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?