Pirates/terrorism funding

[mechanic]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081118/twl-pirates-attack-second-cargo-ship-3fd0ae9.html


100 mil in oil taken then 30,000t of wheat? Sure sounds like a good way to fund a nuke and then survive in a bunker for a long time....

 

[kamilyun]

Are there laws which prevent these shipping companies/owners from giving their crews guns for self defense? 

Might be a good time for Blackwater to market it's anti-pirate services.

[CAP1]

Are there laws which prevent these shipping companies/owners from giving their crews guns for self defense? 

Might be a good time for Blackwater to market it's anti-pirate services.

i think ther are such laws. i also believe such laws shoud, be ignored, as there is onone out there to protect these ships.

[mechanic]

As far as i know, once you enter international waters there is no law.

[allaire]

Maritime laws.  The ships are not supposed to be armed as they are considered noncombatants. Now personally I think that is a load of horse manure seeing as how this type of story is becoming more and more common.

[croduh]

No country is going to let an armed ship enter it's waters.Besides, last thing you want is a gunfire on a ship, and on a tanker, it would result in a catastrophe, no matter how trained the security forces are.

Interesting quote:

A spokesman for the International Maritime Bureau said that, while shipowners had the right to take such measures, the organisation advises against them doing so, for two specific reasons.

“Number one, if you do start carrying armed people on board, the tendency of the other person to pull a gun and use it with the intent to harm is going to increase if they find out that you have an intent to harm them. That could result in loss of lives,” he said.

“Secondly, if you are on a chemical or gas tanker the last thing you want is a firefight between pirates and security people on board.”

For now, the only and best option would be to increase patrols in the critical area, and keep the pirates in a distance from Civ.Ships.
Also, a lot of ships do not take all the necessary security precautions and do not stay on a safest , guarded route.
My father is a captain on a world class freighter, he passes through that area very often so it's not very "all the same" to me.

[mechanic]

I think the most important bit here is being overlooked. Someone just stole enough oil to buy a nuke and then stole enough wheat to survive in a bunker for a long time. Is that not a little worrying?

[CAP1]

someone suggested in another thread about sending an armed cargo vessel out in "sheeps clothing". hide ther weaponry till the pirates get close......drop the doors, and light em up.

 modify that. take an older tanker or two, and modify it to carry heavy weapons. conceal them. be sure the ship rides low in the water as if it were full. pirates come close, light em up.

 do this a few times, and they;ll have to think twice about which ones they wanna hit.....or maybe go pick on much smaller vessels in much safer waters for them.

 these people will not stop as long as we all try to play by rules. they have none. we need to play on their level.

[john9001]

they say the tanker was loaded, but the photos show a unloaded ship, look at the waterline, is that a stock photo and not the real ship?

the ship owners do not want to arm their ships, liability issues, the ship and cargo are insured, the crews are expendable. The owners just pay the ransom and go on with the business of making money.

[Eagler]

I think the most important bit here is being overlooked. Someone just stole enough oil to buy a nuke and then stole enough wheat to survive in a bunker for a long time. Is that not a little worrying?

who? the retards with the guns and the rowboats  who captured the tanker or the uncivilized population where they came from?
it's all about money so they can by more bullets and continue their wars... kill them all and be done with it.

[Fishu]

they say the tanker was loaded, but the photos show a unloaded ship, look at the waterline, is that a stock photo and not the real ship?

Most likely only archives photos are around. Although the ship was spotted by a village in Somalian coast. Something like Eyl or such. I'm not sure if they got photos of it, but I find it unlikely so soon. Military doesn't have any reason to release photos ASAP to the media and I doubt there's many reporters in the area.

[mechanic]

who? the retards with the guns and the rowboats  who captured the tanker or the uncivilized population where they came from?
it's all about money so they can by more bullets and continue their wars... kill them all and be done with it.

that is a kind of backwards outlook on another culture eagler. Sure, kill them all, but dont be so dumb as to think they are not smart enough to blow up half the world if they wanted to. Need i remind anyone how impossible 9/11 would have sounded the day before? I'm not worried, couldnt care less, just saying the correlation is interesting. Maybe somebody wants us to think it was uncivilised pirates when it was someone else completely?
 

[john9001]

Maybe somebody wants us to think it was uncivilised pirates when it was someone else completely?
 

i say SMERSH, we need bond, james bond.

[Rich46yo]

Maritime laws.  The ships are not supposed to be armed as they are considered noncombatants. Now personally I think that is a load of horse manure seeing as how this type of story is becoming more and more common.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what The Geneva Convention has to do with INTL shipping during peacetime.

Of course the answer is "nothing". The GC only cover the behavior of combatants during war, and even then only between constituted armies of signatory nations. Thats why it doesn't even cover the handling of "terrorists". It has nothing to do with shipping.

No doubt there are some maritime agreements that do but I have a feeling even they will be changed soon.

[CAP1]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what The Geneva Convention has to do with INTL shipping during peacetime.

Of course the answer is "nothing". The GC only cover the behavior of combatants during war, and even then only between constituted armies of signatory nations. Thats why it doesn't even cover the handling of "terrorists". It has nothing to do with shipping.

No doubt there are some maritime agreements that do but I have a feeling even they will be changed soon.

i would think it has nothing to do with it at all. i think i have to agree too, that it only concerns combatants, thus meaning it cannot affect these ship crews. i still think they should be armed, or have  trained security forces onboard too.