http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/25/thai.trawler.india.navy/index.html
OMG, instead of helping the distressed vessel against the pirates, they go and sink it instead. At least the pirates just ask for ransom and when paid, they let everybody go. It's a bloody joke.
The US should move their Navy from the gulf coast to somalia and stop and inspect every small boat leaving it. they knew right away they sunk the wrong ship, that is why they never bother to save all the sailors that was thrown overboard. as rules of engagement, they are suppose to rescue all those men once the ship has been disable. and if nobody survive, they should pick up the bodies. even criminal got rights, and those pirates can only be try at countries which do not have death penalty for them. so the Indian navy left them do die.
only they didn't except one slipped away and survived to tell his story.
it's not a bloody joke. it's a gross misconduct if not a crime.
I don't know about India-specific rules of engagement, but looking at this:
| Quote: |
"We fired in self-defense and in response to firing upon our vessel. It was a pirate vessel in the international waters, and its stance was aggressive," |
So, at least by the international LOAC standards, they were within their rights. All legitimate military members of any country have the right to self-defense (to return fire if fired upon) at all times.
If they had known about hostages, they might have used smaller weapons to pick pirates off the deck, but they didn't know. They thought the whole ship was nothing but a pirate ship, with nothing on it that deserved to be saved.
They should have stayed to pick up survivors though, as long as they didn't put themselves at risk by doing so. they can make any statement they want. i can kill a man and later said i mistaken him for a blow up doll.
| badai wrote: |
| they can make any statement they want. i can kill a man and later said i mistaken him for a blow up doll. |
Given the choice between trusting the word of a shipload of trusted navy men, or trusting the word of a single pirate, I think I would decide that the pirate must be the one being untruthful...
Here's how I figure it went down: The pirates either recently took the ship over, or were in the process of taking it over, when the navy ship came close. A few of the pirates made the very stupid choice of shooting at the navy ship. The navy ship (legally) returns fire and sinks the ship the pirates are on, then (illegally) leaves without picking up survivors. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| badai wrote: | | they can make any statement they want. i can kill a man and later said i mistaken him for a blow up doll. |
Given the choice between trusting the word of a shipload of trusted navy men, or trusting the word of a single pirate, I think I would decide that the pirate must be the one being untruthful... |
Have you even read the article? it said it was a crewman, thats not a pirate.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Here's how I figure it went down: The pirates either recently took the ship over, or were in the process of taking it over, when the navy ship came close. A few of the pirates made the very stupid choice of shooting at the navy ship. The navy ship (legally) returns fire and sinks the ship the pirates are on, then (illegally) leaves without picking up survivors. |
Yes but the article said something about a distress call, they didn't pick that up or something? Looks like a fine ship with some nice antennas sticking out. As for the rest, c'mon you weren't even there. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | badai wrote: | | they can make any statement they want. i can kill a man and later said i mistaken him for a blow up doll. |
Given the choice between trusting the word of a shipload of trusted navy men, or trusting the word of a single pirate, I think I would decide that the pirate must be the one being untruthful... |
Have you even read the article? it said it was a crewman, thats not a pirate.
|
Oh, I didn't catch that part. If he was being held captive though, he probably wouldn't know who opened fire first.Don't know which side is true......
But the follow-up news had reported that the Thai ship vessel's owner had placed these claims in order to recover insurance for 'their' sunk vessel.
From the article | Quote: |
Indian authorities insisted that their ship had acted against a pirate vessel that had threatened to attack the Tabar.
|
How much of a threat can a fishing trawler pose to a warship? It was a frigate for god's sake. It's like a volkswagen beetle posing a threat to a M1A1 Main battle tank. They didn't have to sink it. It was overkill. The worse part is that they left them to die without picking up the survivors and then later bragged to the whole world that they sunk the pirate mothership. | bellebello wrote: |
From the article | Quote: | Indian authorities insisted that their ship had acted against a pirate vessel that had threatened to attack the Tabar.
|
How much of a threat can a fishing trawler pose to a warship? It was a frigate for god's sake. It's like a volkswagen beetle posing a threat to a M1A1 Main battle tank. They didn't have to sink it. It was overkill. The worse part is that they left them to die without picking up the survivors and then later bragged to the whole world that they sunk the pirate mothership. |
When small bullet takes off life of a individual...
When one gram of stone sinks while 100's of tonnes of ship floats....
When a carrier flight can kill 1000's and 1000' of flight...
Why not
A fishing trawlr pose a threat to warship. First professional lesson thought to the masters of army is that NEVER UNDERESTIMATE ANYONE.
I am not supporting this act. But still, quoting Indian Navy as a Joke is a joke. Can someone push this to the joke forum ??
One of my friends brother is a Navy Officer at the Naval Academy. I personally know Indian Army / Navy standards.
Just understand that THERE WILL BE NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE. Even bfore defence, SELF DEFENCE comes first. There was smoke first - later it was a fire. There is no point in commenting or critising the Indian Navy. They have been doing a great job in the past and in the present and will do a great job in the Future too.....
Sorry - If i have hurted or said any thing against someone.
Thanks again 
| prithvi wrote: |
Don't know which side is true......
But the follow-up news had reported that the Thai ship vessel's owner had placed these claims in order to recover insurance for 'their' sunk vessel. |
Agreed... May be true........
_________________
as alwayZz - Cheers and Cherish
indianinworld
Visit me @ : http://www.sathish.frih.net
Last edited by indianinworld on Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total | bellebello wrote: |
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/25/thai.trawler.india.navy/index.html
OMG, instead of helping the distressed vessel against the pirates, they go and sink it instead. At least the pirates just ask for ransom and when paid, they let everybody go. It's a bloody joke.
The US should move their Navy from the gulf coast to somalia and stop and inspect every small boat leaving it. |
You can do whatever you want sir......... But i cannot take this phrase - "The Indian Navy is a joke.
" 
I can not open the cnn web.
Well no matter what side is true, the Indian Navy made a big mistake, no matter how the whole thing was planned out.
You don't go sinking a ship and leave the people to die, that is something similar to what a criminal would do. They shoot someone, and leave their body to rot, or for someone else to find the body.
That really looks bad on their part, and I don't care who fired upon who first, you don't leave them there to rot away in the ocean.
Well no matter what side is true, the Indian Navy made a big mistake, no matter how the whole thing was planned out.
You don't go sinking a ship and leave the people to die, that is something similar to what a criminal would do. They shoot someone, and leave their body to rot, or for someone else to find the body.
That really looks bad on their part, and I don't care who fired upon who first, you don't leave them there to rot away in the ocean.
| bellebello wrote: |
How much of a threat can a fishing trawler pose to a warship? It was a frigate for god's sake. It's like a volkswagen beetle posing a threat to a M1A1 Main battle tank. They didn't have to sink it. It was overkill.
|
Who knows? If I were a successful pirate, I would want an anti-ship missile or a torpedo on the deck with a home-made launcher for just such an occasion. I could probably afford it, and it is just barely possible that I might be able to find one for sale if I looked in the right places. The navy ship could also have been worried about being rammed, which though it would damage the trawler more, would still cripple the frigate, and kill quite a few of the crew. Another worry might have been the unknown number and quality of fighters aboard the trawler. Though it seems unlikely, if the pirates boarded and took over the frigate, then they would be a truly bad threat to the region.
| Quote: |
| The worse part is that they left them to die without picking up the survivors and then later bragged to the whole world that they sunk the pirate mothership. |
Yes, not picking up the survivors was a horrible decision. Doing so is against US military law, but I don't know about what Indian laws say about it. | bellebello wrote: |
The US should move their Navy from the gulf coast to somalia and stop and inspect every small boat leaving it. |
I just noticed this ridiculous statement!
Do you have any idea how much that would cost? The political problems it could cause? The degradation of the war effort in other areas? And all to catch a few pirates...I don't think the US Navy is interested in capturing a few pirates. Maybe they can HELP Somalia and surrounding countries to regulate and train their navies, but I highly doubt we'll be seeing US warships standing guard against pirates in Somalia and scanning every boat for weapons and grenades anytime soon.
Guess everyone in the world now knows that to be in proximity of Somalia is risky, especially if you are in its waters, or close to it. Think that should be enough for any country, or ship or cargo company to take special precautions. Probably need to change their routes.
Think it is a bit cavalier to shift this onto the United States, the responsibility is obviously that of the country/company that uses that route.
Am happy the United States in in Afghanistan, as that serves a purpose that benefits the whole of the world. Think someone else for a change should look after the piracy that is going on! Maybe the cargo companies can employ Rambo? ^The US may get bashed sometimes for playing globo-cop, but when a globo-cop is needed, who do they come running to?
At least it's not as bad as the Canadian Navy.
We get to use the British and American's leftovers... from the 1950s!
| gandalfthegrey wrote: |
At least it's not as bad as the Canadian Navy.
We get to use the British and American's leftovers... from the 1950s! |
Noooooo .... is that right? Also was totally unaware of the existence of the Navy now that you mention it, mind you, did see something quite impressive in the Vancouver Harbour at one point, perhaps it was not Canadian.
So what did the Canadian Navy do with the leftovers and where are they? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_navy
Hehe, they're still using P-3's and SH-3's! They actually have ships! All this time I was thinking the Canadian Navy was this:
^Well, at least its well-armed for such a small boat... 
| Nick2008 wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_navy
Hehe, they're still using P-3's and SH-3's! They actually have ships! All this time I was thinking the Canadian Navy was this:
|
This was a really good one Nick! | Ghost Rider103 wrote: |
Well no matter what side is true, the Indian Navy made a big mistake, no matter how the whole thing was planned out.
You don't go sinking a ship and leave the people to die, that is something similar to what a criminal would do. They shoot someone, and leave their body to rot, or for someone else to find the body.
That really looks bad on their part, and I don't care who fired upon who first, you don't leave them there to rot away in the ocean. |
Yes exactly. Instead you fall prey to deception of pirates, give them a lending hand, allow them to board the ship and then take it over.
And yes, you double post same thing so that your views get heard. | hunnyhiteshseth wrote: |
Yes exactly. Instead you fall prey to deception of pirates, give them a lending hand, allow them to board the ship and then take it over.
|
Well, hopefully you'd be wise enough to only take a few onboard at a time, and not let any other on until you have those few restrained and so on... | ocalhoun wrote: |
| badai wrote: | | they can make any statement they want. i can kill a man and later said i mistaken him for a blow up doll. |
Given the choice between trusting the word of a shipload of trusted navy men, or trusting the word of a single pirate, I think I would decide that the pirate must be the one being untruthful...
Here's how I figure it went down: The pirates either recently took the ship over, or were in the process of taking it over, when the navy ship came close. A few of the pirates made the very stupid choice of shooting at the navy ship. The navy ship (legally) returns fire and sinks the ship the pirates are on, then (illegally) leaves without picking up survivors. |
that is exactly the point, if i injured or kill someone in self defense or by accident which could be considered legal, you wouldn't just walk away (illegal) but you would call an ambulance or the police.I did not realize India had a navy! Maybe India did not either | Nick2008 wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_navy
Hehe, they're still using P-3's and SH-3's! They actually have ships! All this time I was thinking the Canadian Navy was this:
|
hehehehehe
when that shooter goes off the recoil is gonna make a speeboat out of the tub - backwards....
but to the real topic.
yes piracy is wrong.
shooting at a ship in self defence in a war situation is acceptable.
BUT
no matter what you always make sure that all survivors are picked up.
but to address the piracy problem in the first place. somalia and that region of east africa has been wartorn for a long time and like with most conflicts like this if the root of the problem is not solved no matter how you treat the symptoms - of which piracy is one - nothing will change in the forseeable future and many more innocent people will get killed. | icecool wrote: |
but to the real topic.
yes piracy is wrong.
shooting at a ship in self defence in a war situation is acceptable.
