Skip to comments.Pirates seize French cruise ship
Posted on 04/04/2008 10:10:42 AM PDT by presidio9
Pirates seized control of a French cruise ship Friday off the coast of Somalia, France's Foreign Ministry said.
A ministry official said details about the attack were scarce, and it was not clear how many crew members were on board the ship or if there were any passengers.
The ship is in the high seas in the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia in the Indian Ocean.
The official declined to identify the vessel or its owner.
The ministry has set up a crisis center to deal with the situation, said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
Pirates seized more than two dozen ships off the Somali coast last year.
The U.S. Navy has led international patrols to try to combat piracy in the region. Last year, the guided missile destroyer USS Porter opened fire to destroy pirate skiffs tied to a Japanese tanker.
Wracked by more than a decade of violence and anarchy, Somalia does not have its own navy and
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
What, and miss out on the bargain shopping and cafe-hopping in downtown Mogadishu?
Vive la France!
So you don't think he'll send in the cheese eating surrender monkeys?
I like the way you think, FRiend. :)
Not all French are wimps, believe me. There were plenty that stood up to Nazi Germany as best they could under the circumstances.
Too bad that deep-seated sense is just a stupid myth.
Perhaps before you post that you check and see how the French did in Algeria and other places where the political will was behind them.
The French special forces know exactly what they are doing, they just aren’t allowed to be slipped from their leashes, that’s the problem.
What was the French reaction to the Norman takeover of Normandy?
What was the French reaction to the Nazi takeover of Europe?
What was the French reaction to mobs of ‘youths’ rioting and burning cars in their streets?
The French resistance was an insurgency not a military force. Their military folded like a cheap lawn chair.
Well that certainly narrows the field some...
I'm sure that they are very good, but we here at Free Republic can not resist a hanging curveball or a chance to dis the French.
Glad I scanned the whole thread. I was about to post this. Notice that the chart doesn’t show the decrease in Global Temperatures and increase in piracy seen this year. I love when the data fits the theory!
Not really. The suffered a lot of casualties for folding “like a cheap lawn chair.” They were poorly led and had an idiotic war doctrine (it was stupid in WWI - it was even more stupid in a mechanized era), but they did fight. If they had someone like a Guderian to revolutionize their land warfare doctrine - well, they had more (and better!) tanks than the Wehrmacht in 1940... It would have been bad.
Think of Israel, with a vastly superior military, being “defeated” by Hezbollah, not because of their military’s weakness, but because of idiot politicians (Israeli and American) and you’ll have it about right.
It would be the waterborne equivalent of a 'marooning' . . . and I don't mean Bugs Bunny.
"Marooned", 1909, by that master of pirate painters, Howard Pyle.
I would be carrying a bigger stick if I was attached to a large hyaena by a chain!
Surely, though, that's reported number of acts of piracy, 'cause I don't think there's an Official Pirate Census. ARRRRRRRRR!
I was watching the History Channel and they were complaining about the French men hauled off to slave labor camps and all I could think was “If you are an able bodied man, capable of slave labor, and you are sipping espresso in the cafe when the Nazi's roll into town; I have little sympathy for you.” although i guess they didnt have the same means to resist that I would have, not having a Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Much to their detriment.
Piracy is on the increase and in a lot more places than just Somalia...
The US navy, which has long mounted the old M2 .50 against just such smaal boat raids as that which nearly sunk the U.S.S. Cole has rethunk their position about such things, concerned about, among other things, collateral damage.
CRANE, In -- Naval Surface Warfare Center, (NSWC) Crane was tasked by NAVSEA (PMS NSW) in direct support of Chief of Naval Operations' (N764) Operation Task Force Hip Pocket to install additional small arms weapons on deploying ships for force protection. The directive to provide MK44 systems to several ships scheduled for near-term deployment was received late last year and in less than 45 days, 56 systems were procured, assembled, inspected, and delivered to the Truman Battle Group (BG) ships in Norfolk and the Nimitz BG in San Diego.
As I understand it, though, the Cole crew was not standing to their guns and the guns weren't even loaded, so it wouldn't really matter if they had a 7.62 Gatling, a Ma Deuce, or a Red Ryder BB gun . . . .
Total casualties have been estimated at about 542,000 French and about 434,000 Germans. About 1 million soldiers plus 25,000- 30,000 civilians. Book says 330,000 and 350,000
France was devastated by ww1 fought largely on French soil, an entire generation of it's bravest sons gone. Do not underestimate the French.
Well, I'm so glad you asked.
In WWII, France had peak forces of 5 million -- on percentage terms a much higher rate of mobilisation than the USA's 12.3 million. French KIA were 210,000 (4.2% of forces), versus USA's 292,000 (2.4%). So they mobilised at a higher rate, and they died in combat at a higher rate. The closest thing America has ever seen like a war for survival was our Civil War. The French ran up a KIA percentage of "just" 2/3 that of the American Civil War, but those casualties were suffered not over years, but a matter of a few weeks.
Total French military casualties 1939-1945 were 13.04%, versus 9.3% for the Brits and 3.75% for the USA.
This does not included an additional 270,000 French civilians killed (France suffered civilian casualties at a rate of 0.83%, versus 0.21% for the Brits, and zero for the USA). Nor does it count the trauma of world war I: With 8.4 million men under arms, France had 1.4 million dead -- 16.4% KIA -- plus 4.3 million wounded. In that war, the USA had 4.7 million men under arms, with only 117,000 KIA -- 2.5% -- and 204,000 wounded.
Now you know the facts: that the French had a higher percentage of men in uniform, suffering a higher casualty rate (they had as many uniformed casualties as the USA, despite our having more than 3 times the number of servicemen). Perhaps the French were badly led. Certainly they were unlucky enough to be up against one of the best-trained, best-equipped fighting machines in history. I hate to deprive you of your fun in bashing froggies, but Im trying to save you from coming off as an ignorant blowhard.
PS. The comment about the Norman migrations in the 10th century is just stupid.
And they certainly capitulated to the Normans, but you are correct that it was essentially the only good move they could have taken at that point, as the Norman's would have ‘drank their milkshake’.
And how about the ‘youths’ rioting in the streets?
“Do not underestimate the French.”
You quite rightly cite Verdun as a terrible battle for the French, however, a lot has passed since WWI.
Vietnam (First Indo-China War)
All lost by the French since WWI, as I remember.
I don’t know that people ARE underestimating the French here. It may just be possible that you’re OVERestimating the French.
Do you really think that the % of casualty rates is an indication of military prowess? Doesn’t the higher % reflect the ineffectiveness of French arms as opposed to the other? Utterly defeated armies in full retreat with the enemy hot on their heels most always suffer more casualties than armies that retreat in good order.
Look at the rate of British casualties in France for the same time period and you should see similar high rates of casualties.
Also, you mention poor leadership, which is something I agree with, but you mention it like single-minded French Generals and an uninspiring French officer corp were not French, which, of course, they were.
They often don't use speedboats, just a small boat launched from a dhou, which can in turn get awfully far out into the Indian Ocean. Photos below are of the dhou and small boat taken down by the USS Winston S. Churchill in 2006.
Here's the Churchill and the dhou. The pirates probably needed clean undies after the encounter.
Gonna avoid the whole northwestern quarter of the IO? Better to take the Jeffersonian route and blast the pirates. The ship below has done it before, circa 1805. Those were Musselman(Muzzie) pirates too.
Give her a few .50s and maybe an old 20mm and she'd be good to go against the pirates. She is still a commissioned US Warship, the USS Constitution.
“Its sad to say that, unless you have some Marines or other Blackwater-types on board, having an armory on a cruise ship would just get people killed.”
BS. That’s what liberals say about firearms in our homes. It doesn’t take a Marine to use a firearm. That’s just you putting them on a pedestal.
Yea, the pirates. Nobody said the armory had to be just small arms. A .50 or old M60 would be right handy in repealing borders. Give them an AT-4 or equivalent, and the pirates would have worry about being sunk.
Thanks for the info. I didn’t know that. Good for the Frenchies. My comment was a riff about the incident some time ago when they had to tow the thing, for some reason or other..
Well, frogs are waterborne. ;-)
The Frogs were poorly led. They had more and better tanks, good aircraft, and plenty of decent troops. They just lacked the doctrine the Germans had developed to use them together.
Of course, everybody but the Germans lacked that doctrine... and paid in blood to learn it.
If the French had good leadership they fought well, for example, Bir Hachiem, where they fought the Afrika Corps to a standstill, then, surrounded, broke out and escaped.
Gee, let's see here. Lessons learned and procedures developed over close to a hundred years, or what Rambo writes on an internet forum. Tough call.
On your average cruise, you've got a bunch of old geezers who are WWII and Korea and 'Nam vets (o.k., us 'Nam era folks aren't geezers QUITE yet). Not to mention those of us who while not veterans are well versed in the use of small arms.
My dad was an Engineer in WWII and was quite capable as late as the 70s of putting two well-placed shots in a burglar on a dark rainy night with his father's double barrel Parker (when you care enough to send the very best.)
I've fired a bunch of oddball stuff including a water-cooled Vickers MG, and it's not rocket science. If the cruise ship told off the veterans to man the heavy stuff and let the rest of us handle the rifles, it would probably work sufficiently well to scare off pirates looking for easy pickings.
Besides, better to die on your feet etc. etc.
Gee, those prodcedures worked great on 9/11/2001. And they worked great on the Achille Lauro, too.
They work great for pizza delivery guys and clerks at convience stores.
John Paul Jones or Lord Nelson could take 'em.
The article doesn’t say if the pirates used strong language or Super Soakers.
Hell, they could market the cruises that way. I'll bet a lot of guys would like a chance to take a pop at some Islamofascists.
We carried a couple of those my last deployment but didn’t have them out very much. The gunner’s mates said they were far more susceptible to corrosion in the salt air than the old standby twin .50 cals we also carried.
Sure, daytime is easy. Fail to meet any of those conditions at night and the pirates are on board. If something goes wrong and the pirates decide they don't want witnesses (such as they shoot and kill someone during the gun battle), you've simply guaranteed that everyone else gets shot and tossed overboard. Probably with your bullets.
It's counter-intuitive, I know--but that is the historical perspective. Everyone wants to be a hero. They can't be here. The pirates are after your goods and maybe the ship. They don't want to kill you. But they will. And they'll have little problem doing so unless you turn your ship into an armed fortress. Concertina wire a plus . . . it'll leave cute rust marks.
So go ahead. Name your pretty little ship the Khe Sanh. Let's see how many tickets you sell.
OLD IRONSIDES BUMP!!! I love that ship and all she stands for.
“Lessons learned and procedures developed over close to a hundred years”
Lol. What lessons learned over 100 years??? The only people who say not to use a firearm are liberals and cops looking to protect their own interests, which one are you?
Between me and you, I bet I’m the only one who has returned fire, so I’ll take my own personal experiences whereby returning fire was a lifesaver versus your distorted opinion that only Marine types are capable for self-defense.
P.S. Bullies usually run when punched in the nose. Works on the high seas, too.
I wish we had one here . . . it would be interesting to see his reaction to your cultural theories. I wonder how long it would take before he became impatient.
“Listen, I understand your desire to prove to everyone here that you are a real man.”
Well, you’re the one trying to lay claim to understanding security expertise, yet, you have no expertise from which to understand such things. Again, only stupid liberals and cops with an agenda ever try to say a person should never use a firearm in defense. You have no expertise from which to speak so we’ll just chalk you up as just another liberal who wants us all to be sheep because you think the experts say so. OH, and, uh, only liberals like to say anyone who stands their ground with a firearm is just showing bravado.
Let me know when you get your international concealed-carry permit, cowboy.
EXACTLY. My first thought. It is criminal - unless it is a trap.