Well, then, what are you waiting for, England?

Blow them out of the water.

Kill them.

Shoot them.

Dispatch them forthwith to their maker and their virgins.

Stop talking and fretting like helpless old men.

Fight, for God's sake, if not England's sake.

Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at April 27, 2008 8:40 AM

Oh, but according to Keith Ellison, Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur'an (which Ellison swore on) because he admired Islam! LOL - that is such a pile! Jefferson owned a Qur'an to "know the enemy," same reason why I own one, and everybody else on JW.

And I believe that the Barbary Pirates were a huge menace during Jefferson's time.

Posted by: darcy at April 27, 2008 8:42 AM

The above post by infidelatlarge defines what we should do, but the civil libertarians and other human rights scum would insist that we are showing a lack of respect for the human rights of these pirates if we do send them to their horned maker.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at April 27, 2008 8:45 AM

"The modern-day pirates use high-powered motor-boats, grenade launchers and machine-guns."

probable the same type of boats used by the Iranians in recent months as they buzzed by ships in their area...you know, the ones the Iranians deny are doing anything dangerous.

soon it will become mandatory for commercial shipping in that area to have military escorts nearby...just as WWII shipping had military escorts against the German submarines and bombers...

The Muslims keep saying they are at war. It is time we believed them and acted accordingly..

It is only a matter of time before the Muslims either purposely or accidently blow up a ship.

perhaps there is a need for two or three surveillance satellites to be sent up with the sole purpose of providing live time reconnaisance of just this part of the globe...the intelligence and photos gathered could be passed on the the captains of the ships plying these waters and to the military who should watching anyway..

Whether on land or sea, whenever Muslims appear so too does mayhem and death...

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 8:49 AM

Some 40mm deck guns on merchant ships should work.

But the way things are today, a captain would get in trouble under "international law" for a "human rights violaion" if he had his crew blast a pirate ship.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at April 27, 2008 8:54 AM

Sorry folks according to this link any Somali pirates arrested by the Royal Navy immediately become political refugees and must be flown to Britain. When here like all other regugees they will be given fully furnished apartments and Social Security until it is safe for them to return to Somalia. That will be when Somalia has a functioning liberal judicial system.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3736239.ece

I think this is called having a death wish.

Posted by: Fred at April 27, 2008 9:04 AM

Sorry folks according to this link any Somali pirates arrested by the Royal Navy immediately become political refugees and must be flown to Britain.

Why arrest them? There are other options available to the Royal Navy, yeah?

Posted by: mike trivisonno at April 27, 2008 9:16 AM

"Some 40mm deck guns on merchant ships should work.

But the way things are today, a captain would get in trouble under "international law" for a "human rights violaion" if he had his crew blast a pirate ship.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski"

several mounts of twin Bofors 40mms would make toothpicks of speedboats...no doubt..

"And only this week the Japanese oil tanker Takayama came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades."

why is this not a "human rights violaion"

a supersized Japanese oil tanker going up in flames would indeed be a spectacle...how would the Japanese react..would they beg the US to provide security or would they demand to be allowed to escort their cargo ships with military destroyers and air cover..

there will be a major incident caused by these pirates attacking shipping...

help avoid such an incident and allow the cargo ships to be armed and advise speed boats to stay away from ships...speed boaters beware ...

I like 40mms (20 mms are good too)..

FIRE!!

"

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 9:18 AM

Has no one thought of one obvious method -
Q-ships also known as Q-boats? They were used during both world wars. Why not in the present world war, declared by Islam?

Anything, from oil tankers, to large yachts could be pressed into service. As soon as the pirate blighters approached, the gun flaps could be dropped and the sub-human trash sent to that large garbage dump in the sky. No warning. No prisoners taken.

Let the pirates swim home - if they survive, although I prefer a 'no prisoners - no survivers', option. Might give their comrades on shore second thoughts, if many went out, but none returned. Yes, I like that.

Would Stinger type missiles be effective, more accurate and have a longer range than the pirate's grenade launchers? A few 50 calibre machine guns would also help even the odds, I should think.

