This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Sumali Pirate Situation
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
They're PIRATES. They attacked American ships before the US Navy did anything to them, it's not going to be any different now.
No. The difference is now the pirates are going out with the intention to kill, as opposed to intending to simply make money. That's the difference between terrorism in the 90s, and 9/11.
Post by
Laihendi
The pirates would have killed if they hadn't been given money, and if they were given money that would only encourage them to continue their criminal activities. Violence is inevitable when dealing with piracy.
Post by
ASHelmy
Laihendi hasn't seen anything about laziness being the cause of their problems. They're obviously in a tough situation. But America (along with many other nations) ARE trying to help, and giving them the only food they can get DOES help. If the pirates really deserve and expect to get help, they can't just go around attacking ships that are there to HELP SOMALIANS (and yes some of that food was intended to go to Somalia), take the captain hostage, and demand millions of dollars.
No one was killed during that situation - the pirates tried to be cool but were attacked by the crew, the hostages made multiple escape attempts, and did nothing. Eventually the pirates were killed after being starved on the lifeboat. Are you joking? You say the pirates tried to keep cool, but it's the crew's fault things got violent because they attacked the pirates INVADING THEIR SHIP AND TAKING THEIR CAPTAIN HOSTAGE? And of course the hostages are going to make escape attempts, they're being threatened with death by a bunch of outlaws who have no respect for their lives, and of course the pirates didn't start killing them, or they would have instantly been killed on the spot and gotten no money.
And you're complaining about them starving on a lifeboat? It's their fault they were there in the first place. They decided to get into that situation, no one forced them to attack a US ship and provoke the navy. No one forced them to take many people hostage, they did that of their own free will, because they're criminals. In case you weren't aware, the innocent people they had at gunpoint weren't doing any better than they were, the only difference is that they didn't CHOOSE to be in that situation, because they were the victims.
Your argument is basically the same that would be used to pardon someone for kidnapping and theft... "oh he grew up in the ghetto, he had a hard life... it's not his fault he's taking part in extreme criminal activity... just throw some money at him and let him go and everything will be ok". The bottom line is that an American ship was attacked, it's captain taken hostage, and the US Navy rescued him. If you think there's anything wrong with the US's response, then once again, you're being stupid.
Edit: This is a response to TheMediator.
Ahh, seeing laihendi fail. Priceless :p :D. But seriously now, I am surprised at how, um,
rigid
you are. You're basically saying that anything that we call bad is ALWAYS bad, and anything we call good is ALWAYS good.
Try to picture it this way: You are starving to death, you don't have the energy to farm or hunt, then you see someone walk by with ample amounts of food, would it really be that wrong for you to nick something to stop yourself from dying? that's
Exactly
what those pirates are facing, they can't even get half the wealth the US. has if they work hard all their life, so it's not really their fault (if you think that their is away for them to live a decent life, please enlighten me). And please, do not pretend that you wouldn't have done the same...
Post by
Laihendi
Try to picture it this way: You are starving to death, you don't have the energy to farm or hunt, then you see someone walk by with ample amounts of food, would it really be that wrong for you to nick something to stop yourself from dying? that's Exactly what those pirates are facing, they can't even get half the wealth the US. has if they work hard all their life, so it's not really their fault (if you think that their is away for them to live a decent life, please enlighten me). And please, do not pretend that you wouldn't have done the same...So because they have a hard life that gives them an excuse to resort to violence (potentially murder) towards people trying to HELP them and everyone else in their situation? Once again, the US ship was delivering FOOD to STARVING Somalians. There is no excuse to attack them. And the first part of your post was a bunch of garbage not even worth commenting on.
Post by
ASHelmy
So because they have a hard life that gives them an excuse to resort to violence (potentially murder) towards people trying to HELP them and everyone else in their situation? Once again, the US ship was delivering FOOD to STARVING Somalians. There is no excuse to attack them. And the first part of your post was a bunch of garbage not even worth commenting on.
A. Don't flame, I was obliviously joking in the beginning.
B. But they didn't kill anyone (at least this time).
C. The help wouldn't have been enough, not by a long shot.
D. It's not just a "hard life", please, a hard life is not having a decent car or house. what most African countries live through is nothing short of torture, at times.
E. The country is in horrible state, they have the right to "scare" you guys. And they might have died, so yes, they had the right to resort to *some* violence to keep alive, as long as they don't kill.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
So because they have a hard life that gives them an excuse to resort to violence (potentially murder) towards people trying to HELP them and everyone else in their situation? Once again, the US ship was delivering FOOD to STARVING Somalians. There is no excuse to attack them. And the first part of your post was a bunch of garbage not even worth commenting on.
A. Don't flame, I was obliviously joking in the beginning.
B. But they didn't kill anyone (at least this time).
C. The help wouldn't have been enough, not by a long shot.
D. It's not just a "hard life", please, a hard life is not having a decent car or house. what most African countries live through is nothing short of torture, at times.
E. The country is in horrible state, they have the right to "scare" you guys. And they might have died, so yes, they had the right to resort to *some* violence to keep alive, as long as they don't kill.
A. Apologies, Laihendi didn't know...
B. They threatened to kill, they had every intention to kill if things didn't go how they wanted, and it is quite likely they had killed in the past.
C. It was just one boat. But if all the boats that try to go there to give aid are threatened with being attacked by pirates, why would they bother going? They don't help because of any obligations, they do it out of generosity.
D. Yes, they live in miserable conditions. Does that give a bunch of pirates the right to attack ships sent on peaceful missions to provide relief for those who are willing to accept it? No.
E. The pirates weren't killed until the people in the Navy there were expecting the pirates to start killing hostages. The only way to protect them at that point was to kill the pirates. Who's more important, your own people who are trying to give food to famished families, or a band of pirates threatening to kill them?
Post by
266586
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
You're basically saying that anything that we call bad is ALWAYS bad, and anything we call good is ALWAYS good.
Try to picture it this way: You are starving to death, you don't have the energy to farm or hunt, then you see someone walk by with ample amounts of food, would it really be that wrong for you to nick something to stop yourself from dying? that's
Exactly
what those pirates are facing, they can't even get half the wealth the US. has if they work hard all their life, so it's not really their fault (if you think that their is away for them to live a decent life, please enlighten me). And please, do not pretend that you wouldn't have done the same...
Ok... so you're saying that piracy is ok? The whole world sees piracy is bad, not just a few people on an internet forum... It was bad in the 17th century, and it's bad now.
I love the epic fail in this next part.... get ready.
So if you are to weak to farm or hunt, then how in the hell are you supposed to steal something from someone walking by? You would be to slow to grab the food as it passed, and if they saw you, they could easily stop you. Don't you think that if you were that weak, that you would ask for a handout first? Also, you're comparing stealing a loaf of bread to holding people hostage until their country forks over the money to free them. Hardly the same. The pirates don't need half the wealth that the USA has. They need money to buy weapons and ammunition and whatever else they want. From what I've read, the hostages have been treated nicely, so I'm led to believe that there is enough food to feed them, so there has to be plenty of food for the pirates. The pirates ran out of food on their little boat because they weren't expecting anyone to fight back... well guess what... sorry to ruin your plans. It's their fault in the first place that they were there. If you were in the victim's position, would you fight back or let them take you? You would fight back, it's the survival instinct.
I don't have specific examples as to how they would be able to survive without pirating, but they are there. Anything is better than becoming a pirate. People that get stranded in remote areas and survive find ways to do it without becoming a pirate. They hunt their own food, and do whatever it takes to survive. For someone to become so weak that they can't get their own food... well that would take a lot for that to get to that point. They would spend every waking moment trying to find food, wether it was bugs and insects or plants and fruit. The point is, people will find a way to survive. I guarantee you that those pirates are emaciated to the point of near death....
1. I suppose it was a bad example, I pictured the guy with food as weak and defenseless, should have made that more obvious, I apologize.
2. It is exactly the same, they are doing something bad to survive.
3. If they were treated nicely, it means the pirates are not "brutal savages". But I will admit, it does mean they have loads of food, which brings me to my next point.
4. They don't need just food, they need toe rebuild and entire country.
5. I wouldn't fight back. Why risk my life against armed pirates when I could just wait to be rescued?
6. So you don't know how they will do it, but they just will?
7. comparing feeding yourself to rebuilding an entire country is wrong. Agian, my fault for using that example.
Post by
Laihendi
Yes, there's a lot of that going on in this thread. It's disturbing and makes Laihendi uncomfortable :-/
Response to Procul
Post by
TheMediator
A. Apologies, Laihendi didn't know...
B. They threatened to kill, they had every intention to kill if things didn't go how they wanted, and it is quite likely they had killed in the past.
C. It was just one boat. But if all the boats that try to go there to give aid are threatened with being attacked by pirates, why would they bother going? They don't help because of any obligations, they do it out of generosity.
D. Yes, they live in miserable conditions. Does that give a bunch of pirates the right to attack ships sent on peaceful missions to provide relief for those who are willing to accept it? No.
E. The pirates weren't killed until the people in the Navy there were expecting the pirates to start killing hostages. The only way to protect them at that point was to kill the pirates. Who's more important, your own people who are trying to give food to famished families, or a band of pirates threatening to kill them?
Bull%^&*, most of the aid to Africa isn't because of generosity, its because of guilt.
Anything is better than becoming a pirate.
Stupid statement is stupid.
You can say all you want about their actions while you enjoy a cozy fireplace, but some people actually have to work towards getting that fireplace, and that work isn't always clean. Until you donate all your wealth and live on the streets for the benefit of the Somalian people, you can't say what lengths are acceptable to survive and live a decent living.
Post by
ASHelmy
A. Apologies, Laihendi didn't know...
B. They threatened to kill, they had every intention to kill if things didn't go how they wanted, and it is quite likely they had killed in the past.
C. It was just one boat. But if all the boats that try to go there to give aid are threatened with being attacked by pirates, why would they bother going? They don't help because of any obligations, they do it out of generosity.
D. Yes, they live in miserable conditions. Does that give a bunch of pirates the right to attack ships sent on peaceful missions to provide relief for those who are willing to accept it? No.
E. The pirates weren't killed until the people in the Navy there were expecting the pirates to start killing hostages. The only way to protect them at that point was to kill the pirates. Who's more important, your own people who are trying to give food to famished families, or a band of pirates threatening to kill them?
Wow, Laihendi. I agree with everything you wrote. Shocking!
A. It's ok :).
B. Again, they didn't. they might have been pretending to get the results they wanted. We can't judge people by what they might have been intending or not intending to do.
C.I doubt that all the ships would have saved their country, to be honest.
D. Yes it does, mate. anything to stop people from dying (as long as they don't kill others ).
E. From what I can gather, they just "assumed" that they were going to kill them, and took the shots.
Post by
Laihendi
Bull%^&*, most of the aid to Africa isn't because of generosity, its because of guilt.
Once again... nobody is under any obligation to help them. All of the charities for them, the people going on relief trips, providing food, medication, and other necessities are not out of guilt. What do they have to be guilty about? They didn't do anything to them, they're only trying to help.
And then they get attacked by pirates...
Should wealthy countries play a more active role in helping extreme poverty in Africa? Certainly. Is that going to happen if the people going there to help are constantly under the threat of being killed or taken hostage by a bunch of maniacs? No.
Post by
Laihendi
A. It's ok :).
B. Again, they didn't. they might have been pretending to get the results they wanted. We can't judge people by what they might have been intending or not intending to do.
C.I doubt that all the ships would have saved their country, to be honest.
D. Yes it does, mate. anything to stop people from dying (as long as they don't kill others ).
E. From what I can gather, they just "assumed" that they were going to kill them, and took the shots.
B. If they're pretending that they're going to kill innocent people, then they should expect retribution.
C. Maybe not, but they still help.
D. No. Those people are there out of the goodness of their heart to help those who are extremely unfortunate. There is no excuse for attacking them and threatening to kill some of them.
E. Once again, if the pirates are going to act like they're going to kill innocent people, they should accept the consequences.
Post by
ASHelmy
B. If they're pretending that they're going to kill innocent people, then they should expect retribution.
C. Maybe not, but they still help.
D. No. Those people are there out of the goodness of their heart to help those who are extremely unfortunate. There is no excuse for attacking them and threatening to kill some of them.
E. Once again, if the pirates are going to act like they're going to kill innocent people, they should accept the consequences.
Ok, we are obviously not gonna reach any agreement on this, so let's take it down to a simpler level. We are basically arguing between lawful good, and neutral good (You know, those DND things). How can you support just blindly following the law? (which is basically what lawful good is), You seem to think that anyone who steals automatically deserves jail.
(sorry if the reply sounds to harsh, but I am have difficulty phrasing, code was suxky :p).
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
What Laihendi is saying is that if people are doing all that they can to help others who live in very unfortunate circumstances, and if they are in no way responsible for those unfortunate circumstances, and if they are under no obligations to help those living in said circumstances and are doing it purely out of their own generosity, there is simply no excuse for attacking and threatening to kill them.
It goes beyond just following the law, it's Laihendi's morals.
Post by
TheMediator
B. If they're pretending that they're going to kill innocent people, then they should expect retribution.
C. Maybe not, but they still help.
D. No. Those people are there out of the goodness of their heart to help those who are extremely unfortunate. There is no excuse for attacking them and threatening to kill some of them.
E. Once again, if the pirates are going to act like they're going to kill innocent people, they should accept the consequences.
Ok, we are obviously not gonna reach any agreement on this, so let's take it down to a simpler level. We are basically arguing between lawful good, and neutral good (You know, those DND things). How can you support just blindly following the law? (which is basically what lawful good is), You seem to think that anyone who steals automatically deserves jail.
(sorry if the reply sounds to harsh, but I am have difficulty phrasing, code was suxky :p).
Disagree, he's more of a lawful neutral. Lawful good = you accept that the pirates had to be punished, but you'd feel bad for them. Lawful neutral = You feel that since the pirates committed a crime, you are glad that they were punished.
Post by
Laihendi
So a good person would feel bad for pirates who took people hostage who were trying to distribute food to starving African families. Good logic.
Post by
ASHelmy
What Laihendi is saying is that if people are doing all that they can to help others who live in very unfortunate circumstances, and if they are in no way responsible for those unfortunate circumstances, and if they are under no obligations to help those living in said circumstances and are doing it purely out of their own generosity, there is simply no excuse for attacking and threatening to kill them.
It goes beyond just following the law, it's Laihendi's morals.
I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about the fact that you consider all stealing wrong, for example. Correct me if I am wrong.
You can say all you want about their actions while you enjoy a cozy fireplace, but some people actually have to work towards getting that fireplace, and that work isn't always clean. Until you donate all your wealth and live on the streets for the benefit of the Somalian people, you can't say what lengths are acceptable to survive and live a decent living.
They chose to live that way because they are nomads. The choose to be nomads and prefer to be nomads. Some people have to work to get what they get, and sometimes that isn't enough. So, according to you, you can do whatever is necessary to survive, even if it means becoming a criminal? Again..... Do you support drug dealers? You are comparing the entire country of Somalia to the actions of a few pirates. The vast majority of the country is getting by without resorting to piracy.....
4. They don't need just food, they need toe rebuild and entire country.
5. I wouldn't fight back. Why risk my life against armed pirates when I could just wait to be rescued?
6. So you don't know how they will do it, but they just will?
4. How do you know what the pirates are using the money for? Money is not going to rebuild the country. I suggest you research Somalia before you decide to spout off about something you know little about. There is a lot more than building homes and so forth that need to be done to fix that country. There are a lot of land and agricultural issues inland too.
5. How do you
know
your going to be rescued? It's easy to say something like that when you're sitting at home in front of your computer, but if you were ever in a situation like that then I think your view would be different. I guarantee you that I would think and do everything in my power to escape the kidnappers.
6. After reading a little... they could become fisherman and sell their fish. The coast of Somalia is 3100 km (don't know the miles conversion). That is a vast coastline to fish from. Plus being close to the water, they could pump that water into irrigation pipes to water crops that they could plant. That's just one thing I came up with after reading one little site on Somalia.... I'm sure there are others.
Bull%^&*, most of the aid to Africa isn't because of generosity, its because of guilt.
And you know this for a fact... how?
4. Ok, I will admit that I assumed a little here. But come on, why else would they do it? they are not going to be able to buy nice things in their country anyway.
5. You are right agian.
6. It's ok, we use kms here anyway :D. But I have to disagree with you here, a large scale fishing thing would take far more money then a few rifles would. You can't use sea water to farm, I think you have to distill it, which would cost a lot of money.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.