[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.