Pirates Ye Be Warned!
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| 'Pirate' death puts spotlight on 'guns for hire' |
| 2010-03-25 |
| Posted by:Oscar |
| #15 Pirates Ye Be Warned! |
| Posted by: Jolump the Wide5539 2010-03-25 17:43 |
| #14 Have gun, will travel unmolested. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-03-25 12:33 |
| #13 Charlie Daniels approves of how the BBC wants these guys to be taken care of.  |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-03-25 12:09 |
| #12 "But no ship with an armed guard has been hijacked…” It sure is nice of the BBC to bury that little nugget halfway through their article. Apparently, their editors believe stories of piracy aren’t compelling enough. Maybe that’s why they felt the need to base their article on innuendos of hair trigger mercenaries and non-existent legal conflicts. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2010-03-25 11:19 |
| #11 But... but.... wounded pirates make such fun shark chum... The BBC has no sense of fun... |
| Posted by: 3dc 2010-03-25 10:43 |
| #10 Hey, there may be a way to finance my health care and retirement. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-03-25 10:43 |
| #9 Seems to me, the best way to make sure this never happens again is to leave no witnesses...... |
| Posted by: Everyday a Wildcat(KSU!) 2010-03-25 10:39 |
| #8 The BBC exists because of seapower. Unmentioned in this well written exercise in self-loathing. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-03-25 10:23 |
| #7 The 'logic' that the pirates only want the ships is an illusion shown by the ransoms demanded for hostages. That is an indisputable fact. The only 'spotlight' here is not by the pirate's death (aka, 'succumbing to wounds while engaged in armed criminal activity'), but by the BBC itself (no surprise here). Oh, while we're criticizing journalistic integrity here, nothing in the article supports the BBC's 'questioning' the death as being anything 'but' a pirate...except the opening sentence ('suspected pirate'). Furthermore, the article closes stipulating that 'pirates have rights', since that would be the only justification for suggesting 'responsibility' for the shooting, especially since the statement was quoted of 'legal experts'. Ah, woe is the 'Bombastic Broadcasting Corp.'... |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2010-03-25 09:34 |
| #6 Oscar, the 'logic' has been that the pirates are only interested in getting the ship, and if the crew cooperates there won't be violence - but if the pirates get or expect resistance, they could just kill the crew first. Of course this same logic tells victims of sexual assault to just cooperate - but lots of them end up in landfills. My own attitude is that if you kill the pirates first there's no problem. And the crew has the high ground and more stable platform. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-25 09:18 |
| #5 "One argument is that the use of armed operatives could encourage pirates to use more violence when taking a ship. " I dunno , but I always felt that someone coming towards me with intention armed with RPG , AK47 and high explosive is generally getting about as violent as it could get .. Call me naïve, or perhaps just old and naïve |
| Posted by: Oscar 2010-03-25 08:28 |
| #4 Not to worry lads, as a...professional courtesy, wounded pirates will be covered under Obamacare and the children of KIA's will receive full scholarships to Princeton. Please consult your local AID office for further details. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-25 08:27 |
| #3 I thought the headline was referring to the fact the pirates are guns for hire, which of course they are. They are also a lot cheaper than western security contractors. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2010-03-25 08:26 |
| #2 Oh fergawdsake. Leave it to the Beeb to wring their hands over this. Oh those poor, poor 'pirates'! |
| Posted by: Spot 2010-03-25 08:24 |
| #1 Note to pirates. If the shipping companies have the resources to pay off your handlers, they also have the means without the sticky fingers of those handlers, of out spending you on any arms race. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-03-25 08:18 |