Today I'm angry about.....

[General Mannerheim]

coming back from 10 days hol and 10 days of taping buggered because the BT box is...well, buggered

can you write us a massive post about vegas then pleeeease. where you went, what you saw, what you did, etc etc - fookin LOVE that place!

im 30 next year, think i might take wor lass and wed her there!? (if you can sort us out with a decent room rate! )

did you do Voodoo Lounge or Ghost Bar? and how much did you play Beerpong!?

[Porrohman]

I bought a Postman Pat DVD for my 6 month old...
AND IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL SERIES

That`s because it`s been bought by TNT.

[TANGODANCER]

Of course, this wouldn't have happened if enough people had said "what a load of nonsense".

But the masses of un or under-educated and poor people have alway far outweighed the learned, rich and power hungry, have they not? Royalty and Rome (or wherever the heads of church resided) used force and fear to implement their wills on the masses with threats of "comply or else" in the sovereign cases and "heretic " in the papal cases. England has long passed that stage, but in other parts of the world the threat of not obeying the will of the Almighty still rules with an iron hand, even though the Almighty says nothing of the sort. "Thou shalt not steal" is another directive that seems to be prefixed by- "But it's okay if we decide God wills it".

[Bruce Rioja]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

Is there a word that describes ‘pathetically naïve to the power of outer space’?

[Montreal Wanderer]

FWIW IMHO there was not much difference between religion, law and politics long ago. They were all invented to organize society. The supreme temporal, judicial and religious authority tended to be one chap called a Pharaoh, emperor, king or whatever. As societies became more complex, authority was delegated to judges and high priests, but there was still one leader above the others. A charitable explanation of the development of law and religion (to a large extent the same thing) was to keep society well-ordered and avoid anarchy. A less charitable one was that they also preserved power for the chap or chaps on top. Offices became hereditary to keep it all in the family. Hereditary offices tend to increase incompetence which eventually led to the collapse of that society. I'm not sure that much has changed in many parts of the world.

[Hoboh]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

Tango, I think people still believe in their own God unfortunatly there is a few too many of them.

[Bruce Rioja]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

Tango, I think people still believe in their own God unfortunatly there is a few too many of them.

Which ultimately translates to "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend'.

[Hoboh]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

Tango, I think people still believe in their own God unfortunatly there is a few too many of them.

Which ultimately translates to "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend'.

It could be intepreted that way I suppose

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

However, Israel has a right to protect itself from its enemies. It has a right to stop the smuggling of arms to Gaza, to prevent the infiltration of rockets and weapons that could be fired by Hamas militants against Israeli targets. The Israeli armed forces know, from bitter experience, that even humanitarian operations can be exploited by the country’s enemies. It is neither unreasonable nor a breach of international 'law' to insist that ships on the high seas, suspected of carrying weapons, submit to inspection before they are allowed to dock.

Oh well, so much for trying to defend PB. I'm not sure I would agree with your interpretation of international law here. Sending an armed party aboard a ship in international waters and killing members of the passengers and crew without the sanction of the international community of nations sounds very much like piracy to me. It might be different if this took place in Israeli waters i suppose.

Do you really think the accusation of 'piracy' is valid?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1589981/

Is it not at least arguable, in your view, that paragraph 67(a) of the San Remo Manual on Armed Conflicts at Sea justifies the Israeli boarding of the ship?


SECTION V: NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;…”

[Montreal Wanderer]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

[William the White]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.

Yes, pirates are well known for warning/suggesting an about turn over a loudspeaker system.

[William the White]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.[/quote

Yes, pirates are well known for warning/suggesting an about turn over a loudspeaker system.

What are they very, very famous for actually doing on the high seas? go on, have a go...

[Hoboh]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.[/quote

Yes, pirates are well known for warning/suggesting an about turn over a loudspeaker system.

What are they very, very famous for actually doing on the high seas? go on, have a go...

Drinking rum?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It would depend, PB, on whether a state of war exists between the two sovereign states. In the case of armed conflict a blockade is legal as is search and seizure in international waters - thus blockade runners take their chances. However, I am not convinced that as state of war exists as envisioned in international law or, for that matter, that Gaza is a sovereign state. The war on terror is a Bushism that would not count either IMHO.

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.

Yes, pirates are well known for warning/suggesting an about turn over a loudspeaker system.

What are they very, very famous for actually doing on the high seas? go on, have a go...

Plundering ships with the sole motive of making material gain.

William, if you think using the language of 'piracy' is anyway helpful or accurate, then go for it. I wouldn't expect a sober opinion on international law from you, with respect, which is why my question was addressed to Monty, who is not prone to rhetorical flights of fancy.

[TANGODANCER]

Don't pirates fly the skull and bones flag and sing "Yo, oh, oh and a bottle of rum"?

[William the White]

Alright then, but it's at least arguable, and these constant rhetorical references to 'a clear breach of international law' are off key - would you not agree?

And can I not persuade at least to rule out the word 'piracy' when it's a state involved, and no intention of enrichment?

Acts like a pirate, kills like a pirate, but doesn't seize goods for personal material gain... I see your point... Tough one. What word would you suggest covers this? If you can find one I'm sure i for one will accept it.

Yes, pirates are well known for warning/suggesting an about turn over a loudspeaker system.

What are they very, very famous for actually doing on the high seas? go on, have a go...

Plundering ships with the sole motive of making material gain.

William, if you think using the language of 'piracy' is anyway helpful or accurate, then go for it. I wouldn't expect a sober opinion on international law from you, with respect, which is why my question was addressed to Monty, who is not prone to rhetorical flights of fancy.

Wasn't rhetorical fancy in ten coffins in Turkey today... And it's not fancy that many people, including international lawyers, consider the actions of Israel illegal, as well as persistently cruel and morally repellant... They behaved like pirates in the essential features, the seizure by force of ships on the high seas and the killing of people on board those ships... But do continue the casuistry if you wish...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Wasn't rhetorical fancy in ten coffins in Turkey today... And it's not fancy that many people, including international lawyers, consider the actions of Israel illegal, as well as persistently cruel and morally repellant... They behaved like pirates in the essential features, the seizure by force of ships on the high seas and the killing of people on board those ships... But do continue the casuistry if you wish...

Ok, simple question then - do you think that it was 'piracy' as defined by international law?

[Lord Kangana]

Don't pirates fly the skull and bones flag and sing "Yo, oh, oh and a bottle of rum"?

Thats hobo.