An alternative might be armed drones. I understand they have massive endurance capabilities. Surely, satellites could guide them to targets? A bit out of my field, but it is a thought.

Long distance, manned aircraft might also be considered.

Some of these options could be viable, in addition to the free world's navies. Any re-armed PT Boats, or MTB's around? Just dump the torpedo tubes and add more guns/missiles.

Posted by: Greycap at April 27, 2008 9:22 AM

Peace Through Superior Firepower

Posted by: Lex at April 27, 2008 9:27 AM

mike trivisonno

"Why arrest them? There are other options available to the Royal Navy, yeah?2

No that would not be nice. We are a progressive liberal democracy and know that deep down they are basically good people who have been denied education and opportunity.

Besides the moment the first ones are blown out of the water there will be an aircraft full of human rights lawyers leaving London who will prove they were just poor fishermen and demanding prosecution of the RN officers and compensation for their relatives.

Posted by: Fred at April 27, 2008 9:39 AM

Just wait until the pirates get ahold of a cruise liner. That story won't be ignored, won't be able to be ignored--I hope.

England's response is evincing weakness and will serve to embolden these pirating terrorists.

Posted by: Always On Watch at April 27, 2008 9:53 AM

No that would not be nice. We are a progressive liberal democracy and know that deep down they are basically good people who have been denied education and opportunity.

Indeed. I am sure that if we only tried to engage them, they would stop this bad behavior. I am sure the Royal Navy provoked these poor fishermen into violence.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at April 27, 2008 10:04 AM

These pirates are muslims so they are only doing what their prophet himself did. He attacked and raided the transport network of his day, they are attacking and raiding the transport network of their day. Since Mohammad was the most perfect model of conduct, they are simply doing what is good and proper within their frame of reference. To try to prevent them from committing piracy would be an infringement of their right to practice their faith, which is upheld by the UN charter. In Jefferson's time it was not sufficiently appreciated that muslims did this in imitation of their prophet so they were stopped. This had the effect of freeing shipping and international trade and contributed to the progress of western civilization. This was profoundly anti-islamic. Since we now hold all religions in such high regard, we must not allow the prosperity of nations to interfere with the sincere believers who imitate their holy prophet, particularly when the religion in question is the religion of peace.

Posted by: Malta_1565 at April 27, 2008 10:40 AM

Once a pirate, always a pirate. Pirate jihad. A new one to add to the list. Real pirates, the olden type, were not very nice guys, but they had no religious bones to pick. When they robbed ships and coastal villages, they were looking for loot, and Allah was not on their mind. Muslim pirates always have Allah on their minds. Most pirates were not involved in the slave trade, they preferred rich merchant vessels or wealthy villages. Muslim pirates 'were' involved, which is one main reason for early America's war with them. The Treaty of Tripoli can be found on the web. Article eleven is controversial and interesting...I am disappointed in that treaty and with 'the fathers', for producing a document that sounds just a little too dhimmi. It does not sound like the dictates of a victor. Soft on Islam?
Read it yourself and make up your own mind...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2008 10:44 AM

"Has no one thought of one obvious method -
Q-ships also known as Q-boats? They were used during both world wars. Why not in the present world war, declared by Islam?"

A TRIED and true tactic...even in 1600s through the 1800s, one way to get rid of the pirates was to have a ship which appeared from the outside to be an easy target...once the pirates attacked they were shocked to be suddenly attacked by the "easy target", doors would open with cannons appearing and suddenly blasting away, dozens of marksmen would appear topside to blaze away...

it certainly worked then and no doubt would certainly work again...

you can hear the battle cry now; :Alllllaahhhhh Akkkbarrrr...ooops..."

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 11:02 AM

If this matter were not so deadly, it would be funny.
Here we are in 2008, piddling 3rd world thugs are harassing civilized humans all over the world. Do we slap them down? Nooo, we coddle them like naughty little children, Condhimmi Rice and others make excuses for their barbarism.
The jihadists (oh, I used that verboten word) have told us their intentions, I tend to believe them.
I guess the time has come to arm all ships and cruise liners. (I wonder how much a gunner would be paid on a luxury liner?)Hmmm

Posted by: interestinconundrum at April 27, 2008 11:13 AM

"I wonder how much a gunner would be paid on a luxury liner?)Hmmm "

I would do it for the meager cost of room and board..

