TubeNet

I used to sing a tune that stated, "No one's left to save us now that John Wayne's gone."
I don't believe even John Wayne could adequately portray or imitate this level of excellence.
Way to go, U.S. Military.
We need this level of competence and professionalism to save us when the money runs out.

Hats Off to the USN and CiC who gave them the "go".

what a mess. I'm glad it's over and the hostage is ok.

The end is what I expected. once they were within snipertype range of the pirates, it's was only a matter of getting a clear shot at them all at once, or someother type of 'take down' set up. Since the pirates don't know that US companies generally, and the US gobmit never pay money for hostages that are in the news.

The strategies seem to be to work the situation to where the hostage takers end up negotiating their own lives for the hostage, not for money as originally intended.

Yes, hurrah for the Navy! Good job! Training plus some luck saved the day...

Wonder what the pirates will do next? They have a lot of motivation and not much to lose. The biggest problem is that there is no real government in Somalia. I don't know if we want to stick our noses into that situation...

The Big Ben wrote:Wonder what the pirates will do next?

Turn the other direction when they see a ship under an American flag, perhaps?

The French, of course, are nothing but sweetness and light (just ask them) but last week they dealt with some pirates similarly. They didn't much care about the owner of the yacht they were rescuing from those pirates, however; he was killed. At least that's how I heard it on NPR.

A neighbor is ex-Navy and he had some stories about those guys in the French Foreign Legion.

I haven't seen today's news, and I'm just assuming from the comments above that the SEALS rescued the captain and some or all of the pirates were killed. I have this feeling that if, perhaps two days ago, they had agreed to the deal they were being offered (we let you go if you turn over the captain right now, but forget getting any money), they would be sitting in some Somalian "lair" right now.

Rick "if civility isn't possible, fear will do" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:

The Big Ben wrote:Wonder what the pirates will do next?

Turn the other direction when they see a ship under an American flag, perhaps?

The French, of course, are nothing but sweetness and light (just ask them) but last week they dealt with some pirates similarly. They didn't much care about the owner of the yacht they were rescuing from those pirates, however; he was killed. At least that's how I heard it on NPR.

That would be the prudent move- if you are not a pirate. Remember, they have much to gain and not much to lose. I could see some SEAL action against the places where these pirates have their bases or a few strafing runs but we would really have to have our ducks in a row with our allies to pull that one off. BHO was buttering up the Euros last week so maybe we would get cooperation...

Drudge Report stated that the Italians are miffed at us for not getting their guys out.
They got troopies to send out there. Let them get their feet wet.
I understand the U.S. snipers fired from a ship - or maybe another moving platform like a helocopter. The difficulty of co-ordinating three or four head shots timed out that close together is mind boggling.

schlepporello wrote: Understandably, whatever they used did the job. I'd just like to know what it was.
The 50 cal I was talking about is a bolt action job with a huge muzzle brake/flash suppressor on the end. It allegedly reduces the felt recoil to that of a 30-06. If my memory serves me correctly, it's supposed to be good up to 2.5 miles.

Based on what a friend of mine who recently got out of the Army told me when we were talking about that very gun (the Barrett), it probably wouldn't be good for a hostage rescue situation, it is simply way too powerful...he actually said the bullet speed was so great you could probably kill someone just by whizzing a bullet near their head, but I don't know how true that is.

Indeed

djohnson wrote:I'd like to add my congratulations for the Seals, the ultimate professional killing machines. IMHO, it's time to start arming the merchent ships to provide themseleves some defensive protection on the High Seas. It wouldn't take long to change the course of pirate action, if the priates started taking heavy fire from their target. Merchents were armed during WWII to ward off unwanted borders. Open oceans, international waterways, seems like the perfect place to provide for shipping to provide for your own protection. AK-47's, RPG's, grenades, all seem to be available in the world market. ITs time to arm our merchent fleet.
Priates = Terrotist at Sea.
BLOW THEM ALL TO HELL.

heard an interview with 'task force' commander, she said that most ships need to do just a few simple non-weapony things to keep pirates away....1) speed up a bit, 2) take up the access laders that they all have hanging over the sides, 3) use their fire suppression hoses and pumps on anything that tries to get close.

It was a necessary use of force, but come on folks. Firstly, a 50 cal might be cool, but it was designed for taking out equipment, not personnel. When it hits a part of the human body it removes it along with a good portion of other body parts adjacent. It is very close to a canon with a scope. Not exactly a close proximity weapon for a hostage situation. The Navy has dedicated sniper weapons systems for taking out personnel.

