Shigenaka,+Mason

A group of Somolian pirates in a high speed skiff tried once again to take the Maersk Alabama. This same thing happend in April according to the US Navy. In another episode of the pirate hijacking the captin of a chemical tanker was killed supposedly by gunshot from one of the pirates. This proves how the pirates are becoming more bold and moving farther out from land and attacking at will. The United States Navy Central Command said that four suspected pirates came within 300 feet of the Maersk Alabama at 6:30 am Wednesday 600 miles off the north east coast of Somolia. The security team on the Maersk Alabama responede with small arms fire, long ranged acoustical devices, and evasive manuvers to stop the attack. because of the previous experiance the Maersk Alabama was given a security team to help prevent these attacks from happing again. A Somolian pirate boss know and Red Teeth said that two of thier men were killed and two were injured on Tuesday. He also said he would keep attacking forein vessels untill illegal fishing and chemical dumping stopped.

I think the Maersk Alabama had the right to stop the attack and that the pirate boss Red Teeth should negotiate with nations and not attack their vessels. I also agree with him that foreign nations should stop illegal dumping and fishing in Somolian waters, it's not right. The thing that I find interesting is the pirates might be defending Somolia. They claim they just want to stop the illegal fishing and dumping or that could just be and excusse to attack the foreign ships. Maybe the pirates are willing to help the people of Somolia a little.

The New York Times article talked about other events with the pirates and not entirely about the Maersk Alabama. The Seattle PI article focused more on the Maersk Alabama and had more interviews and talked in more detail about what happened and where it happend. I think the New York Times article was better because it compared the story of the Maersk Alabama and how it compares to the other stories in the Somolian pirate takeovers.

Sources Seattle PI - [] New York Times - [] ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The rights group Amnesity International has reported that 46 people have died at the hands of the police in Mozambique since 2006. One of the reasons this is occuring is there is very litttle to none police prosecution. The police counter that by saying that Amnesity lack evidence to those claims and their findings are biased. The police claim that police men who carry out unlawful killings have been put in jail for 20 years or more. A good example of this is Augosto Cuivas. One night he heard a noise while he was at his house with his wife and son. He called the police but the police said they had no transportation. He called up his former wife and had her drive the police to his house. When they got to the house the police opened fire and killed Augosto Cuivas and his body guard Amnesity says. His wife suffered a miscarrage too. The two police men were arrested but no charges were given to the officers. The only way families can find out what happend to their loved ones is if they can bring the officers into question which they need money for which they don't. Amnesity asked the police force and they said that it was a lawful killing.

I think the police force has become sloppy and corrupt because there have been a lot of police shootings in the past three years and none of the police who have been killing people illegally haven't been charged at all. The police seem to get free rides and then just start shooting people they see. The families of the victims also don't have the money to bring these policemen to court and explain why they killed their loved ones. I think the Mozambiquen government should investigate this issue because it seems to be getting out of hand.

The BBC article had more information then the Seattle PI article. The BBC article gave more facts and used Augosto Cuivas as and example and the Seattle PI didn't do any interviewing. The Seattle PI did have more backround information and made the article more anecdotal, the BBC article was more of a straight up report of the situation that is going on in Mozambiquen.

Sources BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8361707.stm Seattle PI: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1105ap_af_mozambique_police.html

On Sunday China gave African governments a multi-billion dollar packege of finnacial and technical help. Doing this helped China's relationship with African nations allowing them more access to the mineral and oil resorces in Africa. The Prime Minister of China Wen Jiabao is willing to grant 10 billion dollars in low interest loans and 1 billion dollars for small and medium sized businesses. Wen Jiabao also said that he would help with climate change and build clean energy projects across the continent. China will also let go of tariffs on goods that go to the really poor countries in Africa that don't have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. These gestures are most likely help cement the bond between China and the nations of Africa and address concerns that China is becoming more like a Europian power. China now has become apart of Africa's transportation builders helping make railroads and cannals.

I think that China is doing a good thing by helping Africa but at the same time they are getting more access to the oil and mineral resources that Africa has and that is concerning. If China becomes a Europian "power", that isn't good for the United States or Europian nations because China will be getting a lot of oil and that can be used for a lot of different things and not all of them good. If we don't do something about this, it will start getting out of control and possibily turn into some sort of war for all the resources in Africa. This can also be bad for China because it is using a lot of money for this and after spending money on the olympics they must be short on money, hopefully they won't run out of money.

I think both BBC and the New York Times both describe the story well and use a lot of detailed writing. they both talk about China has become a major part of Africa's infrastructure and how there is a great bond between Africa and China. They both mention how China wants to create ways of transportation so Africa's poorest countries can grow. One of the things that was different about the two articles was BBC talked about how people are saying that China rushed into this deal and didn't think about the problems of the deal The New York Times didn't talk about that. The New York Times talked more about how China is also getting more access to the resources of Africa and BBC didn't talk about that.

Sources: BBC = []

The New York Times = []

Somolia Africa, an Islamic terrorsit group has been attacking Somolian cities and harbors breaking one of the many ceses fires that has been made. Because of the lack of a central government the Somolians can just sit and watch as a war of terrorists and pirates goes on and pray that they don't get thrown in the middle of this sittuation. During one of the Islamic terrorist attacks they have taken over a radio tower and hold the tower and therefore shutting down all of the radio broadcasts. Right now the UN says that it is working on a way to stop all of this violence.

The difference between my two sources is the BBC article didn't have anything on the radio tower taking and was made before the Seattle Times and the Seattle Times article talked about the taking of the radio tower. The BBC article had an interview with one of the citizens of Somolia and the Seattle Times didn't. Both articles have little problems but they get the main idea out.

Sources: BBC = []

Seattle Times = []