To: BenLurkin
Why wasn’t the ship armed?
2 posted on
08/11/2017 9:40:06 AM PDT by
MeganC
(Democrat by birth, Republican by default, conservative by principle.)
To: MeganC
The article mentions fire hoses and a “sonic boom” machine
4 posted on
08/11/2017 9:41:05 AM PDT by
BenLurkin
((The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.))
To: MeganC
Why wasn’t the ship armed?Because defending oneself is racist.
5 posted on
08/11/2017 9:41:38 AM PDT by
60Gunner
(The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato)
To: MeganC
“Why wasn’t the ship armed?”
Per some international treaty, ships can’t carry arms. This is why cowardly scumbag Somali Muslim trash attack ships. Muslim garbage will attack anything defenseless because they (muslim garbage) are not real men.
9 posted on
08/11/2017 9:44:43 AM PDT by
bk1000
(A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
To: MeganC
Why wasn’t the ship armed? If maritime law does not allow cruise ships to be armed, cruise lines should challenge such laws. If a ship is registered in the USA, for example - why don't they ask protection from the US Coast Guard while traveling in the waters between these pirate ports?
26 posted on
08/11/2017 10:25:55 AM PDT by
heterosupremacist
(Domine Iesu Christe, Filius Dei, miserere me peccatorem!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson