I bet you if he heard you think the way you do about his people (that it was good for thousands of innocents to die and that a good thing came out of it), the only sign you will be getting from him is the middle finger and a fist in your racist face most likely.
I see where you're coming from, but for me this kind of thinking is irrelevant until it is used to justify human actions against others. Up until that time, the belief is only pertinent to the believer. However, once that line is crossed, it then becomes fascist in nature. The progression you mentioned crosses this line, as they use their belief to justify discrimination against homosexuals. As long as the beliefs stay personal though, I don't care if they believe the tsunami was caused by the bastard child of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I am amazed though at the arrogance required for believers to say with certainty that they know god's will.
I wasn't referring to you. You didn't offer your opinion as a certainty, just a possible explanation. However, the quote you picked from the story is misleading, and does not back up your claim. Sure, many pirates may have died, but "many pirates" is not the same as "most of the tsunami victims". The same article also claimed a total of 325 pirate attacks that year. If every attack was done by a different pirate crew, which is not likely, it would still take a large crew on each attack to come anywhere near the number of people that were killed in the tsunami.
It was purely hypothetical. Most things that come from the BBC are indeed misleading. I agree. Many and Most is still not all. I find very little difference between many and most. I think what people should really be focusing on here is why these people were never given warning to a cataclysmic event that had 6 hours warning for most. It's not like a tornado or earth quake. There was adequate time to save most if not all of these people.