Secondly, reports in the news are that the shots were taken at 75 feet. That is an easy shot with iron sights, not exactly a challenging distance for a trained sniper. The challenge was getting the three men in position undetected and coordinating the simultaneous shots at the best moment considering targets' positions and undulating sea.

It would be interesting to get more details, but those details and tactics might not need to be broadcast to other Somalia terrorists. I just hope the Navy is given liberal rules of engagement to wipe the ocean clear of those vermin.

WoodSheddin wrote:I just hope the Navy is given liberal rules of engagement to wipe the ocean clear of those vermin.

My understanding (from reading CNN) is that in this specific situation, the Navy had an unambiguous presidential order to shoot if the captain's life was threatened.

I know *nothing* about commercial shipping...but I wonder what the range from shore is for the pirates' small boats. Is it possible for the freighters to stay farther from shore, even if at an added cost/time delay?

(That is at least, short term, while the governments/military "figures out" how to stop this.)

The pirates also use larger "Motherships" that are located further from shore than the small boats could travel. The smaller boats are then deployed from the "Mothership" to attack shipping vessles. So, there really isn't a distance too far for the pirates.

TMB

I haven't found other sources to verify its validity, but here's an interesting viewpoint on Somalian pirates:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/13-6" target="_blank

bort wrote:I know *nothing* about commercial shipping...but I wonder what the range from shore is for the pirates' small boats. Is it possible for the freighters to stay farther from shore, even if at an added cost/time delay?

(That is at least, short term, while the governments/military "figures out" how to stop this.)

Shipping already moved somewhat farther off-shore, though this is a point on the continent and therefore moving completely out of range would add days to the trip.

In response to the shipping moving farther away, the pirates have taken to using their small boats to pirate coastal fishing vessels, and then using those to extend their range into the shipping lanes.

One thing that needs to be done immediately is to apply the same dedicated money-freezing effort with these guys as we have done with Al Qaeda. They have to put that money somewhere, and they have to buy their stuff from someone. Those people need to be taken out of the equation.

I find it ironic that the reporters and talking heads who have opined many times in the past that guns in people's homes don't prevent crime are now shocked--SHOCKED!--that commercial ship owners don't really want to arm their crews. The example in my head is Diane Rehm, who tried to blame insurance companies (those evil bastards) for prohibiting such arming. Sheesh.

Ship crews are just now thinking about security, given that even now a relatively small number of ships are pirated out of the tens of thousands that use this shipping lane annually. How many people stopped driving in the DC area during the sniper situation? That wasn't an option. But we were all much more watchful while standing around our vehicles. Removing or blocking ship ladders, posting a night watch, and speeding up are a good start. Those fishing boats that the pirates are using are not fast, and their fast boats don't have the range or the seaworthiness for heavy seas well offshore.

The next step would be military patrols with shoot-on-site rules of engagement. I expect that would escalate for a bit.

Ron Paul has suggested issuing letters of marque and reprisal to private security companies to patrol those waters, making them, in effect, bounty hunters. I'm still trying to figure out how they get paid. Maybe they'll hold the pirates hostage and demand payment from their masters.

The problem is that they have no regard for human life (possibly not even their own) and we do, and that always puts us at a negotiating disadvantage.

Rick "thinking there are lots of things we can do short of carpet-bombing all of Somalia" Denney

political

Rick Denney wrote: Ron Paul has suggested issuing letters of marque and reprisal to private security companies to patrol those waters, making them, in effect, bounty hunters. I'm still trying to figure out how they get paid. Maybe they'll hold the pirates hostage and demand payment from their masters.

The problem is that they have no regard for human life (possibly not even their own) and we do, and that always puts us at a negotiating disadvantage.

No regard for human life? They sure do put their own at some risk, and they aren't carrying those AK47s for show, but it's interesting to see how few deaths among the many hostages they've taken - two, by my count, at the hands of a ragged mob of 3rd world pirates. It might be safer to be hostage to the Somalis than visit Memphis, from what Joe says.

I am not interested in defending these guys, I'm just thinking there could be a lot more useful ways to approach the subject than blowing smoke on Tubenet. If it helps, Wikipedia summaries on background and specifics.

Donn wrote:No regard for human life? They sure do put their own at some risk, and they aren't carrying those AK47s for show, but it's interesting to see how few deaths among the many hostages they've taken - two, by my count, at the hands of a ragged mob of 3rd world pirates. It might be safer to be hostage to the Somalis than visit Memphis, from what Joe says.

It depends on what you mean by "safe". If being locked up in a dank room in some stinking Somali port for months is "safe", then maybe so. That doesn't fall within my definition, however.

Rick "not seeing many people who are just driving through kidnapped at gunpoint and held for months on end in Memphis" Denney