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 11:18 AM

Duh Swami,

The treaty of Tripoli was authored in 1796. Yes, its not exactly like its a winner: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

The first Barbary war started (1801–1805). But I think you are referring to this:

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Yeah. That sounds very much like the same groveling we see today...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 27, 2008 11:22 AM

The book you should all be reading (or at least the UK government) is Joshua London's Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- Apparently never overly quoted quote by George Santayana

Posted by: Shy Guy at April 27, 2008 11:31 AM

sheik yer'mami...It seems to me that the 'fathers' especially Jefferson , since he had a Quran, did not read it intently enough, probably had no hadith to give context to anything, and had no Robert Spencer to help him along. Yet Adams writing's indicated he had a fair idea of what Islam was all about, so I don't want to be unfair to them. At least they knew who to go after and why, and took action...

Posted by: duh_swami at April 27, 2008 11:48 AM

I recently purchased a copy of Keith Ellison's swearing-in Quran from a used book seller. This 1734 English translation by George Sale contains a 145 page introduction which is a treasure of insight into the Muslim world-view BEFORE imperialism, the Great Satan USA, Israel, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

George Sale stated quite frankly that Muhammad was an impostor prophet and that Muhammad and some associates wrote the Quran themselves. So much for the verbal word of God!

Regarding the Arab character, Sale had this to say: "Their own writers acknowledge that they have a natural disposition to war, bloodshed, cruelty, and rapine, being much addicted to bear malice that they scarce ever forget an old grudge . . . The frequent robberies committed by these people on merchants and travellers have renderd the name of an Arab almost infamous in Europe; this they are sensible of, and endeavor to excuse themselves by alleging the hard usage of their father Ismael, who, being turned out of doors by Abraham, had the open plains and deserts given him by God for his patrimony, with permission to take whatever he could find there; and on this account they think they can, not only on the posterity of Isaac, but also on everybody else, always supposing a sort of kindred between themselves and those they plunder. And in relating their adventures of this kind, they think it sufficient to change the expression, and instead of 'I robbed a man of such or such a thing,' to say, 'I gained it.'" (pg. 24)

As a Muslim, Ellison would have done better to swear his oath of office on a telephone book.

Posted by: Chris at April 27, 2008 11:56 AM

Can't wait for legislation making cruise ships 'gun free zones'. Yeah, that'll work with pirates, just like all that other 'gun free zone' legislation works with mass murderers.

Posted by: Rick at April 27, 2008 11:57 AM

They lied then, they lie now. The Treaty of Tripoli was mistranslated into Arabic, only discovered later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Translation_controversy
It must be a Muslim thing, like treaties by their beloved Prophet, made to be broken, or at least interpreted loosely. Aren't they the cutest little Muslims, lying like little children caught with hands in the cookie jar, or booty jar. They will never learn, and baby talk don't help.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 27, 2008 12:25 PM

Duh Swami,

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

There is a difference between reading and comprehension. I'm sure Jefferson and his compatriots were just as puzzled about this vile doctrine as we are today.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 27, 2008 12:26 PM

How to find the pirate likely areas of the world = Any area of the ocean within 200 kms of a muslim country.

A joke? go check!!

I have pushed this point before but it was islamic piracy and their accomapanying razzias (which denuded many northern Mediteranean coasts)which destroyed the maritime economy of western Rome and led to its fall and NOT the barbarian invasions which simply removed effective central control of the empire and its forces.

The downturn in Islam's fortunes(after some 1200 years of slavery, murder, rape and pillage) only occurred after the barbary pirates were destroyed.
Perhaps this historical lesson neeeds to be relearnt. But can anyone see Obama or hilary doing it? This is the most important US election since 1960 or perhaps even 1932.

Doesn't anyone in the west have any gonads?

Posted by: MisIslamist at April 27, 2008 12:38 PM

"But can anyone see Obama or hilary doing it? "

b wahahahahahahahaha.

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 12:45 PM

"The downturn in Islam's fortunes(after some 1200 years of slavery, murder, rape and pillage) only occurred after the barbary pirates were destroyed.
Perhaps this historical lesson neeeds to be relearnt"

MisIslamist:

I doubt that measure will accomplish anything of significance today. Contrary to the situation of previous centuries that you mention, this piracy is not the primary source of Islamist financing at present. The realities of 2008 are completely unlike those of 1805, and you face a totally different set of circumstances. Inducing a downturn in Islam's fortunes today will require the U.S. (and other countries) to do two things.

1. Imposition of control over millions of Muslims living in western countries (including yours) either with measures to limit their numbers in the population and their influence over government policy or by somehow either inducing them to renounce Islam - at least in its historic form - or expelling them.

2. Revamping of national energy economies in line with the reality of diminishing oil supplies and the need for intensive research and development of green alternative energy sources. As long as the U.S. economy continues to be powered by fossil fuels, it is doubtful that the U.S. can ever avoid having to import oil from the Middle East, but until this money pipeline to the region dries up, every type of Jihad violence - not just piracy at sea - will continue.

East African coastal piracy is an annoying mosquito compared to the real financing of today's Jihad - Arab oil money.

None of your presidential candidates - Democrat or Republican - cover all of this ground in their policies. McCain may have better command of the ideological threat of Jihad, but I would expect the Democrats to be the greener of the two parties where you'll find more support for moving away from the traditional oil economy. Even there, though, Hilary has her own connections to the Saudis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

You face an unenviable choice in November.

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 2:38 PM

Well Thomas Jeffersion simply had a copy of the Koran so he could fine out why the Barbary pirates did what they did.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 27, 2008 2:57 PM

Thomas Jeffersion simply wanted to have a copy of the Koran so he could know his enemy.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 27, 2008 2:57 PM

From Robert: "Early in the history of the United States, the nation had to take on and defeat jihadist pirates. It is time to do it again."

I would feel more comfortable with our latest array of presidential candidates if they would publicly acknowledge that our country's newest enemy is also our oldest enemy, and demonstrate some understanding of the length and breadth of the struggle between Islam and the West, particularly the United States.

But, according to the extremists embedded in our educational system (and due to our years of that complacency in that regard, spread more generally throughout society and government) any recognition that the country's founders may have been motivated by good intentions and admirable ideals is "intellectual" heresy to a growing number of "social scientists", "historians", and "theologians". Any suggestion that historical attitudes may have limited the scope of their revolution to that which was practical at the time, and barely achievable at that, is now mystically understood and deconstructed as window into a virulently racist Eurocentric heart. Irrational post-modern definitions of social justice and liberation have so muddied the intellectual puddle their proponents occupy that they fail to comprehend the existential threat they pose to themselves, let alone to those of us still bound by reality in this universe.

As Hillary Clinton takes her first tepid steps back to reality necessary to deter or defeat civilization's enemies, Barack Obama still seems unable or unwilling to recognize and plainly state the obvious. And it's obvious that irrational stupidity is still stupidity, especially when it is a sanctioned field of study at Harvard and Princeton, embodied in the nihilism and anarchism of that Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, William Ayers; and preached from the pulpit by Reverend Wright as the Gospel according to James Cone and Carl Marx.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at April 27, 2008 4:03 PM

After the start of the Iraq War, I commented to a friend that sooner or later a Jefferson of Iraq would emerge and the country would be on its way to a renaissance. I even imagined projects like Eden Again (http://www.edenagain.org/) would blossom and beauty would return to people downtrodden.

That was before I started learning about Islam.

There will be no Iraqi Jefferson. There will be no return to Eden. There will be no beauty. Only islam.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at April 27, 2008 4:11 PM

templar:

The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal, so don't rule out all fossil fuels.

Clean coal burning plants definitely need to be part of the mix. Trying to rule out fossil fuels at this point won't get us far.

