Navy Saves Captain From Pirates! Watch Phillips Thank Them

April 12, 2009

After Navy snipers caught view of Somali pirates aiming an AK-47 at Captain Phillips, Navy sharpshooters came in and killed three of his captors rescuing the captain. President Obama personally approved the use of force by US Special Operations forces.

Phillips was taken hostage after pirates attacked his American cargo ship. The crew regained control of the vessel, but the pirates held the captain hostage on the life boat. After three US warships came within reach of the lifeboat, the Somali pirates threatened to kill Phillips. On Friday, he jumped out of the lifeboat, but was recaptured. He was finally rescued today.

To see video of the initial news conference, read more.

61 Comments

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

No Em Youre not wrong, we were right in what we did.

em1282 4 years 5 weeks

Man, I was all ready to start having an "AMERICA, F*CK YEAH!!!!!" moment on this thread. Guess I was wrong :rotfl:

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

The U.S. Navy would take offense at that, and if it didn't, I would want to know why we waste time and money training people when we should be buying good luck charms for the next time.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

You might see that as being more powerful. I see it as being lucky this time.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

We were powerful - the Captain was trained in what to do in that situation, we had well-trained hostage negotiators with the FBI and we had well-trained Navy seals. The pirates had one ace - but they totally underestimated the training and skill of the force they antagonized.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

LC I certainly didn't mean to offend you and I read every one of your comments so I don't know why you think I didn't. I was meaning in the general "you". And where did I ever say the comments here were too liberal? You might see what I say as arrogance, but I think if your butt was on the line you might think differently, as the crew members did. Steph - I never said shoot first and ask questions later. But I think waiting for another country's approval to protect our own is ludicrous and I think most people would agree. And though we have far greater military might, when we have innocent people who can't use their weapons being held at gunpoint, sorry but we are not the powerful ones in that situation. If we were, that Capt wouldnt have been taken hostage to begin with.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

"The Iraq war wasn't unprovoked, if you remember we were attacked first. Now granted, there is some disagreement there about whether or not it was an appropriate response." It's never appropriate to respond to an attack by retaliating against a bystander, whether you feel you have good reason to like that bystander or not. "I certainly don't act like its death to America, but I do think we should protect our own men and women first. That should be our first priority and I expect, well actually, DEMAND it be the first priority of our President." No one says protecting our own shouldn't be the first priority. But that doesn't mean 'shoot first and ask questions later'. "I also take issue with this idea that we are the stronger party. In general yes, but in that situation no. I doubt you'd think that the person getting mugged is the stronger party just because they have more money or education and therefore should try to understand the person holding them at gunpoint.... then again, maybe you would think that..." We have far greater military might, and our forces have far more comprehensive training than any pirate - that's indisputable. "Steph I'm really impressed that you were taught that there are 2 sides of every story considering that you so often only see one side, the side you agree with." Pot/kettle, for sure.

ladychaos 4 years 5 weeks

I wouldn't have to look at things in such a simplistic view if you didn't make so many over-generalizations of the various comments posted that you feel to be "too liberal". I'm pretty sure I have enough brain power to understand that governmental processes are not as simple as black and white. Like I mentioned before, if you would have cared to read, I'm offering a counter point so people can get a better understanding of the situation. If I'm taking sides on this situation, its not for me to air on a public blog, especially because there can be various repercussions that are not completely worth it. I just wish people would take the time to stop being arrogant for their nation, and instead look at the problem from all sides to solve all problems. After all, that is what the UN is supposed to be doing, yet they are not. Example: If the pirates are indeed pirating to gain money to give back to their country so they can afford to buy imported food because of toxic spills and illegal fishing, maybe the UN needs to send investigators and clean up crews to help them re-gain their local food sources so they wouldn't have to do such a thing. Yet, the UN has made no such statement of doing so; and have actually turned a blind eye on these people. I swear it seems like the imperialistic nations are the ones that like to "adopt" charity cases like Madonna. They seem like the good guy when they are bringing these starving people food, but they're not getting to the root of why they are starving. This is why I offered a counter point. If you want to dissect my argument to prove your political alliances, then fine. Just don't make comments that we liberals think in a certain way because you're not trying to hear us for what we're really saying.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

