When I saw the headline "Somali pirates vow revenge." my first thought was: Are you kidding? What's to avenge. The pirates started this. Other people were just defending themselves and now the pirates are the ones who seek revenge.
However, as the saying goes, there are two sides to everything. The pirates' view is, I guess, that since they hadn't killed anyone, then they had no expectation that anyone had any right to kill them in defending themselves from the pirates.
But is that a reasoned argument? Afterall, the pirates did use force in taking their captives. They fired bullets and rocket propelled grenades at the boats. Perhaps they were just lucky that no one had been killed yet. When Capt. Philipps had briefly escaped from them and was swimming away, they didn't just let him go. They made him get back in the boat. What would they have done if he had kept swimming? Would they have let him go or have shot and killed him? It was only the threat of arms that enabled them to accomplish what they did accomplish. It seems to me that it was the pirates who raised the stakes to the lethal level the moment they introduced firearms into the picture. With that introduction, it was inevitable that someone, on one side or the other, was going to be hurt or killed eventually. Now it has happened, and the pirates are the ones who feel the need to seek revenge. Incredible!!
Deaths caused by illegal dumping of toxic wastes on somalia's coast=300+
Deaths caused by pirates, taken in action to rid themselves of foreign nations dumping on their coast and stealing their resources=0
so which is the worser crime, i do not justify the actions of pirates, but condemning and not taking into account the reasons why piracy even began is ignorant
Deaths caused by illegal dumping of toxic wastes on somalia's coast=300+
Deaths caused by pirates, taken in action to rid themselves of foreign nations dumping on their coast and stealing their resources=0
so which is the worser crime, i do not justify the actions of pirates, but condemning and not taking into account the reasons why piracy even began is ignorant
salaam
Does one determine the morality of an action by the number of people some other group may or may not have brought harm to?
The Somali pirates have vowed to take revenge not on the toxic waste dumpers, but on others who have simply sought to defend themselves from their criminal acts. Should American Indians attack Spain, France, and Great Britian because of what those European powers did in their history? Would those horrendous acts justify crimes against people simply trying to make a peaceful and legal living in those countries today? You say you don't justify the actions of the pirates, but it sure does sound like you are trying to excuse them, and I can't tell a whole lot of difference between those two points from what you have written.
Grace Seeker-Does one determine the morality of an action by the number of people some other group may or may not have brought harm to?
The Somali pirates have vowed to take revenge not on the toxic waste dumpers, but on others who have simply sought to defend themselves from their criminal acts. the very reason piracy even began in the horn was because of certain nations illegally fishing and illegally dumping on somalia's coast and these men in the beginning were fisherman who were forced to take up arms to defend themselves and their waters. did they become greedy later on? yes, but like i said before condemning them without taking into account the reason pirating even began in the first place is ignorant. piracy is a crime but so is illegal dumping and fishing, why should they be expected to be moral?
especially when they they have been complaining to the rest of the world for the past 20 yrs and the rest of the world chose to ignore them until piracy became such a big issue.
Should American Indians attack Spain, France, and Great Britian because of what those European powers did in their history? if the american indians were still being massacred and purposely being infected with diseases they were not immune to etc. than they would have every right to attack and defend themselves, should they do it today? no because although the native people don't have it that great the main crimes they were subjected to happened almost 100 years ago and taking action against those countries generations after those atrocities took place would not make sense.
Would those horrendous acts justify crimes against people simply trying to make a peaceful and legal living in those countries today? read above, illegal dumping and fishing isn't history, it still goes on to this very day.
You say you don't justify the actions of the pirates, but it sure does sound like you are trying to excuse them, and I can't tell a whole lot of difference between those two points from what you have written.
i do not justify their actions but i won't condemn them until the international community chooses to condemn their own actions, and stop illegal dumping and illegal fishing that has caused irreparable damage to somalia's coast and the deaths of 100's of somali people.
Grace Seeker-Does one determine the morality of an action by the number of people some other group may or may not have brought harm to?
The Somali pirates have vowed to take revenge not on the toxic waste dumpers, but on others who have simply sought to defend themselves from their criminal acts. the very reason piracy even began in the horn was because of certain nations illegally fishing and illegally dumping on somalia's coast and these men in the beginning were fisherman who were forced to take up arms to defend themselves and their waters. did they become greedy later on? yes, but like i said before condemning them without taking into account the reason pirating even began in the first place is ignorant. piracy is a crime but so is illegal dumping and fishing, why should they be expected to be moral?
especially when they they have been complaining to the rest of the world for the past 20 yrs and the rest of the world chose to ignore them until piracy became such a big issue.
Should American Indians attack Spain, France, and Great Britian because of what those European powers did in their history? if the american indians were still being massacred and purposely being infected with diseases they were not immune to etc. than they would have every right to attack and defend themselves, should they do it today? no because although the native people don't have it that great the main crimes they were subjected to happened almost 100 years ago and taking action against those countries generations after those atrocities took place would not make sense.
Would those horrendous acts justify crimes against people simply trying to make a peaceful and legal living in those countries today? read above, illegal dumping and fishing isn't history, it still goes on to this very day.