Posted by: JSobieski at April 27, 2008 4:23 PM

Trying to rule out fossil fuels at this point won't get us far"

JSobieski:

I agree, it can't be done overnight. But coal is, like oil, a limited and non-renewable resource. So in the long run, it still makes sense to develop renewable energy sources. Meanwhile, your coalfields can serve as a buffer.

One other thing to consider in that case, though, is that if coal is to be relied on in this way, other regions of the world may regard the U.S. as having a moral obligation to provide some of its reserves to them on some sort of reasonable, negotiated terms of trade.

Posted by: templar at April 27, 2008 4:55 PM

But if we don't call them jihadis they'll sail home and be nice, right?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 27, 2008 5:25 PM

Errata Sheet:

For "Nautilus spokesman Andrew Linington said: 'We are talking about sophisticated, organised, violent gangs, who jeopardise the lives of seafarers.;"

Read "Nautilus spokesman Andrew Linington said: 'We are talking about sophisticated, organised, violent gangs of Muslims, who jeopardise the lives of non-Muslim seafarers."

And note that the same Muslim pirates, akin to the corsairs who would go out from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli to attack Christian shipping, even registering their intended prey, or the place where they intended to prey, in advance with the relevant bey, also operate in East Asia, in the Straits of Malacca.

But look on the bright side. Such pirates push up the cost of shipping insurance for oil tankers, and hence for the price of Middle Eastern oil. And evern such raise in that price either dampens demand, or makes alternative sources of energy more economically attractive, or both. And that is a good thing.

Posted by: Hugh at April 27, 2008 5:42 PM

Early in the history of the United States, the nation had to take on and defeat jihadist pirates. It is time to do it again.

Not at all. It's time for the UK to take on and defeat jihadist pirates, just as the US defended its own ships from pirates two centuries ago. Unless and until the pirates attack American ships, it's hands off. All countries whose fleets are being attacked need to choose their own course of action. Can't have the world accusing the US of interfering with commerce on the high seas or of being militaristic again, now can we?

Posted by: PMK at April 27, 2008 6:59 PM

Cruise ship terrorism already has happened, in 1985:

Four heavily armed Palestinian terrorists in October 1985 hijack the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt. The hijackers demand that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners. The terrorists kill a disabled American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, and throw his body overboard with his wheelchair. After a two-day drama, the hijackers surrender in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tries to fly the hijackers to freedom, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercept it and force it to land in Sicily. The terrorists are taken into custody by Italian authorities. Counter-terrorist units from the U.S responded, including elements of Delta Force and SEAL Team Six, however the situation was resolved before an assault became necessary.

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at April 27, 2008 7:28 PM

Care has to be taken when tackling pirates as they may demand political asylum. So the Royal Navy has been told.

Pirates now when abusing others Human Rights can when caught demand theirs. Today one is more afraid of the justice system rather than imposing justice. Best let them be, saves paperwork and a lifetime on benefits.

Posted by: James at April 27, 2008 7:29 PM

When the Achille Lauro docked in Egypt following the murder of Leon Klinghofer (a 69 year old wheelchair bound retiree), the Egyptian government released the terrorists, who promptly used a small boat to run victory laps around in the water.

One of the terrorists is Bassam al_Ashker (who was 17 at the time is now in Palestine (probably helping out in the violent ways of Islam.

Bassam al-Ashker, now 39, told reporters by telephone that he is now a militiaman for the mainstream Fatah faction of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and saw it as his duty to brave the fighting to help the thousands of trapped civilians.

(the Civilians are indeed trapped..trapped in a stupid Islamic mentality)

He should have been liquadated long ago.

Posted by: pulsar182 at April 27, 2008 7:48 PM

BigCatGirl...I really didn't expect a downturn in Islam's resurgence from stopping the piracy BUT if it did happen it just might be the herald for future more useful acts. I am not a YS citizen BTW :)

Hugh said:"But look on the bright side. Such pirates push up the cost of shipping insurance for oil tankers, and hence for the price of Middle Eastern oil. And evern such raise in that price either dampens demand, or makes alternative sources of energy more economically attractive, or both. And that is a good thing. "

Do you really think so? Too many with invested interest in the oil market have far too much power in the USA, If you add Saudi bribery(Clinton library etc.) to US universities and politicians can you truly be this optimnistic?

The oil problem has been with us since ? 1973 and i see no light labelled"alternative fuel" on the horizon and even if there were, what do you think the greedy would do about it as they are on a
real tsunami of cash while the barrel prioce rises. Too much faith in mankind IMHO.

Posted by: MisIslamist at April 27, 2008 9:05 PM

The French seem to be taking the fight to Somali pirates. The US Navy is also involved in stabilizing operations out there. Danger Room, in one of their more lucid moments, said that it was the start of a new power projection strategy by USN.

Africa is a mystery wrapped in a riddle. Small wars and big ones all over the continent and very little attention paid to them. I think we will pay dearly for that in the long run.

Posted by: Not Telling at April 28, 2008 12:38 AM

Sad to say, in today's world the quote would be:

"Millions for tribute, not one cent for defense".

If the civilized world doesn't unite to make it highly unprofitable for these Somalian pirate sorties, the civilized world has caved to barbarism and deserves what it gets.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at April 28, 2008 12:12 PM

Regarding Jefferson & the Barbary pirates

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003090.html

"Immediately after the Treaty of Ghent was signed, when the cruising season of 1815 opened, Washington sent out a squadron under Stephen Decatur to punish the Barbary towns for violations of previous agreements. He forced the Bey of Tunis to pay $46,000 in compensation ... His squadron was relieved by five of the new 'big' frigates under Commodore William Bainbridge who, in June 1815, achieved a remarkable moral victory over the Bey of Algiers, who was given exactly three hours to comply with an American ultimatum to hand over all U.S. captives plus a cash compensation; the Bey capitulated on time. There is some doubt about the permanent effectiveness of this American intervention, since all the pirate rulers repudiated their treaties once American ships were below the horizon(*). But news of it created a sensation in Britain and led to irresistible pressure on the government to order a similar display of British naval power."
== == == ==

(*) Negotiated agreements didn't mean anything to Muslims back then, either. It was OUR FIREPOWER and OUR WILL TO USE IT that got their attention & persuaded them to leave our ships alone. I trust that dynamic would hold today, if we had the balls to do the same as Jefferson did nearly two centuries ago... And yes, I think "British naval power" needs to get involved, too.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at April 28, 2008 12:39 PM

Britain giving refuge status to pirates is farcical. If westerners do not stop acting like wanton whor#s, taking every chance to bend over to the followers of the ROP, then why they cry when the Musies do what comes natural to them! For crying out loud--- We, westerners, are seriously more screw#d up than they are. At least, they now who their enemy is and we do not seem to know or want to know. Worst, we hate those who tell us the truth. The fault rests with us not with them… They fellow their nature and their programming and we are far too civilized to fight for survival. Hence, if we do not wake up, we will never will!

Posted by: have_mercy at April 28, 2008 2:57 PM

Britain giving refuge status to pirates is farcical. If westerners do not stop acting like wanton whor#s, taking every chance to bend over to the followers of the ROP, then why they cry when the Musies do what comes natural to them! For crying out loud--- We, westerners, are seriously more screw#d up than they are. At least, they now who their enemy is and we do not seem to know or want to know. Worst, we hate those who tell us the truth. The fault rests with us not with them… They fellow their nature and their programming and we are far too civilized to fight for survival. Hence, if we do not wake up, we will never will!

Posted by: have_mercy at April 28, 2008 2:57 PM

"America needs you, Mr. Jefferson"?

Mr. Spencer,

According to Richard Zacks's history, "The Pirate Coast," Thomas Jefferson is not what America needs, but what she's had too much of. Jefferson was only half-committed to the rescue mission in Tripoli. He refused to properly fund it and, when the going got rough, he undermined the mission and agreed to pay tribute to the North African nations.

Zacks' book is only one point of view but it seems well researched.
"The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, The First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805 "
http://tinyurl.com/6rx2uf

Thank you for the informative blogs and books.

Posted by: Nippithon at April 29, 2008 12:34 PM