

> I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
> of mercenaries for on-board protection.
>
> N.
>
> First reasonable move.
>
> Did you hear the phone interview from the Admiral? IIRC he said "follow
> our recommendations and hire armed security guards" Piracy should NOT
> be allowed.
>
> Just blow them out of the water!
>
> Dimitri

I liked the Blackwater folks who were hired to protect us back in 2005
in New Orleans.

In article
>,
Nancy2 > wrote:

> I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
> of mercenaries for on-board protection.
>
> N.

That's one of the best ideas I've seen yet.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

The Ranger wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote in message
> ...
> [snip]
>> My first suggestion would be a naval blockade. Allow them
>> a few miles off their coast for fishing and sink any ship that
>> crosses that line. The second suggestion would be to level
>> the towns where the pirates are located.
>
> Good, even-handed suggestions, both.
>
> How much of that cost is Canada willing to take on in either case?

I don't know, but I am sure that we could divert some of the resources
that are currently doing the dirty work in Afghanistan.

> The bombing of those towns sympathetic to the pirates would only be several
> million (US) dollars and -- I believe -- require an act allowing it from our
> congress but would certainly be cheaper than stationing any ships along
> Somalia's coast.
>

I am sure that someone will whine about the innocent people that might
be killed, but I can't help but refer to the refusal of the elders to
have those pirates arrested.

Nancy2 wrote:

> I think American freight/shipping should start hiring a small number
> of mercenaries for on-board protection.

My point exactly.

nancy

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:50 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> I love the safe room thing. No hostages, not much for the pirates
>> to gain.

> Safe room? What happens then when the pirates take the ship to a dock
> on the Somalia coast, and off-load the booty? Sink the ship? Blow it
> up? How do the safe-room occupants become safe?

Off load the booty to their massive cooperating oil tank people?
They don't have those kinds of resources available.

nancy

Goomba wrote:

> I liked the Blackwater folks who were hired to protect us back in
> 2005 in New Orleans.

I'm having a hard time telling whether you're serious in saying that.

Bob

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
> I love the safe room thing. No hostages, not much for the pirates
> to gain.
>
> nancy

Safe room? What happens then when the pirates take the ship to a dock
on the Somalia coast, and off-load the booty? Sink the ship? Blow it
up? How do the safe-room occupants become safe?

N.

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

I imagine the technology exists to put ship's basic control in the safe room
or at least to stop the engines. It may not be perfect, but better than
what they have now. Perhaps some armed guards on some ships also, like the
Sky Marshall program.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:16:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> About time. Good final resolution
>
> i was happy to hear about that myself.
>

All I can add to this is, that Richard Phillips sure is good looking.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> About time. Good final resolution
>

Glad it's over but it ain't final by a long shot. Popping 3 bad guys while
they were being towed 75 feet behind your boat is not the stuff of heroics
IMO but it was good marksmanship. The escalation was inevitable at some
point. I do fear for the 200 captors they still hold.

Paul

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> About time. Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> a ship.


Corporate bottom line. And guns are a real liability. A former merchant
marine stated that if you knew who manned those ships you'd never want them
near a weapon. The solution is a security detail on every ship but that
means cutting into their profits.

Don't expect much. The ships and cargos are insured, the crews are
expendable. From what I have been reading working for those shippers is a
nightmare.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> About time. Good final resolution
>>
>
> Glad it's over but it ain't final by a long shot. Popping 3 bad guys
> while they were being towed 75 feet behind your boat is not the stuff of
> heroics IMO but it was good marksmanship. The escalation was inevitable
> at some point. I do fear for the 200 captors they still hold.


Captives, rather.

Paul

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Nancy2 wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 9:24 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> About time. Good final resolution
>>> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
>>> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
>>> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>>
>>
>> American freight crews are not armed.
>>
>
>
> Are there many American crew members.... or American cargo ships. A lot
> of ships are registered off shore for tax purposes, and crews are made up
> of people from all over Asia.
>
> Arming crews is going to cause all sorts of problems. There are lots of
> countries that don't want armed crews arriving in their ports. There would
> have to be all sorts of reciprocal deals, and before anyone suggests that
> American crews should be armed, think about how you would feel about armed
> Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani crews arriving in US ports.
>
>
> FWIW, I came across some interesting things in another news group. Some
> people think that the Somali pirates hold the moral high ground and cited
> a news clip interview with some Somali dude who would have us believe that
> the piracy is a righteous act of protest against foreigners for dumping
> toxic waste on their shores and foreign fishing boats plundering their
> fish stocks. Since Somalia has no real government, there is nothing
> authority to stop them. They also blame the west for the situation in
> Somalia.
>
> Of course I think that is all a huge crock of shit. Somalia is in that
> situation because of their own internal strife. They have no one to blame
> for their problems but themselves. I allow no credibility to the argument
> that they are acting in protest, legitimate or otherwise. It is a matter
> of gangs of outlaws in a lawless land.
>

No, that part is real. After the country fell into feudal warlord states in
1991, the western nations like France, GB and Spain all began to strip mine
the fish in those waters. There was nobody to stop them after all. So over
the years they decimated the fish stocks leaving the country full of people
with little food as fish was their main protein source.

Also, France decided that the Indian ocean off the Horn of Africa was an
ideal dumping ground for nuclear and other toxic waste they could not
dispose of on land. Barrels of the stuff washed up onshore after the
Tsunami that ripped through the place a few years ago. The barrels are
still littering the beaches. All kinds of other toxic waste too.

That does not give them moral high ground. But that is the truth of the
situation out there. The western coun tries did have a hand in the whole
thing and exploited the situation. Until they can fix those problems the
pirates will just continue to get bolder.

> My first suggestion would be a naval blockade. Allow them a few miles off
> their coast for fishing and sink any ship that crosses that line. the
> second suggestion would be to level the towns where the pirates are
> located.

Or perhaps restore a real government and an economy that can support its
people.

Paul

"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote in message
...
> Goomba wrote:
>
>> I liked the Blackwater folks who were hired to protect us back in
>> 2005 in New Orleans.
>
> I'm having a hard time telling whether you're serious in saying that.
>
> Bob
>
>

Didn't they shoot at people "looting" water?

Paul

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> "Gregory Morrow" >
> m: in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > This is one case where the Good Guys, e.g the US, wins, and the pukes
> > lose. A nice feeling, especially on Easter Sunday...some *good* news
> > for a change!
>
> TRAITOR! You vile little traitor you. You have just committed the most
> serious offense possible by violating the "Sistah Sunshine" law of
loyalty.
> You have violated the solomn oath and have lost the trust and respect of
> your fellow "Butt Pirates" with your statement above <G>
>
> Michael/////running away quickly


Lol..."butt pirates"...that term always cracks me up...

There are some pirate historians who posit that not a few number of pirates
were of the "fruitarian" nature...but then isolate a number of guys with no
gals around and there will always be a few who stray from the "straight and
narrow path".

;-D


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:16:01 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> > About time. Good final resolution
>
> i was happy to hear about that myself.


I'm relieved, blake...I was thinking that you might have wanted to implicate
The Evil Bush into the piracy contretemps and blame it all on him.

;-)


--
Best
Greg

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other
people's money."~~~~Margaret Thatcher

Nancy Young wrote:
> Becca wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Cruise ships have been using long-range acoustic devices (LRAD), that
>> emit high frequency noise to deter potential attackers. On the
>> Oceania Nautica, a ship's officer was not using protection and he
>> lost hearing in both ears. The LRAD was effective.
>
> What a shame about that guy. What was he thinking. I'm
> wondering how they keep the noise from the other people on
> board. And is it something that could be useless if the pirates
> wear ear plugs. (laugh) I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm
> picturing Somalian pirates with those bright yellow plugs.
>
> nancy


Cruise lines are real hush-hush when it comes to security. From what I
understand, the LRAD sound system is external, it is not inside the ship
or the cabins. We do know, that on the Nautica, an announcement was
made that everyone should go to their cabins immediately and to lock
their cabin door.


The newer cruise ships, have over 2,000 cameras, and they are
retrofitting the older ships as best they can.


Becca

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > About time. Good final resolution
>
> What exactly is the deal. Are these people on ships not
> equipped to keep these scumbags from climbing on board?
> I don't get it. Look, pirates are trying to board. Shoot them!
>
> Obviously it's not that easy, but I honestly don't understand
> why these little boats are being allowed to get anywhere near
> a ship.
>
> nancy

Because of international maritime law, merchant ships aren't allowed to
be armed with guns/cannons etc, thus 'guaranteeing' (hah) free passage
in international waters. Otherwise they must be searched and certified
at every port, in addition to the usual customs searches. Those huge
ships have very small crews, which is what the scumbags count on when
trying to hijack them. However, the maritime academies are training
their students to combat piracy. No reason why they can't be 'armed'
with some of the things your local SWATs use to get suspects out of
houses, which aren't armaments as such. Boiling oil comes to mind

Nancy2 wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 8:50 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> > > "Ed Pawlowski" >
> > : in rec.food.cooking
> > >> They discussed that on Meet The Press this AM. Liability insurance
> > >> skyrockets and tankers with flammable cargo can be exploded by
> > >> gunfire.
> >
> > > Thanks for answering Nancy's question. After I read her original
> > > response I was about to Google it to see if I could find the answer
> > > myself. I figured it had to do with liability etc.
> >
> > Being me, it doesn't really change my question, why are they
> > allowing this type of thing to happen when they are well aware
> > of the problem. If you can't use guns, use something else, as in
> > the water cannons. Just saying Oh well, we can't have guns because
> > of liability issues, so let the pirates have their way doesn't work for me.
> >
> > I love the safe room thing. No hostages, not much for the pirates
> > to gain.
> >
> > nancy
>
> Safe room? What happens then when the pirates take the ship to a dock
> on the Somalia coast, and off-load the booty? Sink the ship? Blow it
> up? How do the safe-room occupants become safe?
>
> N.

Those pirates cannot operate the ships themselves, which is why there is
no advantage to killing the crew. Mostly what they seem to want is cash
(which some companies and insurance outfits have coughed up) so they can
carry on with their interminable civil war. Were the Somalis spending
one tenth of the time and effort to actually do something *useful* for
their country, they might get somewhere.