Look either way, when you look at something so simply and invoke moral relativism, that is destructive. Its like when people say everything is a cult because the cult definition is so vague. All that does is take away from the serious problem of ACTUAL cults. Its not worth anything, theoretical arguments aren't worth anything. Realistic arguments are. Moral relativism will be the downfall of our civilization.

ladychaos 4 years 5 weeks

...also, would it be wrong for me to point out how our government under the Bush regime cared more about international affairs than making sure our own government structure was set. Talk about sanctions being broken, please, again, look at Michigan's situation. There's so much corruption in half of the city governments, it pains me to work with half of these people.

ladychaos 4 years 5 weeks

Haus, Osama Bin Laden, as well as Al Qaeda at the time were stationed in Pakistan. Not to mention, they are a group of rebels. Granted, the Iraqi government was not willing to cooperate with us, but at the same time they were still NOT behind the 9/11 attacks. I take it you're a conservative.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

There are so many flaws in that argument that I don't know what to say. The Iraq war wasn't unprovoked, if you remember we were attacked first. Now granted, there is some disagreement there about whether or not it was an appropriate response. But if you leave 9/11 out of it, Iraq had violated hundreds of sactions all with the clause that military action could be used against the genocidal maniac of Saddam Hussein. I think its dangerous to ignore who started the fight when it comes to these situations. All countries have the right to protect themselves and by calling them terrorists for protecting themselves all we do is give creedence and justification to the REAL criminals. To call the Iraq war an act of terrorism is gross over simplification that takes into account almost no facts surrounding the decision to go in. If we're operating on such a truly basic level, then I could say that the shoe thrower was a terrorist and that incident was terrorism.

ladychaos 4 years 5 weeks

Haus, according to their definition, the Iraq war was an act of terrorism. How does it qualify? * The US used military force to influence the Iraqi government. Being that these were armed forces, you can call that intimidation. * They affected the government by assassinating Saddam Hussein. *It occurred primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Now I love my country, as most of you do, however, I have no problem pointing out where there is bias in the law (which is what I'm in school for). That definition could only get more biased by including "an act against citizens of the United States". The inclusion of "United States" in the clauses shows that there tends to be an unbalanced power struggle among imperialistic nations and smaller nations. ...just saying.

popgoestheworld 4 years 5 weeks

Sitting where I am in the world, I can't pretend to know exactly what was behind the decisions in terms of responding to this event. However, isn't this the first time in a while that a country hasn't just paid the $$ to get their ship back and cowered to the demands? We have an entire crew alive, dead pirates, a ship in perfect condition. Now, I'm not saying that maybe we couldn't have done better, because like I said, I'm hardly privy to these decisions. However, it seems a little nitpicky and perhaps a little presumptuous to say that Obama was just sitting around for a week. Given how the other recent pirate situations have turned out, I'd call this a rousing success. In fact, I'd say it's one of the only recent highlights of the administration.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

Steph I'm really impressed that you were taught that there are 2 sides of every story considering that you so often only see one side, the side you agree with. I certainly don't act like its death to America, but I do think we should protect our own men and women first. That should be our first priority and I expect, well actually, DEMAND it be the first priority of our President. There is a fine line between understanding the behavior of the opposition and excusing it. Many people don't seem to understand that and when they think they might be trying to understand, they end up excusing and enabling, and what happens? Nothing changes. I also take issue with this idea that we are the stronger party. In general yes, but in that situation no. I doubt you'd think that the person getting mugged is the stronger party just because they have more money or education and therefore should try to understand the person holding them at gunpoint.... then again, maybe you would think that... laka - The definition of terrorism according the US Federal Criminal code is : "...activities that involve violent... ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ......(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States......(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..." So yes, if they are just out for money then they are just criminals, but if they are out because they want to change the policies of their govt or how govts act towards them then (as suggested by commenters here) then they are terrorists plain and simple.

