• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia

donc said:
Trouble with that is they are not terrorists, they are pirates; they’re in it mainly for the money, ideology comes in a distant second, if at all.
Click to expand...

REALLY??? They are pirates? So what makes them pirates and NOT terrorists? Do they fly the skull and crossbones from their pirate ships? Do the say, “arrrrgggggh matey” when they charge aboard the ships they are "pirating?"

I find the media distortions about what these people are quite amusing. Folks, these are TERRORISTS. Suggesting that they are pirates requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

How do I know they are terrorists? Because they terrorize shipping that comes within 15 miles of their shores with RPGs and AK-47s and hold the ships and their crews hostage to finance their terrorist activities.

Now, I may be open to the argument that they could be organized crime; but based on their targets, it would be a hard sell to me.

So this begs the question; why is everyone in the media trying to re-define what a terrorist is? Why make the absurd statement that these terrorists are "pirates?"

This is the same absurdity the mainstream media uses to call anything that remotely resembles a military weapon "assault weapon." But the true definition of an "assault weapon" requires that the weapon have selective fire from semi-auto to full auto. The call them "assault weapons" in a desperate effort to lump legal weapons into the illegal weapon category to promote their anti-gun agenda; much like they attempt to call terrorism nothing more than piracy.

:2wave:
 
Kali said:
I expect all of you folks that were bashing Obama to now say "Job Well Done Sir!":)
Click to expand...

I don't mind saying US Navy job well done; but thank Obama? Why? What did Obama do except give the correct order; that in the event the American citizen is seen to be at risk, act?

One lesson learned about TERRORISTS, three head shots does the job.

:2wave:
 
WillRockwell said:
You clearly don't understand presidential responsibility. By "just saying yes", Obama accepted responsibility for the deaths of these pirates. He exercised his authority to become judge, jury and by extension, executioner. Most of us will never face that kind of pressure, but it's his job to deal with it every day. And so far, I'd say he's doing a pretty good job.
Click to expand...

OMG he accepted responsibility for killing three Somali terrorists holding an American hostage; here let me illustrate how hard that is to do, "guys, make it head shots because we can't take them into custody because I am closing Gitmo and have no where better to hold them."

Here's the BIGGER question; will he also then accept responsibility when Somali terrorists carry out their threats to start specifically targeting Americans for this act?

:rofl
 
celticlord said:
Actually, the lack of understanding is yours, not his.

To begin with, he did not "accept responsibility" for the deaths of those pirates. That responsibility was theirs, and they accepted it the moment they attempted to seize the Maersk Alabama--this was no problematic Lindbergh baby kidnapping where there was distinct possibility of innocent men being wrongly convicted and executed. He was not a judge, nor was he a jury, and their executioners were the Navy SEAL snipers who gave them a far more merciful end than was their due.

Further, the good Reverend has a point. This was one good call, but the problem of piracy remains. As good as Navy SEAL snipers are, they are not the constant solution to what is at this point a constant problem. The pirate nests need to be cleaned out and the Somalis need to get the hint that, no matter how much poverty sucks, piracy is not the pathway to prosperity. What has the President said or done to advance that larger objective? So far, nothing.

Finally, even if the responsibility of making such decisions is awesome and weighty and all the rest....so what? Any man who stayed awake in high school history class knows at the very least that being President is not an easy job. He asked for the job anyway. If he is burdened by such responsibility, he should not have run for the office.

Of a certainty the job is weighty and challenging; a man who fails to appreciate that going in has no business sitting in the Oval Office. This incident is nothing compared to the enormity of the challenge of Iran, or the delicacy of the difficulty that is North Korea, or the complexity that is Russia. I do hope that the current occupant of the Oval Office is not as weighted down by this crisis as you suggest, for that indeed does not augur well for the real crises to come.

The President made a good call--but let's not pretend this call was major league. It wasn't. The REAL challenges in foreign policy are still yet to come.
Click to expand...

I would like to ask the DP forum participants who make perfect sense to not fall for the media's talking points by calling these Somali Terrorists pirates.

Words have meaning and to make the arguments more coherent, we should correctly call these Somali terrorists what they are, TERRORISTS.

Thank you. :2wave:
 
Laila said:
The Pirate asked to get shot when they held hostage a US citizen. How stupid do they have to be to not expect death.
Click to expand...

This is stunningly surprising coming from you. This has to be a first that I agree with you; bravo! :applaud
 
BulletWounD said:
"Interdict" and "prosecute" are used by the military as synonyms for engage/destroy/kill.
Click to expand...
You really think Pres Doofus speaks Military? For some reason, I doubt it. :roll:

.
 
