Not exactly. The Golden Age pirates were at least putatively rebelling against some of the laws protecting ship-owners at the cost of working seamen, and of colonial injustices toward them.
The current crop of Somali pirates claim to be trying to right the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of foreign shipping traffic. First, they claim pollution from these vessels harms their prime fishing grounds. Second, they also claim that foreign fishing interests have invaded their national fishing areas, lowering populations and displacing the less efficient native vessels. So they do have some slight pretense of justification.
The other problem is that Somalia has no government. It is a state of anarchy with certain areas controlled by different groups, most of whom control through violence. These aren’t lazy people trying to make a quick buck. They are desperately poor, uneducated, and live in a correspondingly violent society (if you can call it that). They are also living in the world’s largest arms market (because there is no rule of law to stop or moderate drug and gun traffic).
I am not justifying piracy, but the sheer outrage is offputting and hypocritical. It’s strikingly similar to the old conservative meme of lazy welfare recipients – why don’t they just get a job? Unfortunately, most people in the Western world have yet to understand that genocide and starvation are “our problem” after all. But I agree that it’s much easier just to shoot them than to actively work toward curing the disease instead of the symptoms.
ETA: Also, remember that the Somali pirates have injured very few people. I’m not sure they have actually killed anyone yet. As far as I know, the French have killed more innocent people than the Somalis.
Until today, they’ve been fairly successful in collecting ransom. That adds up to millions of dollars. I’ve sure they used that money to buy beans and rice to feed their starving people, right?
Who are “their” starving people? Their family? Probably. The members of another warlord’s clan? No. Members of the “government”? No. Communist Guerillas? No.
There is no such thing as the Somali “people”. There isn’t some group to negotiate with, or to demand things from. It’s anarchy. It’s great that you think they should act in the best interests of their nation, it’s just that they have no nation. At best they are supplying one of dozens of groups that might, someday, with enough violence, control a large portion of Somalia.
Not really, considering that the definition of riddled is “pierced many times.” Unless you are making the argument that “one” equals “many.” Are you? It would seem a bit difficult to support.
I don’t necessarily agree with that. He might have been - hell, he probably was under orders to do nothing whatsoever.
But there was a simpler solution. At least one of the pirates spoke English, as they had been communicating with them. Bainbridge should have sent them a message that said “A boat is coming to get the hostage. If he is harmed in any way or if you interfere in any way, we will kill you.” And then send the boat.
If they successfully get the hostage, they return to the ship, which then blows the pirate vessel out of the water.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. " – H. L. Menken
I feel that the FBI hostage negotiation experts probably have a better line on which solutions have the highest probability of resulting in the minimal loss of life.