Luxury Yacht Company Offers Pirate-Hunting Cruises

[SUBMAN1]

Leave it to the Russians. They will fix things. I'm beginning to think Russian has the only common sense left in the world

-S

Passengers on a new cruise along the coast of Somalia are paying to catch more than just salmonella.

A Russian luxury yacht company is now offering pirate-hunting trips (http://www.bartlesvillelive.com/content/weirdnews/story/Pirate-hunting-cruises-offered/lqymQFfLH0aF9FWGkopflw.cspx) that promise the chance to be attacked by real sea bandits. The yachts cruise from Djibouti to Mombasa in Kenya at deliberately low speeds in the hopes of attracting pirates.

Passengers pay $5,000 for the trip, and an extra $17.50 a day for an AK-47 and 100 rounds of ammo. The price includes free origami towels in the rooms. Former Special Forces troops are on board to make sure none of the cruise passengers are injured.http://www.asylum.com/2009/06/26/luxury-yacht-company-offers-pirate-hunting-cruises/

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.asylum.com/media/2009/06/pirates-getty-186.jpg

[VipertheSniper]

Wow... that's just sick

[SUBMAN1]

Hardly. What pirates do is sick. To make them run scared is a tactic.

-S

[Letum]

If you want to donate money towards protesting merchant shipping, fair
enough. Pay for some "Special Forces troops" to go out there and patrol.

If you want to pay money to personally have the experience of shooting at
people...yer, that's sick.

A most unscrupulous business.

[mookiemookie]

If you want to donate money towards protesting merchant shipping, fair
enough. Pay for some "Special Forces troops" to go out there and patrol.

If you want to pay money to personally have the experience of shooting at
people...yer, that's sick.

A most unscrupulous business.

:yep: I'm sorry, call me what you will but killing people for sport, no matter what their crimes, is a tad bit psychopathic to me.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d8bF7KBsmHI/SMYkVvrAx8I/AAAAAAAACIs/TncqaNraJ2I/s400/theRunningMan.jpg

[Max2147]

The Most Dangerous Game, now on water!

Reminds me a bit of what the Australians used to do back in the early settler days - go on hunting parties to shoot Aborigines. They justified it because the Aborigines occasionally killed their animals.

[Onkel Neal]

Leave it to the Russians. They will fix things. I'm beginning to think Russian has the only common sense left in the world

-S

http://www.asylum.com/2009/06/26/luxury-yacht-company-offers-pirate-hunting-cruises/



Oh hell, that sounds like my kind of vacation! :shucks:

"I'm just a fat western tourist, on an opulent pleasure cruise...oh my, what's that? Somali pirates? Coming to attack us and rob us? Eat lead, pirates!! "

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2008/01/rambo.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

If you want to donate money towards protesting merchant shipping, fair
enough. Pay for some "Special Forces troops" to go out there and patrol.

If you want to pay money to personally have the experience of shooting at
people...yer, that's sick.

A most unscrupulous business.

Nah. Its back to the old days where the pirates must pay a price to prey on the unsuspecting. Of course all pirates will pray that all peoples have your logic. That way they are free to do as they will.

-S

[OneToughHerring]

Oh hell, that sounds like my kind of vacation! :shucks:

"I'm just a fat western tourist, on an opulent pleasure cruise...oh my, what's that? Somali pirates? Coming to attack us and rob us? Eat lead, pirates!! "



See? Americans and Russians really aren't that different from another. There is a common ground. :)

[HunterICX]

how much to rent a RPG-7 a day :D

HunterICX

[Skybird]

The only question that matters is whether or not it will help to make shipping more secure.

If so we can dismantle national navies and replace them with state-subsidised yacht cruises for everybody.

[XTBilly]

If so we can dismantle national navies and replace them with state-subsidised yacht cruises for everybody.


Yaght armament price catalogue (per day):

Economical
.45 cal pistol 5$
.30 cal machine gun 15$
.50 cal machine gun 20$

First class
20mm cannon 40$
20mm cannon double 60$
40mm cannon 80$

Luxury class
Quad Pom-Pom 150$
3in gun 220$
4in gun 280$
5in gun 350$
88mm gun 420$
6in gun 500$
6in gun x2 800$

For special and tactical clients, a Somalia beach invasion, air&sea supported will be offered for free!:haha::har::har:

[antikristuseke]

Hunting human beings for sport does not seem to be a horribly good idea to me, actualy it sounds quite aburd and appaling. Do not get me wrong, the pirates need to be stoped, but surely there are better ways of doing it than this.

[Skybird]

Think of them as mercenaries for whose service you must not pay, but who pay you!

Honestely, I do not see why bloodtourism that pays for the voyage, is morally inferior than renting mercenaries who get payed for killing people. Sounds like mawkishness to me.

The question is: do you want to fight pirates by use of force, or not. So far the answers mostly is not. And this is where these sensitive sentiments that feel so very shocked by that tourism idea are coming from.

If I oppose the tourism idea, than it is because I oppose the idea of privatised violance - including mercenaries and merc-companies - in principle, for where private business is allowed to form an interest in maitaining a state of war, that is not helpful for politics aiming at establishing peace. Sentimental moral indignation has little to do with it, for me.

[longam]

I wanna be the pirate!

http://www.redstararms.com/sks2.jpg

[Raptor1]

Yaght armament price catalogue (per day):

Economical
.45 cal pistol 5$
.30 cal machine gun 15$
.50 cal machine gun 20$

First class
20mm cannon 40$
20mm cannon double 60$
40mm cannon 80$

Luxury class
Quad Pom-Pom 150$
3in gun 220$
4in gun 280$
5in gun 350$
88mm gun 420$
6in gun 500$
6in gun x2 800$

For special and tactical clients, a Somalia beach invasion, air&sea supported will be offered for free!:haha::har::har:

Since when is 88mm better than 4" and 5"...? :hmmm:

[XTBilly]

Since when is 88mm better than 4" and 5"...? :hmmm:

No one said it's better.

Just more famous!!:D:haha:

If you're interested, we can make a discount for you, because after some posts in a submarine forum a lot of our clients turned to a rival company featuring Oto Melara, Exocet & Harpoon!:rotfl::rotfl:

[Onkel Neal]

The only question that matters is whether or not it will help to make shipping more secure.

If so we can dismantle national navies and replace them with state-subsidised yacht cruises for everybody.


Haha, I knew you were a capitalist in your heart :shucks:

[mookiemookie]

Think of them as mercenaries for whose service you must not pay, but who pay you!

Honestely, I do not see why bloodtourism that pays for the voyage, is morally inferior than renting mercenaries who get payed for killing people. Sounds like mawkishness to me.

I think the difference is that mercenaries do what they do because that's all they know how to do and they're good at it. I don't think they, on the whole, get off on killing for killings sake.

This kind of "tourism" caters to the people that want to kill someone just to do it. It offers them a sanctioned murder spree because "they're only Somalian pirates after all!"

[Skybird]

Haha, I knew you were a capitalist in your heart :shucks:

To major degrees I am, and never said anything different. In too many regards, for a lefty's taste. In too few regards, for a conservative's taste. I believe in healthy competition of creative energy and invention. But I also believe in social and communal responsibility. :know:

[Skybird]

I think the difference is that mercenaries do what they do because that's all they know how to do and they're good at it. I don't think they, on the whole, get off on killing for killings sake.

Who in the West is forced to become mercenary? You must not assign to that kind of job, nobody forces you. You are free to look for something else. If you do that job, than you do it voluntarily.

[Letum]

Imagine if the police would give you a riot suit, a baton and a tazer for £100
every time they went out to watch over a protest.

Those who are paid to be police, mercenaries, navy sailors, etc are not
generally interested in killing/thwacking anyone they don't need to. The same
can't be said of someone who has paid to shoot at/baton/etc. people.

[SUBMAN1]

Imagine if the police would give you a riot suit, a baton and a tazer for £100
every time they went out to watch over a protest.

They do some times, though they are usually paid for such help and not paying. Deputy Marshall.

-S

[Aramike]

Hunting human beings for sport does not seem to be a horribly good idea to me, actualy it sounds quite aburd and appaling. Do not get me wrong, the pirates need to be stoped, but surely there are better ways of doing it than this.I don't see it as hunting human beings. You're going on a cruise where human beings are likely to be hunting you.

[Max2147]

I don't see it as hunting human beings. You're going on a cruise where human beings are likely to be hunting you.
The Somali pirates don't hunt people - they hunt the cargo on ships. They only kill people on very rare occasions, when things go wrong.

[Aramike]

The Somali pirates don't hunt people - they hunt the cargo on ships. They only kill people on very rare occasions, when things go wrong.You're right, but I think the distinction is only elementary. They often hold the crews hostage for ransom - which means that they are hunting people, in a sense.

But they'd avoid getting shot by such vacationers altogether if they simply stopped pirating, so the onus is on them.

[Skybird]

Imagine if the police would give you a riot suit, a baton and a tazer for £100
every time they went out to watch over a protest.

Those who are paid to be police, mercenaries, navy sailors, etc are not
generally interested in killing/thwacking anyone they don't need to. The same
can't be said of someone who has paid to shoot at/baton/etc. people.
A policeman does not look forward to shoot somebody, but he hopes he can prevent circumstances were people get shot at. He is ready to shoot at somebody, though (at least he should be). but he is not after it.

The soldier or navymean must take into account much greater probability that he needs to shot at others. His motivation to accept that chance has to do with a wish to serve and or protect hic country, to put it simple.

The mercanery does usually does not fight to protect a country, he fights for the fee he is payed. If the paymenet is right, he shoots. If the payment is not right, he leaves. Ideals, patriotism and altruism have nothign to do with it - it is about money. It is a payed job.

Ceasar, Napolean and several other names in history had very low opinions of mercenaries for the reason that these accepted to volunteer for the madness of masskilling other people for no other motivation than getting money for it.

Mercenaries are not accepted to be regular combatants by international law. They are not protected by the legal status of "prisoner of war", and in case of being captured are treated as oridnary civilians who raised weapons against the victor (for which they can be executed right in place). American, Austrian and Swiss law threatens any national who offers his armed service to another nation with loss of his citizenship. In Germany, recruiting Germans for service in a non-German armed service is under penalty.

[Onkel Neal]

To major degrees I am, and never said anything different. In too many regards, for a lefty's taste. In too few regards, for a conservative's taste. I believe in healthy competition of creative energy and invention. But I also believe in social and communal responsibility. :know:


I know you were joking about the navy by subscription, but I like the way you merged concepts, very clever. :salute:

[Skybird]

They only kill people on very rare occasions, when things go wrong.Should that make us feeling relief? When pirates attack ships, then things are going wrong for sure.

[Onkel Neal]

I don't see it as hunting human beings. You're going on a cruise where human beings are likely to be hunting you.


Yeah, and you're in a position to fight back.

[Skybird]

I know you were joking but I like the way you merged concepts, very clever. :salute:
I don't understand: what concepts you mean?

[Onkel Neal]

About the navy by subscription, solves the problem of having a navy and paying for it.

[Letum]

A policeman does not look forward to shoot somebody [...]

The soldier or navymean [is motivated by] a wish to serve and or protect hic country, to put it simple.

The mercanery [...] fights for the fee he is payed.


Quite so.

Unlike all these people, the person who pays to hunt pirates does look
froward to shooting someone and that is their motivation.

[Aramike]

Yeah, and you're in a position to fight back.Exactly. So who's at fault - the attacker or the defender?

What an interesting premise it is to seek a fight but not start one.

[Aramike]

Quite so.

Unlike all these people, the person who pays to hunt pirates does look
froward to shooting someone and that is their motivation.Did you consider that they are paying to help stem the problem of piracy, and THAT may be their motivation?

How often is it that the average person can take an international matter into their hands?

[Letum]

Did you consider that they are paying to help stem the problem of piracy, and THAT may be their motivation?

Yes, I did.
See post #4 of this thread.

[Aramike]

Yes, I did.
See post #4 of this thread.I did read that.

I phrased the question poorly. How about this: did you ever consider that they were paying to actually DO something about the international problem of piracy, rather than just to kill people?

[SUBMAN1]

A policeman does not look forward to shoot somebody, but he hopes he can prevent circumstances were people get shot at. He is ready to shoot at somebody, though (at least he should be). but he is not after it.

The soldier or navymean must take into account much greater probability that he needs to shot at others. His motivation to accept that chance has to do with a wish to serve and or protect hic country, to put it simple.

The mercanery does usually does not fight to protect a country, he fights for the fee he is payed. If the paymenet is right, he shoots. If the payment is not right, he leaves. Ideals, patriotism and altruism have nothign to do with it - it is about money. It is a payed job.

Ceasar, Napolean and several other names in history had very low opinions of mercenaries for the reason that these accepted to volunteer for the madness of masskilling other people for no other motivation than getting money for it.

Mercenaries are not accepted to be regular combatants by international law. They are not protected by the legal status of "prisoner of war", and in case of being captured are treated as oridnary civilians who raised weapons against the victor (for which they can be executed right in place). American, Austrian and Swiss law threatens any national who offers his armed service to another nation with loss of his citizenship. In Germany, recruiting Germans for service in a non-German armed service is under penalty.

A Soldier or Policeman signs up for that very job for the 'action'. People leave the service because of that lack of action. So I don't buy your skewed logic.

BTW, they should be paying these vacationers. That would be more appropriate.

-S

[Skybird]

Quite so.

Unlike all these people, the person who pays to hunt pirates does look
froward to shooting someone and that is their motivation.

Which for us means dead pirates. Good for us, since our navies and politicians don't get it done, and our companies pay ransom to help fostering the pirate problem and rearm it and strengthen it and increase it's zone of infection.

Killing for money or killing for fun for me does not make much of a difference. It's both offsprings of the same spirit. Those tourists and those pirates I also differ on a superficial level only. The one have money, the others want money. Both give a damn for other people's life. Let them go at each other's throat.

Live with it, Letum, the pirates will not go away if you pay them money, and you won't solve the porblem if oyu do not get your hands dirty. If one would have targetted them with all consequence last summer, it would have been a less bloody mess than if you target them now.

As long as Western nations accept private mercenary companies to which their national military can outsource, neither will I object to bloodtourism - nor do I wish to have personal relations to people booking such tours. I just make pragmatic use of them. Fair enough, although maybe not polite.

There would be no need to do so if politicians in the West would get their acts together. The pirate problem already could be a problem of the past today, if only they would have. But still they don't.

[Letum]

I did read that.

I phrased the question poorly. How about this: did you ever consider that they were paying to actually DO something about the international problem of piracy, rather than just to kill people?


If that where the case then why hire "special forces" to watch over you as
you shoot at people?
Why not donate the money instead to an anti-piracy program that isn't there
for tourists?

SB: You are a moral void. I can but rank you with other such people.

[Aramike]

If that where the case then why hire "special forces" to watch over you as
you shoot at people?To help ensure your safety.Why not donate the money instead to an anti-piracy program that isn't there
for tourists?Read again: "...paying to actually DO something..."

[Letum]

To help ensure your safety.Read again: "...paying to actually DO something..."

If you wanted to "actually DO something" then why go on the hunting cruise
when you could actually DO more by sending the money to a effective
anti-piracy scheme.

If by "actually DO something" you mean personally, then your motivation is to
have the experience of shooting at people. If you motivation was to help
merchant shipping then my first paragraph applies.

[Aramike]

If you wanted to "actually DO something" then why go on the hunting cruise
when you could actually DO more by sending the money to a effective
anti-piracy scheme.

If by "actually DO something" you mean personally, then your motivation is to
have the experience of shooting at people. If you motivation was to help
merchant shipping then my first paragraph applies.Here you go again, doing this thing where you try to use circular logic to invalidate a point you can't effectively counter.

Let's say, instead of this cruise, I wanted to go overseas and feed the hungry. So I go and cook. Now, I could have just sent money, but I decided to go and actually do something. Does that mean I wanted the experience of cooking?

Umm, no.

Let's please stick to common sense when attempted to discuss topics. Thanks.

[Letum]

Let's say, instead of this cruise, I wanted to go overseas and feed the hungry. So I go and cook. Now, I could have just sent money, but I decided to go and actually do something. Does that mean I wanted the experience of cooking?

Umm, no.


Well...Yes, I would say it does mean you wanted the experience of feeding
the hungry and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good experience to
have. If you didn't want that experience, you would not have done it.


The argument isn't circular, it's a fork. i.e. This else that.

[Aramike]

Well...Yes, I would say it does mean you wanted the experience of feeding
the hungry and there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good experience to
have. If you didn't want that experience, you would not have done it.


The argument isn't circular, it's a fork. i.e. This else that.But the point is that I wanted the experience of feeding the hungry, and accepted the fact that doing so would mean I will also experience cooking.

Likewise, someone on the pirate cruise may want the experience of stopping pirates and, as such, they will also have to accept that they may end up killing a pirate.

To just make the blanket statement that they want to kill people overly simplifies it, I think.

[Letum]

Aren't "the experience of stopping pirates" and "the experience of killing pirates" interchangeable in this case?

[Aramike]

Aren't "the experience of stopping pirates" and "the experience of killing pirates" interchangeable in this case?No. I'm sure there would be quite a few people on the cruise - more than will have a chance to actually kill a pirate. But by paying their fare, they will have in fact empowered others to kill a pirate.

But at least you finally acknowledge that this isn't just about killing "people", as you've stated - it's about killing "pirates". Indeed, pirates are people. But people aren't necessarily pirates.

[Letum]

pirates are people. But people aren't necessarily pirates.


....you thought that I thought that people are necessarily pirates?? :doh:

[Aramike]

....you thought that I thought that people are necessarily pirates?? :doh::O:

Of course not. But you weren't making the distinction, and it IS an important distinction to make.

Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.

[Letum]

Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.


How does it?

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?

[Letum]

Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate.

[Aramike]

How does it?

Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?

Huh?Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate.That would absolutely be objectionable. It's a good point you make, but it is off the mark.

The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime when he's executed, whereas the pirate is. Furthermore, the deathrow inmate isn't in a position to make the choice whether or not to commit the crime - the pirate is.

These are vast differences.

[Max2147]

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.

[Letum]

[quote]Naturally, saying that someone wants to kill people versus that someone wants to kill pirates changes the moral equation somewhat.Assuming the tour host asks you to only shoot at pirates and not fishermen,
what does it matter if you came to shoot anyone, so long as you only shoot
pirates?So wait - you're saying that killing an ARMED ATTACKER is the moral equivolent of killing a fisherman?[\quote] ed: wish the multi-quote system still worked


? No.
I'm asking why you think it is ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill
pirates and then kill pirates,

but not ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill any people, pirates
included and then kill pirates (and only pirates).




Aramike, would you find anything objectionable in selling the chance to carry
out state executions?

Perhaps an auction. The highest bidder gets to administer the lethal injection,
throw the switch or open the trap-door for a death-row inmate. That would absolutely be objectionable. It's a good point you make, but it is off the mark.The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime when he's executed, whereas the pirate is. Furthermore, the deathrow inmate isn't in a position to make the choice whether or not to commit the crime - the pirate is.

These are vast differences.I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

1. Deathrow inmates are not in a position to make the choice whether
or not to commit the crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.



There are other bits there I could take issue on, but I would rather wait
until I understand your argument against the sale of 'the chance to carry
out state executions' first.

[Onkel Neal]

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.


Sure, I make a disctinction between unborn children and murderous pirates :D It doesn't take much effort on my part, either.

[Letum]

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.


The apparent contradiction says more about the inappropriate use of
"pro-life" as a slogan than it does about any contradiction of concepts or
ideals.


There is no real contradiction, as Neal points out.

[Onkel Neal]

Right. And if someone wants to start a "Help Somali pirates becomes legit fishermen" organization*, I would contribute. But once they show up with a gun pointed at me, all bets are off, time to open the season on pirates.



*Oh yeah, we have that, it's called the Red Cross and UN, doesn't always work though.

[Aramike]

The annoying thing is that a lot of people who support this human-hunting expedition call themselves "pro-life" on other issues.That's why I hate the term "pro-life", as well as I hate the term "pro-choice". Both are disengenious.

[Aramike]

I'm asking why you think it is ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill
pirates and then kill pirates,

but not ok to go on a pirate hunting cruise to kill any people, pirates
included and then kill pirates (and only pirates).I have no idea what the hell this means. :doh:I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly.

I do object to selling outright the chance to kill a deathrow inmate because that inmate is doing nothing to cause himself to be at risk at the moment one would be killing him.

However, these cruises offer the opportunity to combat pirates WHO ATTACK, and I have no problem killing the aggressor.

Again, I do not understand how you fail to understand this simple point.

[Letum]

I don't follow your reasoning here. I don't see how you get from the
points you make to your conclusion. Perhaps you can clear it up...

1. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2. ???
3. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

I don't understand how you cannot understand my reasoning considering that you summarized it perfectly.

I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.

Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:

1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)

You could get round it by saying something like:

1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.

[Aramike]

I don't see how you get from stage 1. to stage 3. Your conclusion can
not be logically deduced from stage 1. alone.

Your (unspoken) stage 2. might be:

1a. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2a. It is wrong to kill people who aren't in the process of committing a crime.
3a. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but that makes it an argument against the death penalty altogether and
I assume that is not your intention. (Can you confirm that you are
pro-death penalty?)

You could get round it by saying something like:

1b. The deathrow inmate isn't in the process of committing a crime
2b. It is wrong to pay to kill people who aren't in the process of
committing a crime.
3b. Therefore I object to the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions.

but in this case it isn't clear why 2b. is true and not 2a.; you are obliged
to explain/justify 2b. without justifying 2a. or leave it as an arbitrary
premise.Okay, now I get where you're coming from, so let me rephrase.

It is wrong to pay to kill someone, unless you are killing someone who is ATTACKING you of their own volition.

[Skybird]

Sure, I make a disctinction between unborn children and murderous pirates :D It doesn't take much effort on my part, either.
A microscopic lump of some dozen cells is not the same like an unborn baby is not the same like a pirate is not the same like a fisherman. The problem in these four is the pirates, the overestimated thing is the lumb of cells. As long as there has not appeared a differentiated cellular structure, that's what it is: a lumb of cells.

Why categories must be messed up here (Letum does) just so to get a moral statement about hunting pirates, escapes me.

We are all omnivores, gentlemen. :D So let's not forget how to bite. Grazing we still can afterwards. :)

[AngusJS]

I'd say the odds of these guys attacking legitimate fishermen are pretty high. Adults paying to play "navy" with human targets = bad idea.

[Skybird]

I'd say the odds of these guys attacking legitimate fisherman are pretty high. Adults paying to play "navy" with human targets = bad idea.

Pirates behave like fisherman during the day. It's mimikry.

That'S why boats should be stopped and searched. If there are weapons onboard, sink them.

Unpracticle with that umber of boats you would need to search, and those limited assets. So you either raise the white flag, or you strike and accept to get your hands dirty occasionally.

the problem is that all the evasive actions the pirates take to escape the fate of being targetted - is accepted by the West to function as intended. That way the West has accepted to be left with no really efficient options to delete piracy. what is being done so far is so overregulated and hampered by legal inner problems that it serves as an alibi only, doing nothing to make the problem go away in the future, and assets assigned are too minor in size anyway. In fact, the problem grows.

[Letum]

Okay, now I get where you're coming from, so let me rephrase.

It is wrong to pay to kill someone, unless you are killing someone who is ATTACKING you of their own volition.

OK, then you must explain why it is wrong to pay to kill someone who isn't
attacking you, but not wrong to be paid to kill someone who isn't attacking
you.

[Skybird]

OK, then you must explain why it is wrong to pay to kill someone who isn't
attacking you, but not wrong to be paid to kill someone who isn't attacking
you.
Nonsense, he must not, because these are not the options.

Paying people to kill those attacking our assets and people, and letting people pay to kill those attacking our assets (and people) - that are the two options here.

[Letum]

Nonsense, he must not, because these are not the options.

Paying people to kill those attacking our assets and people, and letting people pay to kill those attacking our assets (and people) - that are the two options here.


I don't know how closely you have been following the discussion. My self
and Aramike where contrasting the sale of the chance to carry out state
executions with the sale of the chance to kill pirates.

Aramike thinks that the former is a bad thing to do and the latter is a good
thing to do because "It is wrong to pay to kill someone, unless you are
killing someone who is ATTACKING you of their own volition."
However, he (presumably) simultaneously thinks that it is not wrong to
be paid to kill someone who isn't attacking you because if he did not, he
would not be able to support the death sentence at all.

That is why there is an obligation for him to explain why it is wrong to
pay to kill someone who isn't attacking you (i.e. it is wrong to pay for
the chance to carry out state executions), but not wrong to be paid to
kill someone who isn't attacking you (i.e. it is not wrong to be employed
as a state executioner).

Unless, of course, he bites the bullet of leaving it as an arbitrary distinction.

[Skybird]

You are too much in philosophers heaven, and to little in earthly reality. There is no abstractness in the situation - as long as you do not invest sentimentalism into it. You said I am a moral void. You got it wrong in your conceptions, for I am not even that. And while you are doing abstract mind gymnastics, I point finger at an unpleasant reality: that your "investements for anti-piracy-fonds" would add cash to the warlords in place, ignores that the West already has capitulated in one Somali engagement in the 90s, and that despite all your philosophising you have nothing, absolutely nothing to offer in realistic answers on how to tackle pirates. Bloodtourism I did not defend on a moral basis. I said that while everything else has failed, mostly due to western weakness, one could make pragmatic use of it. That does not enoble it, nor does it declare it holy. Bloodtourism would deliver several messages to pirate villages. First, pirates would not return home. Second, they would learn that they are so low now that even tourists may hunt them for fun. Third, it makes piracy a business of more uncalculatable risks for pirates. Fourth, it reduces numbers of pirates. Fifth, states must not even accept responsibility for them if they get into trouble, for they voluntarily saught war action, and if it happens to kill them, so what - nobody forced them to pay for and go oin that trip. So if there are idiots willing to pay money for going on such a trip, let them (you may even call them immoral, if you like) - we can lose nothing from their decision, but eventually win something from it.

As long as we accept the existence of private mercenary companies, I see no moral argument against bloodtourism as well. Mercenaries will not like it, but I insist on both being essentially the same. Just that the one gets payed - while the others pays. The better for some of us.

While the West accepts to not act with determination over claimed moral arguments, he nevertheless by his inactivity accepts an industry based on violance and blackmailing to foster, he accepts by his inactivity the financial funding of barbaric militias engaged in civil wars, he accepts by his inactivity the growing of a militant criminal network to whom private enterprise, and shipcrews terrorised for weeks and months, must fall victim (always with the risk of being killed), he accepts by his inactivity the robbing of free enterprise - all that on the basis of moral scruples by the West.

I give not even what I leave in the toilet for this kind of "moral", for it is highly hypocritical, absolutely inhumane and ignorrant to reality and fate of the victims and their families at home, and simply cowardish, and weak. Weakness never is morally valuable - it simply is weakness, and meaning it well does not chnage that a bit: even if you mean it well, you have to be strong to reach something. Strength and determination is only immoral where one does not see and accept the responsibility that comes with being strong and determined. but the way the West reacts to the problem right now: what kind of superior, glorious "morals" should that be?

Scorn, mockery and disgust from me for that.

[Letum]

SB:
I can't make any moral argument with some who claims to be "not even
that [a moral void]".

I can't make any rational argument with someone who claims rational
arguments are "abstract mind gymnastics".

The only open doors to your mind appear to be those of utter pragmatism
and your mysticism; neither of which I have any inclination of appealing to.

[Skybird]

SB:
I can't make any rational argument with someone who claims rational
arguments are "abstract mind gymnastics".

That comparison I did not make. I expressed that your arguments are abstract mind gymnastics. ;)

Rationality and reality are somewhat linked. And you do not care for reality quite regularly when it does not match your abstract ideas about what it should be.

Your remind me of a cat in a tree at times, that does not come down without help, that high it climbed. Or maybe I should say a hill with a high tower on top of it, which has a huge spear pointing upwards from the tower's roof, with a needle on that speer's head, and a hair on that needle's pointy edge, and you sitting on the tip of that hair, splitting it.

Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only. Either you have functioning ways to adress the challenges of the reality we live in, or you have not. That simple. and that is simply the basic of what you call "my mysticism". Don't see spooky things where there are none. don't make things more complicated than they are. Don'T judge things and dream how it would be if only they would be something different, but take things as what they are. Then you must not just dream of solving them, but you actually can solve them indeed. Because else you do not adress the world, but your desire of what you think the world already should be. Ypour efforts aim at nothing, then, or better: a fiction.

Or in the words of Zen: don'T make a long analysis of who shot that poisened arrow at you, and why, and from where and at what distance and with what type of bow - but pull it out of your wound immediately, else you die from the poison while still asking all those clever questions.

Possible that that kind of healthy pragmatism appears as mysticism to a sometimes hair-raisingly abstract thinker like you indeed.

[geetrue]

[quote=SUBMAN1;1126711]Leave it to the Russians. They will fix things. I'm beginning to think Russian has the only common sense left[\quote]

Reminds me of what it must have been like in the twenties and thirties ... You know like when the rich people would pay for tiger hunts on top of elephants wearing pith helmets and sniffing whatever they sniffed in those days.

The thrill of the hunt I think they call it.

[Letum]

Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only.


I don't claim that morality has any ontological existence, but then neither
does math or subjective experience. Lack of ontological existence isn't
enough of a reason to question the relevance of subjective experience,
math or morality.


No one claims to ask the trivial arrow related questions; "who shot that
poisoned arrow?", "why?" or "from where?". Instead, one claims to ask the
non-trivial questions: "did the arrow hit me?", "might it have been
poisoned?" and "will pulling it out do more damage than the poison
might?".

In broader cases that you might chose to make the Arrow story appear
analogous to, the non-trivial questions are rarely so simple to answer as
"did the arrow hit me?", "might it have been poisoned?" and "will pulling it
out do more damage than the poison might?". No wider argument
can be deconstructed to a state where it becomes directly analogous to
the poisoned arrow.

[Skybird]

INo wider argument
can be deconstructed to a state where it becomes directly analogous to
the poisoned arrow.

Oh my, Letum...

There is no argument that is to be deconstructed, and heaven knows why you do that so obsessively nevertheless. It's just a small story with a point. That is all. No indepth explanation of the universe. No onthologic mysteries. No abstract mind puzzles. No start for a mental voyage into the inner middle of abstractness itself. Just a simple story with a single simple point, just that, not more, not less. Take it as what it is, or don't.

Sometimes a stone - is simply just that, a stone.


Just stop to make all things always so complicated that are not complicated at all!

[Aramike]

Morals that are having no fundament in reality, are no morals of any value, Letum. They are ficton only. Either you have functioning ways to adress the challenges of the reality we live in, or you have not. That simple. and that is simply the basic of what you call "my mysticism". Don't see spooky things where there are none. don't make things more complicated than they are. This sums it up quite nicely, I think.

[Letum]

Sometimes a stone - is simply just that, a stone.

Just stop to make all things always so complicated that are not complicated at all!


The world is far more complex than I, or anyone else, could ever make it appear.
Telling a former geologist that a stone is "simply just a stone" may be the ideal case in point. ;)

If your world is simple, it is the reflection of an internal, not external, simplicity.

[Skybird]

Don't make things more complicated than they are. Just that. And sometimes things are simply simple, really. Reflecting is all nice and well, but if you give it too much space, it paralyses you, and kills ypour degrees of freedom. You can't act then, and you can't acchieve an effect anymore. I have been meditation teacher for years, and saw plenty of this: crazy thinkers who did not had their thinking under control, or crazy dreamers who spend all day sitting on a cushion, thinking that would develope their spirituality and mind. The first have their brain already blowing up whenever you have a sharp look at them, the latter are living zombies who only move if you call and fix a date three days ahead. Believe me, I know what I speak of! :D

[Letum]

Speak for your self.
If thought and reflection paralyze you, then by all means think only simple
thoughts; you are exceptionally good at it. It is to the great benefit of
mankind that not everyone suffers so greatly when using their rational
faculties, as has been your experience.

[CaptainHaplo]

Whats the problem here? If a person wants to put themselves in harms way, thats their choice. There is no guarantee a pirate bullet won't take them out - regardless of any security detachment. Or - as I told my guys more than once:

"Its not the bullet with your name on it that you have to worry about. Its all the ones marked "To whom it may concern" that scare the devil outta me" - and no thats not original - I forget where I heard it.

As for the taking of human life - if someone chooses to commit an act they know to be illegal for personal gain, knowingly endangering the life of their victims - as pirates (and other terrorists) by necessity do, then they have revoked their own claim to "due process" and human dignity, and I see no problem with slaughtering them as I would any other animal.

[Onkel Neal]

This whole situation reminds me of Charles Bronson and Death Wish. Here was a man who had his life destroyed by criminals. He decided to go out on the city and if anyone attacked him, he would give them a little surprise. It was very risky for him, but he could not live like a victim any longer. As long as no one molested him, there was no drama.

Yeah, I know it's just a movie. But there is a point.

[Task Force]

This whole situation reminds me of Charles Bronson and Death Wish. Here was a man who had his life destroyed by criminals. He decided to go out on the city and if anyone attacked him, he would give them a little surprise. It was very risky for him, but he could not live like a victim any longer. As long as no one molested him, there was no drama.

Yeah, I know it's just a movie. But there is a point.

And a very good movie at that...:yep:

[Buddahaid]

From Skybird
"Which for us means dead pirates. Good for us, since our navies and politicians don't get it done, and our companies pay ransom to help fostering the pirate problem and rearm it and strengthen it and increase it's zone of infection."

Get exactly what done?

From Skybird
"That'S why boats should be stopped and searched. If there are weapons onboard, sink them."

Boarding vessels on the high seas without the permission of the vessels native government, is an act of war by international law. And sinking them for just having weapons, or confiscating them would also be piracy.

Buddahaid

[Skybird]

Speak for your self.
If thought and reflection paralyze you, then by all means think only simple
thoughts; you are exceptionally good at it. It is to the great benefit of
mankind that not everyone suffers so greatly when using their rational
faculties, as has been your experience.
I did not say that reflection paralyses me or you or everybody. I said that too much reflection paralyses.

If your thoughts really would be as rational or reasonable as you claim, then I wonder why so very, very often you depend on bringing your examples to extremes of abstractness and pushing them to the edge of hairsplitting. Not so much the above, although there you answer to something that nobody said, but generally.

Stop! Relax. Take a deep breath. Start again two gears down.

[Skybird]

This whole situation reminds me of Charles Bronson and Death Wish. Here was a man who had his life destroyed by criminals. He decided to go out on the city and if anyone attacked him, he would give them a little surprise. It was very risky for him, but he could not live like a victim any longer. As long as no one molested him, there was no drama.

Yeah, I know it's just a movie. But there is a point.

Yes, there is.

Since you bring in movies, there is another reference that I like, a quote:

"It's not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me."

And that is valid in good and bad.

[Skybird]

From Skybird
"Which for us means dead pirates. Good for us, since our navies and politicians don't get it done, and our companies pay ransom to help fostering the pirate problem and rearm it and strengthen it and increase it's zone of infection."

Get exactly what done?

From Skybird
"That'S why boats should be stopped and searched. If there are weapons onboard, sink them."

Boarding vessels on the high seas without the permission of the vessels native government, is an act of war by international law. And sinking them for just having weapons, or confiscating them would also be piracy.

Buddahaid

Yes, there is plenty of complex, of complicated, and very sensible, and really rational reasons not to confront the problem itself and leave things like they are. Thanks for another contribution to the strategy of not fighting piracy efficiently.

I stick to it, dear guys. As long as we do not accept to get our hands dirty, pirates will not only stay, but will become stronger, better armed, and increasing their activity area. If you want to reduce poiracy, you must search for them, hunt them down, kill them, destroy their weapons and equipment and disrupt their logistic support chain and home harbours on land.

You want get rid of piracy, do this.

You do not want to do like this, live with piracy then.

Nothing complex in this. No complicated issue. No abstractness. Just a simple choice you make. If you chose to fight them, do not have illusions what that means, and do not gloss over it. If you chose not to fight them, spare your complex, reasonable, sensible, foul excuses. One thing is sure: they are laughing about you and your scruples, for they do not even know what you are talking about. they just make opportunistic use of your scruples.

And it pays off for them.

[Tchocky]

Can't see this as anything other than a bad idea.

Lie in the bowsprit and shoot anything that looks like a pirate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dhow_in_Indian_Ocean.jpg)

Have a few beers, it's a hot day.

Visa or Mastercard?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Always such interesting ideas in these anti-piracy threads:hmmm:

Personally, I love the idea of tourists paying to shoot pirates on demand. It positively reeks of capitalist efficiency. I'm a little sad to admit that I wouldn't endorse such a thing, other than in a jesting fashion.
The main problem in my eyes has already been pointed out; the international ramifications of sinking a non-pirate vessel or killing a fisherman or somesuch. This is one of the very few situations in which I will suggest that the market would be counterproductive. Naturally, if people are paying for a service (the opportunity to shoot pirates), they are going to want to get maximum value for their money. These are civilians we're talking about, not necessarily trained fighters. I doubt their discretion can be trusted very far unless they were held accountable for their actions. Of course, they can't be held too accountable, or demand withers and that would defeat the purpose.
Even worse, there are a host of liability obligations and moral implications to consider. This problem is exacerbated by the wide range of legal statutes and cultural standards that vary from nation to nation. Those factors themselves are enogh to ruin the fledgling industry. For the most part, I just don't see this working out.

As always, I think the best solution is to take measures to pass the problem off to private interests. Whether shipping companies hire their own guards or contract mercenary services(at their discretion, of course), the system will work and there are ways around the many red-tape obstacles, such as building offshore bases of operation or weapons internment for the duration of port stays. The main difference between mercenaries and paying customers, however, is professional discretion. Paying a few hundred or thousand dollars for a chance to shoot pirates and losing a few hundred or thousand dollars for shooting fishermen are very, very, different things.
Commercial shipping interests need only be given the chance to effect this policy and it will yield startling results, I have no doubt. The key is market adaptability. Insurance companies will indubitably offer discounts to companies that use security assets or purchase them as part of their insurance plan. Naturally, these will vary with the amount, nature, and location of pirate activity. In fact, the insurance companies themselves may offer the services, or favor certain security firms, and then their quality would be assured. In this way, the amount of anti-pirate security will always roughly equal the amount of pirate activity, with little waste.

[Skybird]

Already late last year internatuional pltiicians ruled out to guve a general green light to station armed troops on freighters to fight off pirates. The argument was that that would put the ship, the freight, and the crew at risk.

Which of course is nothing else but involuntary humour.

That's why I do not count with that option anymore.

[VipertheSniper]

I've just heard from friends that the whole story is a hoax or rather a publicity stunt by "Geechy Guy".

[Skybird]

The pirates? Or the Russians? :D

[CaptainHaplo]

Undersea - exactly- Capitalism efficiency. Or as I like to put it - there is never such a thing as a problem, only a business opportunity!

[VipertheSniper]

Dunno, but going over the comments on the linked article it seems that it was a hoax story to get some guys to click on that link in the last sentence...

[Buddahaid]

Yes, there is plenty of complex, of complicated, and very sensible, and really rational reasons not to confront the problem itself and leave things like they are. Thanks for another contribution to the strategy of not fighting piracy efficiently.


My post refers to respecting the law while confronting the problem. Laws that protect the good people also protect the bad, and you suggest lawlessness as the only effective solution. But where do you stop?

I haven't checked to see if Somalia is one of the 158 nations part of the law of the sea. If not, the pirates are fair game. If so, the problem is Somalia itself, and that's not news.

EDIT: The Q-ship type methode this post is about, does respect the law in that the pirates attack first. It seems a plausible, but would need to be operated by the navies of the world, not civilians.

Buddahaid

[Skybird]

With laws that complex that only an elitarist clique of secret specialists can understand them (if so), but neverthless often can read this out of them, and the exact opposite on another day, with such laws I have a problem.

I also have a problem with laws that rule or imply that ignoring a problem and not acting instead of confronting it, is the way to go.

I have a problem with highly subjective, almost arbitrary statements about "appropriate force" and "reasonably balancing" of one's own means. In military combat, we do not score points and win by a sufficient margin of two points when playing 12:10. We want to win by a score "to Nil", because every point scored by the others means dead and wounded for us. Overkill firepower is a relatively safe bet to prevent that.

And finally I have a problem with these laws by own experience, for I got almost sentenced for having defended myself against an unprovoked suprising street attack by a knife-armed junkey who almost killed me - and in the first reaction sued me for having used what he called "excessive force" when I defend mysyelf and took him out, causing injuries to him - while I had his knife in my side. The next burglar attacking me I will kill, most likely, claiming self-defence afterwards without being sued by some stupid sucker. That is advise given by a sport shooting colleague of my father - his friend being a police inspector.

the Q-shipt thing has been vetoed in grmany, for it "unfairly provokes attacks by the pirates". Oh these many geniusses in parliament, they are all so clever, so noble, so wise.

[Buddahaid]

One could argue the pirates, having little to lose, are driven by desperation given the brilliantly glowing bastion of prosperity Somalia has become. But I smell the hand of government thugs at work.

Why do Africans spend so much effort trying to kill each other? Think of how much prosperity would ensue if that effort was channeled into building. What a waste! But that is another thread for discussion.

Buddahaid

[geetrue]

Dunno, but going over the comments on the linked article it seems that it was a hoax story to get some guys to click on that link in the last sentence...

If what you say is true ... leaves everyone arguing over nothing :salute:

This news item then becomes a "What if" :hmmm:

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/0,1518,634278,00.html

Der Spiegel reports about an email by the captain of the Hansa Starvanger, which is held hostage since over three months. I assume the email is part of the communication in negotiations over the ransom. The captain says that the crew is being mistreated, exposed to psycho-terror, fake-executioned, gets no food, water and medicine, and most are ill.

Puts comments on how pragmatic and non-hostile pirates are on a personal level into relation, doesn't it.

The Germans had a mission running to assault the vessel with their special unit GSG9 some time ago, but the mission was blown off again while already being under way.

No need to consider tougher actions on the piracy issue. After all its just some silly hostages that had been stupid enough to allow themselves getting captured. They probably get what they deserve. :dead:

Last time I heared a number, 25 ships are currently held hostage.