Truth Detector said:
Here's the BIGGER question; will he also then accept responsibility when Somali terrorists carry out their threats to start specifically targeting Americans for this act?

:rofl
Click to expand...

I would guess this reckless Somali threat just put the president on a hair trigger to respond with overwhelming force to any incident. Do you have any idea of the military capability of that one assault ship, the Boxer? I've been on that ship, and it's capable of wiping out the entire pirate business by itself. The ship carries a contingent of 2,000 marines with Abrams tanks, howitzers, missiles, Harriers, helicopter gunships, and high speed air cushion assault craft. Check this out:

LHD Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ships - Naval Technology
 
Truth Detector said:
REALLY??? They are pirates? So what makes them pirates and NOT terrorists? Do they fly the skull and crossbones from their pirate ships? Do the say, “arrrrgggggh matey” when they charge aboard the ships they are "pirating?"

I find the media distortions about what these people are quite amusing. Folks, these are TERRORISTS. Suggesting that they are pirates requires the willing suspension of disbelief.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, lets derail the revs post, can’t keep it on something the President did right eh? Hey, these pirates were trying to shakedown the vessel in question.

They wanted a ransom: that’s what pirate’s did in the so-called golden age of piracy, that’s what these goons were attempting.

The rest of your lame a** attempt at a derail will be ignored.
 
Truth Detector said:
REALLY??? They are pirates? So what makes them pirates and NOT terrorists? Do they fly the skull and crossbones from their pirate ships? Do the say, “arrrrgggggh matey” when they charge aboard the ships they are "pirating?"

I find the media distortions about what these people are quite amusing. Folks, these are TERRORISTS. Suggesting that they are pirates requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

How do I know they are terrorists? Because they terrorize shipping that comes within 15 miles of their shores with RPGs and AK-47s and hold the ships and their crews hostage to finance their terrorist activities.

Now, I may be open to the argument that they could be organized crime; but based on their targets, it would be a hard sell to me.

So this begs the question; why is everyone in the media trying to re-define what a terrorist is? Why make the absurd statement that these terrorists are "pirates?"

This is the same absurdity the mainstream media uses to call anything that remotely resembles a military weapon "assault weapon." But the true definition of an "assault weapon" requires that the weapon have selective fire from semi-auto to full auto. The call them "assault weapons" in a desperate effort to lump legal weapons into the illegal weapon category to promote their anti-gun agenda; much like they attempt to call terrorism nothing more than piracy.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Only there is a clear difference between piracy and terrorism. Terrorism has political goals and piracy does not. Your argument is like saying that because U.S. soldiers and Iraqi insurgents both use guns that they're both the same. No. Pirates have no political goals. Their only goal is to take a ship hostage and get money. When terrorists take a ship hostage they demand and then blow up. Please stop presenting your opinion as facts?

Your simpleton interpretation of the word pirate is like that of my kid and dinosaurs. Just because thieves don't really go around wearing zorro masks and tip toeing to really childish music does that make them any less thieves? Pirates didn't really go around 24/7 using the Jolly Rodger which is famously known as the 'Pirate Flag'. It was used by like 4 pirates out of a total of HUNDREDS at the time. Most pirates used simple black flags and in a lot of cases no flag at all. With all that being said this is f'n Somalia. Do you think they really give a **** about flying flags? Do you think they give a **** about presenting an image of style over substance when they're about to take over a few hundred metric tons of oil? Seriously TD - the world is a little bit more complicated then HamBurglars and Jack Sparrows.

I bet this is what you think all thieves look like :

hamburglar.jpg


With their pirate counterparts :

pirate63.gif


And their astronaut counterparts :

Talking-Buzz-Lightyear-Doll-Toy-Story.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Only there is a clear difference between piracy and terrorism. Terrorism has political goals and piracy does not. Your argument is like saying that because U.S. soldiers and Iraqi insurgents both use guns that they're both the same. No. Terrorists have no political goals. Their only goal is to take a ship hostage and get money. When terrorists take a ship hostage they demand and then blow up. Please stop presenting your opinion as facts?
Click to expand...

You GottaLove that. :doh

While everyone is getting technical over terminology, by definition, terrorist/terrorism and pirate/piracy are not even close.

Kidnap/kidnappers would be the appropriate terminology. They took a man by force and held him for ransom.

terrorism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

piracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

kidnap - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 
GottaHurt said:
You GottaLove that. :doh

While everyone is getting technical over terminology, by definition, terrorist/terrorism and pirate/piracy are not even close.

