Pirates be warned: we are a nation of appeasers.

[Decholder]

This is unbelievable! A civilian cruise liner that has armed guards managed to fend off a pirate attack and the "analysts" are calling this a bad thing!? What a bunch of spineless, jelly brained, cowards!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

NAIROBI, Kenya – The small white skiff approached the Italian cruise ship Melody after dinnertime as it sailed north of the Seychelles, the pirates firing wildly toward the 1,500 passengers and crew on board.
What the pirates didn't expect was that, in the darkness, the crew would fire back.
In a new twist to the increasing scourge of Somali pirate hijackings, the private Israeli security forces aboard the MSC Cruises ocean liner fired on the pirates Saturday with pistols and water hoses, preventing them from clambering aboard, the company's director Domenico Pellegrino said.
"It was an emergency operation," Pellegrino told The Associated Press. "They didn't expect such a quick response. They were surprised."
Passengers were ordered to return to their cabins and the lights on deck were switched off. The massive vessel then sailed on in darkness, eventually escorted by a Spanish warship to make sure it made it to its next port.
"It felt like we were in war," the ship's Italian Commander, Ciro Pinto, told Italian state radio.
None of the roughly 1,000 passengers were hurt and by Sunday afternoon they were back out on deck sunning themselves, Pellegrino said.
But analysts say the unprecedented use of weapons by the ship's security force could make things worse in the pirate-infested waters off the Horn of Africa, where over 100 ships were attacked last year by Somalia-based pirates. In nearly all the hijackings, the crews were unharmed and were let go after a ransom was paid.
"There is a consensus in the shipping industry that, in the vast majority of cases, having an armed guard is not a good idea. The No. 1 reason is that it could cause an escalation of violence and pirates that have so far been trying to scare ships could now start to kill people," said Roger Middleton, an expert on Somali piracy at London-based think tank Chatham House.
Other experts disagree, saying piracy off the coast of modern-day Somalia is unique in that the pirates are most interested in human cargo.
"Their business model, if you will, has been to not cross a line which would bring the whole weight of the world upon them. They want to seize hostages and ransom those hostages. So the likelihood that they would escalate violence is unlikely," said Africa expert Peter Pham, director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University.
He argued that arming ships is not a sustainable solution, given that an estimated 20,000 ships pass through the Gulf of Aden each year.
"For the Melody, you're talking about 1,000 passengers and 500 crew members, so maybe for 1,500 people paying to have security on board makes both economical and tactical sense — but when you're dealing with ordinary cargo ships it's very different," he said.
Pellegrino said MSC Cruises had Israeli private security forces on all their ships because they were the best. He said the pistols on board were at the discretion of the commander and the security forces.
The attack occurred near the Seychelles and about 500 miles (800 kilometers) east of Somalia, according to the anti-piracy flotilla headquarters of the Maritime Security Center Horn of Africa. The Melody was traveling up Africa's east coast, from Durban, South Africa to Genoa, Italy.
Pinto said the pirates fired "like crazy" with automatic weapons, slightly damaging the liner, when they approached in a small, white Zodiac-like boat.
"After about four or five minutes, they tried to put a ladder up," Pinto told Sky TG24. "They were starting to climb up but we reacted, we started to fire ourselves. When they saw our fire, and also the water from the water hoses that we started to spray toward the Zodiac, they left and went away ... They followed us for a bit, about 20 minutes," he said.
Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet, noted that the distance from the Somali coast — 500 miles — was a sign of the pirates' increasing skill. Until last year, the majority of pirate attacks occurred within 100 miles of the Somali shore but he said that last fall there had been a "definite shift in their tactical capabilities."
"It's not unheard of to have attacks off the coast of the Seychelles; we've even had some in the past month," he said. "But at the same time, it is a sign that they are moving further and further off the Somali coast."
In a separate incident Sunday, the Yemen Interior Ministry said Yemeni coast guards clashed with pirates and killed two of them when they tried to hijack a Yemeni tanker in the Gulf of Aden. And the Turkish cruiser Ariva 3, with two British and four Japanese crew members aboard, survived a pirate attack near the Yemeni island of Jabal Zuqar, said Ali el-Awlaqi, head of the Yemeni El-Awlaqi Marine company said.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Navy shot and killed three pirates and took a fourth into custody after a five-day standoff in the waters off the Somali coast where they hijacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama.
Saturday's exchange of fire between the Melody and pirates was one of the first reported between pirates and a nonmilitary ship. Civilian shipping and passenger ships have generally avoided arming crewmen or hiring armed security for reasons of safety, liability and compliance with the rules of the different countries where they dock.
It was not the first attack on a cruise liner, however. In November, pirates opened fire on a U.S.-operated ship, the M/S Nautica, which was taking 650 passengers and 400 crew members on a monthlong luxury cruise from Rome to Singapore. The liner was able to outrun the pirates. And in early April a tourist yacht was hijacked by Somali pirates near the Seychelles just after having dropped off its cargo of tourists.

I'm tired of hearing this escalation of force BS being used as a reason not to engage the pirates with more lethality. If you want to end the pirate threat, make is so painfully obvious to them that the only possible outcome of engaging in such will result in their untimely demise, and the threat will end. Simple business rules, if the profit gained does not outweigh the risks and potential loss involved, then you will not choose to support that course of action (unless we're talking about the fed gov). Honestly, if someone were to break into your house, kidnap your family and demand a ransom for them.....would you be content to just pay the ransom then have the whole situation start all over again? Of course not! You'd want to make damn sure that they will never threaten your family again! And the only way to do that is to respond to them in the only reasonable manner, by removing the threat all together.

Another interesting point this brings up: When the pirates fired on the US Navy, they received no immediate retribution (which may not have been the best thing anyways, I don't know, I wasn't there), but when the pirates attacked a civilian cruise liner, they were immediately fired upon by the ship's security forces!..........kind of makes us look like pushovers, doesn't it?

[Wild Bill Klinton]

Piracy is an act of WAR plane and simple. Sovereign soil (ship flying a flag) invaded is WAR.

[roland]

I agree with you. When the cowardly pirates realize that there targets are armed and willing to fight back there will certainly be a decrease in the attacks. Hummmm, where have I heard this before.

[1861]

Send them all to a watery grave.

[LittleRedToyota]

there are a lot of people out there who do not want to own up the fact that they are responsible for themselves. they especially do not want to own up to the fact that they are responsible for providing for their own security.

to try to justify their denial of reality, they attempt to change reality. they attempt to create a world where everyone is completely dependent on society (mostly via government) for everything. they outlaw (when they can) or just greatly discourage (when they cannot outlaw) being in anyway self-reliant.

after all, if we live in a world where it is illegal, or at least considered stupid, to take responsibility for yourself, then they have the perfect excuse to not take responsibility for themselves.

this is probably just another example, of that, imho. there are likely a number of executives in the shipping industry who do not want to have to be responsible for defending their own ships, so they make sure that some industry group recommends against doing so. that way, they can say "see, the 'experts' say we should not defend our ships, so we aren't going to defend them"...probably while thinking something like "whew, just saved a buttload of money there..."

[reverserboy]

Well....up until lately when the pirates sized a ship they got paid,fairly well. If the ship got away the pirates just tried again with no loss & little risk.
This is not a bad deal if you're a criminal.

Why do any of us go to work?? Because we're paid....that's why.
Why do these pirates hijack ships?? Because the ship's owner pays them. He does so because at that point he has no choice.

Now...with armed security the pirates have a downside & risk....which is that of being killed or maimed by the defenders.

IMO...when pirates stop getting paid & start getting killed the attacks will slow down.

[Eugene V. Debs]

there are a lot of people out there who do not want to own up the fact that they are responsible for themselves. they especially do not want to own up to the fact that they are responsible for providing for their own security.

to try to justify their denial of reality, they attempt to change reality. they attempt to create a world where everyone is completely dependent on society (mostly via government) for everything. they outlaw (when they can) or just greatly discourage (when they cannot outlaw) being in anyway self-reliant.

after all, if we live in a world where it is illegal, or at least considered stupid, to take responsibility for yourself, then they have the perfect excuse to not take responsibility for themselves.

this is probably just another example, of that, imho. there are likely a number of executives in the shipping industry who do not want to have to be responsible for defending their own ships, so they make sure that some industry group recommends against doing so. that way, they can say "see, the 'experts' say we should not defend our ships, so we aren't going to defend them"...probably while thinking something like "whew, just saved a buttload of money there..."

I mostly agree with this, however, there is probably a financial component as well. I'd find it hard to believe that the shipping companies did not do a risk/cost-benefit analysis and decide that defending the ships was a bigger cost than not defending them.

I'd be curious to crunch the numbers myself-- take Maersk as an example. What are the chances of their ships being hijacked and assuming the worst odds, how much will this cost them in ransom money per year versus how much would it cost to provide security of all their ships? And would potential liability from tort suits of sailors ordered to resist exceed that of cargo insurance? All sorts of factors to consider, financially-speaking. And if a scumbag commie union guy like me is thinking of that, you can bet the bourgeois running-dogs of the oppressive capitalist class is thinking of it too.

[Kurt_M]

It wouldn't be hard to escalate the violence right up past the point where every pirate who attacks a ship ends up dead. As an added bonus, dead pirates can't hijack any more ships. It's a win-win! WHY in the HELL can't these people understand that? We're not dealing with a real navy here, they're a bunch of desperate, untrained criminals in little boats with rifles and RPGs. We've got bigger ships with bigger guns, not to mention submarines, helicopters and airplanes that carry missiles which can take out anything that floats. What good is all of this hardware if we don't use it when we're threatened?

[dc dalton]

I'd be curious to crunch the numbers myself-- take Maersk as an example. What are the chances of their ships being hijacked and assuming the worst odds, how much will this cost them in ransom money per year versus how much would it cost to provide security of all their ships? And would potential liability from tort suits of sailors ordered to resist exceed that of cargo insurance? All sorts of factors to consider, financially-speaking. And if a scumbag commie union guy like me is thinking of that, you can bet the bourgeois running-dogs of the oppressive capitalist class is thinking of it too.

I too have wondered why they don't have security (besides the obvious weapons going from country to country attempting to keep up with each countries laws) and I have to say I'd be willing to bet good money you have hit the nail on the head.

Secondly I wonder if these shipping companies are covered for this kind of stuff under their insurance. God knows these freighters have to chance to run into all sorts of problems ... can't even begin to think of the insurance ramifications.

[fingers80002]

I too have wondered why they don't have security (besides the obvious weapons going from country to country attempting to keep up with each countries laws) and I have to say I'd be willing to bet good money you have hit the nail on the head.

Secondly I wonder if these shipping companies are covered for this kind of stuff under their insurance. God knows these freighters have to chance to run into all sorts of problems ... can't even begin to think of the insurance ramifications.

International Treaty, prevents weapons on ships.