Jump to content

My eye! Sweet Jesus, Ouch!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 24.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hedganian

    2258

  • shmook

    2034

  • FireKnife

    1686

  • scorch

    1618

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well, it's nearly Christmas! A time to laugh and joke, to sing and... who am I trying to kid? I hate this time of year, it always makes me irritable and angry. And that tends to spill into other areas

ahhh.... that reminds me...   The losers who say that I'm wasting my money on airsoft... you spend $4000 on an ATV... and you accuse me of wasting money??

Wow, you've chosen to play today's edition of 'Wheel of Fortune!'   Let's see what you've won!   CONGRATULATIONS! For using homophobic language (because I'm sure as *suitcase* you're not calling m

Posted Images

or tell him you've got a girlfriend.

 

the. most. expensive. thing. ever. :P

 

anywho, if he does 'copy' and get himself one, problem solved, although possibly doubtful when of a 'stout' nature, and having shorts up halfway up the *albartroth*...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's rant: Morons. Nothing new there.

 

Specifically, people who post things like

 

I wonder if anyone's going to point out that the ridiculous over use of the "Crossbow Cannibal's" name on the news may have affected this Cumbria shooting??

 

Firstly - how are the two things in any way related?

 

Secondly - how would coverage of a "serial killer" being captured and put on trial for his alleged crimes make someone else get a gun and start shooting up a local village before killing himself?

 

Thirdly - why are "they" already talking about new anti-gun laws? Because they've always worked so well in the past, haven't they? You'd think someone with a single shred of brains would go "hey, if people are still shooting each other, all the anti-gun laws we passed after other shooting crimes obviously didn't work"

 

But no. Any shooting crime can and will be used to get new anti-gun laws passed, no matter how unrelated to the crime in question they are. Like the ban on certain types of air weapons that followed two girls being killed by gang members using sub machine guns (illegal in the UK since the 1930s) in Birmingham a few years back...

 

Grrr.... It makes me RAGE :headbutt:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have hoped the con-dem ( :D ) government would be against introducing more needless laws & actually repealing some of the ( 4000 odd... ) laws introduced by Blair & Gordo. If a member of the coalition appears on Question time, please someone get in the ordience and raise the followin issues;- repeal vcra & scrap police/ nhs performance targets. Ta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's that quote from, Hedganian?

 

Quote's like that just scream out, "blame something fast". It's as though certain people, can't/won't comprehend the fact, that there are times a crime is committed, not because of other crimes or tools, but because the person wanted to do it (Or they had a mental brake down).

 

When something like this happens, people always try to ban/blame something to make themselves feel better (Maybe, I have no idea what thier motivation is/can be. Though it does seem, certain people can't accept crime can and does take place, for no reason what so ever accept that the person wanted to do it. Oh no, it was the candle stick that made the professor do it, ban it and he won't be able to, and/or have the inclination to, do it again).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government banning stuff.

 

If your police force isn't very effective, don't try and make it easier on them by making things illegal or banned. That's not the point, is it? I'd wager that our cops have it easier than several other police forces around the world, and yet they're still not doing an amazing job.

 

Put your hand in your pocket and spend some money on re-training the police instead. Recruit more actual police officers.

 

Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure everything the government is banned is policed.

 

The point of it is that it's self-policing.

 

They expect the government to make whatever it is very hard to buy or impossible to buy in the UK, thus taking it out of general circulation.

 

More work for Customs, perhaps?

 

Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel. For *fruitcage*'s sake guys, I understand you have a right to defend yourself, but you also have the right to exercise some bloody restraint.

 

Now this really does ###### me off.

 

They did exercise restraint. The guys they dropped onto the ship were armed with Paintball guns and expecting to come up against peace activists (ala the other five ships) which they didn't even get much of a chance to use as the first man down was dragged off by a mob and beaten half to death before being chucked over onto a lower deck. The rest didn't fair much better getting beaten and stabbed.

 

Now I actually disagree strongly with the blockade of Gaza for a variety of reasons but I don't think the shooting of the people on that ship was illegitimate.

 

Pro-tip for peace convoy members: Don't partner with Islamists who have strong, direct links to funding terrorism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure everything the government is banned is policed.

 

It is, just not necessarily by the Police themselves although all prosecution and what not will go through our Justice system.

 

The point of it is that it's self-policing.

 

They expect the government to make whatever it is very hard to buy or impossible to buy in the UK, thus taking it out of general circulation.

 

More work for Customs, perhaps?

 

That's not 'self-policing' then. Also a ban would affect things legally already in the country which would also require policing. As well as policing of items that managed to be smuggled into the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chimpy, have you got a link or anything for the use of paint ball guns, used to control people whilst storming a ship (I mena this Isreali incident)? Interested into how they thought that would be a deterant (If indeed, they have said why they used paint ball guns/ weapons that fire paint).

 

Rant of the day, I friggin' hate not being able to spell or, have any grasp, for the use of, grammar.

 

This has taken me 20 minutes to type, corrected to the best of my knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was hard to find...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100601/wl_nm/us_israel_flotilla_tactics

 

"Some of the troops wielded paintball rifles -- non-lethal weapons designed to bruise, beat back and mark suspects for later arrest, but which apparently proved of limited use against activists who had the protection of life-jackets and gas masks."

 

 

---

New rant:

 

People who cannot or will not use Google to find stuff instead of expecting others to spoon-feed them with links.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to find on my, constantly cutting out, mobile broadband, its why I asked someone who had already read about it (Chimpy). Made an interesting read I have to say, though it also makes me think this was an operation that back fired (As what was pointed out on that very link above by Guzzi). Not justifying the attack on Isreali defense forces or the people on the ships, I think something like this is not clear cut in any way shape, or form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this really does ###### me off.

 

They did exercise restraint. The guys they dropped onto the ship were armed with Paintball guns and expecting to come up against peace activists (ala the other five ships) which they didn't even get much of a chance to use as the first man down was dragged off by a mob and beaten half to death before being chucked over onto a lower deck. The rest didn't fair much better getting beaten and stabbed.

 

Now I actually disagree strongly with the blockade of Gaza for a variety of reasons but I don't think the shooting of the people on that ship was illegitimate.

 

Pro-tip for peace convoy members: Don't partner with Islamists who have strong, direct links to funding terrorism.

######.

 

Israeli troops intercepted the ships on international waters. Thus they are in the wrong no matter how much restaint they showed.

 

And then they proceeded with kidnapping everyone onboard the ships by steering them into Israeli waters. They also imprisoned people.

 

But yeah, Israel ftw.

Edited by Moriquende
Link to post
Share on other sites

######.

 

Israeli troops intercepted the ships on international waters. Thus they are in the wrong no matter how much restaint they showed.

 

And then they proceeded with kidnapping everyone onboard the ships by steering them into Israeli waters. Then they also imprisoned people.

 

But yeah, Israel ftw.

 

Israel has blockaded Gaza. Under International Law they are actually obliged to make that blockade effective. Blockades very often extend beyond territorial waters. The declared one Israel has extends about 68 miles IIRC and the vessel was intercepted about 20 miles from that. As the stated aim of the vessel was to break the blockade searching it isn't an issue. Israel are also obliged to make sure civilians in Gaza don't suffer unnecessarily by providing humanitarian aid but they still have the right to search the aid prior to delivery and to specify how it will be delivered. Israel did offer to dock and distribute the aid and are in fact still planning on doing so as soon as HAMAS, who are currently refusing to accept it, actually allow them too. Check out the San Remo Manual 1994 to learn more:

 

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

 

It seems that most people that cite 'International Law' haven't ever actually bothered reading any. But you could just listen to the court of public opinion rather than getting a clue.

 

This is a good blog on Naval matters discussing the subject. I referenced them previously about the Somali piracy:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/israeli-actions-are-stupid-but-legal.html

 

Also note that I didn't say anything like Israel FTW and explicitly pointed out that I don't agree with the blockade. My point was that the boarding was legal and as such the use of lethal force having been met by lethal force defending the ship was legitimate. I realise it's a more complicated position than "Yay Israel" or "Yay Palestine" but some of us do actually like to consider these things carefully before rushing to judgement.

Edited by Chimpy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's that quote from, Hedganian?

 

The quote was from someone's FB update. I'm not sure whether or not they personally thought there is a link between the two, perhaps more that they were foreseeing that anti-gun groups/idiots/the media would try to make such a link. :unsure:

 

 

Oh, and I'm very pro-Israel. You've just got to give it to a group of people who were given a worthless bit of desert in the middle of their enemies and not only managed to turn a good portion of it into fertile arable land but also to defend it from all those enemies by kicking their arses every time they tried it on. I'm also very anti terrorist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has blockaded Gaza. Under International Law they are actually obliged to make that blockade effective. Blockades very often extend beyond territorial waters. The declared one Israel has extends about 68 miles IIRC and the vessel was intercepted about 20 miles from that. As the stated aim of the vessel was to break the blockade searching it isn't an issue. Israel are also obliged to make sure civilians in Gaza don't suffer unnecessarily by providing humanitarian aid but they still have the right to search the aid prior to delivery and to specify how it will be delivered. Israel did offer to dock and distribute the aid and are in fact still planning on doing so as soon as HAMAS, who are currently refusing to accept it, actually allow them too. Check out the San Remo Manual 1994 to learn more:

 

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

 

It seems that most people that cite 'International Law' haven't ever actually bothered reading any. But you could just listen to the court of public opinion rather than getting a clue.

 

This is a good blog on Naval matters discussing the subject. I referenced them previously about the Somali piracy:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/israeli-actions-are-stupid-but-legal.html

 

Also note that I didn't say anything like Israel FTW and explicitly pointed out that I don't agree with the blockade. My point was that the boarding was legal and as such the use of lethal force having been met by lethal force defending the ship was legitimate. I realise it's a more complicated position than "Yay Israel" or "Yay Palestine" but some of us do actually like to consider these things carefully before rushing to judgement.

Sorry, you are right. I just saw it on the news.

 

But I'm still not sure about their right to board a civilian ship on international waters. Even our foreign minister is calling it a breach of international law.

Edited by Moriquende
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I'm very pro-Israel. You've just got to give it to a group of people who were given a worthless bit of desert in the middle of their enemies and not only managed to turn a good portion of it into fertile arable land but also to defend it from all those enemies by kicking their arses every time they tried it on. I'm also very anti terrorist.

 

In the early days, Israelis were commiting many terrorist acts in order to achieve their Israel. King David Hotel bombing is a good example. Brits died at the hands of Israelis and it is still celebrated. In 2006, there was a memorial to to the bombing and if I remember rightly, there was alot of controversy because the Israelis put up a rather arsey plaque commemorating the bombings and had to change the plaque.* They also bombed market places and ambushed buses and stuff. The way I see it, the modern state of Israel is cemented in place with acts of terrorism.

 

 

 

 

 

*I expect Chimpy to come along and try to disagree with me for some reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.