"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.
----------------------------------------------------------

Negotiation does not necessarily mean paying ransom or allowing them to go
free.
If that was going on, this incident would be over by now.
Negotiation can also be wearing down the pirate's resolve and making them
realize that they have no other option but to surrender. I am not there
or privy to what the negotiations are, but I suspect the latter is what is
going on.

Eisboch

Agreed. Here is how the negotiations should go.

If the captain dies, so do you.
If the captian survives and we get him back, you live to see a trial.
If the captain dies for any reason, we will not accept your surender but
will feed the sharks.

Then sit an wait, repeat the message as needed.

If buddies try a recuse of the pirates, blow them out of the water.

Canuck57 wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.
----------------------------------------------------------

Negotiation does not necessarily mean paying ransom or allowing them to go
free.
If that was going on, this incident would be over by now.
Negotiation can also be wearing down the pirate's resolve and making them
realize that they have no other option but to surrender. I am not there
or privy to what the negotiations are, but I suspect the latter is what is
going on.

Eisboch

Agreed. Here is how the negotiations should go.

If the captain dies, so do you.
If the captian survives and we get him back, you live to see a trial.
If the captain dies for any reason, we will not accept your surender but
will feed the sharks.

Then sit an wait, repeat the message as needed.

If buddies try a recuse of the pirates, blow them out of the water.



If this is a four step plan, it works for me.



--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist.

(Tip of the hat to Don, who reposted this gem so I could see it.)

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:55:28 -0400, Eisboch wrote:

The primary objective right now is to save the civilian hostage if at
all possible.
Once accomplished, it will be time to minimize future occurrences.

Something that seems to be overlooked here, historically, the Somali
pirates have taken great pains to avoid killing their hostages. They
seem to take a "businesslike" approach to piracy. It's about the
ransom. On the other hand, in the Straits of Malacca, piracy is about
the cargo or ship. Crews regularly go "missing" overboard.

So if I rape your daughter, but be careful not to kill her, that makes me
good?

Or if I wait until your house is empty before looting it, that makes me
good?

We should NEVER fall into the trap of rationalising a prirate/terrorists
actions while in the act of perpetrating the crime as is in this case. The
lives of the pirates are not worth a cent.

Before we go hastily slaughtering people, we may want to consider the
unintended consequences of our actions. Remember the Islamic Courts
Union? Well, they had ended piracy in the waters under their control.
Perhaps, we should have considered that before we aided Ethiopia's
invasion of Somalia. I've said it before, if you want to play
geopolitical chess, you had better be able to see more than two moves
ahead.

If you want Sharia law, go live there. It is a Muslim country. If they are
against piracy, it sure fools the rest of us.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a
nuke, one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.


Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Eisboch

We could have been an early member of the nuclear club...in the 1950s...
but official policy is against them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...ss_destruction


I did some reading on the subject. Canada isn't an "official" nuke
member, but played a significant role in the development of the first
bomb. The Canadian prime minister knew about the existence of the first
bomb before Truman did when he took office after FDR's death.

Eisboch

Probably got the uranium from Ontario or Saskatchewan.

Canuck57 wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a
nuke, one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.

Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Eisboch
We could have been an early member of the nuclear club...in the 1950s...
but official policy is against them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...ss_destruction

I did some reading on the subject. Canada isn't an "official" nuke
member, but played a significant role in the development of the first
bomb. The Canadian prime minister knew about the existence of the first
bomb before Truman did when he took office after FDR's death.

Eisboch

Probably got the uranium from Ontario or Saskatchewan.



Maybe cheney sold them the yellowcake... :)


--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist.

(Tip of the hat to Don, who reposted this gem so I could see it.)

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message
...


Somali pirates might be considering capturing Obama's family in
neighboring Kenya. What kind of ransom would they demand? Remember
his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents are all there
living
in a shanty.....

Interesting thought....

On Apr 11, 5:26*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message

...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. *Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. *Over in 30 minutes.

Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. * I don't know the answer.

Eisboch

No, we have foul language, and supposedly the best Bud ( not the
beer ).

Frogwatch wrote:
For GOD's sake, send reinforcements quick. A billion dollar destroyer
that could single handedly defeat Japan in WW2 is stymied by three
thugs in a lifeboat and Obama panics and sends reinforcements when he
hears they may be joined by another unarmed merchant vessel with a
dozen or so pirates.
Obama sends a stern warning, "I'm not kidding, unless they reduce
their demands to $1 million, this time I'll not only bow, I'll pucker
up too" sure put the fear of something into those pirates.

Meanwhile, those awful brits at the UK Telegraph are calling Obama a
"Pantywaist surrender monkey". When a euro type calls you that, its
gotta hurt.

In light of today's outcome, don't you feel a bit like an idiot?

On Apr 12, 7:38*pm, Jim wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
For GOD's sake, send reinforcements quick. *A billion dollar destroyer
that could single handedly defeat Japan in WW2 is stymied by three
thugs in a lifeboat and Obama panics and sends reinforcements when he
hears they may be joined by another unarmed merchant vessel with a
dozen or so pirates.
Obama sends a stern warning, "I'm not kidding, unless they reduce
their demands to $1 million, this time I'll not only bow, I'll pucker
up too" sure put the fear of something into those pirates.

Meanwhile, those awful brits at the UK Telegraph are calling Obama a
"Pantywaist surrender monkey". *When a euro type calls you that, its
gotta hurt.

In light of today's outcome, don't you feel a bit like an idiot?

How long do you think it will take Obermann to credit Obama for
everything from handling the negotiations to taking the shot ?

wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:38 pm, Jim wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
For GOD's sake, send reinforcements quick. A billion dollar destroyer
that could single handedly defeat Japan in WW2 is stymied by three
thugs in a lifeboat and Obama panics and sends reinforcements when he
hears they may be joined by another unarmed merchant vessel with a
dozen or so pirates.
Obama sends a stern warning, "I'm not kidding, unless they reduce
their demands to $1 million, this time I'll not only bow, I'll pucker
up too" sure put the fear of something into those pirates.
Meanwhile, those awful brits at the UK Telegraph are calling Obama a
"Pantywaist surrender monkey". When a euro type calls you that, its
gotta hurt.
In light of today's outcome, don't you feel a bit like an idiot?

How long do you think it will take Obermann to credit Obama for
everything from handling the negotiations to taking the shot ?

Not nearly as long as it will take you to blame Obama for everything
that's happened for the last 8 years.