laka 4 years 5 weeks

@ hausfrau - You appear to believe that these men are out solely for monetary gain--not for any political, religious, or ideological reasons--and that is not terrorism. I acknowledged with the BBC News link that the reasoning for piracy has shifted (as some pirates have even publicly acknowledged). That is why they will leave without incident when approached by a patrolling vessel. It is a business with a veil of "justice". A business run by warlords. They are not trying to change their world; on that we agree. The only reason this would continue, is if we ignore our share of the blame. All I am proposing is that we help them to help ourselves. To do that, we must learn why this problem erupted in the first place. ``What we [Operation Allied Protector] are doing is a short-term response. The long term has to come from Somalia and the situation there is not good,'' [Cmdr. Craig Baines of the HMCS Winnipeg] said. http://www.canada.com/Canadian+warship+commander+says+deterrence+thwarting+pirates/1490968/story.html --- Re: Al Jazeera - you can find the same information elsewhere. If you don't trust the source, seek the information elsewhere. That is what I did with Prison Planet. That is how I found the article. By the way - 'BBC in news deal with Arabic TV' "[Al-Jazeera's English-language internet site] aims to launch next month, and the BBC could end up overseeing the project and providing training and safety advice." (17 January 2003) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2668007.stm Scary. --- steph, I like your last point. It is very well worded.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

"When these terrorism type incidents happen, you seem to be most concerned with defending the attackers. Why is that?" It's your interpretation Haus. Whenever anything comes up involving the U.S. and anyone asks if the other side has any valid points you read it as Death to America. I was always taught that there are at least two sides to a disagreement, and that the stronger side should always try and be certain that the use of its strength against a much weaker opponent is well-thought out and justified.

ladychaos 4 years 5 weeks

*Note* The links that I posted were actually sent to me from a very conservative law student that I was having a conversation with about this. She was pointing out that there are two sides to every story, which is essentially why I posted them here.

cirrus1701 4 years 5 weeks

Oops. Forgot this one. Bad brain bubbles today. It's a little scary that some folks are on Al Jazeera, looking for news concerning Islamic terrorists. Yes, yes, I know all the arguments and that people can read what they choose. But, this little girl is proud to be a kafir and I'm no dhimmi!!!

cirrus1701 4 years 5 weeks

I realize that these boards originate in San Fran., so I do expect a liberal slant on a far amount of items. That's cool. I read anything I can get my hands on. That being said, I wasn't surprised to find that a previous poster linked to HufPo. What did surprise me was the link to Alex Jones at Prison Planet. I thought only the "bitter-cling to your guns and religion" folks in flyover country read him. (Which includes me. :) )

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

But regardless of why it took a week, how are we going to avoid this happening in the future? And what are we doing that will make force available to use in a shorter time frame if neccessary? Thats all I really want to know. No reason to Monday morning quarterback, just want to know how we're not going to make the same mistakes again. :)

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

Yes but what I'm saying is that its not usually the military that chooses to wait, they usually have the plan and they have to wait to get the ok. So my question is why did the Ok take so long? I don't think thats an arbitrary question at all. We've had swifter action in the past, why did this take a week?

Jillness 4 years 5 weeks

Haus, your standards seem arbitrary. Obama gave the ok for our military to do what they needed to do. If the military chose to wait, then maybe they had good reason. Especially since they managed to kill the hijackers with out harming the hostage, it seems they knew what they were doing.

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

they = the pirates

hausfrau 4 years 5 weeks

Also its important to remember that these ships aren't just off the coast, this particular one I beleive was 450 miles off the coast, you don't use a small inflatable dingy to go 450 miles on open sea. They must have had a mother ship somewhere where they were launching these smaller boats from.

Link Love

61 Comments

You Might Also Like