Caano Geel Posted January 26, 2006 So there are numerous recent stories of somali pirates hijacking and looting ships off the somali coast, the lastest i read earlier is the release of four Taiwanese fishing boats.. Now the likelyhood is that these boats are illegally fishing off the coast and environmentalists report the whole sale destruction of coral through barbaric the methods modern fishing techniques. So given the state of afairs, there is a valid argument i beleive to support these pirates since fear of them is probably the only thing keeping fishing trawlers from completely destroying the coastal waters and life they support. In fat they are the closest thing we have to a navy. That does not mean they acting alturistically to protect the waters, but at least in seaking their own interests they are proving a severly lacking and needed service. So is it time to say 'support your local pirates' to keep the remaining fish on our coast. what do you guys and gals think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeniceri Posted January 26, 2006 Are you referring to the same pirates who held hostage U.N. aid ships full of food destined for poor and dying Somalis? These pirates are looking out for their own selfish interests and could care less for the environmental hazards being caused by commericial ships, who continue to dump toxic waste on Somalia's shores. Plus, some of these pirates have working connections with Somalia's various warlords - so why would I believe they're upto any good? (i.e. Isn't it strange that piracy in Somali waters spiked in 2005 and then a $50 million contract was signed between the TFG and an American security firm?) We'll regret the destruction of our shores one day. But I simply don't see sea pirates as a "navy" for Somalia - they're terrorists, on the same level as the warlords and the foreign fishing vessels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Caano Geel Posted January 26, 2006 Dude though the UN hijacking is regretable, if m,y memory serves me correctly the TXG signed the $50 'i dont quite understand where its gonna get it from' million deal was a direct result of UN ship being hijacked, not the pther way round. Further the reason there is no one there 'protecting' may have something to do with there being no money to pay for it with. that aside, isnt a navy the acting on the self interest of a givernment and isnt this quite often ummm murky my friend? -- i think possibly the one way to think of them is as entrepreneurial navy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedSea Posted January 26, 2006 Assalamu Calaykum, Ahh? What did you say? I swear to God, I have no idea what you just refer to. With all due respect, I have to say I didn't understand a single sentence that you have written. Therefore, I have nothing to really respond to here at all. Assalamu Calaykum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Animal Farm Posted January 27, 2006 At least they’re keeping illegal ships from our coastline – we don’t want anymore hazardous dumping – we don’t want to have many more babies with being born with deficiencies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dhimbil Posted January 28, 2006 Originally posted by Yeniceri: and then a $50 million contract was signed between the TFG and an American security firm?) ^I thought that contract was dissolved, is it still on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites