Somali Pirates hijack second US vessel

**dirtydog** · 11-04-2009, 10:48 PM

Pirates hijack second US vessel

US warships are heading to the area following Capt Phillips' capture

Somali pirates have hijacked a US-owned tugboat in the Gulf of Aden with 16 crew on board, reports say.

Maritime industry sources say the tug, which sails under an Italian flag, was towing two barges at the time of the attack, at 1100 local time (0800 GMT).

The crew are said to be unharmed. The US and Italian governments have not confirmed the hijacking.

Meanwhile pirates holding a US captain hostage have warned that using force to rescue him could result in "disaster".

The pirates said they hoped to transfer Capt Richard Phillips from a lifeboat to a bigger vessel, as US and other naval ships made their way to the area.

He is being held by four pirates hundreds of kilometres off Somalia.

In other developments:

Sailors on a Panama-flagged bulk carrier repulsed a pirate attack with water hoses. Nato officials on a nearby Portuguese warship said an unexploded rocket-propelled grenade landed in the commanding officer's cabin
On Friday, one Frenchman and two pirates were killed in a rescue operation by French troops on another vessel captured off Somalia. Four others, including a child, were freed from the yacht

Growing concern

Earlier reports suggested that a group of Somali elders were preparing to mediate between American officials and the pirates for Capt Phillips' release, but there has been no news of any progress.
The US national was taken hostage on Wednesday after pirates hijacked his ship, the Maersk Alabama, as it sailed towards the Kenyan port of Mombasa carrying food aid.

MAJOR PIRATE INCIDENTS
Ukrainian ship MV Faina seized on 25 September 2008, held until 5 February 2009
Saudi tanker Sirius Star held for two months from November 2008; a $3m ransom was negotiated
At least 15 pirate attacks reported to International Maritime Bureau during March 2009
The 32,500-tonne Malaspina Castle, UK-owned but operated by Italians, seized on 6 April 2009.

Q&A: Somali piracy
Profile: Capt Richard Phillips

After a long struggle, crew members regained control of the ship. It is thought Capt Phillips offered himself as a hostage in order to save his crew.

The Maersk Alabama is expected to arrive in Mombasa in a matter of hours.

There has been rising concern in the US over the fate of Capt Phillips - Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Washington on Friday that the safe return of the captain was a "top priority".

FBI experts are helping negotiate his release, but analysts have said the process could be lengthy.

Capt Phillips tried to escape on Friday by jumping overboard and swimming towards a nearby US ship, but was recaptured.

Reports in the US say the pirates are demanding a ransom of $2m for his safe release.

The US Navy destroyer, USS Bainbridge, is at the scene of the confrontation with other American warships on the way.

Stories circulating in Somalia claim that extra pirate ships are also making their way towards the area.

The pirates say they hope to transfer Capt Phillips to a bigger and better-protected vessel.

The Pentagon is also said to be considering other options, including possible military force, US sources say.

But the Somali pirate commander warned against any forcible intervention.

"I'm afraid this matter is likely to create disaster because it is taking too long and we are getting information that the Americans are planning rescue tricks like the French commandos did," Abdi Garad said.

Somalia has been without an effective government since 1991, fuelling the lawlessness which has allowed the pirates to thrive.

Pirates typically hold the ships and crews until large ransoms are paid by the shipping companies. Last year the firms handed over about $80m (£54m).

Efforts to stop the pirates have so far had only limited success, with international naval patrols struggling to cover the vast areas of ocean where pirates operate.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Pirates hijack second US vessel

**Muadib** · 11-04-2009, 10:57 PM

reports suggested that a group of Somali elders were preparing to mediate between American officials and the pirates for Capt Phillips' release.......

My arse...

The Somali's have a new and very profitable industry... The frequency of these incidents is increasing and becoming more violent... Mediation for each incident will become a tedious, dangerous and expensive proposition... Time to escalate...

**dirtydog** · 11-04-2009, 10:59 PM

these damn pirates seem pretty damn clever, wonder if it is even a somalian behind all this, seems to be a step ahead of everyone else all the time.

**Happyman** · 11-04-2009, 11:11 PM

Old ideas sometimes work .

WWI & II era 'Q' ships would clear a lot of the problem .

Q-ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Texpat** · 11-04-2009, 11:24 PM

The basic ethos of every Q-ship was to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Are you suggesting that *gasp* wartime techniques be applied to these innocent civilians?

**dirtydog** · 11-04-2009, 11:50 PM

Hey, you go rescue that captain now and those pirates may start chopping tug boat crew members heads off, bit of a stalemate I think, so pay them the money and thank them for not beheading that nice American Captain

**Boon Mee** · 12-04-2009, 12:08 AM

Perhaps send in those brave British sailor-folk to rescue 'em, eh?

**sunsetter** · 12-04-2009, 09:57 AM

get mr seagal on board with erika eleniak for a daring ex seal rescue!

**The Gentleman Scamp** · 12-04-2009, 10:12 AM

Nuke Somalia.

**sunsetter** · 12-04-2009, 10:17 AM

nice^

**melvbot** · 12-04-2009, 10:25 AM

Looks like theyre gonna have to turn each ship into some sort of battleship, those big mounted guns that fire bullets the size of a foot long hot dog and bazookas should do the trick.

**barbaro** · 12-04-2009, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by melvbot

Looks like theyre gonna have to turn each ship into some sort of battleship, those big mounted guns that fire bullets the size of a foot long hot dog and bazookas should do the trick.

I think the insurance costs would go up. Plus training, and bringing the weapons of an armed ship to port.

I'm also responding to the post following this, asking why the ships were not armed yet.

I think there may be some changes. Lot of commercial stuff ($$$) is shipped in the world and hijacking interferes with it.

**sunsetter** · 12-04-2009, 10:28 AM

thought people and companys would be armed by now, wonder why they arent?

**Carnwadrick** · 12-04-2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by sunsetter

thought people and companys would be armed by now, wonder why they arent?

Can't have the downtrodden muntinous union crew members having access to guns, might give them ideas

**Boon Mee** · 12-04-2009, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by sunsetter

thought people and companys would be armed by now, wonder why they arent?

There's something amiss here as every drilling vessel I've ever been on, the Captain has a least a handgun in his safe. Jing, jing...

**sunsetter** · 12-04-2009, 10:46 AM

get a couple of these on board
end of problem

**Norton** · 12-04-2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Happyman

WWI & II era 'Q' ships would clear a lot of the problem .

A good idea. Arming merchants would make the pirates think twice before attacking. As it is now they obviously have no fear of any real resistance from their prey.

If the international community really wants to stop the pirates trying to do it on the million odd miles of open sea is a losing tactic. Denying safe harbor is the key. The pirates operate out of a failed, lawless state. It would be expensive but an approach where all shipping in/out of Somalia is essentially subject to blockade is part of the solution.

The capture of a ships for ransom, while it makes for media headlines, represent but a small percentage of the ships that are not captured. The ransoms paid to date amount to about $80m. In the overall scheme of things, a drop in the bucket to the shipping industry and all part of the cost of doing business. If the number of ships captures increases to a level financially unacceptable to the industry then and only then will stronger measures be taken. Until then the pirates will be allowed to carry on with impunity.

**Carnwadrick** · 12-04-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Happyman

WWI & II era 'Q' ships would clear a lot of the problem .

A good idea. Arming merchants would make the pirates think twice before attacking. As it is now they obviously have no fear of any real resistance from their prey.

If the international community really wants to stop the pirates trying to do it on the million odd miles of open sea is a losing tactic. Denying safe harbor is the key. The pirates operate out of a failed, lawless state. It would be expensive but an approach where all shipping in/out of Somalia is essentially subject to blockade is part of the solution.

The capture of a ships for ransom, while it makes for media headlines, represent but a small percentage of the ships that are not captured. The ransoms paid to date amount to about $80m. In the overall scheme of things, a drop in the bucket to the shipping industry and all part of the cost of doing business. If the number of ships captures increases to a level financially unacceptable to the industry then and only then will stronger measures be taken. Until then the pirates will be allowed to carry on with impunity.

Seen a post today on another forum from an x soldier who has been waiting for four months just to get an interview for ship security...seems the shipping companies are a little shy about having armed security on board

**HorseDoctor** · 12-04-2009, 11:18 AM

Why not look at WHY the Somalis feel the need to do this? Maybe they don't have food for their families or some other basic needs are going unmet.

I suggest we remember these guys kicked our ( US ) asses before...

Perhaps a more diplomatic, pragmatic solution of aid would work other than armed conflict that will result in casualties on both sides and environmental disastors when oil tankers are ruptured with those nasty stinger shoulder propelled rockets the " pirates seem to have a lot of.

Hey so where ARE those stingers coming from? ( or whatever they are called )
A better question is why do they have weapons of that caliber, but not food?

**melvbot** · 12-04-2009, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by HorseDoctor

Why not look at WHY the Somalis feel the need to do this? Maybe they don't have food for their families or some other basic needs are going unmet.

Are you suggesting that theyre hijacking ships to feed their families or the proceeds are somehow going to a greater good of helping the nation?

Wake up.

**tuktukdriver** · 13-04-2009, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by HorseDoctor

Why not look at WHY the Somalis feel the need to do this? Maybe they don't have food for their families or some other basic needs are going unmet.

I suggest we remember these guys kicked our ( US ) asses before...

Perhaps a more diplomatic, pragmatic solution of aid would work other than armed conflict that will result in casualties on both sides and environmental disastors when oil tankers are ruptured with those nasty stinger shoulder propelled rockets the " pirates seem to have a lot of.

Hey so where ARE those stingers coming from? ( or whatever they are called )
A better question is why do they have weapons of that caliber, but not food?

How do you propose distributing the aid? Anything brought to the shores would be taken over by the same powers that are behind the hijackings. The only way to stop this is with force. Make the cost outweight the benefit.

**Jet Gorgon** · 12-04-2009, 11:22 AM

^ Somalia is feked and has been for some while because of fighting factions. They are dirt poor. The pirates get ransom money to buy new weapons and boats, not to feed the people.

Shoot the pirates.

**Norton** · 12-04-2009, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Carnwadrick

seems the shipping companies are a little shy about having armed security on board

Shy or reluctant to pay for the added cost? Pay for the security or pay insurance premiums to cover ransom losses. A business cost trade off. I have no figures but the cost of arming ships is likely higher than the payback.

**nikster** · 13-04-2009, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Carnwadrick

seems the shipping companies are a little shy about having armed security on board

Shy or reluctant to pay for the added cost? Pay for the security or pay insurance premiums to cover ransom losses. A business cost trade off. I have no figures but the cost of arming ships is likely higher than the payback.

That's the reason this has been going on for so long.

If a ship pays a $1M ransom, that's a heck of a lot cheaper than sending a Navy Frigate to deal with 5 pirates. Or 10 pirates. $1M is nothing. You couldn't buy any kind of security for that, let alone movie-style satellite tracking and smart bombs. You could maybe hire 1 armed guard per boat, but would that really deter pirates? More likely not.

Low cost solutions are the only ones that are going to work, if they can be found.

**English Noodles** · 12-04-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by dirtydog

US

Originally Posted by dirtydog

using force

Originally Posted by dirtydog

result in "disaster".

Jeeze, talk about stating the obvious.

Thread: Somali Pirates hijack second US vessel

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Somali Pirates hijack second US vessel

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions