Author Topic: Sea Piracy Crisis (Read 3356 times)

pioneer · « **on:** November 20, 2008, 10:56:21 PM »

A spate of pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia has prompted an emergency meeting between nations bordering the Red Sea to deal with the problem.

Senior officials from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen are meeting in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.

It comes amid a report that pirates who hijacked a Saudi oil tanker on Saturday are demanding a $25m (Â£17m) ransom.

However, the Sirius Star's owners, who are negotiating with the pirates, have cast doubt on that figure.

The Sirius Star, the biggest tanker ever hijacked, is carrying a cargo of 2m barrels - a quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output - worth more than $100m.

It is now anchored off the Somali coast with around 25 crew members being held as hostages.

A pirate on board the vessel calling himself Mohamed Said was quoted by news agency AFP as saying that the Saudi owners, Vela International, had been set a 10-day deadline to hand over a $25m ransom.

BBC Security correspondent Frank Gardner says the owners are effectively denying that figure, while the industry is expecting the demand to be higher.

A spokesman for the Egyptian foreign ministry, Hossam Zaki, was quoted by Egypt's official Mena news agency as saying that "all options are open" in trying to solve the crisis.

'Fundamental problem'

The 25 captive crew on the Sirius Star include 19 Filipinos, two British citizens, two Poles, one Croatian, and one Saudi national. - BBC

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

bolingitboy · « **Reply #1 on:** November 21, 2008, 11:28:38 PM »

given the record of americans who "come to the rescue" in troubled places and act like a self-proclaimed international policeman, i'm just wondering why until now the americans have not sent even one single warship in the area, even if only to intimidate rowdy somali warlords.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

pioneer · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2008, 11:00:25 AM »

There are new global companies selling protective measures against the pirates. It's all about business.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

A Layman · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2008, 11:28:12 AM »

What had happened is a carefully planned marketing strategy of the Americans which is often adapted now by legitimate business establishments proliferating in our country using anomalous strategies to widen or expand the market-base of their business line of interest. For example, how will one markets the services of a newly opened security agency? First, they haved to intoduce to prospective business establishments and wealthy individuals the profile of their business company and the edge they have compared with the other competitors around. When market response is so low, this kind of strategy comes into their mind-"hire outside goons and spread fear to their prospects in accordance with their instruction." Once the mission of these hired goons had been done or accomplished, they will go back immediately to their prospects and offer them the same thing, saying, "What happened to you was so unfortunate. Good that nobody was hurt. This scary thing could not have happened should you heed our advice to hire us to protect you." If you were the victim how will you react to this offer?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #4 on:** November 23, 2008, 12:36:58 AM »

Sea Piracy is a response to the lack of naval power in the region.

The navies of said African nations need to step up; that or the navies of developed nations need to increase their blue-water capability.

As the United States cannot handle all the world's seas. Even with our 18 Air Craft Carriers, The Super Power, afterall, is not omnicient like our God.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

pioneer · « **Reply #5 on:** November 23, 2008, 12:47:39 AM »

To A Layman: Anti-virus companies would run out of business without computer virus.

Some pharmaceutical companies would intentionally create a disease to skyrocket sales of their newly created drugs.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #6 on:** November 23, 2008, 01:04:22 AM »

given the record of americans who "come to the rescue" in troubled places and act like a self-proclaimed international policeman, i'm just wondering why until now the americans have not sent even one single warship in the area, even if only to intimidate rowdy somali warlords.

Media, my friend. Only when the media bothers to print articles like this does one read or notice the actions of pirates or the defensive actions of the American Navy, Marines etc.

You never hear of the things the United States Military has done in defense of global trade in securing the seas. Because most of the time, everything is done in secrecy.

Most of the time, The Air Craft Carriers and task groups are abroad. Either to protect strategic shipping lanes, or to conduct military operations.

We can't be everywhere, naturally, as it takes money (billions of dollars) to provide oil, food, maintenance, and supplies for the battle groups in the US Navy. We can't be everywhere, all the time.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 23, 2008, 02:53:50 AM »

NEGOSYO RA GYUD NA. MURA GUD ANANG KOHOL SA UMAHAN. KAY MAKADAUT MAN DIAY NING KOHOL, DI, BALIGYAAN TA DAYON OG PAMATAY SA KOHOL. KWARTA!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

A Layman · « **Reply #8 on:** November 23, 2008, 06:40:37 AM »

To A Layman: Anti-virus companies would run out of business without computer virus.

