-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/pirate_attack_on_us_ship_may_have_been_terror_plot -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
But poor weapons, no real damage, etc. means that they were not the team A terrorists.
But the loot off a cruise ship would be decent. Modern equipment to strip, nice hostages, personal loot, etc. But one would need time to strip the ship and passagers.
Not like taking over an oil ship or a small boat.
Good for the ship that it did have some sort of defensive weapons.
Is the crew armed in any other way?
This&That
A couple of 50 calibers would be a nice defense. Even single shot 50s would have disabled the attackers vessels. It is a lot easier to hijack a defensless cruise ship than it would be an airplane these days.
It's time to arm pilots and cruise ships.
Besides, who said that Somoli pirates were the smartest in the world?
Err... that's not really obvious though, is it? You've just jumped to a conclusion from a premise.
Your logic runs -
'Because X (a cruise ship being hijacked) would be a good result for a particular terrorist group, it is clear a that terrorist group did it.'
Unfortunately you need something called evidence, not just a motive.
ter·ror·ist Audio pronunciation of "terrorist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj.
Of or relating to terrorist.
Source: Dictionary.com
Askoxford.com describes it as: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
And dictionary.com has a second definition as an adj: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Still, a terrorist is one who employs terrorism which is defined as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
So... while I may have been a little too broad in my definition, you could still apply these definitions to many different people who are not linked to "terrorist" groups. In fact, you could label the Paris rioters at terrorists if you so chose. As well as the "actions of our government vis-a-vis the war on terror in general, and the Iraq war specifically".
I support the War in Iraq. For reasons that I have clearly announced before. That doesn't mean that we haven't caused terror in some Iraqi citizens and it doesn't mean that it was lawful or not for political gains. So yeah, you could call it a terrorist action, but who's gonna defend your country if we don't engage in a little terrorist action now and again? And secondly, who's definition of "lawful" action do we use? And who's laws?
As I said, and as you agreed, your initial defintion was overly broad. Which is important, since the crux of your comment was based on that very notion, that terroists were those who simply caused terror, it's not just a minor quibble. My point through all of this is that they may be terrorists, but they equally well may be simply pirates. I wouldn't jump to the terrorist conclusion based on what is fairly thin evidence.
*I am fully aware that is a silly example.
Given the insane amount of arms and ammo in that part of the world, getting hold of an RPG or two is no big deal. And the typical cruise ship has, what, 2,000 passengers on it? That's a lot of Rolex's and diamond bracelets, and no small amount of cash. So piracy would by no means be a far-fetched motivation for these folks.
On the other hand, a cruise ship is a giant - I mean HUGE - target compared to what 99.9% of the rest of the world's pirates usually pursue. Then there's a whole raft (pun intended) of practical questions: How did they expect to physcially get up into the cruise ship itself? How much loot did they really expect to be able to haul away in those little whaler-style boats? One could go on and on; the point is that an equally-strong might be made that this was terrorist in nature.
Anybody got any other thoughts?
First, BodaciousCowboy, the article clearly states that there were only about 300 passengers and crew, which would have been presumed unarmed. Thus, easy to herd into one big dining area and take hostage (and loot a la the restaurant scene in Pulp Fiction) while the rest of the pirate crew ransacked the ship. Any rope ladder and grappling hook will get you up onto the deck of a cruise ship, especially a relatively small one like this. They would expect the guests to be carrying cash and jewelry, and there would be a safe onboard somewhere for disbursing the crew's wages. Not to mention stealing booze from the bars ;).
This also isn't as "big" a target as you might think. Oil tankers and cargo ships are routinely hit by pirates in the straits of Malaysia. Those really huge container and tanker ships only carry a crew of about a dozen people sometimes. The pirates board, steal the safe/cash, and leave.
As for getting away with it, a cruise ship's max speed is probably around 15 knots. An old speedboat could probably do at least 25-30. In the open water, you can lose all contact in a hurry.
Amen.
"did the crew have weapons?"
boat was equipt with high tech untrasonic weapon - deafens attackers but not occupants on ship.
http://www.atcsd.com/lrad.html
best, M/