On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:44:26 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

If Obama wanted to, he could stop this overnight...

The problem predates the current administration, no reason to
politicize the discussion.

Not trying to politicize anything, Obama is the one who can stop it
"now". When Bush was in, I had the same feeling, in fact I am sure I
noted it here.

The loss of 4 lives, fellow boaters, is a tragic event - no question
about it.

If you were president how would you rank it on a scale of national
priorities compared to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, terrorism, Iran,
the economic crisis, the impending food and energy crisis, etc. ??

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:13:36 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

If Obama wanted to, he could stop this overnight...

The problem predates the current administration, no reason to
politicize the discussion.

I would venture to say that piracy is the second oldest profession.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.

Exactly. Give me a few weeks with the tapes and "I" could probably tell
you who is in a fishing pattern, and who is in a "surveillance"
pattern. A few bucks to a few local fisherman, and you would know
exactly where the fishing areas are, as opposed to the "staging" areas
too.

On 23/02/2011 10:39 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.

Exactly. Give me a few weeks with the tapes and "I" could probably tell
you who is in a fishing pattern, and who is in a "surveillance"
pattern. A few bucks to a few local fisherman, and you would know
exactly where the fishing areas are, as opposed to the "staging" areas
too.

Good possibility they do both, fish and pirate at the same time. Then
just sink them.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:07:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.

I agree, but I think Wayne has a good point.. in the scheme of things,
it seems pretty low priority. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but
these people clearly knew the risks. I believe they were warned more
than once.

On Feb 24, 7:32*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:27:29 -0800, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:07:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. *There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.

I agree, but I think Wayne has a good point.. in the scheme of things,
it seems pretty low priority. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but
these people clearly knew the risks. I believe they were warned more
than once.

It will be a low priority until they take a super tanker. Best case is
it is just a huge ransom, worst case, an Exxon Valdez sized (or
greater) oil spill somewhere they decide would cause the most trouble.

They already have. Two of them just very recently

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...l-tanker-haul/

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:32:04 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:27:29 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:07:08 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.

I agree, but I think Wayne has a good point.. in the scheme of things,
it seems pretty low priority. Not saying it shouldn't be done, but
these people clearly knew the risks. I believe they were warned more
than once.

It will be a low priority until they take a super tanker. Best case is
it is just a huge ransom, worst case, an Exxon Valdez sized (or
greater) oil spill somewhere they decide would cause the most trouble.

Until? That ship, umm... has sailed. I believe it was $100M ransom.

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.


Reply:
I think we are only going to put a halt to the piracy when we sacrifice a
few hundred hostages held in Somalia and drop some huge conventional bombs
on the home areas of the pirates. Let god sort out who gets to go to heaven
and who goes elsewhere. Make the penalty huge for piracy. We will not do
it because of the collateral damage but that is probably one of the only
ways to stop the pirates. Most of the ones we kill are minor players. Not
the chiefs who are taking 80% of the ransom. Or figure out who the chiefs
are and destroy there home area.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:28:57 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:27:14 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

Didn't it happen in the Indian Ocean, thousands of square miles?
That's my understanding. There are hundreds if not thousands of
fishing boats out there, all looking a lot alike.

I think we have theater surveillance capability sufficient to plot and
track a lot of vessels. Once the operators get a feel for watching
them I bet they can profile out the mother ships pretty quick and
spend most of the effort watching them.

It certainly can't be much harder than tracking terrorists in the
wilds of Pakistan. These ships can't really hide in a cave and come
out somewhere else.


Reply:
I think we are only going to put a halt to the piracy when we sacrifice a
few hundred hostages held in Somalia and drop some huge conventional bombs
on the home areas of the pirates. Let god sort out who gets to go to heaven
and who goes elsewhere. Make the penalty huge for piracy. We will not do
it because of the collateral damage but that is probably one of the only
ways to stop the pirates. Most of the ones we kill are minor players. Not
the chiefs who are taking 80% of the ransom. Or figure out who the chiefs
are and destroy there home area.

So, it's ok to kill a bunch of innocent civilians? I guess there's no
reason to believe that most of these pirates are just acting out of
economic reality. The ultimate solution is a better economy in the
region.

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In om,
says...

In article933d9a82-a0c4-4a54-9c0f-733d53524607
@m7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com, says...

is that they are possible going to bring children (future buccaneers)
with them as innocent human shields. Shag a couple boats loaded with
the just and the unjust alike and sooner or later the world court[s]
will hear about it and then condemnation will hit like the swarms of
Egypt.

Is a 14 year old holding an AK-47 on a pirate ship the same as a 14 year
old holding a Glock at the gas station?

It doesn't make any sense. We know the DOD monitors every inch of the
gulf, they surely must know which mother ship a skiff came from. As to
the "world courts", if you vaporize the mother ship and skiffs, there
will be nothing left for court

If Obama wanted to, he could stop this overnight...

He could have closed Gitmo, too. Wasn't that his first promise?