Some pharmaceutical companies would would intentionally create a disease to skyrocket sales of their newly created drugs.

Yes, Mike that's what really happen now!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:36:56 PM »

i heard that some scientists have found cure for cancer but phamaceutical companies have paid them not to use it for obvious reason. dungog-dungog ra pod nang ako...pero murag katoohan man.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

bolingitboy · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2008, 05:32:54 PM »

lorenzo: the americans are indifferent about somali piracy acts because they are either that -- indifferent -- or they simply don't have any business interest that particular area or the enterprise itself. why did they go to kuwait? why did they go to afghanistan? why did they go to iraq? they went because they have business interests in these areas, despite the staggering cost to wage a war halfway across the globe. the truth of the matter is that americans never act if they have no business interest. it's as simple as that... there is some truth to the opinions advanced by mike and layman. there might be business interests involved here. it is indeed no fiction that the computer viruses were created by people who discovered anti-virus programs, and that every once in a while a new strain of bacteria is deliberately (albeit secretly, of course) by the drug companies that create the medicines for it so that a newly-developed product will sell. same thing with GMO-laced agricultural produce. it's genetic composition is manipulated in such a way that farmers will be forever dependent for seedlings and fertilizers on the company that produce and supply them. it's all about big business.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 26, 2008, 01:55:21 PM »

they are just creating a NEED so they can have reasons to create something or get involved with or make business to or whatever. the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2008, 02:13:40 PM »

i second the motion bolingitboy.. that's what we called a failed (or crooked?) american international economic policy..

america is not into humanitarian causes.. they are in business.. pisik pisik na lang ng humanitarian..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2008, 02:40:35 PM »

Every nation is concerned about self interest. Strategic interest.

American Strategic Interest, as the Hyper power (sole Super Power), our interests usually translates into global trends.

Somali pirates, piracy anywhere, is a result of economic demand. Everything is based on economics. Somalia and other surrounding African countries are poor, yet a presence of military hardware from rebels. Add to that equation a lucrative merchant marine fleet that traverses your oceanic territory on a weekly if not daily basis.

Result: Parasitism.

There is a demand, a demand for money, and economic destitution will fuel anyone to take advantage of the situation. Hence the manifestation of piracy in African Waters.

The same goes for the piracy in the Straigts of Malaccas, where combined naval units of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are cooperating in fighting Piracy in South East Asia. And even with their on-going watch, still, there are pirates that are able to capture and ransom ships and materiel.

The following would be multiplied multiple fold in an African country and region that has little to no military watch.

Advanced and wealthy powers such as the UK, France, Germany, Spain, etc need to step up to the situation and help curve such activity. Namely, because said powers have a substantial naval force.

The United States cannot come to the aid of said region namely because:
1. We are fighting two wars at the moment: Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Economic incentive. What does Somalia have to offer?

As I said, every nation, in this world, looks after its own national strategic interest.
It just so happens that the United States' interest, as I reiterated before, as the hyperpower, affects most of the world since it drives the global economics by the shear size of our economy and our investments and interests around the globe.

Cheers,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2008, 02:48:41 PM »

pwede nato ikiha ang US ini based on tort law..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:03:22 PM »

hehe, if you go on Tort Law, then Britain deserves as much if not more 'ikiha' than the United States.

All the arbitrary national border disputes in this world is due to British Imperialism and impudence towards ethnic divide. Mos of the Gold Coast in Africa was British territory, and the current ethnic wars in Africa is due to British grouping which groups belonged to a country.

Iraq. The inclusion of Sunni, Shi'i, and Kurds into one nation was a total British invention.

The Palestinian-Israeli situation is due to British. The current Indian-Pakistani problem is due to British map drawing. These are just but mere 'samples'. There are more to loot.

Point of the matter, all nations take advantage of the situation. The United States is not the only nation that fall into Tort Law. lol.

Yours,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:16:40 PM »

a, dili.. my statement of facts would not be based on what happened decades ago.. enzo..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:20:14 PM »

a, dili.. my statement of facts would not be based on what happened decades ago.. enzo..

But that is prejudicial towards American 'wrongs' and not on the 'wrongs' of a Fallen Empire, whose mistakes are ever present and resound in the present.

Yours,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:29:23 PM »

because i'm filing my case in the US, i can't possibly include UK in my case because US courts have no jurisdiction over UK.

and i'm not filing a tort case against UK in UK because i don't know UK tort laws..

and my case is this: failure of other humanitarian missions in the Gulf of Aden is primarily due to the world's expectation that US will intervene in the conflicts in the Gulf.. and why in the world would the world expect the US government to intervene? 1.) because it does so in the past.. and 2.) because it is the US.. (YEHEY!!!)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:30:21 PM »

.. and i don't know how to fit in UK in the above case.. mao US ra ako ikiha..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:43:09 PM »

hehe, world's expectation that the United States will intervene. The failure of humanitarian missions in the Gulf of Aden cannot and must not be blamed on the United States. In defense of the United States, we are involved in massive humanitarian efforts, namely CARAT exercises, efforts in Georgia, efforts in Guyana, efforts in Latin America, efforts in ASEAN, as well as in Europe. Under the Bush Administration, the United States also pledged $15 Billion to fight Aids in Africa. The G8 powers pledged a combined $60 Billion. The United States, being part of G8, provided 1/4th of the pledge.

Our humanitarian track record cannot be questioned, as we spend quite a considerable amount of the GNP on overseas aid.

Pardon my protest, but you cannot expect to file a case simply because of a failure of humanitarian aid on basis of precedent. Precedent is that the United States provides humanitarian aid. However, you cannot simply dictate where and who the United States provides aid to. It is based on the sole decision of the United States, and the WILL of the People, and that--my friend, solely lies on the decision of Congress. Our Humanitarian aid track record is unparalleled. As of right now the United States has pledged $1.4 Billion for rebuilding Sudan.

Piracy in Somalia is not the fault of the United States, my friend.
Piracy in Somalia is the result of the failure of the Somalian Navy to protect international ships traversing international waters, and the inability of the Somalian Navy and Government to control its own people.

This is also a failure of the navies of surrounding countries to control this regional phenomenon.

The United States does not control Somalia, nor does the United States have territories in the region, therefore, there is no binding contract that specifically entails the United States and its Armed Forces (Including Navy) to control and protect said coastal waters.

Absolutely Yours,

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2008, 03:59:44 PM »

"Pardon my protest, but you cannot expect to file a case simply because of a failure of humanitarian aid on basis of precedent. Precedent is that the United States provides humanitarian aid. However, you cannot simply dictate where and who the United States provides aid to. It is based on the sole decision of the United States, and the WILL of the People, and that--my friend, solely lies on the decision of Congress. Our Humanitarian aid track record is unparalleled. As of right now the United States has pledged $1.4 Billion for rebuilding Sudan."

Precisely! That's why im basing my case in tort. in US tort law, we can base one's liability on expectations and precedents.

take this as an analogy:
a pedestrian got bumped by speedign car. a motorist stopped and went to see the former. another motorist passed by but did not stop nor lend an arm because he expected that the first motorist would help. but help did not come from the first motorist. in this case, the first motorist can be held liable. that is US tort law..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2008, 04:05:43 PM »

"Pardon my protest, but you cannot expect to file a case simply because of a failure of humanitarian aid on basis of precedent. Precedent is that the United States provides humanitarian aid. However, you cannot simply dictate where and who the United States provides aid to. It is based on the sole decision of the United States, and the WILL of the People, and that--my friend, solely lies on the decision of Congress. Our Humanitarian aid track record is unparalleled. As of right now the United States has pledged $1.4 Billion for rebuilding Sudan."

Precisely! That's why im basing my case in tort. in US tort law, we can base one's liability on expectations and precedents.

take this as an analogy:
a pedestrian got bumped by speedign car. a motorist stopped and went to see the former. another motorist passed by but did not stop nor lend an arm because he expected that the first motorist would help. but help did not come from the first motorist. in this case, the first motorist can be held liable. that is US tort law..

lol, who is to say that the United States is the 'first' in this scenario?

In this case the first 'motorist' would be the Somalian government.

Calle, you don't have a case at all.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0

TOPAC · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2008, 04:09:25 PM »

lol, amen. lol

we can always agree to disagree.. lol

without being disagreeable..

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=16371.0