Luxury Yacht Company Offers Pirate-Hunting Cruises

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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