| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Africa Horn | |
| Remember that "Pirate Mother Ship" That Indian Navy Sank - Oops! | |
| 2008-11-26 | |
| Mr Wicharn told reporters in Bangkok that the Ekawat Nava 5 had been headed from Oman to Yemen last Tuesday to deliver fishing equipment when it was approached by Somali pirates in two speed boats in the Gulf of Aden. The pirates were in the process of boarding the vessel and seizing control when the Indian navy frigate, the INS Tabar, sailed into view and demanded it stop for investigation, he added. "The sunken ship which the Indian navy claimed was a 'mother ship' of pirates was not the 'mother ship' at all," he said.
Later, an Indian navy spokesman insisted that the Tabar had fired only upon a pirate "mother ship" which had threatened it. "We fired in self-defence and in response to firing upon our vessel. It was a pirate vessel in the international waters and its stance was aggressive," Commodore Nirad Sinha told CNN. As much as I would like to see some modern naval forces go "old school" against the pirates, I guess this incident highlights the risks involved in misidentifying brigands | |
| Posted by:Lone Ranger |
| #24 “We deeply condole the loss of lives. But it has to be kept in mind that the trawler was under the command of pirates. As per international law and practice, the vessel is sunk if the pirates do not surrender. It [the firing] is perfectly within our rights and as per international law,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told newspersons here. In the prolonged conversation between INS Tabar and the pirate mother ship, which took place on open frequencies and during which the Indian Navy repeatedly asked the ship to open itself for inspection, the pirates threatened to blow up the naval vessel as well as their ship if the Tabar did not move away to a distance of at least 20 km. Then, the pirates opened fire on the Tabar forcing the Navy personnel to retaliate. “This threat to blow up the naval ship appears strange if they had hostages aboard as is being claimed from Thailand. All their operations have involved hostages as human shields. Why did they not say they had hostages?” the sources wanted to know, adding that in that case the naval vessel would have certainly backed off. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 19:21 |
| #23 The answer, of course, is that they're not the ones making the money off of it; guys like Mr. Wicharn, or whoever sent him, are. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-26 12:02 |
| #22 You think the Somali foot-soldiers would be staying in the piracy business if they were making much money off of it? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-26 12:02 |
| #21 A fishing trawler from the third world doesn't command much for ransom (either vessel or crew). The vessel wasn't even insured. It does however make a fine mothership |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 11:58 |
| #20 And Abu Aber hands the lit stick of dynamite to his cousin Abduallah the game warden and says "Do you wanna talk or do you wanna fish?" |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-26 11:40 |
| #19 Geez thought everyone fishes with dynamite. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-11-26 10:28 |
| #18 "to Yemen last Tuesday to deliver fishing equipment" Give a Yemeni a fish and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a Yemeni to fish and he'll import explosives forever. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-11-26 10:26 |
| #17 Any bets on crew members claiming they were 'impressed', shanghaied, or 'forced' to do the dirty deeds when the 18th Century Royal Navy caught up with pirates in the real Caribbean. "Honest gov'nor, me's was just a victim of circumstances. Don't be too hasty with that rope." |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-11-26 09:39 |
| #16 I believe the Indian navy. All the secondaries prove there was something that shouldn't have been on a normal commercial vessel. Now the ship could have been hijacked and the crew members abandoned by the pirates. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-11-26 09:34 |
| #15 delivering 'fishing equipment' boats confiscated for illegal fishing in the past secondary explosions Coulda been some of that redneck fishing equipment. If so, then at least the Greenies should be on our side here. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-11-26 09:20 |
| #14 After the USS Cole, no warship will allow a suspect vessel that is firing on it to approach. The Tabar's 30 mm Gatling guns spun up a full five minutes after the pirates first fired at them. At no time did the pirates announce that they had hostages. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 09:13 |
| #13 I agree with John Frum, I think this is after the fact insurance wrangling. Get India to buy them off to shut up. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-11-26 09:04 |
| #12 What do you call a large trawler full of pirates with smaller pirate speedboats in tow ? A hijacked ship. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-26 08:47 |
| #11 India acted where others merely whinned. Set up a round for the Indian maties. Hip, hip, hooray! Investigations may show the need for adjustments in procedures, but the direction is correct. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-11-26 08:07 |
| #10 Hey, these so called pirates own Citigroup now. Don't destroy their RMBS's. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-11-26 06:50 |
| #9 You can't go around sinking ships that might be pirate vessels without boarding them first to verify. The Tabar ordered them to stop for boarding. There were pirates on deck, armed with AK-47s and RPG7s. They refused to stop and fired on the Tabar. What do you call a large trawler full of pirates with smaller pirate speedboats in tow ? |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 05:57 |
| #8 None of the boats in the company fleet seem to match the photo above link Apparently this company has had boats confiscated for illegal fishing in the past. This claim of 'hijack in progress' seems aimed at insurance or compensation claim. |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 05:31 |
| #7 According to Wicharn, his trawler was delivering 'fishing equipment' from Oman to Yemen. The secondary explosions indicate otherwise. photo 1 photo 2 photo 3 |
| Posted by: john frum 2008-11-26 05:24 |
| #6 Mine The Harbour. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-11-26 05:19 |
| #5 Well, they could have hove to and surrendered. Instead a couple of blokes shot at the Indians, and the Indians defended themselves. End of story. Watch where you sail, Mr. Wicharn. There are nasty folks mucking about the Horn of Africa. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-26 01:30 |
| #4 If you sink them, use Mk48's. Less telltales. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-26 01:20 |
| #3 Highlights the problem I talked about earlier. You can't go around sinking ships that might be pirate vessels without boarding them first to verify. Boarding a pirate vessel is extremely hazardous and likely to get your people killed. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-11-26 01:12 |
| #2 I'll trust the Indian Navy's account until it's proven to be wrong. It is not uncommon for pirates to hire on as crewmen to help in taking a boat. It is not uncommon for people that screw up (such as allowing your boat to be captured) to lie. It is also, oddly enough, not uncommon for people to claim they were crewmen when they were actually someplace else. Who knows at this point. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-11-26 00:41 |
| #1 Yeah, all them secondaries were exploding tuna. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Snoluse 2008-11-26 00:33 |
