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

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.

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.

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.

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

Lie in the bowsprit and shoot anything that looks like a pirate

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

Visa or Mastercard?

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.

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.

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

The pirates? Or the Russians? :D

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

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...

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

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.

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

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

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

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justi...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.