BUT
no matter what you always make sure that all survivors are picked up.
but to address the piracy problem in the first place. somalia and that region of east africa has been wartorn for a long time and like with most conflicts like this if the root of the problem is not solved no matter how you treat the symptoms - of which piracy is one - nothing will change in the forseeable future and many more innocent people will get killed. |
Guess this is their way of surviving then. Think this has been a phenomenon of centuries? I'd just hate to get in their clutches though. Probably best to stay away from that area. If there are no boats for the pirates to tackle, they may hopefully find another avenue for suviving. | deanhills wrote: |
| Probably best to stay away from that area. If there are no boats for the pirates to tackle, they may hopefully find another avenue for making their living. |
You can't just abandon shipping in the whole area. The economic repercussions from that would cause far more damage than the pirates could, and the pirates would just move on to another place where they could still find victims. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| You can't just abandon shipping in the whole area. The economic repercussions from that would cause far more damage than the pirates could, and the pirates would just move on to another place where they could still find victims. |
I thought the pirates usually operated close to their shorelines, so thought that the further the ships travelled away from the shorelines the safer for them? I did not mean totally deviation from their routes, just far enough from a practical point of view from where the pirates would be. I would imagine that those big shipping lines that would need to travel closer to the shorelines would have some form of safety on board and be able to protect themselves. Setting up an armed forces I would think would be impractical at this time, seems that there are too many problem points all over the world, and the Middle East seems to be using up most of the resources. | deanhills wrote: |
| I thought the pirates usually operated close to their shorelines, so thought that the further the ships travelled away from the shorelines the safer for them? |
The Somali pirates go as far as Kenya and Yemen shores to capture ships. Last attack happened one day ago when they tried to seize a little cruise boat.
The pirates are well armed with small firearms, RPG-7 and Grenade launchers. The pirates are good at what they are doing. They are not stupid. The most surprising thing is that they are able to bypass all the foreign navy including US navy, Dutch navy, Indian navy, French navy, German navy, Japanese navy, and so. Think what are those navies doing in the Somali waters while the situation is still the same.
I think these navies are all there because of political matters not a piracy hunting mission.
I wonder how stupid the world is by the way. They ignored all the dumped toxic waste containers off of the coast of Somalia. Some European and Asian countries sent their marines to Somalia to hide the fact behind the piracy there. To hide all the crimes committed against Somalia. UN is aware the toxic and waste products buried in the shores of Somalia which caused so many deaths.
Pirates are the sovereign protection of Somalia waters. Aren't they? The world is paying the prices of what she did, isn't it? | jmlworld wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I thought the pirates usually operated close to their shorelines, so thought that the further the ships travelled away from the shorelines the safer for them? |
The Somali pirates go as far as Kenya and Yemen shores to capture ships. Last attack happened one day ago when they tried to seize a little cruise boat.
The pirates are well armed with small firearms, RPG-7 and Grenade launchers. The pirates are good at what they are doing. They are not stupid. The most surprising thing is that they are able to bypass all the foreign navy including US navy, Dutch navy, Indian navy, French navy, German navy, Japanese navy, and so. Think what are those navies doing in the Somali waters while the situation is still the same.
I think these navies are all there because of political matters not a piracy hunting mission.
I wonder how stupid the world is by the way. They ignored all the dumped toxic waste containers off of the coast of Somalia. Some European and Asian countries sent their marines to Somalia to hide the fact behind the piracy there. To hide all the crimes committed against Somalia. UN is aware the toxic and waste products buried in the shores of Somalia which caused so many deaths.
Pirates are the sovereign protection of Somalia waters. Aren't they? The world is paying the prices of what she did, isn't it? |
So are the pirates keeping to the coast line, or are they going beyond territorial waters, deeper in? | deanhills wrote: |
| So are the pirates keeping to the coast line, or are they going beyond territorial waters, deeper in? |
Coastline? What's that?
Most of the pirated neither read nor write... They only know the trigger of their guns and the shape difference between boats and ships. They never learn Geography and history. They never heard international waters or coastline ownership.
