molson_golden2002 Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/world/af...amp;oref=slogin NAIROBI, Kenya — Somalia’s notorious pirates staged perhaps their most brazen attack yet, seizing a Ukrainian ship carrying dozens of heavy tanks , maritime and diplomatic officials said Friday. The ship was seized Thursday night about 200 miles off the coast of Somalia, and it is feared that the heavy weapons could fall into the hands of insurgents who are wreaking havoc on a country teetering on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. However, unloading the tanks is likely to be beyond the capacity of the pirates or the insurgents, experts said. According to Andrew Mwangura, the program coordinator of the Seafarers’ Assistance Program in Kenya, the ship was carrying around 30 T-72 battle tanks, which were going to be offloaded in Mombasa, Kenya. “These pirates are getting bolder ever day,” said Mr. Mwangura, whose organization tracks pirate attacks. “They are now going to use these weapons as a bargaining chip.”
finknottle Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 “These pirates are getting bolder ever day,” said Mr. Mwangura, whose organization tracks pirate attacks. “They are now going to use these weapons as a bargaining chip.” Not to fear. It's all Bush's fault for lowering the US's standing in the world. I'm sure that when Obama meets with the pirates they will be inspired and end their plundering ways.
RI Bills Fan Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Not to fear. It's all Bush's fault for lowering the US's standing in the world. I'm sure that when Obama meets with the pirates they will be inspired and end their plundering ways. Of course we could always let one of the SSN's or SSGN's in that area drop a few TLAM-C's on their asses. I'm just saying; That's a good way to open the negotiations and get everyone to the table...
finknottle Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Of course we could always let one of the SSN's or SSGN's in that area drop a few TLAM-C's on their asses. I'm just saying; That's a good way to open the negotiations and get everyone to the table... That's a pre-condition.
UConn James Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Of course we could always let one of the SSN's or SSGN's in that area drop a few TLAM-C's on their asses. I'm just saying; That's a good way to open the negotiations and get everyone to the table... "Ships and troops have surrounded us," said a man identified by RFI as pirate Sugule Ali. He spoke in Somali. "There's a lot of unusual movement surrounding us and planes are flying overhead. I warn anyone who might be tempted by any military operation or use of force, if we're attacked, we'll defend ourselves, until the last one of us dies." Don't quite get why this hasn't been arranged yet. Maybe it's in the works. Time was these sh--bags' blood would be drying in the sun right now. Don't tell me that they're actually allowing negotiations. They need to be made an example of. But, you know, that's not how big countries have to operate these days --- they need to apologize to the hijackers for making them commandeer the ship... like an "attractive nuisance."
SJ Bills backer Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 F'in pirates... I say we send in Davey Jones and summon the Kraken
UConn James Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 They'll defend themselves until the last one of them dies, huh? Reports are, now, that they're killing among themselves. And, get this, CNN is making a distinction b/w "moderate pirates" (those who want to surrender) and the more committed "radical pirates." Are there such things as "moderate terrorists" too? How simplistic / categoristic can they get in dumbing down news? Also a little disconcerting that the USS Howard took photos of the assault last week and evidently, did bupkiss. Then again, I don't suppose they can do anything b/c it's not their ship... not even a U.S. ship. But a second then again, how eeriely similar is that scene to the Cole bombing? And with such cargo on board, there had to be a threat (or should have been) that the pirates (how could they assume it was not AQ at that point?) would use those weapons against the Howard?
Wacka Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 We have them surrounded and can't do anything unless the Ukraine asks us to.
Britbillsfan Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 And, get this, CNN is making a distinction b/w "moderate pirates" (those who want to surrender) and the more committed "radical pirates." Are there such things as "moderate terrorists" too? How simplistic / categoristic can they get in dumbing down news? Perhaps radical Islamic scumbag pirate/kidnappers, and plain old thief scumbag pirate/kidnappers? These guys were off in their timing a little - speak like a pirate day was a couple of weeks back...
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 And, get this, CNN is making a distinction b/w "moderate pirates" (those who want to surrender) and the more committed "radical pirates." Are there such things as "moderate terrorists" too? How simplistic / categoristic can they get in dumbing down news? Well, it is CNN. I wonder how long until they decide that the word pirate is too "offensive" and start calling them 'seafaring cargo seekers' or something.
DC Tom Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Well, it is CNN. I wonder how long until they decide that the word pirate is too "offensive" and start calling them 'seafaring cargo seekers' or something. "Oceanic foragers". But only if they're white.
DC Tom Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 The New York Times is breaking the story that the pirates are just misunderstood because they're only in it for the money...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 The New York Times is breaking the story that the pirates are just misunderstood because they're only in it for the money... I heard its some wall street CEOs looking for new golden parachutes
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 The New York Times is breaking the story that the pirates are just misunderstood because they're only in it for the money... Does the NYT say the pirates are misunderstood or the pirates say they're misunderstood? Big difference. We wouldn't want the impression that you interpreted that erroneously. Also, funny how Fox News is alone speculating that the ship may carry Iranian "weapons of mass destruction." Of course, there's no proof, but, hey, why not throw that in there to distract everyone from the economic crisis?
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 They'll defend themselves until the last one of them dies, huh? Reports are, now, that they're killing among themselves. And, get this, CNN is making a distinction b/w "moderate pirates" (those who want to surrender) and the more committed "radical pirates." Are there such things as "moderate terrorists" too? How simplistic / categoristic can they get in dumbing down news? Also a little disconcerting that the USS Howard took photos of the assault last week and evidently, did bupkiss. Then again, I don't suppose they can do anything b/c it's not their ship... not even a U.S. ship. But a second then again, how eeriely similar is that scene to the Cole bombing? And with such cargo on board, there had to be a threat (or should have been) that the pirates (how could they assume it was not AQ at that point?) would use those weapons against the Howard? Did you read the part where the distinction was made by Kenyan Maritime official? Guess you missed that. I guess Fox would have changed what the official said to fit their world view.
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Also, funny how Fox News is alone speculating that the ship may carry Iranian "weapons of mass destruction." Of course, there's no proof, but, hey, why not throw that in there to distract everyone from the economic crisis? Yup, everyone is now officially distracted from the economic crisis. Of course, according to the loony brigade (oh wait, that includes you), the economic crisis was created to distract us from Sarah Palin.
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Yup, everyone is now officially distracted from the economic crisis. Of course, according to the loony brigade (oh wait, that includes you), the economic crisis was created to distract us from Sarah Palin. Really? "Distract us from Sarah Palin?" For God Sake's why? Where do you come up with this stuff? (Sorry, I don't listen to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etc, so I don't get the daily talking points). Palin's disintegration from GOP savior to cringe-worthy, fear-inducing VP choice is like a trainwreck you can't help but watch. Besides, I never said or implied any such thing. But of course, knocking down straw men in your head is a good way to convince yourself you have a clue.
Recommended Posts