Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Morning Links: From Somalia to Squatting to Pseudoscience
• The CIA says it will shut down its secret prisons.
• The FDA backs off a ban on a liquid morphine.
• Making sense of Somali piracy.
• A detailed, nuanced look at life in Darfur's internally-displaced camps.
• The extremely expansive definition of "weapons of mass destruction."
• The left wing of the tea party movement. Well, sort of.
• An increase in squatting.
• The world of crackpot science.
• Cracked presents "5 Retarded Health Campaigns That Backfired."
• Classic libertarian essays from 1952.
SpongePaul|4.10.09 @ 9:01AM|#
The New way Foreward people are actually Obama supporters. if you are going to a tea party, or care about the tea party. do not go to their rally, tell the media it is not the same movement. It was started by an idea from an obama staffer to counteract the tea movement and usurp them by holding the rally 4 days earlier, thus taking up the medias attention and leaving the tea party as a second fiddle a few days later.
SpongePaul|4.10.09 @ 9:02AM|#
Below is the info:
Obama's new "Way Forward" front group is setting up nationwide
rallies to undercut our Tea Parties - and undermine our entire
banking system. And I need your help now to stop them!
Dear ALG Action Team Member,
I'm writing to alert you to one of the most sinister moves I've
seen yet from the Obama henchmen on the far left.
Just this morning, I received word that a new radical organization
calling itself "A New Way Forward" has put together an underhanded
sneak attack designed to undercut the popular uprising known as the
Tea Party movement. You may already be part of the Tea Party
movement - in fact I hope you are. So, I knew you would want to
know what the far left is up to now.
Simply put, their idea is to stage phony rallies throughout the
country on April 11th made to look like they are part of the Tea
Party movement - while actually opposing Tea Party principles and
supporting the complete government takeover of our banking
system.
The "Way Forward" scam was conjured up by an Obama activist named
Michael Lux. Lest anyone try to tell you that Mr. Lux is sincere in
saying he wants to "help rebuild the banking system", don't you
believe it for one single second. Before starting up his new Obama
front group, Lux was a high-paid lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, a top
executive for the leftwing People for the American Way, and a
special assistant at the Clinton White House.
His plan now is to divert people's attention from the April 15 Tea
Parties by holding his phony rallies first, on April 11th. He knows
his fellow left wingers in the mainstream media will go along with
his scheme to nationalize our banking system -
and that's why it is up to you and me to expose it for what it is
right now!
So, here is what I am asking you to join me in doing now:
1. Alert your family, friends, and neighbors to the fact that the
"Way Forward" scam has nothing whatsoever to do with the real Tea
Parties;
2. If "Way Forward" sets up one of its phony rallies in your
community, organize your own protests and make sure the media knows
you are standing up for free enterprise; and
3. Send me any information you can to help expose the "Way Forward"
rallies for what they really are - a blatant move to socialize our
banking system.
If Michael Lux and his "Obamunist" comrades have their way, they
will nationalize our banks, seize their assets, and place fellow
Obama lackeys in the top positions of authority. That's how
ruthless they actually are.
And that's why I am asking for your help today!
Sincerely,
Bill Wilson
High Every Body|4.10.09 @ 9:06AM|#
That Bruce Schneier is one smart egg. Everybody should check
that WMD link for yet another reminder of how stupidly our laws are
written.
SpongePaul,
Thanks for that giant blob of clutter instead of a link!
|4.10.09 @ 9:15AM|#
The CIA says it will shut down its secret
prisons.
Didn't they also say that they didn't have them in the
first place?
Is there some reason why anyone should believe them just because
their head apparatchik now comes from the left side of the Ruling
Party?
-jcr
Hugh Akston|4.10.09 @ 9:15AM|#
The term "destructive device" shall not include...surplus
ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army
pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of
title 10
Got that? If the towelheads make something that goes boom, it's a
weapon of mass destruction. If the Army makes something that goes
boom and sells it to our allies in the Middle East, it's just
fine.
High Every Body|4.10.09 @ 9:19AM|#
Hugh Akston,
Such bigoted comments have no place in polite discourse.
Wait, is the classroom monitor out sick? Carry on.
Eric Hanneken|4.10.09 @ 9:35AM|#
From the link about classic libertarian essays:
This is part of an ongoing effort to post the Complete Freeman, 1952-1999.
That's good news. My alma mater had just about all of the old
Freemans, and I used to read them in my spare time at the
library. As I recall, the essays from the 50s and 60s were
particularly enjoyable.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 9:45AM|#
See, now, if I had a Kindle2, I could download that wonderful
304-page piece of literary glory and read it while I pump my
milk.
Instead, I have to go pump with nothing but idle thoughts for
company. Sad me.
|4.10.09 @ 9:55AM|#
The extremely expansive definition of "weapons of mass
destruction."
Jesus H. McChrist, that would include an M-80 firecracker.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 10:18AM|#
A cautionary tale if ever I met one!
My first nursed almost 13 months, but weaned himself because I was
pregnant and he was too active to sit still for pregnancy-flavored
milk.
My second will me 6 mos next week, exclusively breastfed, and he
weighs almost 19 pounds. O_o He's shaping up to be a mamma's boy,
too, so I hope to be nursing him for a good long time.
I'm a regular dairy cow... seriously, I could go to work for
Horizon.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 10:21AM|#
We should have a poll... By my guess, there are only a half-dozen or so women hangin' in these threads. We should get a better idea of the gender spread before we continue with our Libertopia plans.
|4.10.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Making sense of Somali piracy.
Good article tarran.
I certainly agree the Somali people are getting fucked. Tha's got
to get old after a few decades.
A small contingent of ex gunner's mates and four of
these will protect your vessel. Merchant fleet captains -
I dealt with gunner's mates on a daily basis when I was in the
Navy, keep them away from the liquor locker and you'll have nothing
to worry about.
SpongePaul|4.10.09 @ 10:26AM|#
well heb it was an e-mail, there was no link that i knew of at the time of posting (actually did not want to go dig for one, if jesus can take the day off and hang around today, i can be a bit lazy in my reasearch, lol!
|4.10.09 @ 10:28AM|#
We should get a better idea of the gender spread before we
continue with our Libertopia plans.
Agreed. Polyandry holds no interest for me at all.
SpongePaul|4.10.09 @ 10:28AM|#
J sub
I kinda agree on the merchant ships having protection. if they need
it, its cheap and easy to put a few mounnted .50 cals would be a
great detereent. but with Americas legal culture, you will never
see a US flagged ship with them. Once the Pirates sue for damage
incurred by the machine gun, because they were just you know,
passing by!
|4.10.09 @ 10:42AM|#
This may be TMI. When our kids were babies and were breastfed, the milk was very very sweet tasting. Like homemade ice cream.
|4.10.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Steve,
Don't Eat It: Breast Milk
The only thing weirder than me drinking breast milk, is the
fact that milk is coming out of my wife's chest in the first place.
It sure as hell didn't do that when I met her. I'm telling you, the
whole thing is lunacy.
phalkor|4.10.09 @ 10:49AM|#
from seeing libertarians in real life there is no hope for
Libertopia. 75% can be aptly described as fat guys with beards and
glasses. 15% are 18-20-something guys who are "closet republicans
that want to smoke pot". The remaining 10% are the nerdy girls who
hang out with the fat bearded guys.
Since the pot-smoking closet republicans are loathe to participate
in anything really, Libertopia will consist mostly of fat guys
(with beards).
|4.10.09 @ 10:53AM|#
phalkor,
There is definitely a libertarian underground. I'm none of those
things, and I didn't see that many of those when I attended a
Cato/Reason event in San Jose in the 90s. The activists,
especially in the LP, do seem to fall into those categories,
however.
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 10:56AM|#
Got that? If the towelheads make something that goes boom,
it's a weapon of mass destruction. If the Army makes something that
goes boom and sells it to our allies in the Middle East, it's just
fine.
Zounds! Did you know that the police can arrest you and put in
jail, but when a private citizen does it, it's
kidnapping!!??
My god, what kind of country have we become?
|4.10.09 @ 10:59AM|#
The extremely expansive definition of "weapons of mass destruction."
The left has been trying to redefine anything they dislike as a
"Weapon of Mass Destruction" for quite some time, now.
I've seen leftists and gun control advocates (but I repeat myself)
going so far as to claim things like commonly available rifles and
pistols as WMD's.
Of course, when you point out that there's something of a
difference between an AR15 and a hydrogen bomb, the best they can
do is sputter at you to shut up!
phalkor|4.10.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Of course, when you point out that there's something of a
difference between an AR15 and a hydrogen bomb, the best they can
do is sputter at you to shut up!
Please explain. Both seem to fit the definition as both destroy
mass. If you changed the word destroy to obliterate or annihilate
then you'd have a good point.
Fat guys, with beards, I can't wait for my vials of vitriol to
arrive. I've got a devious plan.
|4.10.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Regarding pregnant-flavored milk... happy to help :)
Linkydink
Linkydink
another
And yes, it does taste sweet... although I've had quite a sweet
tooth lately, which is probably making my milk even sweeter than
normal.
A wise nursing mama avoids cruciferous vegetables, if you want
another trivial piece of boob knowledge :)
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 11:20AM|#
The remaining 10% are the nerdy girls who hang out with the
fat bearded guys.
We may be nerdy, but I don't think any of you boys would argue that
me, mitch and Jennifer are all rather hot.
FrBunny, I haven't seen, so I can't speak to her hawtness, but I'm
willing to hazard a guess that she's pretty fine-lookin' too!
Warty|4.10.09 @ 11:20AM|#
My favorite crackpottery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_earth_theory
phalkor|4.10.09 @ 11:24AM|#
disclaimer: nerdy girls are hot, like really hot and way better
than their non-nerdy counterparts.
Update: Success! The vitriol is a highly effective beard
remover!
|4.10.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Bronwyn,
If you didn't back out the entire Steve. Don't Eat It archives, at
least make sure to read about The Tree
Brain.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 11:34AM|#
I just read about Mr. Tummy and the Butt Face... about to delve into The Tree Brain.
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 11:57AM|#
I don't understand why the companies that own all those merchant
ships that travel in the waters where those Somali pirates operate
don't give the ships crews weapons to defend themselves and the
ship with.
It keeps happening over and over and ships keep right on going
through there with no means of self defense.
Give the crews assaualt rifles and handguns. Mount a few .50
machine guns on the ships.
After a few of the pirate crews start getting wiped out in a hail
of bullets, they'll start getting the idea that piracy isn't so
profitable after all.
|4.10.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Yeah, Gilbert, let's create private armies! That'll solve the problem of violence for sure!
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 12:03PM|#
The problem is piracy, Tony - not violence.
Violence is perfectly A-OK to defend one's life AND property.
It would be perfectly fine for me to kill you to prevent you taking
anything that I own.
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 12:05PM|#
"You don't want guns on an oil tanker, fellas.
KABOOM!"
If all the bullets are outbond before any inbound ones can get
started, there is no KABOOM!
|4.10.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Gil, you're the perfect example of what's wrong with libertarians, a bunch of insular, crypto-racist gun nuts.
|4.10.09 @ 12:08PM|#
Gil, have you ever considered the possibility of accidental discharges? Of course you didn't. Because libertarians are wedded to the whole "Hey, if we give them guns, it'll all be okay!" meme.
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Unless somebody actually opened one of the oil storage tanks and stuck the gun muzzle close enough to the oil for the muzzle flash to hit it, I seriously doubt that any small arms fire is going to ignite the oil on a tanker ship.
|4.10.09 @ 12:17PM|#
And you know that how, Gil? Are you an expert on it? Oh, yeah, libertards don't need any stinking experts! Give us a BA in economics who thinks AGW is a hoax over a PhD who has data showing it is real any day!
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 12:20PM|#
aaaaanyway, I think the instant destruction of pirate vessels is
totally justified. U.S. Warships shouldn't even ask any
questions.
Of course, the existence of Somali pirates is probably driving the
anarchos crazy, but whether that's a bug or a feature, I have yet
to decide.
|4.10.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Guns are not necessary. A few large buckets of boiling oil,battery acid,or bleach dropped on their heads might work. A 50 pound chunk of pointed steel dropped into their boat would be quite effective as a follow up. You start killin these shitters in a most inhospitable way and it will slow down.
Jesse Walker|4.10.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Seems to me that it's a decision best made by the ships' owners and insurers, whose views of the risks of being armed -- or unarmed -- are probably more informed than both Gilbert's and Tony's.
Tony-bot|4.10.09 @ 12:23PM|#
If you no one can tell the difference between the actual poster and a spoof, doesn't that reflect badly on the poster? After all, the easiest poster ever to spoof was Edward/Lefiti.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Indeed, Jesse.
Gilbert seems to be forgetting a little thing called highly
flammable vapor.
There's a good reason why there's no smoking allowed anywhere on or
near an oil tanker.
The Angry Optimist |4.10.09 @ 12:27PM|#
I am curious, though, how modern-day piracy works. If you're a
large tanker, wouldn't you have to like, lower a ladder for them or
somehow facilitate the pirates boarding the ship?
If I had millions to waste, I would totally build a decoy tanker,
only the tanks would have platoons of private Marines in them.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 12:30PM|#
TAO, they use good, old-fashioned grappling hooks.
It's not like a tanker can outrun a speedboat, either. And in most
cases, the crew don't even hear the pirates coming. They're usually
not detected until they're already onboard.
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 12:34PM|#
"Gilbert seems to be forgetting a little thing called highly
flammable vapor."
How does vapor escape froma sealed oil tank?
Anyway, oil tankers aren't the only type of ships being hikacked.
There would certainly be no reason for a cargo container ship or
some other type of ship not to arm the crew.
Warty|4.10.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Tony's trying too hard to be real. He's a regular ghosting as an asshole liberal, right?
Gilbert Martin|4.10.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Of course the most effective way to deal with Somali piracy would be to utterly destroy every square foot of all their land based sources of supply and support.
|4.10.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Warty,
Of course. I think with all of the crap coming out of DC these days
that maybe, just maybe, we don't need any fake liberals around
here. Besides, we have perfectly good ones to hear from.
Paul|4.10.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Somali Piracy. Could there be an easier thing to defend
against, and yet none of these ship crews are armed. None.
Because it would ethcalte the violenthe.
Put me on board one of these ships with an effing .22 caliber rifle
and see just how far these nimrods get on their inflatable dingy in
shark-infested waters.
Paul|4.10.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Jesse Walker:
It's largely a liability issue on arming the ship crews. As I
posted above, it's the typical rant you get from local government
officials on citizens carrying guns-- it merely
escalates the violence, so let the cops handle it.
To paraphrase, when you're on the open seas and minutes count,
protection is only hours away.
The reason is twofold: Owners fear pirates would be more likely to continue shooting once on board if they confronted weapons, and the company might be held liable for deaths or injuries inflicted by someone on the vessel.
"There's basically resistance to the idea of armed guards because of the risk of escalation ... possible harm to the crew," said Neil Roberts, a senior technical executive at Lloyd's Market Association, which provides support to underwriters with Lloyd's, the largest maritime insurance marketplace in the world. "Most ship owners don't encourage it."
[...]
While the American government supports putting armed guards on ships as one of many preventative strategies, the British have been more reticent, expressing fears over possible court cases and the lack of clear, standard rules of engagement.
The only, and I mean only argument that holds any water at all is
the "rules of engagement" concern. You don't want untrained
crewmembers shooting at any boat they find suspicious. If I were a
ship owner, I would merely hire ex-military security (yes, that may
mean people like Blackwater) and lay out very clear rules of
engagement to the ships captain. Ie, whatever hired guns you have
on board are under the strict orders of the captain.
Zeb|4.10.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Hey, I have an idea, let's all speculate about things we do not
know about!
I think Jesse is right, the shipping companies are probably the
ones in a position to determine whether being armed is going to
yield the best result for them.
Somalia is a big place and it is unlikely that pirates will be
destroyed as long as there is no functioning rule of law there.
There is a very real possibility that arming the crews will
escalate the violence. The occasional pirate ransom may be an
acceptable cost of doing business. The risk of more violence in
pirate encounters may not. Think of the insurance nightmare if one
of your crew gets killed in a gunfight with pirates (not to mention
the fact that someone is now dead).
I don't know what the right answer is and neither does anyone else
here. And I do generally think it is appropriate for people to be
able to arm themselves for self defense.
Paul|4.10.09 @ 1:55PM|#
This is an interesting paragraph:
Nonlethal weaponry, like long-range acoustic devices, which blast a powerful wave of sound at attackers, also have their drawbacks. The devices came under scrutiny last year when three security contractors were forced to jump overboard after pirates overran the ship despite the devices. The two Brits and one Irishmen were fished from the sea by a naval helicopter while pirates made off with the vessel.
Lessee, surprised security contractors jumped overboard when the
pirates tapped on their shoulders and said "boo". What this
paragraph is really trying to say, but can't manage to put into
words is "These devices don't work."
Then there's this:
Security consultant Crispian Cuss at London-based Olive Group said his company prefers using non-lethal evasive maneuvers to elude pirates. But, he said, having armed guards onboard - which his company provides - can be a useful deterrent since pirates were more likely to seek easier prey if they were fired on.
Translation: firearms work. No pirate wants to get shot at while in
an inflatable Zodiac in shark infested waters. Hey look! There's an
unarmed ship. Let's hit that one instead.
See how this works?
Zeb
The occasional pirate ransom may be an acceptable cost of doing
business.
Or the pirates taking the ship entirely? You think that's an
acceptable cost of doing business?
"If someone has a gun and he's onboard your boat, just do what he tells you."
Comforting sentiments. Worked well on 9/11.
The Angry Optimist|4.10.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Seems to me that it's a decision best made by the ships'
owners and insurers, whose views of the risks of being armed -- or
unarmed -- are probably more informed than both Gilbert's and
Tony's.
Ha! I'll remember that next time we talk about affirmative action
or drug tests in the private sector.
Jesse Walker|4.10.09 @ 2:26PM|#
To the extent that it's not a response to a government mandate,
I don't object to affirmative action or drug testing in the private
sector. (I might personally object to taking a drug test,
but I wouldn't ask the state to override a company's right to
request it.)
And yes, I object to any mandates -- or potential bailouts by the
military -- that might distort ship owners' calculations about
arming their boats.
jtuf|4.10.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Regarding the public health campaign against bullying, I think they could of made it work with one small detail. A blue anti-bully wristband combined with a hand gun permit would work rather well.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 2:49PM|#
brotherben, I'm stuck wondering why someone who can pay for utilities and an internet connection can't find a legal home in a utilities-paid efficiency.
robc|4.10.09 @ 2:59PM|#
No thoughts from anyone at all about the squatters
article?
I dont bother with registration required articles.
jtuf|4.10.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Regarding the artical on Somali Pirates, I think respecting fishing rights for Somali fishers and allowing merchant ships to have private security would help. I don't think a withdrawl from Somolia would work. We withdrew in the 1990's and look what happened.
Bronwyn|4.10.09 @ 3:03PM|#
robc... I didn't have to register. Hm. Do I have BugMeNot installed and forgot about it?
|4.10.09 @ 3:08PM|#
Think of the insurance nightmare if one of your crew gets
killed in a gunfight with pirates (not to mention the fact that
someone is now dead).
If you can't take a little bloody nose, go back home and hide under
your bed. The oceans are filled with riches to satiate desires both
subtle and gross, and terrors to freeze the soul. It's not safe out
here, and it's not for the timid.
Paul|4.10.09 @ 4:01PM|#
Oh, and why is piracy so successful in the waters in Somalia.
Blame the French:
"It's a boom and bust economy down there," Peter Lehr, a piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, told me. "The boom started last spring, with the hijacking of this French luxury yacht, Le Ponant, when suddenly these young militiamen realized a $2 million ransom was paid, and that led to a kind of gold rush there."
|4.10.09 @ 4:27PM|#
There's still hope for Scotland when they have leading experts on piracy. Soon swords will be legal again, and Scotland shall have her independence.
tarran|4.10.09 @ 5:40PM|#
Wow, first, I'd like to thank jesse for linking to my post on
the Liberty Papers. I actually thought it was one of my weaker
ones, so am pleasantly surprised to see it linked to.
As to the discussion above, I was pretty impressed by the way
people were arguing out of their asses instead of say, reading what
I wrote, and looking over some of the resources I linked to on the
web. I will, however, provide a short summary:
1) The pirates started out as fishermen. Foreign industrial fishing
boats have plundered the fisheries off the Somali coast to the
point where these fishermen cannot feed their families anymore.
Please note that these guys have a Lockean property right on the
fishing grounds they have homesteaded, and the European and Korean
fishing boats are trespassing and stealing the Somali fishermen's
property.
2) what started out as opportunistic attacks has given rise to a
group of organized crime syndicate much like the mafia, or the
Barbary Coast Pirates. NB, the U.S. Navy earned its chops defeating
the Barbary Coast Pirates and the peace treaty that was signed
after the little punitive expedition is the kind of thing we should
eb shooting for over there.
2) The Ethiopian invasion and subsequent independence fight/civil
war have made earning a living through peaceful commerce far more
difficult. At this point, the only guys doing well are the
aforementioned crime families. Continue U.S. interference isn't
helping. Now that the Ethiopians have declared victory and fled the
country, the Islamists are running the show. Most Somali's see
these guys as locals fighting off foreign aggressors. They will be
discredited if they are left alone.
4) There are private security companies that do provide armed
guards for clients. They are picked up in the Red Sea, and get off
when the ship has exited the danger zone. These guys are, however,
expensive. Moreover, the shipping companies have figured out that a
high speed transit and early maneuvers to make intercepts difficult
are pretty successful at preventing boardings. The problem is quite
manageable.
5) The navies are pretty useless. They tend not to be nearby when
ships call for help (there was even an incident when all the U.S.
ships simultaneously went into port to celebrate some holiday and
the Somalis had a field day going after ships with little
opposition). Sometimes the navies are even destructive, for
example, the Indian Navy attacked and destroyed a Thai fishing boat
that had been captured by pirates, killing all the fishermen
aboard.
Somalia is quite an interesting place and well worth studying. Most
of what we Americans think we know about the place is pretty
wrong.
Paul|4.10.09 @ 7:55PM|#
and looking over some of the resources I linked to on the
web. I will, however, provide a short summary:
This resource was pretty darned interesting:
Good topic Seamarshall, but as you said you are an ex police officer. If weapons were not necessary for good defense why are law enforcement armed? Weapons are needed and with out them organization only gets one so far.
[...]
this topic is for discussion and I would actually prefer to be armed. I am just trying to get other opinions on the matter. the reality is that very few ship owners will allow the weapons on board so the need to have an operational plan that maximizes defense, without firearms is of utmost importance. I am not arguing the fact that firearms would be extremely effective, and of course in the right hands.
Again, the discussion seems to revolve around rules of engagement.
That was my point about the major stumbling block. It'll be easy to
defend against pirates, even with small arms-- but what are the
rules of engagement?
Somalia is quite an interesting place and well worth studying.
Most of what we Americans think we know about the place is pretty
wrong.
I'm not sure what I think about Somalia, beyond the fact that when
you have a nearly lawless frontier with a complete lack of
livlihood, it makes sense that large, wealthy undefended targets
whose protection (naval ships) are hours from responding are going
to make very tempting fodder.
I've been reading on the piracy situation for some months now and
the patterns of attack are all very similar. Most attacks occurring
from the stern are successful because the crew never even knew they
were approached.
I've seen the boats
these pirates use for attack, and I would be scared shitless to be
on board one of these things if someone off the back of a super
tanker started shooting small arms fire at me.
A lot of these pirates, despite their 'heavy arms' are badly
untrained and notoriously poor marksmen.
Also, except for much smaller craft, the standard Soviet-bloc RPG's
these guys are using won't produce much damage.
To wit:
In the other attacks, pirates in two small boats fired RPGs and machine guns for 30 minutes at a Hong Kong container ship but the vessel managed to escape by increasing speed and carrying out evasive maneuvers.
An hour later, the brigands fired at a Greek bulk carrier but aborted the attempt after the ship took anti-piracy measures, including evasive maneuvers, he said.
PROTIP|4.10.09 @ 8:33PM|#
Morphine is much more effective injected than swallowed.Snorting morphine is a waste of time, you can't absorb ms through your mucous membranes.
tarran|4.11.09 @ 9:39AM|#
I don't think a withdrawl from Somolia would work. We withdrew in the 1990's and look what happened.
Their GDP per capita and life expectancy improved? There was a
marked decrease in violence both internally and externally?
Yeah. god forbid that we permit that to happen... :)
economist|4.11.09 @ 9:33PM|#
"I don't think a withdrawl from Somolia would work. We withdrew
in the 1990's and look what happened.
Their GDP per capita and life expectancy improved? There was a
marked decrease in violence both internally and externally?"
Damn you and your facts, tarran! How can we summon up righteous
indignation at the inaction of the U.S. government, shirking its
proper role policeman of the world, if you bring up these
things!
Gilbert Martin|4.12.09 @ 10:43PM|#
"Gilbert seems to be forgetting a little thing called highly
flammable vapor."
I wonder how it is that those WW2 Essex class aircraft carriers
that were chock full of oil, aviation gas and muntitions didn't
immediately blow themselves up the first time they ever fired any
of the anti-aircraft guns installed on them?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245