But they are very clever in international flags. They can distinguish countries by their flags so they never capture a ship owned by Latin America or African country. They know, they won't make money in that way. 
| jmlworld wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | So are the pirates keeping to the coast line, or are they going beyond territorial waters, deeper in? |
Coastline? What's that?
Most of the pirated neither read nor write... They only know the trigger of their guns and the shape difference between boats and ships. They never learn Geography and history. They never heard international waters or coastline ownership.
But they are very clever in international flags. They can distinguish countries by their flags so they never capture a ship owned by Latin America or African country. They know, they won't make money in that way. |
Surely if that is the case, they have to have more intelligence at their disposal? I can't accept that they are both dumb as well as efficient at reading flags and knowing which flags go with greater wealth, and I would imagine those more effluent countries that they like to pursue, have to be savvy enough now to stay out of their reach? That only leave the countries that are not as intelligent that they can pursue? | deanhills wrote: |
| jmlworld wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | So are the pirates keeping to the coast line, or are they going beyond territorial waters, deeper in? |
Coastline? What's that?
Most of the pirated neither read nor write... They only know the trigger of their guns and the shape difference between boats and ships. They never learn Geography and history. They never heard international waters or coastline ownership.
But they are very clever in international flags. They can distinguish countries by their flags so they never capture a ship owned by Latin America or African country. They know, they won't make money in that way. |
Surely if that is the case, they have to have more intelligence at their disposal? I can't accept that they are both dumb as well as efficient at reading flags and knowing which flags go with greater wealth, and I would imagine those more effluent countries that they like to pursue, have to be savvy enough now to stay out of their reach? That only leave the countries that are not as intelligent that they can pursue? |
All I know is that they hide somewhere in the sea (may be behind a big rock) when they sea what they call the large gray boats (the navy ships). So when these ships go, they jump out and resume their piracy.
But as the anti-piracy mission develops, their tactics develop too.Well, there's not many "rocks" in the middle of the ocean. The pirates tend to go out of the coastline to capture ships with tanks on them. 
There's no need for them to hide, they have small boats (like fishing boats), many times the color of the sea or dark colors. The waves are not that calm off the Somali waters, so the waves do make them harder to see. Even if a ship does see the pirates, most pirates can still outrun any big ship anyways. Are the pirates a centralized group that works together with a fleet of small boats, or are they a bunch of individual 1 or 2 boat sized groups working independently?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Are the pirates a centralized group that works together with a fleet of small boats, or are they a bunch of individual 1 or 2 boat sized groups working independently? |
All the pirates know each other as a common unless they are newbies. However, they don't operate together. They go in small groups, just each 4 - 10 persons operate independently with two small boats. When they go to the sea, they are always off about 3 to 8 days.
When small group of pirates capture a ship, they call all their close friends. By the way, when they collect the big fortune (money), other pirates as many as 100 join the fun!
Every week, about 20 groups of pirates go to the sea, some of them get killed or captured by the navies in the sea, some of them are lucky to seize a ship and some of them get back with empty hearts. | bellebello wrote: |
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/25/thai.trawler.india.navy/index.html
OMG, instead of helping the distressed vessel against the pirates, they go and sink it instead. At least the pirates just ask for ransom and when paid, they let everybody go. It's a bloody joke.
The US should move their Navy from the gulf coast to somalia and stop and inspect every small boat leaving it. |
They not the only one, look at other country's they will let them go alsothey should have handed over the key of their frigate to pirates
| umeshtangnu wrote: |
| they should have handed over the key of their frigate to pirates |
Why?
I'm pretty sure that would be a bad idea. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| umeshtangnu wrote: | | they should have handed over the key of their frigate to pirates |
Why?
I'm pretty sure that would be a bad idea. |
Moreover, if I had been on the frigate and some adolescent Somalis are trying to take the frigate hostage, I would have been outraged and irritated, rather than fearful. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| umeshtangnu wrote: | | they should have handed over the key of their frigate to pirates |
Why?
I'm pretty sure that would be a bad idea. |
i guess umeshtangnu meant sarcasm!No, I think he was serious.
