I'm sorry but the only people engaging in senseless violence here were the pirates.

[ddeclue]

After all - it was the PIRATES who attacked an unarmed AID ship bringing relief supplies to starving people in Africa so that they could enrich themselves.

It was the PIRATES making the death threats.

What the Navy did was violent yes - but it had a moral underpinning and a righteous purpose. They saved an innocent man's life and in fact they probably saved more than just his life because to pay the ransom would have only fed these pirates greed and the situation would have been repeated later.

How many starving people have had their aid supplies delayed by these greedy pirates?

For those who want to make it out to be an "unfair" contest between guys in small boats vs a carrier task force in an ridiculously shallow attempt to invoke pity - first it isn't accurate - there were no carriers involved.

Secondly if the pirates don't understand that they are messing with the US Navy then they really ought to find a safer line of work. I think the whole point is that we are SUPPOSED to be able to bring overwhelming force to bear to put these murderous pirates out of business.

"If you steal $600.00 you can just disappear - if you steal $600 million dollars they WILL find you unless they think you're already dead" - Hans Gruber

If you want to engage in piracy, kidnapping, extortion and murder you'll get no sympathy from me.

[Hanse]

1. Like police shooting a criminal in the line of duty, right?

Well that's all well and fine if a shooting is justified.

It's a different matter to get your rocks off on it.

[ddeclue]

2. It was justified and these people have been killing and kidnapping people for years

it's not unreasonable to cheer the bad guys losing.

[Arctic Dave]

4. America has finally kicked Piracy Syndrome.

[Hanse]

6. Keep telling yourself that, Chuck Norris.

[stevietheman]

11. Huh? You certainly aren't questioning taking out the pirates, are you? n/t

n/t

[ddeclue]

13. Could you BE more ridiculous?

You are out of your mind and using a totally inaccurate label instead of an argument.

:eyes:

Do you not think that anyone ever is enough in the wrong that we ought to do something about it to stop them?

:crazy:

[doctor jazz]

14. Chuck Norris is an idiot. And so are people who defend savage thugs and pirates.

...

[Rhiannon12866]

19. What else were the choices?

I don't believe in violence, either, but these pirates had weapons, and were prepared to use them. The crew of this humanitarian aid ship did not. Should the US government have just left American citizens to the mercy of these ruthless pirates? :-(

[gizmo1979]

25. Wow

Really.Do you think the pirates don't know they are in dangerous work?Wow.

[jpak]

33. Chuck Norris would shit his pants if confronted with a real pirate

nice try though

[GentryDixon]

43. You cannot be serious.

Oh wait, maybe you can. :puke:

[Warren Stupidity]

74. They actually have killed very few people.

Here, look for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_by_Somali_pirates

They have no particular interest in killing people.

[ddeclue]

75. Oh God... they've only killed a FEW people??

Talk about moral equivocating and lame ass excusing of criminal behavior.

:nuke:

[Warren Stupidity]

77. I am not excusing anything.

I am pointing out what the reality of the situation in Somalia is. The pirates are not going out to kill people. The are not 'bloodthirsty'. That does not make what they are doing right or moral. It puts some perspective on the blood lust being exhibited here on DU.

[LynnTheDem]

3. I agree. Thing is, I can be happy the captain is safe; I can be happy the Navy

rescued the captian with no loss of Navy personnel...and at the same time, I can be sad that the pirates chose -for whatever reason or necessity- to take such a path and the loss of life.

What I do find sick and disgusting is the cheerleading of anyone's deaths, the "keeping score" of anyone's deaths. I don't care if it's the freepers doing the cheering, or the supposed liberls doing it; it's wrong, it's sick, it's disgusting. My opinion.

Your lack of sympathy is unfortunate; I hope you are never put into a situation where others' lack of sympathy towards you causes you & your loved ones harm.

And that doesn't make me "rooting for the pirates" or "Anti-America" or "blame America first" et al.

[ddeclue]

5. Your opinion is wrong and there's nothing wrong with cheering the bad guys demise.

What is SICK is holding pity parties for them.

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

7. You're entitled to your opinion.

Fact is, so am I.

Have a nice day.

[stevietheman]

15. Sympathy for pirates? If that's left-wing, I'm no longer left-wing. n/t

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

22. I have sympathy for all humankind, or I try my best to.

It was good enough for Jesus Christ, and personally, I think it's what being a liberal progressive is all about.

That doesn't mean I think pirates or any other criminals should be patted on the head and allowed to walk away after a good scolding. But cheerleading anyone's death??? Nope, that just ain't my thing, thank you very much.

See, many of us liberal progressives can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.

[ddeclue]

24. Oh brother... let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya now...

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

28. LOL!

You do crack me up!

Your "either/or" range is quite impressive!

[stevietheman]

26. I honestly don't understand your position, at all. n/t

n/t

[LynnTheDem]

37. I am happy the captain is safe. I am happy the Navy was able to rescue

him & not suffer casualties.

I am sad that those 3 men chose -for whatever reason or necessity- to lead the lives they lead. I'm sorry for them that they chose to not give themselves up and were killed. I'm always sorry for any loss of life, even the "evil-doers".

I do not blame or second-guess the US Navy in what they did; they did what they felt best and they protected the innocent victim.

AT THE SAME TIME, I am able to feel pity for the pirates for their lives and the loss of same. If I had to kill to protect an innocent victim, I believe I would. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have any pity in me for the dead.

And I sure as fuck NEVER EVER go around cheerleading andkeeping scores of anyone's deaths.

Some DUers can believe that makes me "scum" etc. Me? I'm bloody proud of my ability to feel pity even for the worst of humankind.

[ddeclue]

41. No it doesn't make you "scum" it makes you ridiculously polyanish

These people crossed a line and don't deserve sympathy - I feel no obligation to continually try to empathize with cold blooded killers and robbers and I find it preposterous that you DO.

[LynnTheDem]

45. YOUR opinion is yours. You are welcome to it.

Calling me names etc won't ever change me; I am bloody proud of my ability to feel pity for even the worst of the worst of humankind. And I will strive daily to remain so.

By the way, there is a wee difference between "empathize" and "pity". But I suspect you already know that.

[ddeclue]

47. So? Your opinion is still morally wrong and embarassingly naive.

Do you empathize with Nazis? Mass murderers? Where do you draw the line?

Not everything should be "understood" - monsters are monsters and should be dealt with accordingly.

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

50. Again, "empathize" and "pity" are different words. Try a dictionary,

although I believe you know full well already and simply prefer using a word I myself have not used.

Are you now saying those pirates were "monsters"?

And now we're into Nazis. Wow.

Enough of you and your rolling eyes!

Have a happy Easter.

[ddeclue]

52. To inappropriately empathize with cold blooded killers is to engage in misplaced pity.

My language skills are superb.

Your moral judgment is NOT.

:eyes:

[Fire1]

70. Sorry, but that begs the question: were you ever?

[stevietheman]

81. Opposing thugs like this being killed is anti-human.

A true leftist wants the innocents protected from harm.

[doctor jazz]

18. You should read "Stranger in a Strange Land" someday.

Pay particular attention to how the value of individual lives is measured.

[ddeclue]

20. I'm sorry but it was the PIRATES who took their OWN LIVES in their OWN HANDS

as much as the crazy woman who jumped into the polar bear cage at the Berlin Zoo.

I have no sympathy and never will.

[doctor jazz]

29. I agreed with you absolutely! Did I reply to the wrong person...?

yikes
edit: Doug, I replied to another poster who apparently doesn't....
;-)

[ddeclue]

30. Perhaps I misunderstood your point having never read the book

I mistakenly assumed you disagreed as most posters who are responding to me are disagreers.

:blush:

[doctor jazz]

38. No sweat...the reference isn't explicable in a couple of paragraphs.

I think you'd enjoy it. :D

[LynnTheDem]

39. I don't sink to their level.

Why would you?

[doctor jazz]

44. Who is "their"? If you have read it, you know the answer.

So what is it?

[bkkyosemite]

49. And what if it was your loved one being held and was going to be killed at any moment by these

Pirates. Would you then have sympathy for them or their actions and still think well they have been brought up a certain way or influenced a certain way so I feel sorry for them "they know not what they do". I hope not because these are people who have a choice on how they react to their life path and they have reacted in a violent manner and deserve punishment however that transpires. And that transpiring has a lot to do with their rigid attitude and failing to heed warning of their demise.

[LynnTheDem]

51. If you read my post, you will have your answer.

[bkkyosemite]

53. You say

"And I sure as fuck NEVER EVER go around cheerleading andkeeping scores of anyone's deaths."

I have not seen this. I have seen people have a different view than you on these pirates and their need to be killed to save the Capt. If these criminals are violent and will not listen they must be killed to save the kidnapped and that is what happened. Who is cheerleading and keeping score. Just because they do not agree with you does not make your perception true.

[LynnTheDem]

57. One of many such threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5441445


I'll repeat what my post above said: If I had to kill to protect an innocent victim, I believe I would. I KNOW I would to protect my family. And I can at the same time have pity (not "empathy", not "empathize", but PITY) for the dead. Even the "evil-doers".

I am not second-guessing or condemning the US Navy for their actions; they did what they believed they had to do.

But I would not gloat and crow and cheerlead and keep death score.

It's not the deaths per se, as it appears no other choice was available; it's the cheerleading of the deaths I object strongly to.

And I've no plans on changing.

[bkkyosemite]

61. I think they were saying they were glad the Navy was successful in their plan to rescue.

Some in that thread worded better than others. This comment I thought interesting:

The pirates kind of are the coast guard of Somalia.
Hidden headline from latest NYT article:

"One pirate named Ali, in Galkaiyo, Somalia, said the American Navy rescue won’t discourage other Somali pirate groups at all.

'As long as there is no just government in Somalia, we will still be the coast guard,' he said, adding: 'If we get an American, we will take revenge.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirate...

[LynnTheDem]

62. I'm also glad the Navy was successful in their rescue plan.

Which I posted. Several times. Not that this deterred the name-calling, lol!


That one can be happy about the rescue, yet find cheerleading and score-keeping of the dead sick & disgusting seems to be a Very Bad Thing.

Oh well!

[bkkyosemite]

63. I did not see that. I guess we all have different perceptions.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. K&R. I don't believe in violence, either, but this really is a war.

Another one. ;( These clueless renegades are truly cutting off their noses, considering the cargo. x(

Still have it on right now. MSNBC has preempted its weekend serial killer documentaries to provide live coverage, so this must be a HUGH story. *sigh* :-(

[DS1]

9. Nope, the DUberdouches have to make their case that any celebration is condoning violence

towards the oppressed pirates and a needless display of nationalism.


You learn that good and remember it, Freeper!

[MADem]

16. .....

:rofl:

That was hysterical.

[MADem]

10. You are correct, and I am not "sorry" for that view at all.

These nitwits engaging in flat out bullshit, revisionist history, and excuse-making need to talk to the widows of the Yemeni fishermen who were murdered by those bums, and whose vessels those thugs stole, in order to prosecute their shakedowns of Saudi, Indian and other-nation seafaring assets.

That twitty INDEPENDENT article I've seen here, waved about, takes the cake for sheer chutzpah.

And that Somali asshole at the UN claiming otherwise? He needs to put his tail between his legs and scurry back home, before someone charges him in international court with being an accessory before, after and during the fact.

[doctor jazz]

12. The U.S. Navy exists because it was established to fight piracy.

Actually most every military force from any nation has a mission to protect the economic interests of its country...I can't imagine how anybody doesn't see that...:shrug:

[MADem]

21. From the Halls of Montezuma, to the Shores of Tripoli!!!!!

Ask Decatur!

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/barb-war/burn-phl.htm

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Ironically the navy was actually established to commit piracy.

Of a sort, anyway. General Washington wanted to interdict British supply ships - merchant vessels. From that sprang our Navy, and its first missions were just that: capturing and/or sinking British merchant ships. I'm quite sure that from King George's perspective this was considered piracy.

"Commander in Chief George Washington commissioned seven ocean-going cruisers to interdict British supply ships, and reported the captures to the Congress. This effectively ended the debate in Congress as to whether or not to "provoke" the British by establishing a Navy as Washington's ships had already captured British ships, somewhat a provocation.
While Congress deliberated, it received word that two unarmed British supply ships from England were heading towards Quebec without escort. A plan was drawn up to intercept the ships—however, the armed vessels to be used were owned not by Congress, but by individual colonies. Of greater significance, then, was an additional plan to equip two ships that would operate under the direct authority of Congress to capture British supply ships. This was not carried out until 13 October 1775, when George Washington announced that he had taken command of three armed schooners under Continental authority to intercept any British supply ships near Massachusetts. With the revelation that vessels were already sailing under Continental control, the decision to add two more was made easier;<9> the resolution was adopted and 13 October would later become known as the U.S. Navy's official birthday.<10>
The Continental Navy achieved mixed results; it was successful in a number of engagements and raided many British merchant vessels, but it lost 24 of its vessels<11>and at one point was reduced to two in active service.<12> As Congress turned its attention after the conflict towards securing the western border of the new United States, a standing navy was considered to be dispensable because of its high operating costs and its limited number of roles.<5>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

Perspective is everything.

[ddeclue]

78. These pirates are NOT privateeers NOR are they engaged in a declared war

NOR are they demonstrating POLITICAL or IDEOLOGICAL purpose in their piracy - it is simply piracy for profit. They are criminals and you are trying to spin them as heroes.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Well no in this post I was pointing out the history of our own Navy

which from the perspective of Great Britain was engaged in piracy at its outset. But I do understand that this sort of subtlety goes right over your head.

[onehandle]

17. Yep. nt

[Oregone]

23. Im not sure why it was senseless? Wasn't it for profit?

Yeah, you may consider it unethical, but it seems like it makes a lot of sense to clear a few million bucks with violence if you got time on your hands a conscious that doesn't care.

[ddeclue]

27. It's senseless to anyone with a conscious to use violence to rob and kill others for profit.

[doctor jazz]

32. Conscience.

Our own government has done it too but that doesn't excuse it...not to me anyway. :-)

[ddeclue]

36. and GWB, Dick and the rest of the neocons should be put on trial for their war crimes too.

[doctor jazz]

42. Absolutely. I wish the current administration would agree. But it doesn't.

grr

[Warren Stupidity]

66. misuse of the term.

as noted below.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Evil isn't necessarily irrational. It wasn't senseless at all.

Pirates kill for money. So long as they can successfully do it, they are behaving in a perfectly rational manner.

If that's an unacceptable state of affairs then pirates *should* have short lifespans.

[Kip Humphrey]

31. ...and if you steal $6 billion dollars, you get a bailout.

just sayin'.

[ddeclue]

35. Two wrongs don't make a right - just sayin'

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Don't bother. There will always be a group here exemplifying the worst caricatures of "liberals"

bending over backwards to empathize with violent criminals, etc. If I were conspiratorially minded, I would speculate that some actually might be right-wings psyops agents, engaged in an over-the-top portrayal of "librul moonbattery".

I had someone, a month or so ago, weeping at me about Victor Hugo over the poor home invasion burglar who was forced -forced!- to clean up the mess he made in the house he broke into, by the actual homeowner. :nopity:

Yes. You come home from a vacation at 2 in the morning with your little kids in tow, and find some crackhead holed up in your living room-- and you are going to immediately offer him gifts of silver and start commiserating with him over the plight of the oppressed. :eyes:

Give me a fucking break. It's about time someone did something about these pirates. No sympathy.

[doctor jazz]

48. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[Stephanie]

56. No kidding

Many of these posts read like a parody because that's exactly what they are.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Exactly right. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Exactly right. n/t

[rockymountaindem]

71. Yep

Lots of people are never happy unless they're complaining.

[bluestateguy]

40. I'm sure Ward Churchill will be out with an plagiarized essay any minute now

blaming the captain or some other such gobbledygook.

[paulsby]

64. lol. the pirates were just kidnapping "little eichmans"

who got what was coming to them!

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Well said. I agree 100%

[mudesi]

54. Which Is Why They Didn't Kill Him. Three Times.

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

55. Um.. NO they didn't kill him because he was their leverage for their ransom THREE TIMES.

:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

65. senseless violence? not really.

Their violence makes sense. Senseless violence is the sort that lunatics carry out, as in the Binghamton slaughter. The pirates make a living from piracy. That makes sense. It may not be moral, but it is not senseless.

[ddeclue]

67. It is morally senseless.

Making a living at being a criminal is not an excuse.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. misuse of words again

it might be immoral but piracy is simply an economic crime and not a 'senseless act of violence'. This isn't a question of making excuses. Your OP characterized piracy as senseless violence when in fact that is not what it is at all. You are now inventing new terms: 'morally senseless' to backfill your original error.

[ddeclue]

72. Nonsense - if you engage in criminality it is senseless because crime doesn't pay or shouldn't pay.

Three dead pirates and one on his way to jail would now agree with me not you. It is abandoning morality for a senseless pursuit of greed.

:eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

73. now you are just making shit up

"if you engage in criminality it is senseless because crime doesn't pay or shouldn't pay."

:wtf:

Some crimes pay quite well, which is why criminals commit those crimes. You are just making shit up rather than admitting that your choice of words in your op was wrong. 'Senseless violence' is just that - an act of violence that has no rational motive. Piracy has a rational motive. Somali pirates have been quite successful. Just because you think that crime shouldn't pay doesn't mean that crime doesn't pay. Reality is not a morality play where the good are rewarded and the bad punished.

[ddeclue]

76. You are the one trying to justify piracy and murder - it IS senseless

and you can NOT justify it as being acceptable for economic reasons.

FAIL!

[Warren Stupidity]

79. You obviously do not understand the word 'senseless'.

You can continue to attack me for 'justifying piracy and murder', but of course that is not what I have done at all. I have merely pointed out that piracy is not 'senseless violence'. It is an economic crime that makes a lot of sense to the criminal engaged in it as it can pay quite well despite the risks. That does not justify piracy, it points out that it is rational although immoral behavior, quite the opposite of senseless violence, as for example the recent shootings in Binghamton. Obviously pointing this out to you is a waste of time as you do not understand the meaning of the word 'senseless'.

[cloudbase]

82. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the aid end of this story.

I'm a retired merchant marine engineering officer, and I've been to Mombasa a few times, each time with aid cargo. The people in power there don't give a damn about the cargo. Our shipping company had to pay bribes just to get the stuff offloaded.

Remember, now. This is aid cargo I'm speaking of. The cost of the cargo and its transportation borne fully by the people of the United States.

The world is a pretty messed up place.