According to the commander on scene, he made a conclusion that the captain was in immediate danger and acted accordingly.

Under truce? There are no truces with kiddnapers and pirates. Since there is no law on the high seas you can break them. Secand if you think the police are do not shot when there is a "truce". Not in the states. Third you sound like a kid compaining about someone cheating at a game.

No, he just sounds like someone who is anti-American regardless of the other facts. Every thread that is ever posted here, you can predict his reaction. I'm surprised it took him so long to come up with a 'good' reason to support the pirates.

@: OMGNSO - See the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Moster
Seriously though, piracy is piracy. Two centuries ago, there would be no question of attack a Pirate vessel and slaughtering the Crew, becuase that is what the Pirates would do.
Now however, no Somali pirate has been reported killing a civilian Hostage, so killing Somalians is a wrongdoing, in my opinion.
As to how to solve the problem, military intervention will not work.

Does anyone else remember what caused these problems? Imperialism. When the Itallian's left "somaliland" in 1960 there were fewer than 100 college graduates in the whole of the Nation. Colonial administrators tore telephones off of the walls as they left, leaving nothing behind. The Italians pretty much said "Well that was fun, no you guys can govern your selves! Have Fun!"
How can a people oppressed since the early 19th century form any type of stable governmental system? The Italians caused this problem though their "tropical dependency" style government - now Italy should solve it. Meanwhile, I advocate the capture and detention of all suspected pirates in international prisons. Saudi Arabia has a lot of Desert, lets build a prison there....

How about this approach...

Pirates are stealing from maritime vessels, so I take it as like an armed robbery. If we're supposed to "not deal or bargain with terrorists," don't pirates fit under that?

Personally I think the navy should take an approach that, causes the least amount of killing without agreeing to the pirate's demands or ransoms, and regaining control of the ship in the shortest amount of time.

If that means killing the pirates, then by all means the navy should go ahead with that. The situation should be dealt with before hostages start getting held at gunpoint.

I also hate the concept of having "rules in war." If we're out to successfully overcome the problem of piracy in Somalia we can't say, wait we're not allowed to do that because it's not allowed.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/rules-of-war.htm

Suprise attacks, false negotiations, flying false flags, wearing enemy combatants' uniforms, ect are all prohibited under the numerous war treaties that the US has signed.

I believe most of these laws should be revoked except for the ones revolving around wounded combatants. The most effective method should be used, you can't successfully win any fight with both of your hands tied behind your back.

Bottom line, If the pirates resist surrender for a prolonged amount of time, anything is fair game including their killing.

While some may say that pirates are victims of the West's failings, its their own faults for not waiting for the UN and other programs to give them aid. If you say, aww the UN is useless, it's only because people like you and the pirates don't believe aid will ever come, so they take matters into their own hands. The UN always needs time to deliberate and act as any bureucracy does, but they will act.

Anyways that's my two cents.

FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The pirate was aboard to get bandaged. The ones blown away were about to shoot the hostage. They got killed to save a life. Truce or no truce is irrelavent. And his getting arrested? He committed an international crime and the negotiations were doen because he had nothing left to negotiate with when his mates were about to kill the hostage.

Truce over, game over. They wer egoing to kill the captain and that in and of itself ended the truce.

As I see it, these pirates are just going about this the wrong way. They need a flag, and a catchy tune that can be called an "anthem". Then they can call themselves the Somali Navy, and refer to their extortions as "taxes". The kidnappings can be called "renditions" or "arrests".

As Darwyn's link points out, the difference between pirates and nations is just a matter of scale (and skilled public relations).

And as for the killing of the 'pirates' during a truce, I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone reading this forum that reputation and prior history matter a great deal when dealing with someone - I'm sure the pirates will never forget this 'stab' and will take this into consideration before trying to negotiate any kind of deal again. Remember that "Arab terrorists" used to allow emergency medical care for their hostages during airline hijackings way back in the 60s and 70s - until Israeli commandos started dressing up as EMTs. You can thump your chest and brag about how good it feels to slaughter the bad guys during the 5th act - but real life continues long after the curtain falls. Actions have consequences, and solutions that involve violence and treachery usually don't have good consequences in the long run; the stiffen the opponent's resolve to fight more than anything else. Quick fixes aren't usually the best fixes.

Pirates just gotta say they were launching a "pre-emptive strike" on the "terrorists," attempting to bring "contraband" into the "homeland" based on "classified information."

spot on tolstoy. It seems one can not talk about root causes and possible real sustainable solutions to these kind of problems without some teabagging nut case jumping up and down and saying we all belong to the Hug A Pirate Association(HAPA, pretty catchy name).

nice one tolstoy and @dingleberry one, i wasnt being anti american at all just saying that shooting under a truce is wrong no matter who did, the person on the warship was negotiating the exchange and the captain had jumped into the water and was under no immediate threat when the pirates were fired upon.AND FOR THE LAST TIME IM NOT SUPPORTING THE PIRATES

Trim, the captain had NOT jumped into the water when they were fired upon. That was earlier that he had nearly escaped. When they were shot, they were pointing an AK-47 at the back of his head, assassination style. Get you facts straight dude.

I support the pirates. If they were selling shares, I would buy some, their business has a potential to make a lot of profit in the near future ;)
I'd also buy some shares in WesternNavies Inc., because they are going to have increased profits, too :D
Win-win situation for potential investors....

Oh, wait... you can't buy any shares in any of those organizations... must be someone who already runs both operations and has a monopoly in that field... oh, well.

No, you can't buy shares in navies or pirates because they are sole proprietorships.

Anyway, I think it is right for pirates to kidnap, rob, and ask for ransoms, while it is right for shipping companies to pay those ransoms, for in-sewer-ants companies to increase their premiums and to pay for the damages, for navies to shoot pirates on sight, for bakers to make bread, for motor companies to produce cars.... Everyone has to make a living...

I'm pretty sure Imperialism used to solve this problem S.P.A.O. If this was 1850 the Royal Navy would have sorted it out in a jiffy. The lack of an equivalent navy (Yes, the U.S. Navy is the world's most powerful...but it doesn't do what the Royal Navy used to do) means no-one is really dealing with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbwRvzXULtg

The French have hit the pirates a few times, and their ships probably stand a better chance of a safe passage then other nations ships because of this. Hit the pirates and others will think twice about following in their footsteps.

@ Hereward:
Imperialism solved problems? How does denying rights, education, and self government solve problems? Besides, the Italians never had the said "Royal Navy." That would be the British whom you are referring to, and in my opinion, the British did a much better job ceding their empire than the Italians, and are not so much to blame for these problems. (Partition of Africa is a different story...)

Blaming imperialism of the past is just rationalizing the actions of the pirates. They have never used such rationalization, only the persons habitualy belittleing the western powers. Pirates have been around for thousands of years, all with the motive of wealth.

And it's been easy wealth up to now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8001183.stm

I don't want to get into the details of Empire, all I said was that Imperialism in terms of the British did a very effective job of curbing piracy. My point simply was that when a single power had an interest in protecting the area as a matter of economy and principle and total naval supremacy, piracy was very effectively dealt with. I'm fully aware of whom I'm referring to. The Royal Navy had a very strong presence in the Indian Ocean...the area of discussion.

@ warsprite:
Certainly, I do not deny that pirates have existed ever since the advent of maritime trade, and perhaps before. But these particular pirates are the direct result of European intervention within the last half-century.

You're blaming these pirates on imperialism?

These pirates are the direct result of the Somali Civil War destroying Somalia's government and the resulting lawlessness. But even that isn't totally accurate. At the end of the day, the pirates created themselves by becoming pirates.

You can't blame whitey for everything.

S.P.A.O. I what you say true than I want to blame US imperialism on how we were treated by King George.

Exactly. America only does bad things because we were oppressed by Britain.

Britain only does bad things because they were oppressed by the Romans and Vikings.

The Roman Empire occurred because of how the Etruscans screwed the Romans over for hundreds of years.

The Etruscans only did that because they were resisting Greek expansionism.

The Greeks were acting that way because the Persians were attacking them and oppressing them.

The Persians were doing that because Babylon was oppressing them.

Babylon was that way because of how Sumer treated them.

There wasn't anything before Sumer, so I guess they're the ones to blame for today's piracy. Those damn Iraqis!

*SATIRE* *SATIRE*