You say you don't justify the actions of the pirates, but it sure does sound like you are trying to excuse them, and I can't tell a whole lot of difference between those two points from what you have written.
i do not justify their actions but i won't condemn them until the international community chooses to condemn their own actions, and stop illegal dumping and illegal fishing that has caused irreparable damage to somalia's coast and the deaths of 100's of somali people.
^Certified somali..........and this post confirms it
i do not justify their actions but i won't condemn them until the international community chooses to condemn their own actions, and stop illegal dumping and illegal fishing that has caused irreparable damage to somalia's coast and the deaths of 100's of somali people.
I have no problem condemning both sets of actions -- illegal dumping and piracy. In fact it isn't even piracy, for the most part it is just plain kidnapping, and that at gunpoint.
I have no problem condemning both sets of actions -- illegal dumping and piracy. In fact it isn't even piracy, for the most part it is just plain kidnapping, and that at gunpoint.
so what do you call the invader US forces in Iraq?
and do you condemn them?
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
Does one determine the morality of an action by the number of people some other group may or may not have brought harm to?
The Somali pirates have vowed to take revenge not on the toxic waste dumpers, but on others who have simply sought to defend themselves from their criminal acts. Should American Indians attack Spain, France, and Great Britian because of what those European powers did in their history? Would those horrendous acts justify crimes against people simply trying to make a peaceful and legal living in those countries today? You say you don't justify the actions of the pirates, but it sure does sound like you are trying to excuse them, and I can't tell a whole lot of difference between those two points from what you have written.
The gist of it all is that dual morality on International Relations applies here. There is one set of morals for domestic consumption, but there is another for the anarchic world out there. Be as it may, morality - under Islamic which is less condemning in this instance and the bogged-down western one - are irrelevant. Anyone with rudimentary understanding of this scandalous saga would appreciate these words, retold in st. St. Augustine's Pirate story:
’For the same reason you infest the earth; but because I do it with a little ship, I’m called pirate; because you do it with a big fleet you’re called emperor’”.
If you can't get the basis of these words then perhaps there's a need for revision.
And in what ways did a ship bringing supplies to Kenyan and Somalian refugees represent those who the fisherman of Somali had a grievance against?
The US has played a fundamental role in destabilising Somalia and entrusting it to the callous warlords whose years of ruinous feuding have rendered Somalia perhaps the most anarchic state on the planet. Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown by an alliance of warlords with fervent American support. The planners in the US knew what the result of that would be and when one of the warlords, Mohamed Farah Aideed, was deemed a "deviant" by the US, it sparked their 1993 intervention.
The people who have been coerced into piracy today, are doing so out of desperation. They are living in abject misery and poverty, the result of a failed state with no effective central government for 18 years, which means no education, health, social systems and policies thereby deprieving people of opportunities that every human being should be entitled to.
Today, international opinion works perfectly in sync with the intentions of US planners and propagandists who will obviously ascribe the chaotic situation that they engineered many years ago, to Al Qa'ida.
Does one determine the morality of an action by the number of people some other group may or may not have brought harm to?
The Somali pirates have vowed to take revenge not on the toxic waste dumpers, but on others who have simply sought to defend themselves from their criminal acts. Should American Indians attack Spain, France, and Great Britian because of what those European powers did in their history? Would those horrendous acts justify crimes against people simply trying to make a peaceful and legal living in those countries today? You say you don't justify the actions of the pirates, but it sure does sound like you are trying to excuse them, and I can't tell a whole lot of difference between those two points from what you have written.
Classic specious response your post is; clever but misleading. These innocent people trying to earn a living are a vivid manifestation of US hegemony. That should be understood carefully and objectively. While it is wrong to attack the crew of these ships, it is important to note that they are plying waters in a region that the West has systematically undermined, subverted and flung into mayhem.
If the US in particular is keen to avert further acts of piracy, then they should perhaps begin by paying reparations for the chaos and bloodshed that they prompted by supporting servile and repressive warlords who killed their own people. They should recognise facts, key among them that the Islamic Courts and Al Shabaab are the de facto government today, although there is scant hope of that happening.
If they couldn't bring themselves to recognise Hamas as the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, they won't even remotely contemplate recognising Al Shabaab and the Islamic Courts, the very same organisation that in 6 months managed to stabilise a nation that was characterized by anarchic mayhem for 18 years.
Piracy cannot be solved by deploying warships, you have to come up with a political solution, not a military one, and until the neo-imperialists cease their bellicose posturing, this cannot be achieved.
while i'm not crazy about the source, this is a very interesting piece:
You Are Being Lied to About Pirates
Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on their side.
Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.
Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.
The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young British man called William Scott - should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live." In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."
At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."
This is the context in which the men we are calling "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would understand those words.
No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America's founding fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?
Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.
The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here. or here.
POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get the idea. These events are happening in different places - but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals, and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.
source: can't get link to work, Huffington Post
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies.
There you go. Buried within all the smoke and mirrors is the truth. Hostage taking is not justifialbe. Those that do it are just gangsters.
