…is that okay or does shooting the occasional rat make one unfit for modern society?

Not if they’re properly cooked.

I’m sure your opinion comes as a relief to the UK soldiers killed in Northern Ireland.:rolleyes:

Hmmm…. a nice specimen of smearing by implication there, Mr B.

A bit wasted on someone who saw the centre of his home city blown up by a Republican truck-bomb, mind you.

Your patented reply when you’re caught…
The intent and meaning of your posts are very clear…your’re just smart enough not to make them latent.:D

So I take it that you can’t quote me saying the things that you accused me of saying, then? Imagine my astonishment…..

You can’t seriously expect me to justify your interpretation of my words.

Now… how about we stop discussing one another’s finer qualities and return to the subject of the thread?

From an outsider’s point of view that does seem the strangest of arguments for gun ownership; you talk of protecting yourself from tyranny, and about how gun ownership is enshrined in the Bill-of-Rights and yet the main source of you fears seems to be your government itself?

Sometimes a Black Helicopter is just a helicopter painted black. 🙂

Think you need to re-read that. Missed the important “s” at the end of belligerents. If you take the “and” and “neutral” out “belligerents states” makes no sense while “belligerent state(s)” would. That’s why the and is there IMO. On the other hand, the reading as it is, allows for belligerents who are non-state entities to be considered for blockade – which would make good sense.

So if I change the spelling, the definitions and the order of the words around a bit, it means what you say it means?

Riiiiiiight……

The document as written allows for the belligerent to be a non state entity.

Could you quote the relevant section of the document, please?

Given the conflict currently taking place i also don’t see it as too much of a stretch to say the Israel is in fact at war with Hamas.

Nations can only be at war with other nations. Do you consider Hamas to be a nation?

It could be argued that it is only the restraint of a properly functioning, democratic nation that has allowed Hamas to continue to control the Gaza strip.

It could also be argued that Israel find Hamas as convenient a bogeyman as the USA and UK find Al-Qaeda. Not that Hamas do themselves any favours in that respect, of course.

Having said all that i feel that the expansion into previously Palestinian land (as defined in recent years) by the settlers is a stupid and provocative move by the more fanatical Israeli elements, which should be halted asap.

On this, at least, we are in agreement.

I can’t understand why relief supplies for Gaza are not transported under the auspices of the International Red Cross or some similarly respected and neutral non-governmental organisation, instead of in ad-hoc flotillas.

I’m rather tired of people hysterically stating that the boarding of the ships was illegal due to them being in international waters. Do a little bit of research / googling people…SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline……

The section you have quoted refers to the conduct of a blockade against a belligerent state during wartime – as clearly evidenced by the references to ‘belligerents’ and ‘neutral states’.

With which other nations is Israel currently at war?

So you’re saying that it’s okay for N. Korea to sink a S. Korean ship in international waters because it’s a warship? :rolleyes:

Please show me where I said that, Mr B.

And no, I’m not exagerating a lot. Read the posts on this very forum (it’s on the Modern Military naval section)…lots of posters there making excuses for North Korea.

A handful of posters on an Internet forum does not constitute ‘half the world’. So yes – you’re exaggerating rather a lot.

And I haven’t heard any sharp words from China or Russia on the matter…let alone unified UN action.

China tends to veto Security Council resolutions critical of North Korea in much the same way as the USA tends to veto motions critical of Israel.

All that this proves is that both the USA and China should probably be a bit more selective when it comes to choosing their friends.

Again, read my posts, I’ve never lauded the Israeli effort…

Please show me where I said that you had, Mr B.

…..I’ve yet again been met with sarcasm-laced personal attacks.
By a moderator no less…

Oh, the humanity. :rolleyes: (Now, that was sarcasm, provided for purposes of identification.)

If you seriously think that you have been subjected to sarcasm-laced personal attacks by a moderator then you should report them to the Webmaster without delay, quoting the offending postings.

Unless you were exaggerating, of course. 🙂

If I may make an isolated point about police being armed:

If they don’t want the responsibility that comes with protecting the public, by whatever means necessary, I’d politely suggest they go back to selling clothes at M&S.

There is more to being a police officer than wearing the uniform and being beloved by school children.

No cop wants to shoot someone, but I would hope that if the case meant saving an innocent person’s life, they’d shoot a criminal.

This is not America, Mr B.

Our police forces prefer not to routinely carry firearms while on everyday duty.

It’s also rather disappointing to see you to belittle the thousands of dedicated men and women who make up the police forces of the UK in the way that you just have.

Frankly, I have come to expect better from you. 🙁

A broad analogy would be entering a nation’s territorial limits, which is not the same thing as a ship minding its own business and being attacked by pirates in international waters.

But these civilian vessels were not within Israeli territorial waters, Mr B.

They were in international waters and, as such, outside any legitimate Israeli jurisdiction.

So far as I am aware nobody – including the Israelis themselves – has claimed otherwise.

These are demonstrable facts, and I can’t help it if you would prefer them to be otherwise.

If the Israeli authorities were convinced that these vessels were carrying weapons or other contraband, why did they not simply wait until the vessels were within their legitimate jurisdiction before stopping and searching them rather than coming over all Chuck Norris on the high seas – with consequent injury and loss of life?

We can see what (hasn’t) happened to North Korea for sinking a S. Korean warship. :rolleyes:
Half the word makes excuses for the North…

I think you’re exaggerating a little there. Actually, on reflection, you’re exaggerating a great deal.

Who, precisely, is making excuses for the North?

And I know I don’t have to explain the difference between a civilian merchant vessel and a warship to you! :rolleyes:

How Iran about seizing Royal Navy personnel operating in Iraqi waters…:D

Ah, but were they aboard a civilian vessel in international waters at the time?

An important distinction, Bob, as I’m quite sure you’ll agree.