On Apr 11, 9:08*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
....

The question is what is a desireable outcome here.

If you say freeing the hostages.......WRONG. *A desireable outcome is
to minimize future occurences. *This may be entirely different from
saving the hostages and not recognizing this fact will result in many
more deaths. *Obama is not capable of understanding this. *Paying
ransom is morally wrong because it results in more hostages being
taken. *Thus, the actiuons of the rest of the world to this point have
been both morally and logically wrong and have brought us to this
point.

--------------------------

I would say that certainly a desirable outcome is to minimize future
occurrences, however......

Our culture values life. *The purpose of law enforcement and the
military is to protect and secure civilian life. *There have been many
examples of police, firefighters and military sacrificing more than one
casualty or fatality in the effort to save one civilian life.

The primary objective right now is to save the civilian hostage if at
all possible.
Once accomplished, it will be time to minimize future occurrences.

Eisboch

Only a complete asshole would think it ok to sacrifice the ship's
captain, especially after he exchanged himself to further the safety of
this crew.

--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents.
I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents.
I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.



What? Kill corporate execs? That would be so...unAmerican. :)
--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

"HK" wrote in message
m...
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents. I
do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.



What? Kill corporate execs? That would be so...unAmerican. :)


I saw an interview with an American CEO of a shipping company. Their ships
are not US flagged, but the company is US owned.
He agreed to pay a million dollar ransom in a previous incident. His given
reason was to ensure the safe release of the crew.
Now, all the skeptics will claim it was also to gain release of the ship,
but he said not so. The ship was insured.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
m...
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents. I
do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.

What? Kill corporate execs? That would be so...unAmerican. :)

Who knows, maybe the corporate execs get a cut?

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:21:11 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents.
I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.

Sure, kill the stockholders too.
Blow the lifeboat out of the water.
Nuke Somalia.
Send Seals to swim under and sink the lifeboat.
Snipe them - though you can't see them.
Blast them with heavy rock music.
With "solutions" like these, who needs pirates?
Thank God the inmates ain't running the asylum.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:21:11 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents.
I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.
In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.

Sure, kill the stockholders too.
Blow the lifeboat out of the water.
Nuke Somalia.
Send Seals to swim under and sink the lifeboat.
Snipe them - though you can't see them.
Blast them with heavy rock music.
With "solutions" like these, who needs pirates?
Thank God the inmates ain't running the asylum.

--Vic

Cheney thinks he is... :)




--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:29:14 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:


Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future incidents.
I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can either.

In another forum, I just read *the* solution. Instead of tracking down
and killing these pirates, we should track down and kill anyone who has
paid ransom to these pirates. Case closed, no profit, no piracy.

Actually, a good idea. Make it illegal to pay ransom.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.
----------------------------------------------------------

Negotiation does not necessarily mean paying ransom or allowing them to go
free.
If that was going on, this incident would be over by now.
Negotiation can also be wearing down the pirate's resolve and making them
realize that they have no other option but to surrender. I am not there or
privy to what the negotiations are, but I suspect the latter is what is
going on.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

ANY attempt at negotiation will CAUSE future incidents so logically
should not be considered. It is all well and good to feel for the
family of the hostage but we also have to feel for the hundrerds of
potential future hostages. This logically means no negotiations. You
may call being logical asshole behavior but it works better than
emotionalism.
Saving the hostage should be secondary to minimizing future
incidents. I do not see any way out of that and I dont think you can
either.
----------------------------------------------------------

Negotiation does not necessarily mean paying ransom or allowing them to go
free.
If that was going on, this incident would be over by now.
Negotiation can also be wearing down the pirate's resolve and making them
realize that they have no other option but to surrender. I am not there
or privy to what the negotiations are, but I suspect the latter is what is
going on.

Eisboch

Agreed. Here is how the negotiations should go.

If the captain dies, so do you.
If the captian survives and we get him back, you live to see a trial.
If the captain dies for any reason, we will not accept your surender but
will feed the sharks.

Then sit an wait, repeat the message as needed.

If buddies try a recuse of the pirates, blow them out of the water.