Kidnap/kidnappers would be the appropriate terminology. They took a man by force and held him for ransom.

terrorism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

piracy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

kidnap - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Click to expand...

Meh - I guess if you want something to prematurely ejaculate over - like how i re-edit my posts 2-3 times after I'm done. Well. :shock:
 
donc said:
Ah yes, lets derail the revs post, can’t keep it on something the President did right eh? Hey, these pirates were trying to shakedown the vessel in question.

They wanted a ransom: that’s what pirate’s did in the so-called golden age of piracy, that’s what these goons were attempting.

The rest of your lame a** attempt at a derail will be ignored.
Click to expand...

The only ones attempting to de-rail the Rev's posts are the typical cabal of trolls and baiters who infest the forum with their emotional babble.

Labeling these "goons" as being mere pirates requires the willing suspension of disbelief that they are operating with impunity under their Governments noses, that they are indeed terrorizing the crews who are legally operating these ships and that by labeling them with the term pirates, the world body of Community Organizers can avoid dealing with the REAL problem which they have ignored for decades, the rogue Islamic regime that controls Somalia.

Your selective outrage and lame attempt to claim I am trolling has been noted. I am sure if you asked the Rev if I am de-railing his thread, he would adamantly disagree with you. I am sure he is also happy that you have designated yourself as his personal spokesperson.
 
Hatuey said:
Only there is a clear difference between piracy and terrorism. Terrorism has political goals and piracy does not. Your argument is like saying that because U.S. soldiers and Iraqi insurgents both use guns that they're both the same. No. Pirates have no political goals. Their only goal is to take a ship hostage and get money. When terrorists take a ship hostage they demand and then blow up. Please stop presenting your opinion as facts?
Click to expand...

What definition of terrorism states that it requires political goals? Could you please link me to a definition that contains such a passage; or is this once more YOUR personal definition to fit your OWN point of view?


Hatuey said:
Your simpleton interpretation of the word pirate is like that of my kid and dinosaurs. Just because thieves don't really go around wearing zorro masks and tip toeing to really childish music does that make them any less thieves? Pirates didn't really go around 24/7 using the Jolly Rodger which is famously known as the 'Pirate Flag'. It was used by like 4 pirates out of a total of HUNDREDS at the time. Most pirates used simple black flags and in a lot of cases no flag at all. With all that being said this is f'n Somalia. Do you think they really give a **** about flying flags? Do you think they give a **** about presenting an image of style over substance when they're about to take over a few hundred metric tons of oil? Seriously TD - the world is a little bit more complicated then HamBurglars and Jack Sparrows.

I bet this is what you think all thieves look like :
Click to expand...

How ironic watching you claim that others arguments are "simplistic" when you are the one posting the trite and simplistic cartoons in an attempt to make your silly argument that terrorism requires a political goal and ignore the substance of what my argument constitutes which I will repeat for you again:

The reason the term “pirates” is being used is merely an effort to avoid the state of terror that exists within the nation of Somalia and the terror they are conducting off their shores and that it is quite possible the Government is complicit in these attacks and the money is being used to fund terrorism; which the world has chosen to ignore for decades because to deal with the issue would require effort, sacrifice and be costly. It is far easier to deal with an issue by engaging in semantics using terms like “piracy” rather than to acknowledge that these “terrorists” are acting with impunity from their own Government and that the ONLY way the United Nations can deal with these acts is to deal with the Government whom we all know no one wants to do.

I look forward to seeing a credible link to your version of the definition of terrorism; that it requires a political goal.
 
Hatuey said:
Meh - I guess if you want something to prematurely ejaculate over - like how i re-edit my posts 2-3 times after I'm done. Well. :shock:
Click to expand...

You're the only spooging on himself, with your nonsensical uncontrollable outbursts.

Hatuey said:
Pirates have no political goals.
Click to expand...

Prove it, or Please stop presenting your opinion as facts

Hatuey said:
When terrorists take a ship hostage they demand and then blow up.
Click to expand...

You might want to share your HatueyFacts® with the folks aboard the Achille Lauro. They'll be relieved to know you're just having another uncontrollable outburst void of any actual facts.
 
Truth Detector said:
Labeling these "goons" as being mere pirates requires the willing suspension of disbelief that they are operating with impunity under their Governments noses, that they are indeed terrorizing the crews who are legally operating these ships and that by labeling them with the term pirates, the world body of Community Organizers can avoid dealing with the REAL problem which they have ignored for decades, the rogue Islamic regime that controls Somalia.
Click to expand...

(willing suspension of disbelief) :shock:



What government? Hey, were talking about Somalia here.
 
GottaHurt said:
You're the only spooging on himself, with your nonsensical uncontrollable outbursts.
Click to expand...

Spooging? Is that even a word?

Prove it, or Please stop presenting your opinion as facts

You might want to share your HatueyFacts® with the folks aboard the Achille Lauro. They'll be relieved to know you're just having another uncontrollable outburst void of any actual facts.
Click to expand...

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GMANews.TV - US: No evidence of al-Qaeda link to Somali pirates - World - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News - BETA

The head of US military operations in Africa said Tuesday he has no evidence that Somali pirates are connected to al-Qaeda.

US Army Gen. William "Kip" Ward said the chaos on the high seas is a reflection of the country's political chaos.

Somalia has had no functioning government since 1991. Pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia so far this year number nearly 100, with 40 ships hijacked. Fifteen ships with nearly 300 crew are still being held for ransom near the coastline.
Click to expand...

All demand money. No political demands. Want to try this again? Not to mention the fact that the hard core Sharia Muslim clans that control the rest of the country would never allow piracy to go on without any kind of real political demands. Even the U.S. military admits that these people have no obvious links to terrorism. The closest they can get is clan affiliation.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
I would like to ask the DP forum participants who make perfect sense to not fall for the media's talking points by calling these Somali Terrorists pirates.

Words have meaning and to make the arguments more coherent, we should correctly call these Somali terrorists what they are, TERRORISTS.

Thank you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, words do have meanings. And no surprise, when the word with the correect meaning is used and doesn't agree with what you want to rant, rave, and be your typical hyper partisan hysterical irrevelant self about you decide that a different word is fitting.

People are calling these Somali's pirates because that's the word that best suites them. Only hacks trying to turn this into a typical bull**** escapade which is so typical of your kind of bottom feeders of political discourse are trying to label them as "terrorists".

Take your own advise. Words have meaning. These are not terrorists. Show any PROOF that these Somali Pirates have any ties that show they're raiding ships is to finance terrorist activities.
 
So the president has made a statement on the piracy issue, despite the premature pronouncement of the "reverend". So will you correct the title of your thread or issue an apology for your presumption, "reverend"? I suspect not.

“I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of piracy in that region,” Mr. Obama said. “And to achieve that goal, we’re going to have to continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks. We have to continue to be prepared to confront them when they arise. And we have to ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes.”
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
All demand money. No political demands.
Click to expand...

You've proven nothing but a few incidents. Your statement was:

Pirates have no political goals.
Click to expand...

Again, prove it. You can't, so it goes back to you and your uncontrollable outbursts void of any actual facts.

Hatuey said:
Want to try this again?
Click to expand...

Sure, I love watching you flounder.

Hatuey said:
Not to mention the fact that the hard core Sharia Muslim clans that control the rest of the country would never allow piracy to go on without any kind of real political demands.
Click to expand...

Well, the piracy is going on and according to your earlier statement:

Pirates have no political goals.
Click to expand...

You seem to have some serious internal conflict with yourself over this issue.

Please feel free to take a minute to sort out the The John Kerry Syndrome® that you're obviously afflicted with.
 
WillRockwell said:
So the president has made a statement on the piracy issue, despite the premature pronouncement of the "reverend". So will you correct the title of your thread or issue an apology for your presumption, "reverend"? I suspect not.
Click to expand...


Yes the statement is that they will confront them when they arise. This demonstrates a lack of insight on Obama's part to end this problem, but to react when it happens. This is most unfortunate. And When the first American dies because of Obama's policy as stated by your quote. Will you still be gloating out of your waste ejection port as usual?


As for an apology, please let me know when you start pounding sand and I will consider it. :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Yes the statement is that they will confront them when they arise. This demonstrates a lack of insight on Obama's part to end this problem, but to react when it happens. This is most unfortunate. And When the first American dies because of Obama's policy as stated by your quote. Will you still be gloating out of your waste ejection port as usual?


As for an apology, please let me know when you start pounding sand and I will consider it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeh, the same nonsensical ideological crap you always spout, "Rev". As if you possessed enough insight to second guess the White House. I'm sure your Taliban friends appreciate your zeal in working to bring down the infidel president. Keep up the good work.
 
WillRockwell said:
Yeh, the same nonsensical ideological crap you always spout, "Rev". As if you possessed enough insight to second guess the White House. I'm sure your Taliban friends appreciate your zeal in working to bring down the infidel president. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...




What are you cackling about now? :lol:


do you have anything intelligent to say or are you simply trolling me now? Let me know, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom