plekhanov Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 and it also said .... Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Service, this week admitted that no one on board the Wave Knight was trained in hostage rescue. ‘You need special expertise to deal with hostage rescue, and we didn’t have that expertise [on board],’ he explained. ‘Sailors with pistols couldn’t do the job of ensuring the safety of the Chandlers. It was highly frustrating. ‘There were broad rules of engagement that had to be followed, and it was a fairly easy decision to make, because the security of the Chandlers was the most important thing. ‘Wave Knight is not a warship. There was only a flight [helicopter crew and engineers] on board, and as soon as they got close, the pirates threatened the hostages. ‘They did the best they could.’ That last observation has become the MoD’s official line this week. Perhaps those aboard the Wave Knight did do the best they could. Most were civilians, after all..... a very logical reply as the pirates were holding the hostages at gun point wouldnt you say ? Why are you quoting yet more evidence of how impractical it would have been for the Navy forces on the scene to fire on the pirates to try and substantiate your absurd claim that "human rights.......again" not practicality is to blame for the Navy not firing on the pirates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 ..If it's true that a sailor cried because someone robbed him of his IPod, there's something badly wrong with the calibre of people they're recruiting these days or the training they'e being given. ..to be fair, it did contain a personal rendition of 'Bobby Shafto' sung for him by Will Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dozy Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Why are you quoting yet more evidence of how impractical it would have been for the Navy forces on the scene to fire on the pirates to try and substantiate your absurd claim that "human rights.......again" not practicality is to blame for the Navy not firing on the pirates? Thank goodness it wasn't just me that couldn't make sense of his post!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 *waves cutlass fearsomely, foaming at the mouth rabidly* I'm obviously formed for a more robust age ... I'm sorry for the couple, obviously, but, weighed against our Navy (even if they are lily livered wimps)being made a laughing stock by gangs of homicidal criminals, and the unfortunate death of two people who are said to have been where they shouldn't really have been in the first place, they'd have had to be collaterral damage due to friendly fire if it was unavoidable. And then I'd prefer them to have blown the Somalian boats out of the water and left them to swim home. Does that make me a bad person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 *waves cutlass fearsomely, foaming at the mouth rabidly* I'm obviously formed for a more robust age ... I'm sorry for the couple, obviously, but, weighed against our Navy (even if they are lily livered wimps)being made a laughing stock by gangs of homicidal criminals, and the unfortunate death of two people who are said to have been where they shouldn't really have been in the first place, they'd have had to be collaterral damage due to friendly fire if it was unavoidable. And then I'd prefer them to have blown the Somalian boats out of the water and left them to swim home. Does that make me a bad person? I suppose you could argue such action would reduce future piracy, it's not clear this is the case though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 I suppose you could argue such action would reduce future piracy, it's not clear this is the case though.I believe it would, once the word got round. Also it'd be so much more satisfying! You have to agree Although being the kind person I am at heart, I'd probably sail back after a few hours hiding over the horizon and throw them an inflatable life raft with a few jerrycans of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Anyone remember the member we had on SF known as Artisan? Well he was on about this a few weeks ago on another forum and in his day the people who worked in the merchant navy or whatever it was called were a lot tougher than many of them are today, he has stories about his escapades and mentioned one of the crew lopping the hand off a bloke who was trying to clamber aboard a ship one night when they were docked. Word got around and it all stopped... no one tried to sneak aboard in that port again. As has already been mentioned- Tough love is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Why are you quoting yet more evidence of how impractical it would have been for the Navy forces on the scene to fire on the pirates to try and substantiate your absurd claim that "human rights.......again" not practicality is to blame for the Navy not firing on the pirates?let me try to explain it to you ,had the navy fired they would no doubt have killed the pirates and possibly the hostages ,i take it you have no expieriance in modern weapons,the 30 calibre weapon on its own is devistating,it is not for selective firing at one target it spreads its rounds so aiming at a small boat would have probably killed every one one it as for the human rights it quite plainly says had the navy taken the pirates aboard the ship then they would have claimed asylum,something that the navy didnt want to get involved with, hope that clears it up for you or should i explain what would have happened had they used the machine guns as well as the 30calibre ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 let me try to explain it to you ,had the navy fired they would no doubt have killed the pirates and possibly the hostages ,i take it you have no expieriance in modern weapons,the 30 calibre weapon on its own is devistating, it is not for selective firing at one target it spreads its rounds so aiming at a small boat would have probably killed every one one it. as for the human rights it quite plainly says had the navy taken the pirates aboard the ship then they would have claimed asylum,something that the navy didnt want to get involved with, hope that clears it up for you or should i explain what would have happened had they used the machine guns as well as the 30calibre ? Why are you adopting this ridiculously patronising tone when I clearly haven't expressed a belief that an automatic weapon of any calibre could have been used in this situation (against either boat) without directly killing or causing the pirates to kill the hostages? Why are you once again providing yet more evidence that the Navy didn't attack the pirates not because of "human rights.......again" but because it was impractical for them to do so? Do you really not understand that once again you are arguing against your own position? That you've chosen to do so an absurdly patronising way simply makes you look all the more ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzler4 Posted November 21, 2009 Author Share Posted November 21, 2009 maybe there should be some sort of agreement in place to police parts that are not speciffically police by any one country. we should not pay the ransom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.