It's not that they deserved what they got. It's simply that they needed to be stopped and the only functional option at the time was to kill them.You'll get absolutely no argument from me. My comments are in NO WAY meant to detract from the excellent job the servicemen did. Nor were they meant as a plea not to kill pirates. I'm only hoping this incident sheds light on the underlying causes of heinous actions taken by desperate people (especially young people or people raised in such unhealthy circumstances that criminality is the only choice) and motivates people not only to blow up pirates, but also to fix the decay in our global society that leads to such unfortunate events and pandemics of criminal behavior.
BTW, there might be a game scenario in here... a bit of a Kobayashi Maru where no matter what you do, someone will find fault with it... a test not of success, but of character... I'm sure it's been done :)
Imagine a young gold dragon, raised by reds and completely brainwashed, threatening a village with destruction... do you sway or slay the dragon?
Hmmm...
Yeah, I personally think the BEST game scenarios are all Kobayashi Maru scenarios. Real life isn't black and white. Biggest reason I hate the alignment system. I've been Chaotic Evil one moment, and Lawful Good the very next. The human experience and "morality" are hard to quantify.
I do dig your gold dragon scenario though. Turns the aligment question on its head a bit. I dug Eberron for the very reason that no race EVER had a standard alignment. Red dragons could be good, and gold evil as can be. Good stuff.
Yeah, I personally think the BEST game scenarios are all Kobayashi Maru scenarios. Real life isn't black and white. Biggest reason I hate the alignment system. I've been Chaotic Evil one moment, and Lawful Good the very next. The human experience and "morality" are hard to quantify.
I do dig your gold dragon scenario though. Turns the aligment question on its head a bit. I dug Eberron for the very reason that no race EVER had a standard alignment. Red dragons could be good, and gold evil as can be. Good stuff.
One last thought for the night... Good and Evil are most simply defined (according to my experience anyway) as follows:
Good: That which is done consciously that is beneficial to the tribe AND the individual.
Evil: That which is done consciously that is detrimental to the tribe OR the individual.
Neutral: That which is done unconsciously without regard to the benefit or detriment to the tribe or the individual.
The variable is "the tribe". Is it literally a tribe, a nation, a sub-race, humanity at large, or all creatures great and small. The greater the number of tribes, the greater the number of conflicts. As complex systems tend toward equilibrium, the number of tribes and conflicts will eventually decrease over time. Until then, much depends on what one defines as their tribe.
But, name one great adventure story that does not involve conflict. The very word "adventure" speaks of mistakes and misunderstandings that are (hopefully) overcome in hopes of preventing further conflict.
I think there is much adventure to be had in this world until equilibrium trumps the final conflict.
And, then, massive boredom ensues...
:)
|
Oh I hear ya, believe me, a few years ago I'd be saying the exact same thing. But after a lot of time spent traveling and talking to people who've grown up in absolute desperation, I figured out that when you have nothing at all - crime isn't really about choice, its about survival and validation of existence.
Everything is a choice. They chose not to fight to improve their nation. They chose to keep playing the game the way it has been played for ages. Criminals chose their behavior. If someone chooses to go along with the crowd instead of being their own man, let them reap what they sow.
I spend seven years in prison because I chose to do wrong. I grew up dirt poor, had dick growing up, but guess what? I had a chance, I had a choice, and I chose the easy way. My fault.
I don't want to hear it. Everyone has the choice to do right, if they chose not to, whatever happens to them, so be it.
|
Everything is a choice. They chose not to fight to improve their nation. They chose to keep playing the game the way it has been played for ages. Criminals chose their behavior. If someone chooses to go along with the crowd instead of being their own man, let them reap what they sow.
I spend seven years in prison because I chose to do wrong. I grew up dirt poor, had dick growing up, but guess what? I had a chance, I had a choice, and I chose the easy way. My fault.
I don't want to hear it. Everyone has the choice to do right, if they chose not to, whatever happens to them, so be it.
Well said. Even though these pirates were young, in my opinion I'm not sure if they can still be referred to as kids. They could have allied themselves with the legitimate Somali government to try and help stabilize the country. They did not.
