Pirate attacks on ships in the South Pacific are increasing in frequency and sophistication. Some see a connection to Islamic terrorism. From Reuters, with thanks to Nicolei:
SINGAPORE: Attacks on ships by sea pirates in South-East Asia are resembling military operations – growing bolder, more violent and fuelling fears of an attack that would cripple world trade, Singapore said yesterday. ...“But the last piracy attack that took place in the Straits of Malacca showed a different pattern,” he added.
The pirates were well-armed, operating sophisticated weapons and commanding high-speed boats.
“They conducted the operation almost with military precision,” Tan said.
“Instead of just ransacking the ship for valuables, they took command of the ship, and steered the ship for about an hour, and then eventually left with the captain in their captivity,” he said.
“To all of us, this is reminiscent of the pattern by which terrorists mount an attack.” ...
Singapore has repeatedly warned of the potential link between pirates and religious militant networks such as Jemaah Islamiah, blamed for the deadly 2002 bomb blasts in the Indonesian island of Bali and widely linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
“We are concerned that terrorists may seize control of a tanker with a cargo of lethal materials, LNG (liquefied natural gas) perhaps, chemicals, and use it as a floating bomb against our port,” Tan said.
“This would cause catastrophic damage, not only to the port but also for people, because our port is located very near to a highly dense residential area.
“Thousands of people would be killed,” he said.
The pirates were well-armed, operating sophisticated weapons and commanding high-speed boats.
Christopher Columbus and his ilk are still circulating....or is it Long John Silver...
Sea Pirates!Yep, The original european ones who terrorized the region for centuries and every island they passed by, they leaved only death and destruction.
My impression of history, Mahmoud, is that many of the more recent 'pirates' in history actually served various governments. (Jean LaFoote (sp) for example). The original pirates seem to have all been from Arab/African countries...
Didn't Thomas Jefferson, as president, have his own Jihadist pirates to deal with? "From the shores of Tripoli..." Its the jumpstart we needed to found the US Navy.
How did Jefferson deal with those pirates in Tripoli? Oh he invaded their homeland. I see a real correlation here.
May we remeber what history has taught us.
I happen to have "The Barbary Pirates" by C. S. Forester. It appeared in 1953, in the Landmark Books series then published, "ideal reading for boys and girls aged 10 to 13" reads the inside jacket.
When I look into this book, published a half-century ago, this "ideal reading for boys and girls aged 10 to 13," I find the following:
"At first the Barbary pirates had a religious reason for their wars: they were Mohammedans and they considered it their duty to make war on the Christians." (p. 4)
"The homelands of these people--the four North African countries of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli -- were known as the Barbary States. They were parts of the vast Mohammedan Empire which at one time had threatened to conquer the whole world. Later, this empire fell to pieces of its own weight, largely becvaue it had never been able to build any system of government except a simple tyranny." (p. 5)
"...the rulers living in these seaborad towns came to be dependent for their luxuries, and even for their necessaries, on what they could steal from the outside world. The sea was far more opoen to them than the mountains and deserts that hemmed them in at their backs. With the loot they could win at sea they could buy their food from neighboring tribes. The slaves they captured could build palaces and fortifications for them, and they were thereby saved from any necessity to do honest work....So to sea they went, capturing poorly armed ships, and often raiding the Christian coasts to loot the villages. The shores of Italy and FRance, sometimes even Ireland and once or twice Denmark, saw the Barbary pirates landing to carry off plunder and slaves. They exercised a certain amount of care not to anger powerful nations who might fight back. Often, the pirates were glad to accept money instead of plunder, and ransom for the slaves. Up to a point money was more useful to them than either. But only up to a point...The pirates must have war. Otherwise, the world would soon cease to fear them. Furthermore, among Arab pirates it was considered the mark of a gentleman to go out fighting now and then. So the Deys and the Beys went on raiding peaceful commerce. They knew perfectly well that if they stopped, there would be shortages of necessary goods among their subjects....Naturally the civilized world did not accept all this looting and piracy without protest. Over and over again European countries sent armed forces to North Africa. Spain and Sicily and France all sent their fleets and sometimes their armies. One of Britain's best admirals, Blake, was sent by Cromwell inthe seventeenth century with a fleet that bombarded Tunis and for a short time brought order to the Mediterranean. Repeatedly, the European powers seized portions of North Africa and held them for a time. This was one of the best ways to control the Barbary States, for any Christian foothold in North Africa broke the chain of coastwise navigtation that was important to a country of few roads." (p. 9-10).
"The constant wars in Europe played an important part in allowing the Barbary pirates to continue so long as an expensive nuisance...The periods of time between wars were too shnort to permit long-term action against the pirates, although numerous attempts were made...These attempts nearly all ended in a bargain being struck, after long haggling. The more powerlful the country that was bargaining, the better the terms that were obtained. If the pirates pushed their demands too high the other power would fight sooner than pay. In time the pirates became really skillful in adapting their demands to the situation. They knew just the right sum to ask so that peace would be a little more profitable than war for both sides...One other factor must be taken into consideraton...The European shipping owner was inclned to think of losses he suffered at the hands of the pirates as something that must be endured, for he had never known anything else...Finally, the problem was not an easy one to solve..for the Barbary States to give up piracy would mean that they would have to change their whole way of life. This wa something they could not even consider. Under threats they would promise to keep the peace--they would promise anything. But in time, [they would] return to their old way of life....(pp. 12-14).
"...Algiers rejoiced when the prizes were brought in -- there was always a celebration on those occasions. Then the ships and cargoes were sold and the crews set to forced labor.
"Christian slaves were always greatly desired because the Mohammedans did not like to hold their co-religionists in slavery. The captives were forced to do the degrading work which was considered beneath the dignity of an Algerine pirate. Furthermore, to treat the Christians harshly and to feed and house them badly was satisfying to Mohammedan feelings, and had the advantage of prompting the prisoners to write letters home with moving descriptions of their sufferings. As a result of these letters, the captives' relations or friends or government would gladlyh pay heavy ransoms for them....Americda did what little she could under the handicaps that beset her. She appealed to her former allies, France and Spain...But it was hopeless to expect [them to do much].
"A very unhappy chapter in American history came gradually to a close. The period of uncertainty and doubt came to an end. At varous times government leaders had decided to fight rather than pay blackmail to the Barbary States--but they continued to pay the blackmail. They had decided, too, that it would be wrong to make payments in the form of naval stores, for the Barbary Sttes woulde use these against American vessels--but they had sent the naval stores: weapons, ammunition, suppplies, even ships." (pp. 34-35).
"Now and then the government of the United Sttaes had taken action to avenge these injuries. However, the action lacked force becuase President Jefferson decided that he could not, under the Constitution, consider the United States to be at war with Tripoli, even though Tripoli was at war with the United States. The result of this was seen when the schoone Enterprise fell in with the Tripolitan ship of war Tripoli, outmaneuvered her, fought her, beat her into a wreck and forced her to surrender, and then allowed her to go free again." (pp. 35-36).
"...the small [American] squadron which could be sent immediately was large enough to command the Mediterranean--that was the clearest proof of the weakness of the Barbary powers. Everyone knew that if the pirates contested the command of the sea in a pitched battle they would be beaten, which makes it stranger still that the world had tolerated this nuisance for so many centuries." (p. 38).
"The British diplomats prsent were helpful and reliable [during these negotiations with the Mamelukes in Egypt about the pirates]. On the other hand, the French diplomats, because France was at war with England, though t it their duty to try to balk every British effort. This was done even though England was trying to subdue Tripoli--a state of things in which the whole civilized world had an interest." (p. 159).
"In the stress of the War of 1812, the Stars and Stripes disappeared from the Mediterranean, save when dispalyed by an occasional privateer...Then suddenl and dramatically the situation changed. The wars ended, and the enormous fleets which for yeas had fought each other were now free to punish the Barbary States...A squadron sailed inthe spring of 1815. Eleven years after Decatur had crept into Tripoli in the little Intrepid, he appeared in the Mediterreanena in command of a large force....The rapidity of Decatur's movements took the world -- especially the pirate world--by surprise. Less than a month after he sailed from New York, the flagship of Algiers was a prize and the Algerine admiral was dead on his own quarterdeck. Five weeks after sailing, Decdatur was in Agliers harbor dictating terms of peace....with a month [he] was entering Tunis. Tuis could make no defense, and the world was treated to the extraordinary spectacle of a Barbary State handing over hard cash in payment of reparatoins for breaches of neutrality. No time was wasted; Tunis yileded and paid up in a week...In three days more Decatur was off to Triplo, bringing with him the news of what had happend in Tunis and hard on the heels of the news of what had happened in Algiers." (pp. 180-181).
"Yusuf [the ruler of Tripoli] knew he had to yield, but of all the North African rulers he alone succeeded in bargaining with Decatur in the face of all Decdatur's guns. Thirty thousand dollars was the sum Dedcatur demanded in damages; but Yusuf beat him down to twenty-five thousand, and finally clinched the bargain by throwing in a thousand dollars' worth of slaves...But even so, Yusuf tasted humiliation and defeat, with a rapidity that could hardly be believed. Less than six months after Congress had declared war, the bags of gold were being ferried out to the Guerriere in Tripoli. The American flag was safe from insult, and American citizens were safe from outrage." (pp. 182-183)
"Unity and determination in the government had brought about that result. Unity and determination brought a strong force into existence, and the strong focrce wass commanded by a man of fire and resolution. Unity and dermination: a democracy can possess them both....Yet we must remember that peace and security in the Mediterranean were made permanent only by the efforts of all the civilized nations..." (p. 183)
Forgive the amount of quoting I have done, but look at these excerpts, so relevant in every way, in almost every word, to current events and attitudes, and needs.
And consider that this is not some report from the Brookings, or the RAND Corporation, or some "expert" pontificating on ABC/NBC/CBS News, telling us the obvious, and offering his inane and self-defeating presciptions (think Anthony Cordesman).
Keep in mind, as you read the above, that it was taken from "The Barbary Pirates," a Landmark Book, a a book that in 1953 was offered as "ideal reading for boys and girls from 10 to 13." You could learn a lot, if you were a boy or girl, aged from 10 to 13, back in 1953.
I am not sure if many people realize this but pirates were traditionally gay men. Why do you think they wear puffy shirts, jewelry, long hair? It was the only acceptable form of fitting into society besides becoming a priest. So...if these new muslim pirates are emerging, aren't they gay too and shouldn't they be killed by other muslims according to the Koran?
But seriously, I do see this form as the new wave of terror that will take place in the future. Let's hope we can stop them before an attack takes place.
Hugh:
Nice post. I seem to remember reading a while ago that it was a renegade European (possibly a Dutch pirate) who was sheltered by the Barbary pirates and who in turn, taught them much about successful raiding.
C.S. Forester was ahead of his time indeed. Few Westerners gave serious thought to the threat wide-spread modern piracy. Most were concerned with the Cold War and found ludicrous the idea of Islamism as a growing force in the world.
But Islamism did not spring out fully formed as did Athena from the brow of Zeus. We've had sufficient time to prepare for this problem. First question: Why has no one in government given serious attention to this problem before? Second: Why do the American people, the government, and the military seem concerned only with the bomb throwers and militias, rather than giving equal attention to the insidious and more dangerous Islamization of our culture?
Piracy could put a dent in our econmy, but Yankee know how would overcome that. Influence peddling within the halls of Congress, the universities, State Department, government bureaucracies, and public schools is serious and much dangerous than sea-faring pirates. Piracy is occuring in the social fabric of America and no one wants to notice.
lisa where did you hear that pirates are gay men? The "puffy shirts, jewelry, long hair" was just the style of a sailor back then.
On a different note. Piracy is actually one of the easier forms of terrorism to deal with.
they leaved only death and destruction.
Posted by Mahmoud at June 8, 2004 05:48 AM
Remember that Twinkie, they left (not leaved), death and destruction. Remember that as you and your Muslim brothers try to overtake the West, for that's what the West will leave for you, Raisin, and your fellow arrogant, intrusive, overbearing, invasive brothers of the Islamic Machete Blood Cult. Death and destruction is the soup of the day for any Muslim stupid enough to try us.
Bart-
It was actually more of a joke. But a gay friend of mine did propose that argument, then again he thinks everyone is gay! I actually have not done any research on the subject, but those pirates were on a boat full of men for long periods of time. Something to think about! ;0)
good post hugh
Hugh,
Thank you for the reference to the book, "The Barbary Pirates." Please post the names of any more like that you find. we need many books like that; our children must know.
"Brothers of the Islamic Machete Blood Cult"
Great name for a thrash metal band...
Pirates as gay men? One more reason to honor Britannia for hanging them. I was originally under the impression that they'd rape anything with an orifice. Actually, I understand that one of the problems that the Mamluks of Egypt had in replenishing their ranks was that a lot of them were given over to sodomy. And anthropologist once told me that in pre-Soviet Afghanistan, local contacts there warned him about men whose turbans were worn in a certain style, because they were homosexual. So much for a pristine Islamic culture.