SmarterthanYou
rebel
what bigger picture could there be? fear of retaliation from pirates if we kill these guys? still no confusion on my part.
Biden was correct!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
what bigger picture could there be? fear of retaliation from pirates if we kill these guys? still no confusion on my part.
C
Cancel5
Guest
I guess if you were a thinker, like Obama, you would not need to ask such questions.
Ohmmmmmmmmmm
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If you guys were in charge we'd have dead hostages everywhere just so you could enjoy killing.
C
Cancel5
Guest
Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave high marks to the daring Easter Sunday operation off the coast of Somalia that freed a U.S. merchant captain from four pirates in a lifeboat, and he called news reports incorrect that implied the White House resisted the Pentagon's request to use deadly force.
"It was textbook," Gates said Monday of the rescue, in which Navy snipers aboard the destroyer Bainbridge shot and killed the three pirates who held Capt. Richard Phillips hostage — the fourth was on the Bainbridge at the time — ending a five-day impasse. "They were patient, they got the right people and the right equipment in place, and then did what they do."
Gates, interviewed after a morning visit with students at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Va., confirmed that the Pentagon sought two authorizations from the White House for the use of deadly force in resolving the crisis but said each request was for a separate military unit.
"One was in the [area of operations], and another came from the U.S.," Gates said. "And so the reason that there were two requests was because there were two groups of people." Gates wouldn't confirm that he was referring to Navy SEALs, but Vice Adm. William Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told reporters during a Sunday press conference that SEALs "were involved in the rescue attempt."
Gates said he was providing some level of detail because some news organizations had misinterpreted the issuance of those orders.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama * White House * Virginia * Pentagon * Somalia * Easter * Southeast Asia * Gates * Bryan Whitman * Navy SEALs * Quantico * Capt. Richard Phillips * Bainbridge * Reagan-era * Straits of Malacca * Marine Corps University * Vice Adm. William Gortney
"It's unfortunate that some had portrayed this as the Pentagon having to ask twice for authority, which is not the case," Gates said. "In both instances, because different units were involved, we had to ask separately. And, the approval was given virtually immediately in both cases."
According to the White House, President Barack Obama on both April 10 and 11 gave the Pentagon "certain authorities to additional set of U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions."
A defense official who asked not to be named said he wasn't aware of a specific requirement for such permissions but noted, "This was an unusual situation. There was a very keen desire that the entire leadership chain was consulted on this."
Said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman: "It was determined by the department that authorizations should be sought for this operation."
Gates, who Whitman said was "very much engaged throughout the weekend on a nearly hourly basis" on the crisis, said Monday that he acknowledges, as did Gortney, that the U.S. rescue could spark some sort of retaliatory action.
"I think you always take that risk when you take an action like this," Gates said during the interview. The greater question, he said, is, "Is there a way to deal with this in a systemic way that reduces the risk and brings the international community together in a productive way to deal with the problem, whether it's trying to help stabilize Somalia, or some other approach?"
Despite the U.S. success Sunday, there is no purely military solution to the problem, Gates said. "And as long as you've got this incredible number of poor people, and the risks are relatively small — until this weekend — there's really no way, in my view, to control it, unless you get something on land that begins to change the equation for these kids," Gates told the students.
Gates also noted the difficulty of securing the vast expanse of water involved, adding during the interview, with a reference to the Reagan-era naval fleet that was never quite fully realized, that the U.S. couldn't keep an eye on all of it "even if you had a 600-ship Navy."
"I think it's going to be a complicated issue, Gates said. "I think we're going to probably end up spending a fair amount of time on this in the administration.
"It is a lot easier to deal with when the surrounding land, as in the case of Southeast Asia and the Straits of Malacca, is controlled by real governments that have real capabilities — which is not the case in Somalia," Gates said. "So it is a serious international problem, and it's probably going to get worse."
© Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
"It was textbook," Gates said Monday of the rescue, in which Navy snipers aboard the destroyer Bainbridge shot and killed the three pirates who held Capt. Richard Phillips hostage — the fourth was on the Bainbridge at the time — ending a five-day impasse. "They were patient, they got the right people and the right equipment in place, and then did what they do."
Gates, interviewed after a morning visit with students at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Va., confirmed that the Pentagon sought two authorizations from the White House for the use of deadly force in resolving the crisis but said each request was for a separate military unit.
"One was in the [area of operations], and another came from the U.S.," Gates said. "And so the reason that there were two requests was because there were two groups of people." Gates wouldn't confirm that he was referring to Navy SEALs, but Vice Adm. William Gortney, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, told reporters during a Sunday press conference that SEALs "were involved in the rescue attempt."
Gates said he was providing some level of detail because some news organizations had misinterpreted the issuance of those orders.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama * White House * Virginia * Pentagon * Somalia * Easter * Southeast Asia * Gates * Bryan Whitman * Navy SEALs * Quantico * Capt. Richard Phillips * Bainbridge * Reagan-era * Straits of Malacca * Marine Corps University * Vice Adm. William Gortney
"It's unfortunate that some had portrayed this as the Pentagon having to ask twice for authority, which is not the case," Gates said. "In both instances, because different units were involved, we had to ask separately. And, the approval was given virtually immediately in both cases."
According to the White House, President Barack Obama on both April 10 and 11 gave the Pentagon "certain authorities to additional set of U.S. forces to engage in potential emergency actions."
A defense official who asked not to be named said he wasn't aware of a specific requirement for such permissions but noted, "This was an unusual situation. There was a very keen desire that the entire leadership chain was consulted on this."
Said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman: "It was determined by the department that authorizations should be sought for this operation."
Gates, who Whitman said was "very much engaged throughout the weekend on a nearly hourly basis" on the crisis, said Monday that he acknowledges, as did Gortney, that the U.S. rescue could spark some sort of retaliatory action.
"I think you always take that risk when you take an action like this," Gates said during the interview. The greater question, he said, is, "Is there a way to deal with this in a systemic way that reduces the risk and brings the international community together in a productive way to deal with the problem, whether it's trying to help stabilize Somalia, or some other approach?"
Despite the U.S. success Sunday, there is no purely military solution to the problem, Gates said. "And as long as you've got this incredible number of poor people, and the risks are relatively small — until this weekend — there's really no way, in my view, to control it, unless you get something on land that begins to change the equation for these kids," Gates told the students.
Gates also noted the difficulty of securing the vast expanse of water involved, adding during the interview, with a reference to the Reagan-era naval fleet that was never quite fully realized, that the U.S. couldn't keep an eye on all of it "even if you had a 600-ship Navy."
"I think it's going to be a complicated issue, Gates said. "I think we're going to probably end up spending a fair amount of time on this in the administration.
"It is a lot easier to deal with when the surrounding land, as in the case of Southeast Asia and the Straits of Malacca, is controlled by real governments that have real capabilities — which is not the case in Somalia," Gates said. "So it is a serious international problem, and it's probably going to get worse."
© Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Pirates are bad in the they show disregard for the importance human life when they carry out their action - like robbers. The INTENT of a terrorist is to kill, which is not the intent of a pirate or a robber. Which makes a terrorist a much worse moral creature, like a murderer. The equivalence I often hear is bizarre.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well, i guess that was supposed to be some type of burn?
C
Cancel5
Guest
The point of piracy, like carjacking, isn't to terrorize the population. The point of terrorism, is to terrorize the population by making people fear doing normal activities like going to the store, or to work, for fear of being attacked by the terrorists.
The goals are entirely different.
A terrorist carefully selects symbols, schools, the WTC, shopping malls, to create mass death in a random manner in order to strike fear to a populace. Usually for a political point but sometimes, such as the case of Columbine, it is just to create fear.
The average citizen will not be afraid of piracy in that area of the world, they won't be taking a cruise there. There is nothing symbolic about that target that would help make a political message or strike more fear like a school or school bus would.
You are not using the defination of terrorist. Look it up, its one who uses terror. Clearly these pirates used terror to try to illicit money from corporations.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is a totally ridiculous position. this makes every convenience store robber a terrorist. isn't shit like that something you libs howled about when the feds tried this after the patriot act?
You do not understand the meaning of terrorist, the intent of a terrorist is not necessarly to kill, but to terrorize!
And my point is you aren't using a valid definition of terrorism because you desperately want to make us believe that the equivalent of sea carjackers are terrorists. Nobody is falling for it, you should stop now.
No, I belive that there is a fine line between a robber and a terrorist. A robber uses force to take what he wants. A terrorist uses terror by threats of terrable things to extort money.
No, the difference is that a carjacker does not hold anyone hostage, they take the car by force, with the intent to get the car. These pirates are taking the boats and hostages for ramsom, using the threat of carring out a terrable act!
Right and a bank robber doesn't usually hold anybody hostage and yet isn't a "terrorist" when they do. Their goal with hostages is simply to get a paycheck, it isn't to terrorize.
Again you fail, in desperation you drive on.
uscitizen
Villified User
The goal of someone who takes a hostage is to use terror to get what they want.
The goal of the 9-11 terrorist is not to terrorize for the sake of terrorism, but to terrorize to obtain a goal of political change. Not simply to terrorize.
When a bank robber does take a hostage he is using terror. If he went into the bank with the intent to take a hostage, he is a terrorist!
Again, the goal of a terrorist is to drive terror through an entire society, that isn't the goal here. These people are not terrorists.
And if a kidnapper takes a child for the purpose of ransom, they are not suddenly "terrorists", you waste your own time and ours. So, I'll believe I've made my point and let you continue to waste others.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ah, semantics. I can play this game.
your position is that a convenience store robber is just a robber when he only points the gun at the clerk and says 'give me the money', but becomes a terrorist the second he adds 'or i'll kill you'.
Am I stating your position correctly?