Red Teeth the pirate...I mean, environmentalist

 [From my 2009 Gun Rights Examiner article-- internal links may not work]

In a crushing blow to environmental and social justice, imperialist foreign mercenaries on the corporate warship Maersk Alabama have opened fire on activist Somali sea stewards. At least that's how a leading local "conservationist" describes things.

From The New York Times:

“We have been told over the phone today that four of our colleagues were killed and two were injured,” said a Somali pirate boss known as Red Teeth. “We will keep attacking on foreign vessels until illegal fishing and toxic dump is stopped,” he added.

Yeah. No justice no peace. And what better way to stop fishing than to attack container ships?

Still, you can bet the reported $3.5 million paid to release the crew of the fishing boat Alakrana, which did not possess the means to repel pira...uh...animal rights activists/environmental champions will be heavily invested in future ocean "clean-up" activities. And that those "80 luxury automobiles [that] crowded the shore as friends and family members of pirates clamored to get a share of the ransom money" have nothing to do with real motives.

We've seen this before.

We've seen Al Sharpton call them the "voluntary coast guard." And we've seen the "white Rat," an Idi Amin henchman, describe them as "brave...fisherman...seamen and navigators. They had no choice but to take revenge on foreign shipping and earn a living by ransom demands."

Seriously.

Is this where we break into "Gee, Officer Krupke"?

Colleague Howard Nemerov made another telling observation about all this in yesterday's Austin Gun Rights Examiner column:

The New York Times downplayed the fact that guns were aboard the Alabama, hiding it within one paragraph among other methods employed in the ship’s defense:

"But a security team on board the Maersk Alabama responded with small-arms fire, long-range acoustical devices painful to the human ear and evasive maneuvers to thwart the attack, the Navy said in a statement."

This 34-word paragraph (out of 739 words total) contains the only mention of why the Alabama successfully defended itself.

Eh. It's not exactly like The Times has a reputation for championing armed self-defense, now, is it? And being the socially conscious "Authorized Journalist" friends of the environment that they are, with a Green Inc. blog and everything, I'm only surprised they didn't mention anything about lead pollution. 

Also see:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms

Raising Rifle-Buying Age to 21 Would Disarm American Heroes and Spit on Founding Intent

Sentiment Behind Trump Throat-Cutting ‘Artwork’ Extends to His Supporters