August 4, 2009

Pirates' $2.7 Million Ransom

Good news for the families of these workers, although many will have mixed feelings about giving these Somali pirates their demands, and rewarding them for their crimunal activity. But it's been decided many times that this was the best available solution, and in this case the German government apparently saw the risks of military action as too high. So these Somali irates received a payment of $2.7 million dollars, and stayed true to their word by letting these hostages go.

Pirates' $2.7 Million Ransom

"The European Union confirmed on Monday that a German ship captured by Somali pirates more than three months ago has been released after the pirates were paid a $2.7 million (1.9 million euros) ransom..."

Pirates' $2.7 Million Ransom

Posted at August 4, 2009 7:22 AM

Greetings from Germany:

An incorrect decision was formulated when
it was agreed upon to pay the Somali pirates
their demands. Many years ago, in Mogadishu,
a similar situation occurred concerning an
aircraft with their passengers still held hostage
aboard. Sometime, in the early morning hours of
darkness, a team of elite anti-terrorists,
mounted a quick and successful attack. The
lives of hostages are always considered, but in
each case, the demands of the terrorists should
never be met. In 1979, when Iranian Fundamentalists stormed the American Embassy,
Carter should have issued a warning to release
the hostages immediately, or face the consequences. That would have sent a clear
message to the terrorists, but Carter waited
too long, afraid to make a decision, considering
the lives of the hostages. Had Carter acted
quickly and decisively, Iran would not be
capable of holding the world hostage with the
possibility of a nuclear threat. The best
opportunity to solve these terrorist problems,
is immediately after they happen. Time is on
the terrorist's hands, never the victims.

Posted by: Dennis Habern at August 4, 2009 1:31 PM

Greetings from Germany:

In relation to the above e-mail, I would
like to discuss the hostage/terrorist situation
on all fronts. Every country knows that when
terrorists mount an attack against defenseless
citizens, certain anti-terrorists measures
should immediately respond, taking into consideration the lives of the hostages; but
the lives of the hostages play a minor role in
this scenario. Sending no response to the
demands of the terrorists, transmits a clearer message to the perpetrators, of unexpected
consequences. No negotiations should take place.
Once the terrorists have been publically beaten at their own game, terrorists world-wide will
have lost their power. Holding the world
hostage, is all about power. In conclusion,
the lives of the hostages play a minor-role;
A clear, non-compliance message transmitted to terrorists, plays a major role. We live in a
dangerous world, therefore, it does not behoove
the Western World to play by the rules of war.
The American Colonists soon learned to adopt
the fighting rules of the indigenous Indians,
to stay alive; therefore coalition forces
should adopt the same mentality. Coalition
forces are in a war on two-fronts, to win
at all costs; not to lose at all costs, but it
seems that the enemy still has the upper-hand
after almost 9 years of fighting? When a
situation, detrimental to life erupts in any
part of the world, nothing is immediately
accomplished to abolish the intruders. How is
this possible? If the United Nations would
only respond with force, immediately, to these national crises, it would surely send a clearer
message to perspective agressors. What is the
United Nations afraid of? Why are they so
reluctant to react to ANY major crisis? The
only way to defeat these would-be aggressors and
terrorists, is to retaliate against them immediately.

If anyone would care to debate what I have
written, in friendly-banter, please notify me at

own game

Posted by: Dennis Habern at August 4, 2009 2:21 PM


I would go further...
1) Any act of terror violence is met ten-fold. I know this is will be compared to German tactics of WW2, but the difference is acting against those who make war on innocents. If a ship is captured, I would not hesitate to sink the "mothership" and it's crew, along with destroying the pirates' home bases.

2) I think we should go ahead and preemptively perform both tasks outlined above. If we eradicate the existing pirates preemptively , it will serve to deter others from taking up a pirate flag.

3) In the event a pirate crew does ransom a vessel successfully, I would recommend finding and summarily executing the pirate crew.

Posted by: Charlieo at August 4, 2009 10:24 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)