And, lest we forget, even though these pirates have so far refrained from killing (that we know of), there are some who theorize that the pirates have links to terroroist organizations. If any of the ransom money they collect goes towards funding these organizations, or perhaps towards the groups fighting the civil war there, then the actions of the pirates are indirectly killing people. Either way, they are not innocent.
While glorifying the pirates' deaths is admittedly in bad taste, excusing them because they had no better options is a cop out. There are ALWAYS better options. How about focusing on bringing your country under a decent governmental system? Improving your people's lives instead of resorting to kidnapping and terrorism?
Anyone who wants to get a chilling look at late 20th Century Somalia through the eyes of a native, I reccommend the book: Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. One of the saddest parts of the book is when she describes how Somalia's communist dictator left the country when the Soviet system stopped subsidising him. He purposely killed members of the different tribal groups in the country, making it look like the work of other tribes, just to forment clan warfare. He basically skipped out of town and left the country in a civil war.
Gangsterism isn't about socio-economic status. Plenty of rich people steal and terrorize people too, should we also excuse them? Or since they already have money are they bad? Where is the 'cut-off point' for when piracy is allowable?
Theivery also hurts more than just the immediate victims. As someone had said, that boat was carrying humanitarian aid. Yes, the pirates probably didn't know that. Does that make the delay of that aid any less catastrophic for the folks who desperately need it? The pirates had to know they were interfering with SOMETHING getting to where it was going. Interfering with shipping means less shipping, higher prices and an unwillingness to sail into pirate-infested waters. Thus the very people the pirates come from suffer while the pirates live it up in their camps on looted ransom money. And no, I don't think these pirates are handing out any largesse to their countrymen, unless they are trying to build a client base for a political takeover.
I was hoping to not have to caveat and become more specific on the matter, but hey ... :)
If some one breaks into my home - presumably a fellow citizen - grabs the laptop and takes off, no, I will not be killing said scumbag. If said scumbag breaks in and makes it plain that infliction of bodily harm in any form is intended, the scumbag dies.
To answer the spoilered query:
As far as "shelling a US city for illegal acts perpetrated by American citizens (including the military)" - well, if we have pirates operating out of San Francisco or Galveston, TX - and some one shells the crap out of the place - then the response is warranted. I'm no hypocrite - and bluntly, if either city were to be so brazen as to actively support piracy, I expect nothing less of the armed forces than to go in there and wipe them out, hose out the mess and bring in the engineers to rebuild.
As houstonderek points out, being a criminal is a choice. My reply to GentleGiant (and others) may come across as an utter disregard for human life - if it does, I am sorry that it is perceived as such. It is quite understandable that it does. But my regard for the value of human life ends when that regard clashes with the greater value of other, more numerous lives. Joe Scumbag's life is not of greater or lesser value than my own. I am not entitled to take his - until he attempts or makes clear the intent to harm or take the lives of others. At such point Joe Scumbag's life is forfeit.
The actions of the Somali pirates endanger the lives of their fellow Somalis - as today they nabbed citizens belonging to govornments far less concerned about 'playing nice' than my own [as a general rule of thumb]. The pirates' actions are kidnapping and other abductions with the intent to acquire ransom, not mentioning the massive-scale larceny and other criminal acts. It is in their own best interests - demonstrably so - to capture and not kill, to treat their captives relatively well - in order to not get wiped out. The actions of persons such as the pirates themselves thwart the humanitarian aid and efforts to build schools, medical care and other such beneficent infrastructure. The Somali 'agents of power' (pirates and war bands) are the de facto govornment of that country. If there is a legitimate govornment there, it is utterly ineffective outside of its direct area of influence, resulting in anarchy and 'gang rule' outside of that area. The end result is the same.
At what point does the world finally say 'enough is enough'? Do people have to be butchered in droves after ransoms are paid?
What is it going to take to be forced to deal with the scumbags running amok in Somalia and mend the deep, grievous wounds of its people? We cannot significantly aid people without dealing permanently with the scumbags.
Choice is certainly an important point.
In the immortal words of SpaceGhost, "You can lead a horse to prune juice, but you can't make him drink it. Nor would you want to."
|
Okay, here is the reality of the situation, for me. I am less impressed that the captain was rescued. To paraphrase Timothy Zahne, that's what Navy SEALS do. I am proud of the job our boys did, and I understand the toll it takes on hem and their families. I was raised in a SEAL home, so I've seen the aftereffects first hand.
What impressed me was the decision of the crew to fight back and retake their ship. These are the real heroes of this story. Up until now, hijacked crews just sat and waited for someone to pay the ransom. The Crew of the Maersk Alabama decided to fight back and stand up to the bullies. They should be commended. I imagine that if more crews fought back, even if they were unsuccessful, the pirates would eventually give up.
Now, as far as some other comments go, back in the early 1990's the United Nations, in conjuction with the United States, made an effort to stabilize Somalia. It did not go well and we were forced to withdraw. The mess that Somalia is in right now is because the warlords actively resisted efforts by the world community to create a better situation in that country. Currently Somalia is in a declared war with Kenya and Ethiopia. That means that if Somali pirates seize control of a vessel then they are engaged in military activities in a declared war zone and should be treated as such. In fact the military and the FBI showed remarkable restraint in allowing the situation go on as long as it did.
As for taking a life, either in an armed conflict or when dealing with an intruder in your home, it is never an easy thing to do, and you can't really know how it will affect you until you are in that situation. However, if a person breaks into my home, he has already shown a disregard for my life and rights. Why should I feel any differently towards him? The truth is that I would feel differently about his life because it's who I am, but if it came down to his life or mine, I would not hesitate to take his life because he would not hesitate to take mine.
|
Yeah, I personally think the BEST game scenarios are all Kobayashi Maru scenarios. Real life isn't black and white. Biggest reason I hate the alignment system. I've been Chaotic Evil one moment, and Lawful Good the very next. The human experience and "morality" are hard to quantify.
Kobiyashi Maru is all fun and games until it turns out the ship in distress is an ambush set for you by your own people: then its a conspiracy of evil within your own state...and you are on your own.
|
|
I do want to say that reveling over this situation is inappropriate. Those S.E.A.L.S. did their job, and, while I'm sure they're proud they did their job well, I doubt they're happy they had to take lives.
The reality of the world is, there are people alive who don't get it. Think whatever you will of the following countries, all of these nations/regions function relatively well: Europe, The Commonwealth, the U.S., India, China, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, et cetera. These nations have shown that stability and relative peace can be achieved through rule of law, whatever you think of that particular legal system. People who have selfish, short-sighted goals, and not enough respect for others to become lawyers (sorry), need to be spanked. Whether that spanking is probation, prison, or, if the crime/situation is heinous enough, death, the punishment is measured in degrees of severity.
But individuals and nations who chose to ignore the rules others have decided to play by, well, they need to be given much more stick than carrot. We need to, as human beings, keep trying to make opportunity available to as many as possible, but if people and nations chose to try and disrupt the flow of civilization, they don't need to be reasoned with (because, obviously, they have little reason to begin with if they oh, for example, decide to take a U.S. flagged merchant ship, knowing full well, the U.S. has a "zero tolerance" policy towards shenanigans), they need to be taught a lesson. I think they were testing the new guy, to see if he would cave and pay like the Euros, and he answered clearly. Hate to say it, but I feel a lot safer right now knowing dude will do the right thing when it comes down to it.
Criminals and governments who don't play nice with others need tough love, frankly. Lock them up, cut them off, or, if necessary, put them on the shelf. Try to help them understand how the world works in the 21st century, but don't let them hold you a hostage of your own compassion.
|
|
I saw a graphic on CNN yesterday that puts into perspective the problems the world has with stopping the pirates. Take a map of the U.S. Starting at Houston, draw a square with Chicago, New York, and Jacksonville Florida as the other three corners. This is the area that the pirates operate in. Now imagine just how hard it would be to find someone who is off the grid and does not want to be found in that area. Now, imagine that is the ocean instead of land. That is why the pirates are so hard to catch and deal with.
|
|
Pirates attacked a US flagged ship with the intent of sinking it in retaliation for the US Navy killing their ‘friends’ during the rescue of Capt. Bishop. Apparently the pirates are not just poor violent men they are also stupid. How can anyone using violence to kidnap, steal and extort be angry that some of them are killed in the commission of a crime. If the pirates put as much effort into fixing the own country they wouldn’t loosing lives on criminal endeavors and may even get the help of the international community instead of being killed as pirates.
|
I have incredibly mixed feelings about all of these issues. I agree that the SEALS did their job and should be commended for it, and when I heard that the captain was recovered safely, I was certainly happy. When I read that three of the pirates were killed, though, I grimaced a little. I'm not a fan of loss of human life, in any circumstances, even justified. Do I think it was justified here? Yes, most definitely. But I still have regrets. There's a reason that impoverished areas tend to have higher rates of criminal activity, and it's not because poor people are inherently "bad."
My hope is that at some point in the near future the UN or the US or the EU or NATO or China or all of the above sits down and really thinks about how we can even start to fix Africa. When an entire continent is embroiled in constant warfare, brutal ethnic strife, massive disease outbreaks, piracy and criminal activity on a colossal scale, and a host of other problems, it becomes the problem of the entire human species. We can't just blame "whitey" for this either. While colonialism is definitely to blame for much of Africa's plights, African leadership has failed utterly. I don't claim to know how to fix an entire continent, or even a portion of one. But my guess is that someone, somewhere has an idea on how to start and that the major world powers have the ability to implement those ideas. Of course, I may be wrong.
I apologize for generalizing an entire continent as "Africa", but all of the nations and ethnic groups seem to share similar issues and the theme of poverty and violence is seen across the board in sub-Saharan Africa, with a few notable exceptions (South Africa could be worse, but it's still not so good and Zimbabwe used to be kinda OK).
It is decidedly Un-American to be against the sniping of pirates!!!!
Or the pirating of snipes, for that matter :)
We should all be sad at the killing of pirates, because it's been proven to force climate change.
"In 2008, Henderson has interpreted the growing pirate activities at the Gulf of Aden as an additional empirical support, pointing out that Somalia has the highest number of Pirates AND the lowest carbon emissions of any country."
|
|
As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups.
But the Bush administration decided to use Ethiopian proxies to invade and remove them from power to set up a government according to US preferences. This, of course, led to a resistance army, bloody atrocities, and the current situation.
I agree the Somalis should be let be to sort out their own problems, it is just that whenever they finally manage to do that, someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.
Well, it took 70 posts, but Garydee finally got his wish.
me that I can make a difference. I will become a pirate and thereby reduce global warming.
|
|
Somalia makes up most of the coast of the Horn of Africa, which has pretty much always been used to restrict access to the Red Sea. I don't see that changing, only the methods used by the folks controlling that region will change.
Yesterday Al Sharpton said we have to stop calling them pirates. According to him they are a volunteer coast guard.
Well, it took 70 posts, but Garydee finally got his wish.As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups.
But the Bush administration decided to use Ethiopian proxies to invade and remove them from power to set up a government according to US preferences. This, of course, led to a resistance army, bloody atrocities, and the current situation.
I agree the Somalis should be let be to sort out their own problems, it is just that whenever they finally manage to do that, someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.
YES! YES! YES! I knew it had to be America's fault. :)
As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups...someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.Do you really believe this, or are you baiting?
Why does it have to be one or the other?
As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups...someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.Do you really believe this, or are you baiting?
I have had arguments with him before. Trust me, he really believes this.
Anyone who is overly concerned with the fate of the pirates gunned down by the Navy Seals...... Imagine yourself captured by these poor pirates "forced" into a life of criminal activity. Then imagine yourself trapped on a skiff surrounded by angry men resenting their failure to capture a massive cash cow transport ship. Suddenly, you're their only hope of any sort of pay day. Imagine them waving around ak-47's and wondering if you'll ever see your family again. Then imagine navy seals arriving.
Would you hope the Navy Seals take the time to gently negotiate your release? Maybe they'd be so kind as to pass the pirates some refreshing lemon sent handi-wipes to soothe their gun calloused hands. If the pirates would have readily returned the captain would they be dead now?
|
|
I have had arguments with him before. Trust me, he really believes this.As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups...someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.Do you really believe this, or are you baiting?
[sarcasm]The US is always to blame![/sarcasm]
Anyone who is overly concerned with the fate of the pirates gunned down by the Navy Seals......
False argument.
Yes, what happened is without question the best outcome, given the scenario. But gloating and posturing is a poor reflection on the victor, and does nothing but cheapen your own regard for human life in general. Enough of that and you may as well be a pirate, too.
|
|
I have had arguments with him before. Trust me, he really believes this.As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups...someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.Do you really believe this, or are you baiting?
Well at least we know he supports the local drug trade.
Hey, how long does the new guy get to blame it all on the old guy? I'm saying.....6 more months. October 2009, and all the moderates turn over on him if he's still doing it.
Yeah, it's about time everybody stopped blaming everybody, so that someone can DO something.
Director of Narrative
|
Somalia makes up most of the coast of the Horn of Africa, which has pretty much always been used to restrict access to the Red Sea. I don't see that changing, only the methods used by the folks controlling that region will change.Yesterday Al Sharpton said we have to stop calling them pirates. According to him they are a volunteer coast guard.
Interesting. I admit I don't follow the news as much as I used to. (And I used to follow it to unhealthy levels in the past, before I devoted my life to fantasy and imagination.)
But really, the main point of my post on a politically-charged thread, was to illustrate another 'control mechanism' on societies. Geography plays a huge part of how a people go about their daily lives, and sometimes that's weird to me. I'd like to see other regions where piracy is prevalent and see what the geography is like in those areas and historical evidence of similar pirate activity in the region.
I'm not making excuses for anyone involved, but more often than not, I find myself wondering why people do the things they do, especially when those things are foolish plans at best. Looking back into the past and considering immutable features seems to be a solid springboard for those explorations.
|
|
Somalia makes up most of the coast of the Horn of Africa, which has pretty much always been used to restrict access to the Red Sea. I don't see that changing, only the methods used by the folks controlling that region will change.Yesterday Al Sharpton said we have to stop calling them pirates. According to him they are a volunteer coast guard.
That sounds like your joking, but it could be for real. Are you for real? I don't know any more...
Somalia makes up most of the coast of the Horn of Africa, which has pretty much always been used to restrict access to the Red Sea. I don't see that changing, only the methods used by the folks controlling that region will change.Yesterday Al Sharpton said we have to stop calling them pirates. According to him they are a volunteer coast guard.
Hmm, and here I thought they were "volunteer pdf library organizers".
|
|
I have had arguments with him before. Trust me, he really believes this.As I understand it, Somalia was stabilizing under a coalition government of moderate and fundamentalist Islamic groups...someone decides to invade and destroys what was built.Do you really believe this, or are you baiting?
And, of course, it is not true.
Somalia had somewhat settled down under a coalition government with a tribal focus when an extreme Islamist group, the Islamic Courts Union, surged in power.
In response to that, Ethipioa sent troops to assist the Transitional Federal Government, later joined by African Union troops.
While the ICU was defeated, another group calling itself Al-Shabaab replaced them. Al-Shabaab claimed to have fired mortars at the visiting U.S. Congressman,has been connected to the SOmalis "disappearing" from the U.S. and showing up in Somalia carrying out suicide attacks, and has been connected to the ongoing piracy.
The TFG has since come to terms with the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia, which includes ex-ICU members and other Islamists, but the civil war is by no means over.
So going by the charge of "someone decid[ing] to invade and destroy[s] what was built", we would have to blame the ICU and Al-Shabaab, two Islamist terrorist groups, and not the U.S., Ethiopia, or the African Union.
"Inconvenient truth" and all that.
|
|
That sounds like your joking, but it could be for real. Are you for real? I don't know any more...Somalia makes up most of the coast of the Horn of Africa, which has pretty much always been used to restrict access to the Red Sea. I don't see that changing, only the methods used by the folks controlling that region will change.Yesterday Al Sharpton said we have to stop calling them pirates. According to him they are a volunteer coast guard.
Sadly no, this is no joke. He was speaking on his radio talk show and said " You can call me now at (phone number redacted) to say something about the so-called pirates. They call themselves voluntary Coast Guards in Somalia, which may be more apt. Ah, whatever your view." Meanwhile the Huffington Post quoted singer K'naan, who is Somali born as saying
"But while Europeans are well in their right to protect their trade interest in the region, our pirates were the only deterrent we had from an externally imposed environmental disaster. No one can say for sure that some of the ships they are now holding for ransom were not involved in illegal activity in our waters. The truth is, if you ask any Somali, if getting rid of the pirates only means the continuous rape of our coast by unmonitored Western Vessels, and the producing of a new cancerous generation, we would all fly our pirate flags high."
So now they are a coast guard and ecological protectors of Africa.
|
|
This only goes to illustrate the point that Al Sharpton has become a caricature of himself."Has become"??? Are you serious? Dude's been a tool my whole life, and that's almost 40 years.
Tawanda Brawley, anyone?
Trust me, it wasn't stated as an apology. He's always been a jack-@$$, in my opinion. I'm sure he will evolve into something even sillier than a caricature in the near-future.
|
|
It isn't?
No.
It isn't.So what I said is true after all. The only dispute is, who is destroying and who is trying to rebuild the country.
When the "who" is a difference between Ethiopia as U.S. proxies and Islamist terrorist groups, that pretty much invalidates your assertion.
Add in confusing the degree of stabilization, the participants in stabilization, the destabilization being a domestic insurrection and not an invasion, and all that is left that is factual in your statement is that the government of Somalia was destroyed.A pithy observation to be sure, but irrelevant with no context, and coutner-productive with so many incorrect facts asserted along with it.
Go further with this:
As you and I point out, Ethiopia did invade.
No, I did not point out that Ethiopia invaded.
I pointed out that Ethipoia sent troops to assist the (as close as possible to legitimate) government against the Islamist terrorists. Indeed it was at their specific invitation.I don't know how "extremist" the ICU was or is, for all I know they would have been like the Taliban and called their pirates voluntary Coast Guard and ransoms would be relabeled "passage fees". However, it is possible they would have brought stability and less piracy, but at this point we won't know.
It is not that difficult to investigate and discover, particularly if you could find evidence of U.S. support of the Ethiopia involvement.
IMO, it is due to a lack of ability to think outside one's own paradigm when dealing with someone else who thinks using a different paradigm.
As opposed to a lack of ability to consider the actual facts while asserting blatantly incorrect statements about the events?
But not everyone is raised in Western culture. In Africa, the emphasis is on the tribe or clan, not the nation state. So Westerners expect Africa to organize itself the way the West has, because that's the way we do it, and because we do it that way and like it, that must mean it is best for everyone and they will like it. So every time Africans organize themselves politically into something other than the expected Western paradigm, this is viewed as a "problem" that should be "fixed".
And the "solution" then causes problems, which lead to more fixes, and so on and so forth.
In which case the obvious conclusion is to promotethe dismemberment of numerous patchwork and hodgepodge states in Africa and elsewhere.
Of course nobody in those countries wants to allow such widespread national breakup. Look at how the Sudanese are focused on exterminating separatists rather than negotiating with them. Admittedly France and Spain refuse to empower their linguistic minorities, but at least they are just burning their dictionaries not the people.And naturally it is easier to blame the West for creating those countries in the first place, and believing in the integrity of existing and impending nation-states as of 1945 and not with a more realistic view.
Unfortunatelly that demonstrates precisely the paternalism you are so dismissive of, refusing to hold Africans, and others, responsible for establishing governments, or at least avoiding genocide while negotiating the dissolution of states on ethnic lines.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Wil save......NATURAL 20!!!!
Huzzah!!!!!
Hey, how long does the new guy get to blame it all on the old guy? I'm saying.....6 more months. October 2009, and all the moderates turn over on him if he's still doing it.
If it helps, I'm starting an internet campaign to have everything blamed on you instead. Including things like the extinction of the dinosaurs. Seems to me like your extensive knowledge of them makes you the most likely suspect in their sudden and unexpected deaths.
I'm just sayin'.
Also, instead of trying to roll Will saves, you should take the feat that lets you treat a failed save as an opportunity to make a silly comment or do some smurfing. Life's more fun that way.