“Pirate” Attack On U.S. Ship May Have Been Terror Plot

Hmm…

(CNSNews.com) – Gunmen who attacked a luxury cruise liner off the east coast of Africa may have been terrorists targeting Americans and other Westerners rather than pirates, the Australian government said Monday.
An armed gang on two speedboats fired machine guns and a rocket-propelled grenade at the Seabourn Spirit as the Bahamas-registered ship sailed about 100 miles off the Somali coast in the early hours of Saturday morning.
More than 300 passengers and crew — mostly Americans, but also Britons, Australians and others — were on the vessel, one of three ships comprising the Miami-based Seabourn Cruise Line, when the attack occurred. One crew member sustained a shrapnel injury.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said it was possible the attackers were terrorists rather than pirates.
Pointing out the size of the 10,000-ton liner and the fact the heavily-armed attackers had fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at it, he suggested that they may have intended to damage the vessel and hurt people onboard rather than seize the ship — the usual goal of modern-day pirates.
“Attacking it — even if you’ve got a rocket-propelled grenade — and taking the ship over, that seems to me to be a little improbable,” he said in one of several broadcast interviews.
“But damaging the ship and killing people, which might have been their motive, that’s something they could have easily done if the rocket-propelled grenades had worked properly.”
Noting that the ship was based in Miami and had many Americans onboard, Downer said the assailants may have seen it as a U.S. target.
“Somalia is a country which harbors a number of terrorists, we believe, so it’s conceivable these people were terrorists,” he said, but added that “we really can’t draw any hard and fast conclusions at this stage.”

I’d been sort of thinking along these lines myself. If you’re looking at this crime from the perspective of motive, just how profitable is an act of piracy aimed at a modern cruise ship? One would have to assume that the ship was in communication with the mainland and called for help the moment the attack started. Further, the ship was probably also outfitted with some sort of GPS tracking device that would have told any help coming exactly where the ship was.
And the attack itself doesn’t sound like it was just slapped together. These guys were organized and had some financial backing. After all, speed boats and RPG’s don’t come cheap.
Would “pirates” have gotten enough..ahem…booty out of this attack to make it worth their while? I don’t think so, though I’m not all that knowledgeable about modern piracy. But my common sense is telling me that this attack had more to it than simple larceny.
Update:
Related:

MIAMI – The crew of a luxury cruise ship used a sonic weapon that blasts earsplitting noise in a directed beam while being attacked by a gang of pirates off Africa this weekend, the cruise line said Monday.
The Seabourn Spirit had a Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, installed as a part of its defense systems, said Bruce Good, a spokesman for Miami-based Seabourn Cruise Line. The Spirit was about 100 miles off Somalia when pirates fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns as they tried to get onboard.
The subsidiary of Carnival Corp. was investigating whether the weapon was successful in warding off the pirates, he said. The ship’s captain also changed its course, shifted into high speed and headed out into the open sea to elude the pirates, who were in two small boats, he said. He had no further details.
Device maker American Technology Corp. said earsplitting “bangs” were directed by trained security personnel toward the pirates. That, combined with ship maneuvers, caused the attackers to leave the area, the company said.

Cool…

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array Seth Williams

    I don’t particularly care to flog the semantics to death…but I will thrash ‘em within an inch of their lives. Looking at the provided definitions, and believe me–I’ve been know to crack off a mean dictionary definition myself from time to time, I just don’t see where the notion of a terrorist being someone who merely causes terror in another. My two year old is dreadfully afraid of my mother’s 10 pound silky terrier, Lucy. Yet this clearly does not make Lucy a silky terrorist.*

    As I said, and as you agreed, your initial defintion was overly broad. Which is important, since the crux of your comment was based on that very notion, that terroists were those who simply caused terror, it’s not just a minor quibble. My point through all of this is that they may be terrorists, but they equally well may be simply pirates. I wouldn’t jump to the terrorist conclusion based on what is fairly thin evidence.

    *I am fully aware that is a silly example.

  • http://www.thatedeguy.com/ Thatedeguy

    Yes, it is a broad definition.

    ter·ror·ist Audio pronunciation of “terrorist” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
    n.

    One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

    adj.

    Of or relating to terrorist.

    Source: Dictionary.com

    Askoxford.com describes it as: a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    And dictionary.com has a second definition as an adj: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); “terrorist activity”; “terrorist state” n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

    Still, a terrorist is one who employs terrorism which is defined as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

    So… while I may have been a little too broad in my definition, you could still apply these definitions to many different people who are not linked to “terrorist” groups. In fact, you could label the Paris rioters at terrorists if you so chose. As well as the “actions of our government vis-a-vis the war on terror in general, and the Iraq war specifically”.

    I support the War in Iraq. For reasons that I have clearly announced before. That doesn’t mean that we haven’t caused terror in some Iraqi citizens and it doesn’t mean that it was lawful or not for political gains. So yeah, you could call it a terrorist action, but who’s gonna defend your country if we don’t engage in a little terrorist action now and again? And secondly, who’s definition of “lawful” action do we use? And who’s laws?

  • Seth Williams

    Thatedeguy: that’s quite a broad definition of terrorist you have there. I wonder how you feel when someone applies that very same definition to the actions of our government vis-a-vis the war on terror in general, and the Iraq war specifically? Because there are those who most certainly do. So either the left is correct and America is a terror-sponsoring country, or your definition is too broad…your choice.

  • Mark

    I second Seth’s comments, and would also add that I was responding to the specific claim that these were Al Qaeda terrorists, rather than the more general ‘terrorist’ claim – which I do not have so much trouble with because pirates can, I am sure, be pretty terrifying (although it is harder to assert that they are aiming to bring about social and/or political change).

  • M

    "did the crew have weapons?"

     boat was equipt with high tech untrasonic weapon – deafens attackers but not occupants on ship.

     http://www.atcsd.com/lrad.html

     best, M/

  • http://drinkingadventures.blogspot.com/ Jolly Roger

    I think we can all reasonably concede that a mugger is not nearly the same as a terrorist. No, this group was definitely pirates.

    First, BodaciousCowboy, the article clearly states that there were only about 300 passengers and crew, which would have been presumed unarmed. Thus, easy to herd into one big dining area and take hostage (and loot a la the restaurant scene in Pulp Fiction) while the rest of the pirate crew ransacked the ship. Any rope ladder and grappling hook will get you up onto the deck of a cruise ship, especially a relatively small one like this. They would expect the guests to be carrying cash and jewelry, and there would be a safe onboard somewhere for disbursing the crew’s wages. Not to mention stealing booze from the bars ;) .

    This also isn’t as “big” a target as you might think. Oil tankers and cargo ships are routinely hit by pirates in the straits of Malaysia. Those really huge container and tanker ships only carry a crew of about a dozen people sometimes. The pirates board, steal the safe/cash, and leave.

    As for getting away with it, a cruise ship’s max speed is probably around 15 knots. An old speedboat could probably do at least 25-30. In the open water, you can lose all contact in a hurry.

  • http://www.thatedeguy.com/ Thatedeguy

    Isn’t their action alone enough to demarc them as terrorists? Since when do they have to be linked to a terrorist organization to be “terrorists”? They were engaging in activity that would bring terror to the people on board the ship. That makes them terrorists. Plain and simple. No question.

  • bill

    The connection to terrorists is obvious. If they had succeeded in hijacking the cruise ship, it would be a huge win for al-Qaeda.

    A couple of 50 calibers would be a nice defense. Even single shot 50s would have disabled the attackers vessels. It is a lot easier to hijack a defensless cruise ship than it would be an airplane these days.

    It’s time to arm pilots and cruise ships.

  • This&that

    Possible that they were terrorists….after all they did escape.

    But poor weapons, no real damage, etc. means that they were not the team A terrorists.

    But the loot off a cruise ship would be decent. Modern equipment to strip, nice hostages, personal loot, etc. But one would need time to strip the ship and passagers.

    Not like taking over an oil ship or a small boat.

    Good for the ship that it did have some sort of defensive weapons.

    Is the crew armed in any other way?

    This&That

  • Mark

    “The connection to terrorists is obvious. If they had succeeded in hijacking the cruise ship, it would be a huge win for al-Qaeda.”

    Err… that’s not really obvious though, is it? You’ve just jumped to a conclusion from a premise.

    Your logic runs –

    ‘Because X (a cruise ship being hijacked) would be a good result for a particular terrorist group, it is clear a that terrorist group did it.’

    Unfortunately you need something called evidence, not just a motive.

  • Mark

    “I wouldn’t jump to the terrorist conclusion based on what is fairly thin evidence.”

    Amen.

  • Seth Williams

    Perhaps, but Somolia is a haven for genuine pirates. They wouldn’t need to take the entire ship. Jewelry, electronics, money, even food all would have value to the pirates, and most of that probably easy enough to sell or trade in Somolia. Also, don’t forget the passengers, they could make off with a couple dozen passengers and ask for a hefty ransom.

    Besides, who said that Somoli pirates were the smartest in the world?

  • BodaciousCowboy

    Piracy against cruising sailors is a real threat in several parts of the world. The Indian Ocean is the most dangerous ocean in the world for sailors, and the coast off Somalia is the worst in the world.

    Given the insane amount of arms and ammo in that part of the world, getting hold of an RPG or two is no big deal. And the typical cruise ship has, what, 2,000 passengers on it? That’s a lot of Rolex’s and diamond bracelets, and no small amount of cash. So piracy would by no means be a far-fetched motivation for these folks.

    On the other hand, a cruise ship is a giant – I mean HUGE – target compared to what 99.9% of the rest of the world’s pirates usually pursue. Then there’s a whole raft (pun intended) of practical questions: How did they expect to physcially get up into the cruise ship itself? How much loot did they really expect to be able to haul away in those little whaler-style boats? One could go on and on; the point is that an equally-strong might be made that this was terrorist in nature.

    Anybody got any other thoughts?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development