SEALS 3, Pirates 0

[Raellus]

Well, that's the end of that. Hopefully, the pirates don't decide to escalate. I can't say that I feel very sorry for them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy

I'd love to know what kind of gear the SEAL snipers used. Someone told me that the lifeboat was only about 35m off the fantail of the destroyer. What were the pirates thinking? I wonder how the SEALs would rate that shot: moving platform, moving target, pretty close range.

If you find any more detailed reports or images, please post the links here.

This whole Horn of Africa piracy thing is making me think about a possible Merc campaign...

[Matt Wiser]

All the media reports say that SEAL snipers saw three head shots and the DDG's skipper told them to take the shots. Most likely weapons were the SR-25 rifle, called the Mk 11 Mod 0 in Navy service. Once the bodies were photo'd, fingerprinted, and DNA taken, they ought to be fed to the sharks.

[Grimace]

To coin a phrase from the movie "The Wind and the Lion": Peticaris alive or Raizuli dead.

YEAH!!

I really didn't want to see the U.S. do negotations with the pirates. Bad precedence. This sends a much clearer message. Don't mess with U.S. ships!

[Targan]

Excellent. This story brings joy to my heart. Glad the US freighter captain wasn't harmed. Glad that those bastard pirates got what was coming to them. Yay USN SEALs I say. I'm glad we're on the same side.

[pmulcahy11b]

GIGN did the same thing the other day with a French freighter, but one hostage got killed in the process.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Someone told me that the lifeboat was only about 35m off the fantail of the destroyer. What were the pirates thinking?

The destroyer was towing the lifeboat to get it out of approaching rough weather.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

GIGN did the same thing the other day with a French freighter, but one hostage got killed in the process.

Actually I believe it was a sailboat, not a freighter with two families on board. Which brings the question of why they'd cruise that area.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Actually I believe it was a sailboat, not a freighter with two families on board. Which brings the question of why they'd cruise that area.

They were warned a few days before by a French frigate on anti-piracy patrol not to continue their planned voyage to Zanzibar but they ignored the advice. I believe they were quoted as saying something like "We can't let the threat of pirates control our lives". Harsh way to learn a lesson.

[Adm.Lee]

Regarding a Merc campaign: someone suggested that a leased freighter with a helipad be parked at each end of the "pirate zone." Station a company of Marines (or equivalent) on each of these, and every time a ship enters the "pirate zone," they pick up a squad. When they leave, they transfer it back to the barracks ship at the other end.

I like it.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

GIGN did the same thing the other day with a French freighter, but one hostage got killed in the process.

It was not the GIGN but the navy commando (commando Hubert). Too bad one of the hostage was killed but these people had been stupid. Unlike commercial shipping they could have been elsewhere or, at least, they could have turned around. I understand that one wants to pursue his dream but in that case and despite warnings by the french navy they continued in the area and, of course, it turned sour. That ship had 4 people on board plus a 3 years old kid. That's the kid father (and ship's captain) who was killed but it could have turned worse for him: he could have survived while his kid could have been killed.

I'm glad that the US captain got away unarmed, however.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

They were warned a few days before by a French frigate on anti-piracy patrol not to continue their planned voyage to Zanzibar but they ignored the advice. I believe they were quoted as saying something like "We can't let the threat of pirates control our lives". Harsh way to learn a lesson.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. These people were die hard ecologist/survivalist or whatever similar (sort of) who wanted to get away from our perverted world. From what I understand, they underestimated the threat, considering that the situation was overexagerated by governments. Therefore, they chose to ignore the warnings.

I can understand they made that choice, however, i don't understand they included their 3 years old kid in it. As a result, the kid has lost his father and it's indeed an harsh way to learn a lesson.

The worse is that (currently) part of the media and part of the politicians are trying to hold the soldiers responsible for it. IMO, these people hold full responsibility. On the bright sight, the victim's father thanks the french troops. So far, he has been the only one to do it fully.

[Eddie]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

IMO, these people hold full responsibility.

Who? The French sailors that didn't illegally detain French citizens in international waters (I'm presuming that one, yes)?

Had they done that, the people would have cried to the media, "Oh, the military wouldn't let us do this..." and I'd wager that everyone trying to lay blame on those sailors would be laying blame the other way.

What about blaming the damned pirates that committed the illegal action instead of the military? Why can't it be their faults since they're the ones who actually took hostages.

I don't know. It just seems more logical to blame the bad guys, not the good guys, even if they are French.

[kato13]

In general the media will only blame those who they can change out of embarrassment or by swaying the public to demand change within an institution.

Therefore they had two options in the French situation. Blame the people on the boat or blame the armed forces. Given how I read the biases of bulk of the media that would be an obvious choice.

Unfortunately putting "blame" on the pirates would not lead to the "change" that the media loves to pat itself on the back for. This is why soldiers taking a picture of naked prisoners is viewed significantly more harshly than a terrorist cutting off someone's head.

An outraged media might actually be able to effect change within a formal military structure, but since they have no effect on terrorist or pirate activities, the media does not consider railing against them to be worth the breath it would require.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Who? The French sailors that didn't illegally detain French citizens in international waters (I'm presuming that one, yes)?

Had they done that, the people would have cried to the media, "Oh, the military wouldn't let us do this..." and I'd wager that everyone trying to lay blame on those sailors would be laying blame the other way.

What about blaming the damned pirates that committed the illegal action instead of the military? Why can't it be their faults since they're the ones who actually took hostages.

I don't know. It just seems more logical to blame the bad guys, not the good guys, even if they are French.

I'm not sure I'm getting everything here. Anyway as I'm french, I might be blaming some among us but not the military.

The current issue (in the french medias) is about the ostage's death who might have been killed by friendly fire (Oops, too bad if it's the case but he has done everything possible for this to happen). Moreover, the medias and politics are not always being the wisest in these cases.

Of course, you are to blame pirates (no question about that). However, in that specific case, the former ostages are to be blamed as well and for several reasons.
- They assumed they were smarter than anyone else, including the military.
- They chose to ignore what was reported (weekly on the media).
- They chose to ignore direct warnings or at least minimize them.
- They had an other possible route : If a commercial ship has to go that way (for obvious economical reasons) that was not their case. They were going away to live another life, fine, but they could have done so by travelling through the cape of good hope (especially true when you start your trip from the Finistère). That's not without danger as piracy is increasing near Cameroon... Still it's safer.
- They needlessly put their kid in danger (as a father, I just can't get that one).
- They needlesly put the troopers life in danger as well.
- Last, they are costing France (and all the french) a hell f... amount of money that could be best invested elsewhere: In more patrol, in better protection of international shipping in that area...

IMO, they are like those people climbing mountains without proper training and equipments. I'm glad when someone save them but I find them responsible and don't care at all if they don't survive. I think that they should be accounted responsible for their own choices. It's too easy to declare that you don't care about anything and then count on others to save your butt. Ok, the guy is dead but, damn it, he has done everything in his power to end up that way and that doesn't make him any better. In that specific case, I'm only glad for the three years old kid and for his grand parents. I'm also sad for that kid because he will have to deal with the fact that his father died as a jerk! I'm also glad that none of our commandos were wounded. I'm not going to be politically correct on that one but, in that matter, if someone deserved to be killed (outside the pirates of course), it was that guy.

By the way, these former ostages have not been complaining and their family has been the first to thank our soldiers (you have to grant them credit for that).

[Eddie]

Okay, you two are missing what I said and I said what I did because I misinterpreted Mohoender's direct object of who he holds responsible. Kato, I wasn't talking about the media, I was talking about Mo's sentence that he holds them responsible, to paraphrase.

I know all about the media. Thanks for the lesson though.

That being said, I agree with you Mohoender, I place blame on the victims. I was just going to defend the sailors because in the media world, most people are quick and satisfied to blame everything on the military and I'm defensive of that.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Eddie

I was just going to defend the sailors because in the media world, most people are quick and satisfied to blame everything on the military and I'm defensive of that.

Full understand your defensiveness. I don't often interject my real world opinions into this forum but I am fully on your side on that one (as I believe most here are).

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kato13

Full understand your defensiveness. I don't often interject my real world opinions into this forum but I am fully on your side on that one (as I believe most here are).

Agreed. The French Naval Commandos did a good job. Any kind of hostage rescue operation is very tricky, even moreso when it is done on the water. It has not yet been determined whose bullet killed the French civilian. Could well have been a pirate that shot the poor bugger, out of spite.

[Legbreaker]

Hostage rescues in general are NASTY with casualties almost guarenteed in many cases.

Been rereading my Special Operations book and last night the airplane hostage scenario in particular. It struck me then that even with the terrorist armed with only light weapons, chances were that a number of hostages, if not the entry team themselves, were going to get well and truely toasted unless they came up with something amazing.

Even feeding something like a sleeping gas into the plane probably wouldn't work, since the moment they realised something was wrong, they'd simply open up.

So, not knowing the details of the French operation, I can still understand just how easy it is for a stray bullet (let alone an aimed one) to cause untold grief. It's a miracle and testament to the SF training and skill that more aren't killed every time they have to make an entry.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Eddie

Okay, you two are missing what I said and I said what I did because I misinterpreted Mohoender's direct object of who he holds responsible. Kato, I wasn't talking about the media, I was talking about Mo's sentence that he holds them responsible, to paraphrase.

I know all about the media. Thanks for the lesson though.

That being said, I agree with you Mohoender, I place blame on the victims. I was just going to defend the sailors because in the media world, most people are quick and satisfied to blame everything on the military and I'm defensive of that.

Now I understand as well. Sorry I might have not been clear enough. I'm not holding the media responsible (and I'm only talking about the french ones) but I'm surely criticizing them. However, my point was only about the victims as you now understand. To make a parallel, the US captain did his best to protect his crew, the french one did his best to put his in danger.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

Agreed. The French Naval Commandos did a good job. Any kind of hostage rescue operation is very tricky, even moreso when it is done on the water. It has not yet been determined whose bullet killed the French civilian. Could well have been a pirate that shot the poor bugger, out of spite.

Fully agree. Currently, the french have a tendancy to look for responsibility first. That was done in that case and that was done when we lost 10 soldiers in Afghanistan. They jump to conclusions before hand. Saddly it's equally true for our politicians and governments. Hopefully, I have the feeling that it is not the case anymore with the population. As a result, we distrust our medias and our politicians.

[Caradhras]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

we distrust our medias and our politicians.

Always wise in my opinion!

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Caradhras

Always wise in my opinion!

Right but, at some point, it might just be a little too much.