I think Somalli has a case on all of the rest, but that doesn't change the nature of the actions of those who took hostages and where shot while actively engaged in that crime. For those people to claim that they are going to seek revenge is preposterous.
For the Somalii people to seek reparations against the companies that are involved in the other, also illegal, activity I fully understand and support. And if they get no response, then I could even understand while Somalia might declare war on those nations that sanction this. But these individuals who are themselves criminals have no standing on which to claim that they are seeking revenge simply because they played a dangerous game and lost -- it was inevitable and they brought it on themselves.
There you go. Buried within all the smoke and mirrors is the truth. Hostage taking is not justifialbe. Those that do it are just gangsters.
I think Somalli has a case on all of the rest, but that doesn't change the nature of the actions of those who took hostages and where shot while actively engaged in that crime. For those people to claim that they are going to seek revenge is preposterous.
For the Somalii people to seek reparations against the companies that are involved in the other, also illegal, activity I fully understand and support. And if they get no response, then I could even understand while Somalia might declare war on those nations that sanction this. But these individuals who are themselves criminals have no standing on which to claim that they are seeking revenge simply because they played a dangerous game and lost -- it was inevitable and they brought it on themselves.
In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."
you read all that and the most important thing to you and your "Christian" values is that some some people are inconvenienced or perhaps relieved of some currency?
is that what 3 gods does to you? are you REALLY your brothers keeper? do you think that Jesus "loves everybody" except those that Caucasian/Western Imperialists are currently raping/pillaging/plundering/murdering/taking advantage of?
must be the "Christian" "Crusader" in you, eh?
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
you read all that and the most important thing to you and your "Christian" values is that some some people are inconvenienced or perhaps relieved of some currency?
First people were not just inconvenienced. They were threatened. They were shot at. They were robbed. They were kidnapped. Their very lives were endangered. You're trying to live in a world where one criminal act gives license to another criminal act, and I don't buy into it.
Second, I didn't say it was the most important thing. But it is the only thing in what you wrote that is actually relevant to this particular thread.
Third, you want to start a thread on the criminality of those who dumped nuclear wasts in Somali waters, please, go right ahead. I've already made comment that I agree that such actions are also wrong, even criminal in behavior, and worthy of Somalia trying to defend itself. But the way they have done so is not in keeping with people who wish to be heard as defending themselves, for they are not attacking those who have harmed them, they are attacking the most convenient target. It is like a person who has been wronged by one set of neighbors, and in response lashes out at every other neighbor. Having been wronged by one person does not make it right to themselves wrong another, and no amount of saying how poorly they have been treated changes the wrongs themselves are doing to somehow be seen as right.
The actions of these pirates have nothing to do with nuclear waste. They gain reputation in their communities by sacking and pillaging ships. It is like the Wild West in the U.S. To pose the theory that the piracy that goes on off Somali waters is due to waste dumpage is laughable at best. They represent nothing and noone except themselves and their particular criminal element.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
First people were not just inconvenienced. They were threatened. They were shot at. They were robbed. They were kidnapped. Their very lives were endangered. You're trying to live in a world where one criminal act gives license to another criminal act, and I don't buy into it.
Second, I didn't say it was the most important thing. But it is the only thing in what you wrote that is actually relevant to this particular thread.
Third, you want to start a thread on the criminality of those who dumped nuclear wasts in Somali waters, please, go right ahead. I've already made comment that I agree that such actions are also wrong, even criminal in behavior, and worthy of Somalia trying to defend itself. But the way they have done so is not in keeping with people who wish to be heard as defending themselves, for they are not attacking those who have harmed them, they are attacking the most convenient target. It is like a person who has been wronged by one set of neighbors, and in response lashes out at every other neighbor. Having been wronged by one person does not make it right to themselves wrong another, and no amount of saying how poorly they have been treated changes the wrongs themselves are doing to somehow be seen as right.
How do you propose they go about it? in a legal manner
How do you propose they go about it? in a legal manner
Well, it sounds like it is common ordinary business that have violate Somalian waters and could be tried, either in Somalia, in the country where they do business, or in the World Court. But it would be the action of the Somalian government to do this, not some thugs who have proclaimed themselves sheriff of the high seas.
Now, maybe, that is not doable. Maybe the lack of a functioning government in Somalia prevents them from seeking redress. If that is so, then it seems to me that these people who are so willing to go on the high seas in the name of seeking justice have their violence pointed in the wrong direction. If they were really concerned about the Somalian people, they would be opposing the war lords of their own country who effectively prevent the government from functioning. The Somalian government would be in a much better position than some rogue pirates to demand action be taken by the international community. The pirates will be seen for just what they are, pirates and nothing more. They are not coast guard by any stretch of the imagination, thus far the only thing they have shown a propensity to protect is the lining of their own pockets, and they don't seem to care who they attack to line it. A real coast guard goes after only those who are violating their coast; I hardly think that these aid ships fit that description. That the pirates don't seem to care tells me all I need to know about their true character.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks