Turkey has announced they will send another flotilla to Gaza escorted by Turk Navy

[Upstate]

Turkey has threatened Israel with unprecedented action after Israeli forces attacked an aid vessel, killing 10 peace activists headed to Gaza.

Israel said 10 people died while those on the ship said at least 15 were killed.

A shocked world has responded with outrage. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel and warned of unprecedented and incalculable reprisals.

Two Turkish activists were reported to be among those killed in the flotilla. Ankara warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy, a development with unpredictable consequences.

Israel has sounded an alert throughout the country fearing rocket attacks by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Arab League has called an urgent meeting on Tuesday to decide on a common response. Egypt is under pressure to end the blockade of Gaza while Greece has cancelled a military exercise with Isreal.

The world is waiting for the response from Washington, how will President Obama react to the provocation from America's closest ally.-CNN-IBN

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html

[Ghazi]

Slowly but surely, the world turns on this cancerous regime.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Slowly but surely, the world turns on this cancerous regime.

and slowly, but surely, people like you turn them back :rolleyes

[Upstate]

Ha, hopefully something is done here

[BadOdor]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

[Ghazi]

http://www.polosbastards.com/artman/uploads/hezbollah.jpg

[jack sommerset]

Activist my ass. 700 peeps on 6 boats bringing aid. They knew what they were doing. You poke a bear, you will get eaten.

[Ghazi]

^ Hezbollah "poked a bear" in 2006 and still found a way to kick that ass.

lol Israel losing to a bunch of Arabs with outdated weapons.

lol tactically owned

lol political/military embarrassment

[ChumpDumper]

What were they doing, jack?

[Upstate]

I wonder if the US will send a message to Israel that they can't just do whatever they want. They should, and the message should be clear. This is horrible PR.

[Ghazi]

^ unfortunately the criminals have a shitload of influence in American politics. Their mass propaganda campaign tricks many into thinking they're "the good guys", acting in self defense, victims, etc... and hence you have people who are indoctrinated like our very own Shasta.

AIPAC can suck it.

[boutons_deux]

AIPAC, including many hyper-wealthy Wall St. Jews, owns Congress and the Exec.

[jack sommerset]

gYjkLUcbJWo

[ChumpDumper]

And?

[Upstate]

I don't think anyone could describe these people of being followers of MLK or Ghandi. But they were responding to a commando raid, they were acting in self defense. They didnt kill any soldiers and their weapons were shitty and they were civilians going against one of the best militaries in the world. It's really messed up to hear people defend this shit. . You don't have the right to kill them because they resist having their ship commandered in international waters. Someone needs to remind these shitbags that they can't get away with anything they want.

[Shastafarian]

I don't think anyone could describe these people of being followers of MLK or Ghandi. But they were responding to a commando raid, they were acting in self defense. They didnt kill any soldiers and their weapons were shitty and they were civilians going against one of the best militaries in the world. It's really messed up to hear people defend this shit. . You don't have the right to kill them because they resist having their ship commandered in international waters. Someone needs to remind these shitbags that they can't get away with anything they want.

So the activists have a right to defend themselves but the soldiers don't. Glad we cleared that up.

[Trainwreck2100]

So the activists have a right to defend themselves but the soldiers don't. Glad we cleared that up.

The soldiers had no right to be there

[Shastafarian]

The soldiers had no right to be there

So the activists get a pass for violently beating them with metal poles? I still haven't seen anything that proves the allegation the Israeli forces began the violence.

Was it stupid to do it in International Waters? Seems that way.

Was this some kind of peaceful, aid delivering summer cruise? Not in the least.

[Trainwreck2100]

So the activists get a pass for violently beating them with metal poles? I still haven't seen anything that proves the allegation the Israeli forces began the violence.

Was it stupid to do it in International Waters? Seems that way.

Was this some kind of peaceful, aid delivering summer cruise? Not in the least.

If a burglar breaks into your house does he have the right to fight back as you beat his ass.
Yes.
If he kills you does he get the needle
Yes

[Shastafarian]

If a burglar breaks into your house does he have the right to fight back as you beat his ass.
Yes.
If he kills you does he get the needle
Yes

In your analogy, were you living on a house boat heading for a blockade?

[Shastafarian]

Let's say the FBI breaks into your house without a warrant. You're hiding some illicit materials but they neglected to obtain legal justification for searching your house. They come in while you're home. Before they can speak, you beat them with metal pipes. They fire back while they're laying on the floor being beaten repeatedly with foreign objects. They kill you but they in turn are also severely injured.

What happens next?

[ElNono]

In your analogy, were you living on a house boat heading for a blockade?

It wouldn't make any difference if he did, since the house boat didn't get into the blockade.

[Shastafarian]

It wouldn't make any difference if he did, since the house boat didn't get into the blockade.

I was just pointing out how over simplistic and inaccurate his analogy was.

[ElNono]

Let's say the FBI breaks into your house without a warrant. You're hiding some illicit materials but they neglected to obtain legal justification for searching your house. They come in while you're home. Before they can speak, you beat them with metal pipes. They fire back while they're laying on the floor being beaten repeatedly with foreign objects. They kill you but they in turn are also severely injured.

What happens next?

The FBI cannot come into your house unless you give them permission to do so (or unless they have a search warrant). Otherwise they're breaking the law. Which is no different than what the commandos did. They had absolutely no right to board the civilian ship.
Your analogy fails also because the FBI is a law enforcement unit, and thus another subset of laws apply (including assault to a law enforcement person), which does not apply at all to the situation at sea.

[Shastafarian]

The FBI cannot come into your house unless you give them permission to do so (or unless they have a search warrant). Otherwise they're breaking the law. Which is no different than what the commandos did.And? I'm pretty sure I made that clear in the analogy.

They had absolutely no right to board the civilian ship.But they would have had they waited for it to come into their waters.


Your analogy fails also because the FBI is a law enforcement unit, and thus another subset of laws apply (including assault to a law enforcement person), which does not apply at all to the situation at sea.
Alright come up with a better analogy then.

I think the first part of your post shows you came in with a preconceived notion of my position. I'm not arguing the FBI would have the right to come in. I thought I made it clear but you still thought I was advocating the legality or acceptability of them breaking the law.

[ElNono]

I was just pointing out how over simplistic and inaccurate his analogy was.

I didn't think it was simplistic or inaccurate at all.
Another similar analogy would be wether you could attack the alleged robber before he breaks into the house, because he said he would break in.

[Shastafarian]

I didn't think it was simplistic or inaccurate at all.Intentions of breaking a blockade don't factor in at all huh? How about their obvious intention to harm the soldiers? Are you kidding me? You think his analogy of Israel as a burglar and the activists as innocent home owners is good? Here I thought you were smart.


Another similar analogy would be wether you could attack the alleged robber before he breaks into the house, because he said he would break in.The whole premise is inaccurate as the Israeli soldiers weren't there to steal the goods for themselves. Their position is that they were going to inspect the materials and send anything that wasn't banned to Gaza.

The "peaceful" activists were planning on breaking Israeli law but that doesn't enter anywhere into your analogy.

[ElNono]

But they would have had they waited for it to come into their waters.

Well, it's not certain. However, they would not have broken any international laws, so they wouldn't need to explain to the rest of the world why they did what they did.


I think the first part of your post shows you came in with a preconceived notion of my position. I'm not arguing the FBI would have the right to come in. I thought I made it clear but you still thought I was advocating the legality or acceptability of them breaking the law.

Please don't take this personally, but I've yet to figure out what your position really is. I personally prefer to respect the law. I also understand that there are other people that prefer to make exceptions to enforcing the laws in order for the end to justify the means. I might not agree with them, but I understand that's the rationale they use.
Yet, I don't see you clearly in either camp. I'm not suggesting that there are only two lines of thought, I just can't identify what yours is.

[Shastafarian]

If they ship had been carrying missiles, would you maintain your position?

[Shastafarian]

Well, it's not certain. However, they would not have broken any international laws, so they wouldn't need to explain to the rest of the world why they did what they did.
This is the frustrating part. I'm not concerned with them having to explain themselves for breaking international law. Should they have waited? Absolutely. But it's a separate issue from what the contents of the boat were as well as what their motives were.



Please don't take this personally, but I've yet to figure out what your position really is. I personally prefer to respect the law. I also understand that there are other people that prefer to make exceptions to enforcing the laws in order for the end to justify the means. I might not agree with them, but I understand that's the rationale they use.
Yet, I don't see you clearly in either camp. I'm not suggesting that there are only two lines of thought, I just can't identify what yours is.
My position is the Israelis should have waited. The activists were either doing it as a publicity stunt or were looking for trouble (probably both). They found it and now they're bitching because the Israelis defended themselves against being BEATEN with metal objects. Did Israel break international law? It looks that way but I'm no expert.

What would you say if they had waited? You'd be ok with it right? That's what I'm getting at.

[ElNono]

Intentions of breaking a blockade don't factor in at all huh? How about their obvious intention to harm the soldiers? Are you kidding me? You think his analogy of Israel as a burglar and the activists as innocent home owners is good? Here I thought you were smart.

Intent is not a crime defined in international law. Do Israel likes that the Iranian head of state denies the holocaust and denies the right of Israel to their land? No. Do Israel HAS A RIGHT to kill him outside of Israel? No.
Does Israel has a right to kill all the civilian protesters that don't like or agree with the Gaza blockade outside of Israel? No.
This is pretty clear cut. If everybody would be allows to legally kill people for what they think, then we would be officially in a 1984 world.


The whole premise is inaccurate as the Israeli soldiers weren't there to steal the goods for themselves. Their position is that they were going to inspect the materials and send anything that wasn't banned to Gaza.
The "peaceful" activists were planning on breaking Israeli law but that doesn't enter anywhere into your analogy.

But they didn't break Israel or International law. Israel foolishly did. Baffles me that they did, especially with the tensions they had with Turkey and the US in their diplomatic relations, but they did.
The protesters ultimately won, simply because they managed to get Israel to do the worst it could do. I'm not naive enough to think that they weren't looking for a reaction. But ultimately is Israel that screwed up.

[ElNono]

If they ship had been carrying missiles, would you maintain your position?

If the ship would have been carrying missiles, then it would have been in violation of International laws, since it identified itself as a civilian ship.
That said, the way this is resolved is by Israel sending a boat and requesting an inspection of the ship while in international waters. That's the procedure indicated in the UN laws of the high seas.

Ultimately, the ship identified itself as a civilian ship, and was indeed full of civilians. Angry civilians? Maybe. Pro-Palestinian civilians? Probably. That still doesn't give you an excuse to board the ship in international waters.

[sook]

Israel is slowly but surely solidifying its demise. Throughout the course of history stupid piece of shit nations like responsible for all the world's tensions are quick to disappear, sadly however, my tax dollar is what is fueling the monster.

[spursncowboys]

Did Israel try and get confirmation to board and search before doing this? Did the vessel not respond to Israel?

[ElNono]

This is the frustrating part. I'm not concerned with them having to explain themselves for breaking international law. Should they have waited? Absolutely. But it's a separate issue from what the contents of the boat were as well as what their motives were.


What you say and what you do are two different things. Saying I'm going to steal your car means jackshit if I don't actually attempt to do it. (I mean, if you want to get picky we could argue wether you're under emotional distress because of my threat, but as far as the actual intent of stealing your car, it just doesn't fly unless I actually attempt to do it).

All Israel had to do was for this group to break ANY law. Be it international if they were in international waters, or Israeli if they were in Israel's territorial waters. But they couldn't help themselves. Foolish.


My position is the Israelis should have waited. The activists were either doing it as a publicity stunt or were looking for trouble (probably both). They found it and now they're bitching because the Israelis defended themselves against being BEATEN with metal objects. Did Israel break international law? It looks that way but I'm no expert.

What would you say if they had waited? You'd be ok with it right? That's what I'm getting at.

I think they would at least have had a plausible justification for doing what they did. As soon as you can clearly and quickly establish that the convoy broke the law first, then it's a lot easier to justify the fallout from that.
Instead, they took the bait and swallowed it whole.

[ElNono]

Did Israel try and get confirmation to board and search before doing this? Did the vessel not respond to Israel?

They did not (ask to board), AFAIK. They did warn the boats to either go to an Israeli port or to turn around. The ships did respond and said they were going to keep going towards their final destination.

[ChumpDumper]

Their position is that they were going to inspect the materials and send anything that wasn't banned to Gaza.Why did they need to storm the boat with commandos just to inspect it?

[Ghazi]

Is anyone else surprised that Turkey has a Navy?

They are one of the better military in the Middle East... maybe 2nd to Iran. Israel is 3rd.

[ElNono]

Is anyone else surprised that Turkey has a Navy?

They're like top 10 in the world...

[Ghazi]

it's kind of hard to fear the military might of a country named after lunch meat

:lol

[angrydude]

we got a lot of maritime lawyers on this board. :rolleyes

this is what it is--an international incident.

[Ignignokt]

Why did they need to storm the boat with commandos just to inspect it?

you should have gone and inspected it yourself, if it's that safe.

[ChumpDumper]

you should have gone and inspected it yourself, if it's that safe.You should tell us all why it took a commando raid in the first place.

The USCG boards and inspects ships all the time without the use of SEAL raids.

[sook]

So the activists have a right to defend themselves but the soldiers don't. Glad we cleared that up.

who boarded whose ship you piece of shit nutsack?

Good good, just build a shrine in front of your house and claim israel your god and be done with it.

[sook]

You should tell us all why it took a commando raid in the first place.

The USCG boards and inspects ships all the time without the use of SEAL raids.

not only tyhat why do "Accidental attacks" to humanitarians and the U.N only come from Israel?

How many times have I seen this bullshit response?

Why do they have the right to kill so many?

It is wrong on so many levels.

[PublicOption]

Israel is stupid for fucking with Turkey. They may get their ass kicked.

[spursncowboys]

They are one of the better military in the Middle East... maybe 2nd to Iran. Israel is 3rd.

1. israel 2. turkey. both these countries get america's left overs. all the other countries get soviet age weaponry. there is no way they can compete.

[spursncowboys]

Israel is stupid for fucking with Turkey. They may get their ass kicked.

I look at it as turkey is dumb for getting involved without clearing it with israel. what would lincoln have done if france, in the civil war, was going through america's blockades with "aide" without clearing it with the union.

[Drachen]

it's kind of hard to fear the military might of a country named after lunch meat

It is also hard to fear the military might of a country named after retreating (Iran).

LOL

[MannyIsGod]

Slowly but surely, the world turns on this cancerous regime.

Most of the world HAS been against them for quite some time. They just happen to have one hell of a lobby here in the United States.

[MannyIsGod]

I wonder if the US will send a message to Israel that they can't just do whatever they want. They should, and the message should be clear. This is horrible PR.

LOL The US has sent the opposite message for decades. That shit isn't about to change over a few more dead people.

[Phenomanul]

So let me get this straight... the other 5 boats in that flotilla passed on through without a problem... but the 6th boat became a problem, violence broke out and people died. What did the soldiers find on that 6th boat that wasn't a problem on the other ones? Why did an otherwise peaceful checkup turn sour on that last boat?

Israel was stupid for doing this over international waters... but had they waited, they had every right to check that known terrorist groups were not being supplied by these ships...

[ElNono]

So let me get this straight... the other 5 boats in that flotilla passed on through without a problem... but the 6th boat became a problem, violence broke out and people died. What did the soldiers find on that 6th boat that wasn't a problem on the other ones? Why did an otherwise peaceful checkup turn sour on that last boat?

According to what I read, Israel said they could use nets to disable the other 5 smaller boats, but the 6th boat was too big and the nets wouldn't work.

And no, the other 5 boats were not checked or passed through. All 6 boats were commandeered by the Israeli army.

[spursncowboys]

you should have gone and inspected it yourself, if it's that safe.

Sean Penn

[DarrinS]

According to what I read, Israel said they could use nets to disable the other 5 smaller boats, but the 6th boat was too big and the nets wouldn't work.

And no, the other 5 boats were not checked or passed through. All 6 boats were commandeered by the Israeli army.


But, there wasn't any violence on the other vessels.

Also read that the ship was owned by an orgization with terrorist ties.

Bottom line, the Israelis just want to check cargo that is headed to Ghaza. If this ship has complied with repeated requests, none of this would be news.

[DarrinS]

What did the soldiers find on that 6th boat that wasn't a problem on the other ones?


Iron rods and knives.

[spursncowboys]

Most of the world HAS been against them for quite some time. They just happen to have one hell of a lobby here in the United States.

I doubt the lobby is why the avg american agrees with israel's stance on terrorism and votes in accordance with that.

[spursncowboys]

So let me get this straight... the other 5 boats in that flotilla passed on through without a problem... but the 6th boat became a problem, violence broke out and people died. What did the soldiers find on that 6th boat that wasn't a problem on the other ones? Why did an otherwise peaceful checkup turn sour on that last boat?

Israel was stupid for doing this over international waters... but had they waited, they had every right to check that known terrorist groups were not being supplied by these ships...
the commandos were attacked - requested to use deadly force to defend themselves and it was granted. did you see the video? any american agency wo
uld have done the same thing.

[ElNono]

But, there wasn't any violence on the other vessels.

Correct.


Also read that the ship was owned by an orgization with terrorist ties.

Or so claims Israel. You could also claim that same organization was behind humanitarian relief efforts in Haiti, and you would be correct too.


Bottom line, the Israelis just want to check cargo that is headed to Ghaza. If this ship has complied with repeated requests, none of this would be news.

Bottom line, Israel had a right to request inspection of the boats in international waters. but they didn't do that.

[ElNono]

I doubt the lobby is why the avg american agrees with israel's stance on terrorism and votes in accordance with that.

Do you have figures on that? Also, are you equating Israel stance on terrorism with israel stance on Palestine? They're two different things.

[Shastafarian]

Why did they need to storm the boat with commandos just to inspect it?Why did the activists need to attempt to break a blockade instead of attempting to bring aid to Gaza legally?

I'm sure after years of constant warfare, Israel uses commandos because they'd rather be safe than sorry. Looks like they were right. Unless you can say those "peaceful" activists would have just sat there like good boys and girls if inspectors had been sent aboard.


who boarded whose ship you piece of shit nutsack?

Good good, just build a shrine in front of your house and claim israel your god and be done with it.

http://cdn.nahright.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/umad.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The world is waiting for the response from Washington, how will President Obama react to the provocation from America's closest ally.-CNN-IBN

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html
Anyone who seeks the truth of the matter will realize the soldiers were protecting themselves. Among the weapons seized from the activists were handguns.

Israel did not provoke this. They were only enforcing.

[sook]

Anyone who seeks the truth of the matter will realize the soldiers were protecting themselves. Among the weapons seized from the activists were handguns.

Israel did not provoke this. They were only enforcing.

wth are you supposed to do when someone takes over yourboat in international waters?

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder if the US will send a message to Israel that they can't just do whatever they want. They should, and the message should be clear. This is horrible PR.
Maybe this socialist, terrorist loving administration will. The people will not support it, and move democrats even farther from power in the elections.

[Shastafarian]

wth are you supposed to do when someone takes over yourboat in international waters?

Obviously you should beat them with metal poles and chairs.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think anyone could describe these people of being followers of MLK or Ghandi. But they were responding to a commando raid, they were acting in self defense. They didnt kill any soldiers and their weapons were shitty and they were civilians going against one of the best militaries in the world. It's really messed up to hear people defend this shit. . You don't have the right to kill them because they resist having their ship commandered in international waters. Someone needs to remind these shitbags that they can't get away with anything they want.
Bullshit.

The first guns to be fired were likely the two handguns seized.

They had deadly weapons. Ever been his by a steel pole, or pipe?

Fuck them. They deserve what they got. Israel was only enforcing the blockade.

[ElNono]

Maybe this socialist, terrorist loving administration will. AIPAC will not support it, and move democrats even farther from power in the elections.

fify

[ElNono]

Bullshit.
The first guns to be fired were likely the two handguns seized.
They had deadly weapons. Ever been his by a steel pole, or pipe?
Fuck them. They deserve what they got. Israel was only enforcing the blockade.

:blah

Why were Israel commandos boarding a civilian ship in international waters in the first place?

[Wild Cobra]

The FBI cannot come into your house unless you give them permission to do so (or unless they have a search warrant). Otherwise they're breaking the law. Which is no different than what the commandos did. They had absolutely no right to board the civilian ship.
Your analogy fails also because the FBI is a law enforcement unit, and thus another subset of laws apply (including assault to a law enforcement person), which does not apply at all to the situation at sea.
Best inspect them farther out than wait. Would you rather they have no time to decide and blow the ships up?

The ships were asked to dock at a specific port to be inspected.

[Cry Havoc]

Is anyone else surprised that Turkey has a Navy?

:lmao

Classic. Way to fit right into that "Americans are clueless about the rest of the world" mold.

[ElNono]

Best inspect them farther out than wait. Would you rather they have no time to decide and blow the ships up?

They can do that. They can request to inspect the ships in international waters.


The ships were asked to dock at a specific port to be inspected.

Well, Israel has no right to request that under international law.

Now, you would do well in reading up both of the threads here about this incident. There's plenty of links to the relevant laws that were at play, and I wouldn't want you to start talking out of your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

wth are you supposed to do when someone takes over yourboat in international waters?
Maybe they should respect the embargo.

Israel has so much trouble with their enemies getting weapons, and are doing what they think necessary to stop weapons transport.

They asked to inspect the ships. It wasn't allowed.

Are you now becoming a terrorist apologist?

[Wild Cobra]

fify

If you are going to change my words, don't use my name in the quote, bitch.

[Wild Cobra]

:blah

Why were Israel commandos boarding a civilian ship in international waters in the first place?
If you don't know why, you shouldn't be taking a position.

[sook]

Maybe they should respect the embargo.

Israel has so much trouble with their enemies getting weapons, and are doing what they think necessary to stop weapons transport.

They asked to inspect the ships. It wasn't allowed.

Are you now becoming a terrorist apologist?

Who'se the one invoking terror? Answer that question yourself without taking it out of context and with respect to the current situation.

[ElNono]

If you are going to change my words, don't use my name in the quote, bitch.

I was quoting you...

[ElNono]

If you don't know why, you shouldn't be taking a position.

I do know why. Do you?

[Cry Havoc]

Israel was only enforcing the blockade.

Outside of the blockade in international waters.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, Israel has no right to request that under international law.

Request... Yes... Enforce, No. They knew what these ships were doing. Maybe they should have waited, war5ned, and blew any out of the waters that kept going. Would that be your preference?

Do you think Israel is going to allow their fate be determined by international law when they are always defending themselves from terrorists?

They do have a right for self preservation.

[sook]

Outside of the blockade in international waters.

Which is exactly where this argument ends.

I don't understand where there are any gray areas. There is a reason cuba is still standing such a short distance from the U.S.

[Wild Cobra]

I was quoting you...
OK, so you believe the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" is the American people?

I guess you aren't as intelligent as I thought.

[Cry Havoc]

They do have a right for self preservation.

Where does self preservation run parallel to "boarding a boat on a humanitarian mission in international waters with armed commandos and opening fire"?

Why do you think Israeli papers are calling for the premier's resignation?

[ElNono]

Do you think Israel is going to allow their fate be determined by international law when they are always defending themselves from terrorists?

So you agree that they broke international law?
Also, why do you think they didn't request to inspect the ships in international waters if they were going to board them there anyways?

[ElNono]

OK, so you believe the "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" is the American people?

I guess you aren't as intelligent as I thought.

Can you prove that the American people unquestionably supports the stance you claim they support?

[ElNono]

They do have a right for self preservation.

So you're in the opinion that by merely claiming 'self-preservation' any nation can attack any civilian boat in international waters...

Crystal clear.

[sook]

el Nono and CH with the duo KO punch.

Nicely done.

[sook]

So you agree that they broke international law?
Also, why do you think they didn't request to inspect the ships in international waters if they were going to board them there anyways?

[angrydude]

Which is exactly where this argument ends.

I don't understand where there are any gray areas. There is a reason cuba is still standing such a short distance from the U.S.

......no.

See the law, especially international law, isn't this black and white thing. Context and shades of grey are everything.

[Drachen]

Bullshit.

The first guns to be fired were likely the two handguns seized.

They had deadly weapons. Ever been his by a steel pole, or pipe?

Fuck them. They deserve what they got. Israel was only enforcing the blockade.

Bullshit!

You are calling them out as being violent for defending their property against Israels tresspassing.

[ElNono]

See the law, especially international law, isn't this black and white thing. Context and shades of grey are everything.

Especially since yesterday. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit!

You are calling them out as being violent for defending their property against Israels tresspassing.
They were told to turn away. I don't care how far they were. Their mission was clear. Israel has great intelligence in the region. Far better than our own.

Is a Molotov cocktail standard equipment of a humanitarian vessel? If not, why were they there?

[Drachen]

They were told to turn away. I don't care how far they were. Their mission was clear. Israel has great intelligence in the region. Far better than our own.

Is a Molotov cocktail standard equipment of a humanitarian vessel? If not, why were they there?

So, when do laws actually apply? I mean, can you go kill someone because they were really angry at you and pulled out of their driveway and got on the highway going toward your house?

[Wild Cobra]

So, when do laws actually apply? I mean, can you go kill someone because they were really angry at you and pulled out of their driveway and got on the highway going toward your house?
Not in the USA.

People break laws all the time that aren't enforce. Want Israel not to break international law? It's not going to happen because the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce it, and Israel knows it.

How about we enforce something closer to home, like illegal immigration. As long as we don't enforce it, the illegals will keep breaking the law.

[Drachen]

Not in the USA.

People break laws all the time that aren't enforce. Want Israel not to break international law? It's not going to happen because the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce it, and Israel knows it.

How about we enforce something closer to home, like illegal immigration. As long as we don't enforce it, the illegals will keep breaking the law.

Well, unfortunately you are painting with a wide liberal brush here. Pay attention to any of the illegal immigration threads that I have posted in and you will see that you and I see very close to eye to eye on that issue.

I understand that the UN should enforce this, and it looks like Turkey will try, but just because it hasn't been enforced doesn't mean that Israel (or its staunch supporters) has the right to get all hurt when they are called out on doing something wrong. Wrong is wrong is wrong. Integrity is doing the right thing when it is not being enforced. If Israel believes the "right thing" is to go against all of the established laws (settlements, attacking in international water, etc), then they (and their supporters) should be prepared for worldwide backlash.

[Cry Havoc]

People break laws all the time that aren't enforce. Want Israel not to break international law? It's not going to happen because the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce it, and Israel knows it.

So, as long as someone won't enforce a law, that makes it completely acceptable to disregard? I just want to be clear on your stance here.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did the activists need to attempt to break a blockade instead of attempting to bring aid to Gaza legally?Because they believe the blockade to be stupid and illegal.


I'm sure after years of constant warfare, Israel uses commandos because they'd rather be safe than sorry. Looks like they were rightLooks like they provoked an attack by storming the ship.
Unless you can say those "peaceful" activists would have just sat there like good boys and girls if inspectors had been sent aboard.You can't conclusively say they wouldn't. I have seen no reports of illegal or dangerous cargo on any of the ships (please don't show pictures of slingshots and kitchen knives and claim they were going to Gaza terraists), so why would they object to a simple inspection?

[Wild Cobra]

So, as long as someone won't enforce a law, that makes it completely acceptable to disregard? I just want to be clear on your stance here.That's not what I'm saying, but rather, making a point.

There is likely even more to the truth behind this that what is said. I'll bet that Israels has good justification for this. I don't see them as taking actions of this nature they cannot prove probable cause for.

Why didn't they "attack" the other five ships? Could they have had probable cause for the one? I wouldn't expect them to show their reasons to the public either, since there is no international enforcement for them need to justify themselves to.

As for the Title of this thread. Is the Turkey navy going to follow the ships into the 12 mile limit?

[ElNono]

There is likely even more to the truth behind this that what is said. I'll bet that Israels has good justification for this. I don't see them as taking actions of this nature they cannot prove probable cause for.


Please do tell what you suspect the Israeli knew.


Why didn't they "attack" the other five ships? Could they have had probable cause for the one?

Uh? They attacked and took command of all six ships. They only met resistance on the bigger ship.

[ChumpDumper]

There is likely even more to the truth behind this that what is said. I'll bet that Israels has good justification for this. I don't see them as taking actions of this nature they cannot prove probable cause for.Tell us what the justification could be.

[Wild Cobra]

Tell us what the justification could be.
I would be guessing. Several possibilities.

Can you say with certainty there wasn't justification?

It doesn't matter. We simply don't have all the facts, and the media will spin as they chose.

[Wild Cobra]

Uh? They attacked and took command of all six ships. They only met resistance on the bigger ship.
Ah yes...

The ship with the Camoros flag, which is 98% Sunni Islam in population. Bet those racists couldn't attack the Israeli soldiers fast enough. The anticipation must have been hard for them to keep at bay.

Why did they say "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" on the radio when contacted?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I would be guessing. Several possibilities.

Can you say with certainty there wasn't justification?

It doesn't matter. We simply don't have all the facts, and the media will spin as they chose.

Well you don't usually wait for all of the facts when you attack Obama and the dems.. why do you want to wait now? Can we make you pledge that you won't critcize obama or the dems until all of the facts are out on every story reported?

Stand up man!

[Shastafarian]

Because they believe the blockade to be stupid and illegal. So instead of dealing with it diplomatically, they decide to provoke a confrontation. Oh they've tried this before as well. So I think it's pretty clear their objective was one of provocation and not humanitarianism


The Free Gaza Movement has organized several aid voyages since the summer of 2008, usually consisting of one or two vessels. The earliest ones were allowed to reach Gaza. Others have been intercepted and forced back, and one, last June, was commandeered by the Israeli Navy and towed to Ashdod. This six-boat fleet was the most ambitious attempt yet to break the blockade.


Looks like they provoked an attack by storming the ship.They repelled down one at a time with paintball guns.

You can't conclusively say they wouldn't. I have seen no reports of illegal or dangerous cargo on any of the ships (please don't show pictures of slingshots and kitchen knives and claim they were going to Gaza terraists), so why would they object to a simple inspection?Because they had no intention of letting Israel take the ships to Ashdod.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well you don't usually wait for all of the facts when you attack Obama and the dems.. why do you want to wait now? Can we make you pledge that you won't critcize obama or the dems until all of the facts are out on every story reported?

Wild cobra..still waiting for your pledge

[ChumpDumper]

So instead of dealing with it diplomatically, they decide to provoke a confrontation. Oh they've tried this before as well. So I think it's pretty clear their objective was one of provocation and not humanitarianismI think it's pretty clear they had both objectives in mind.


They repelled down one at a time with paintball guns.Why a commando raid with guns of any kind? It's pretty clear their objective was provocation.


Because they had no intention of letting Israel take the ships to Ashdod.I agree with that. Why would they need to be taken to Ashdod?

[ElNono]

Ah yes...

The ship with the Camoros flag, which is 98% Sunni Islam in population. Bet those racists couldn't attack the Israeli soldiers fast enough. The anticipation must have been hard for them to keep at bay.

Why did they say "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad" on the radio when contacted?

Is that your suspected justification for the attack? That there were people chanting against Israel in international waters?

BTW, all six ships had white flags identifying them as civilian ships. If in doubt, Israel could have requested permission to inspect the ships.
Why do you think they did not? Why do you think they opted instead to attack in the high seas? Because they were chanting Jihad?
Do you think Israel has a right to kill all the protesters worldwide that were chanting against Israel too?

[Wild Cobra]

Well you don't usually wait for all of the facts when you attack Obama and the dems.. why do you want to wait now? Can we make you pledge that you won't critcize obama or the dems until all of the facts are out on every story reported?

Stand up man!
LOL...

Don't you understand the differences?

Even if Israel was wrong for putting troops on the ship, they were attacked with deadly weapons. That fact in not in dispute.

[Shastafarian]

I think it's pretty clear they had both objectives in mind.Why place provocation over humanitarianism then?


Why a commando raid with guns of any kind? It's pretty clear their objective was provocation.I honestly don't know. I don't know about the previous attempts and whether they sent in unarmed personnel or what. But I think it's clear (to me at least) that the Israeli forces were expecting some kind of resistance, just not the level that they met.


I agree with that. Why would they need to be taken to Ashdod?
Because Israel is conducting a blockade of an area they believe needs to be blockaded.

[George Gervin's Afro]

LOL...

Don't you understand the differences?

Even if Israel was wrong for putting troops on the ship, they were attacked with deadly weapons. That fact in not in dispute.

you are a right winger and will jump at any opportunity to attack a left winger without waiting for all of the facts..got it.

[ChumpDumper]

Why place provocation over humanitarianism then?Because they ultimate goal is to lift the blockade, which is a humanitarian aim.


I honestly don't know. I don't know about the previous attempts and whether they sent in unarmed personnel or what. But I think it's clear (to me at least) that the Israeli forces were expecting some kind of resistance, just not the level that they met.Storming a ship with commandos can do that.


Because Israel is conducting a blockade of an area they believe needs to be blockaded.Blockading humanitarian aid?

What do they have against humanitarian aid?

[ElNono]

BTW, these are not the first six ships sent there. This was simply the largest flotilla. Israel did allow through the first two ships when this started a long time ago, after that they always disabled or intercepted the ships. Obviously, there were no deaths in prior occurences so it wasn't publicized as much.

[Cry Havoc]

LOL...

Don't you understand the differences?

Even if Israel was wrong for putting troops on the ship, they were attacked with deadly weapons. That fact in not in dispute.

So Israel has the right to rappel armed soldiers onto any ship in international waters with no advance warning or legal basis, with the ability to fire upon anyone who treats them as hostile? This is what is considered acceptable to you?

[Shastafarian]

Because they ultimate goal is to lift the blockade, which is a humanitarian aim.How many blockades have been lifted by provocation?


Storming a ship with commandos can do that. I fail to see how they stormed the ship. The navy warned the ships and then the soldiers repelled down one at a time.


Blockading humanitarian aid?

What do they have against humanitarian aid?
Come on now. How is Israel supposed to know what is on any ship that is heading for the containment area? Should they take their word for it?

[ChumpDumper]

How many blockades have been lifted by provocation?How many blockades were against humanitarian aid?


I fail to see how they stormed the ship. The navy warned the ships and then the soldiers repelled down one at a time.Commandos repelling from a Blackhawk with guns is storming. It certainly isn't a typical coast guard interception.


Come on now. How is Israel supposed to know what is on any ship that is heading for the containment area? Should they take their word for it?How would that be any different in Ashod? Would they have magically known what was on the boat had they only pulled into that port?

[Cry Havoc]

Come on now. How is Israel supposed to know what is on any ship that is heading for the containment area? Should they take their word for it?

:lol Really?

Maybe it has something to do with that whole, ya know, inspection procedure thingy that's been discussed for about 14 pages now.

[Wild Cobra]

Is that your suspected justification for the attack? That there were people chanting against Israel in international waters?

BTW, all six ships had white flags identifying them as civilian ships. If in doubt, Israel could have requested permission to inspect the ships.
Why do you think they did not? Why do you think they opted instead to attack in the high seas? Because they were chanting Jihad?
Do you think Israel has a right to kill all the protesters worldwide that were chanting against Israel too?
Have you looked into any of the facts, or are you just responding in a biased way to what anyone says? They didn't drop-in to kill anyone. They killed in defense, after being attacked with deadly weapons. Free Gaza has sent ships four prior times, and each time, Israel boarded them. This is the first time the soldiers had to defend themselves.

Do you think the Israeli Forced didn't know the flag of each ship? Don't you find it coincidental that the only time the Israeli forced had to protect themselves from "civilians" belonging to Free Gaza, was aboard a ship who's home port is 98% Sunni?

Challenger 1 - USA

Challenger II - USA

Gazze - Turkey

Kiribati - Turkey

MV Mavi Marmara - Comoros

MV Rachel Corrie - Cambodia

[Shastafarian]

How many blockades were against humanitarian aid?All the ones where any ship tried to enter containing humanitarian aid. You think this blockade is selective for aid?



How would that be any different in Ashod? Would they have magically known what was on the boat had they only pulled into that port?
They wanted to take the ships to Ashdod so they could inspect them properly.

[Wild Cobra]

So Israel has the right to rappel armed soldiers onto any ship in international waters with no advance warning or legal basis, with the ability to fire upon anyone who treats them as hostile? This is what is considered acceptable to you?
They had warning. Every "Free Gaza" ship sent in the past was boarded. Two hours after the convoy was told what port to divert to, that ship radioed "jihad" three times. What are they to think?

Were the soldiers just suppose to let themselves be killed?

[Shastafarian]

:lol Really?

Maybe it has something to do with that whole, ya know, inspection procedure thingy that's been discussed for about 14 pages now.

Re-read it in context. I was responding to him saying they're blockading humanitarian aid. How would they know unless they stop the ships.

[Wild Cobra]

Re-read it in context. I was responding to him saying they're blockading humanitarian aid. How would they know unless they stop the ships.
Correct. All past shipments have been boarded and inspected.

[Shastafarian]

They had warning. Every "Free Gaza" ship sent in the past was boarded. Two hours after the convoy was told what port to divert to, that ship radioed "jihad" three times. What are they to think?

Were the soldiers just suppose to let themselves be killed?

Stop making me agree with Wild Cobra dammit!

[ChumpDumper]

All the ones where any ship tried to enter containing humanitarian aid. You think this blockade is selective for aid?Why block humanitarian aid?


They wanted to take the ships to Ashdod so they could inspect them properly.So they would just take their word for it if they went to Ashod. Understood.

[Cry Havoc]

They had warning. Every "Free Gaza" ship sent in the past was boarded. Two hours after the convoy was told what port to divert to, that ship radioed "jihad" three times. What are they to think?

Were the soldiers just suppose to let themselves be killed?

Does the Israeli military have a right to board any boat they want in international waters with armed troops?

[ChumpDumper]

Correct. All past shipments have been boarded and inspected.With armed commandos repelling from Blackhawks?

[Cry Havoc]

Correct. All past shipments have been boarded and inspected.

In international waters?

[Shastafarian]

Why block humanitarian aid?They're not.


So they would just take their word for it if they went to Ashod. Understood.
Huh? I said so they could inspect them properly.

[ChumpDumper]

They're not.You just said they were.



Huh? I said so they could inspect them properly.That's the only place it could be inspected properly?

[ElNono]

Have you looked into any of the facts, or are you just responding in a biased way to what anyone says? They didn't drop-in to kill anyone. They killed in defense, after being attacked with deadly weapons. Free Gaza has sent ships four prior times, and each time, Israel boarded them. This is the first time the soldiers had to defend themselves.

And? That doesn't mean that boarding the ships with commandos was ever done in a lawful way, this time or any other time.


Do you think the Israeli Forced didn't know the flag of each ship? Don't you find it coincidental that the only time the Israeli forced had to protect themselves from "civilians" belonging to Free Gaza, was aboard a ship who's home port is 98% Sunni?

Do you have any information that the captured protesters were not civilians?
I mean, Israel has them all right now. Did Israel follow international laws against a civilian ships or not?

[Shastafarian]

You just said they were.Nope. I said they were blockading ships. They're not blocking humanitarian aid as far as we know. It gets there eventually and would get there without incident if the activists weren't bent on provocation.



That's the only place it could be inspected properly?
Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?

[Cry Havoc]

Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?

So your position is thus: Ships carrying goods that are en route must be subdued by large transport helicopters carrying the equivalent of SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. I said they were blockading ships. They're not blocking humanitarian aid as far as we know. It gets there eventually and would get there without incident if the activists weren't bent on provocation.As far as you know, not all of it gets there.




Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?Have you?

[Wild Cobra]

Stop making me agree with Wild Cobra dammit!
Sorry, but we have to agree on some topics. Just human nature.

[Shastafarian]

So let's be clear here. Every ship that's inspected must be done via a large transport helicopter and armed infantry?


Have you ever inspected a ship? Do you know what happened on the previous occurrences of this group trying to break the blockade?

[Shastafarian]

As far as you know, not all of it gets there.As far as you know, it does.




Have you?
Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?

[Wild Cobra]

Does the Israeli military have a right to board any boat they want in international waters with armed troops?
Technically, probably not. I'm not going to worry about that however. Maybe they should have waited for them to get within 12 miles. Think anything would have happened differently?

"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed, but I'm not going to bet the bank on that. Maybe they thought the had a missile that could be fired from miles away. At least it's not outside possibilities for such a scenario.

[Shastafarian]

Alright I'm done. I've devoted enough time to this and we're going nowhere. I'm sure as facts come out of this, people will form new opinions and some will stay staunchly where they are. I don't know how many of you are directly effected by this but I am so I don't want to get too worked up about it.

[ChumpDumper]

As far as you know, it does.Didn't WC just say that ships were turned back in the past?


Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?So neither of us know.

[ChumpDumper]

"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

So your position is thus: Ships carrying goods that are en route must be subdued by large transport helicopters carrying the equivalent of SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons?
When the cry for a holy war is uttered, makes sense to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't WC just say that ships were turned back in the past?

If I did, I misspoke. Ships were diverted to a port of Israels choosing.

Israel always allowed the supplies into Gaza after inspection.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?
The reason is because it is impossible to do a 100% inspection of a ship, in any timely manner. When the supplies are removed, they can be inspected. Israel has then allowed the Free Gaza group to accompany the shipment via road to Gaza.

[Cry Havoc]

When the cry for a holy war is uttered, makes sense to me.

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace, still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response". To me, words should not be answered with a soldier and a gun. There were other, more peaceful, more LAWFUL ways to go about dealing with the situation.

You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with this. As it stands, they violated international laws. There is no debate on this. Now, if you want to absolve Israel of any responsibility they have to follow laws, I'm not sure why you're even bothering to discuss this in a manner of debate. Otherwise, what laws do you think Israel should be exempted from in the future?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace,
Hmm...

What weapon did they have at their disposal that would have been proportional?

still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response".

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war? I could see a situation where Israel was afraid they might be carrying missiles on that ship. It was certainly large enough to carry some really big missiles.

Did we only attack Japanese and German vessels in our 12 mile limit?


You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with the situation.
I don't have all the facts, but can see many potential reasons. What will you say if tomorrow, Israel shows the world pictures of large missiles on that ship? Will you change your mind, or become a Jihad apologist?

[ChumpDumper]

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war?:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

Technically, probably not. I'm not going to worry about that however. Maybe they should have waited for them to get within 12 miles. Think anything would have happened differently?

Sure. Then they would be breaking Israeli laws by entering Israeli territorial waters, and Israel would actually have had an actual reason to board the ships with commandos. At that point Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.


"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed, but I'm not going to bet the bank on that. Maybe they thought the had a missile that could be fired from miles away. At least it's not outside possibilities for such a scenario.

That's why Israel had the recourse to request inspection of the ships while they were in international waters. Are you familiar with the UN Laws of the Sea?

[ElNono]

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war?

What?

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. Then they would be breaking Israeli laws by entering Israeli territorial waters, and Israel would actually have had an actual reason to board the ships with commandos. At that point Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.

So you agree that if anything, matters could have been worse if they waited.

[RandomGuy]

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace, still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response". To me, words should not be answered with a soldier and a gun. There were other, more peaceful, more LAWFUL ways to go about dealing with the situation.

You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with this. As it stands, they violated international laws. There is no debate on this. Now, if you want to absolve Israel of any responsibility they have to follow laws, I'm not sure why you're even bothering to discuss this in a manner of debate. Otherwise, what laws do you think Israel should be exempted from in the future?

It seems that the commandos went in with non-lethal methods until being attacked on a couple of ships, then went "hot".

This was something of a misstep on the part of the boarding parties.

[ChumpDumper]

So you agree that if anything, matters could have been worse if they waited.If anything, matters could have been exactly the same, but more justifiable.

[RandomGuy]

At that point [when the ships cross into Israeli waters,] Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.

Hmm Maritime law can be tricky, any good source for the law on sinking of vessels/

[Wild Cobra]

It seems that the commandos went in with non-lethal methods until being attacked on a couple of ships, then went "hot".

This was something of a misstep on the part of the boarding parties.
Yep, they should have had their phasors set to stun. However, their weapons didn't have a stun setting.

[ElNono]

So you agree that if anything, matters could have been worse if they waited.

Not for Israel, no. These people were obviously provoking. Israel just had to wait until they broke one law, International or Israeli, and Israel already knew they would. This is the reason you see the backlash from the Israeli media against Netanyahu.
israel had means to check those ships peacefully, and also could have avoided the negative connotation of what happened entirely. They did neither.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmm...

What weapon did they have at their disposal that would have been proportional?

Why do they need to respond with weapons at all? Are armed commandos the only way to inspect a humanitarian ship in international waters?


Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war? I could see a situation where Israel was afraid they might be carrying missiles on that ship. It was certainly large enough to carry some really big missiles.

Does that make it acceptable for them to violate international law?


Did we only attack Japanese and German vessels in our 12 mile limit?

Have there been any instances of attacks launched from these ships in the past? Are Israel and Turkey not relatively close allies?


I don't have all the facts, but can see many potential reasons. What will you say if tomorrow, Israel shows the world pictures of large missiles on that ship? Will you change your mind, or become a Jihad apologist?

I see lots of reasons to potentially inspect a ship if it enters Israeli waters. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Israeli military needed to act so aggressively.

Why is there international condemnation of this even, WC? Don't you think that if Israel had a good reason for the attack, they would show it?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.resolution/index.html?hpt=T2

They have released the activists on the boats. Do you think that if there were any kind of even MODERATE weaponry on the boats that anyone would be going free so soon?

[ElNono]

Hmm Maritime law can be tricky, any good source for the law on sinking of vessels/

I would have to look into Israeli maritime laws. IIRC, once you're on territorial waters, territorial law applies. If you're looking for International maritime law, this is the link (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm)

[Wild Cobra]

Why do they need to respond with weapons at all? Are armed commandos the only way to inspect a humanitarian ship in international waters?

They never would have boarded if the ship diverted to port for inspection.


Does that make it acceptable for them to violate international law?

Depends on the facts. Facts we might not be privy to, including facts that would show their secret intelligence gathering methods.


Have there been any instances of attacks launched from these ships in the past? Are Israel and Turkey not relatively close allies?

Was there ever an instance of a 757 being used as a weapon before 9/11?

Stupid question. There has to be a first for everything.


I see lots of reasons to potentially inspect a ship if it enters Israeli waters. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Israeli military needed to act so aggressively.

They were only aggressive after being attacked. Do you think they wouldn't have been attacked if they boarded within the 12 mile limit?


Why is there international condemnation of this even, WC? Don't you think that if Israel had a good reason for the attack, they would show it?

Political posturing. So what?


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.resolution/index.html?hpt=T2

Yes, I like this quote:

The IDF said the aid aboard the flotilla's three cargo ships had been transferred into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom border crossing, a main entry point used by Israel.


They have released the activists on the boats. Do you think that if there were any kind of even MODERATE weaponry on the boats that anyone would be going free so soon?

Not all of them yet. So far, just 48 by that link. They expect processing to be finished in 48 hours, after starting a little earlier (Tuesday night in Israel).

[Wild Cobra]

Not for Israel, no. These people were obviously provoking. Israel just had to wait until they broke one law, International or Israeli, and Israel already knew they would.
Wait till they get 25 miles and launch a missile? Not saying it would have happened, but when a ship is warned to change course, and doesn't, then radios "jihad"... Seriously... take an unbiased look at this. Wouldn't you think that maybe it's on an attack course?

This is the reason you see the backlash from the Israeli media against Netanyahu.
What is there. One public backlash? Two, maybe three? Do all the Israeli pundits engaging in backlash? Are you cherry picking by chance?


israel had means to check those ships peacefully, and also could have avoided the negative connotation of what happened entirely. They did neither.

How? If they refuse to divert to port, what makes you think they will allow inspection? Port is the only way to properly inspect. Move all the goods to one location, inspect, then move them to a loading zone for transportation. You cannot inspect the good in the ship, where switching after the fact can occur, or hidden good may be in the bulkheads.
[QUOTE=ElNono;4390176]

I disagree that Israel did the wrong thing. The Israeli forced being attacked tells me they would have continued to sail in, maybe forcing Israel to sink it with 581 passengers. That could have been the master plan. Put the blood of innocent civilians on Israel.

[ChumpDumper]

Wait till they get 25 miles and launch a missile?:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

Wait till they get 25 miles and launch a missile? Not saying it would have happened, but when a ship is warned to change course, and doesn't, then radios "jihad"... Seriously... take an unbiased look at this. Wouldn't you think that maybe it's on an attack course?

I am taking an unbiased look (as much as I hope it is). The problem is you keep neglecting getting informed first, and that's why you come across as biased. For the 3483483249342th time, Israel could have simply requested to inspect the ships in international waters if it suspected of anything. It's spelled out in the UN law of the seas. They did not do that.


What is there. One public backlash? Two, maybe three? Do all the Israeli pundits engaging in backlash? Are you cherry picking by chance?

You have a lot of reading and catching up to do:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4388967&postcount=133


How? If they refuse to divert to port, what makes you think they will allow inspection? Port is the only way to properly inspect. Move all the goods to one location, inspect, then move them to a loading zone for transportation. You cannot inspect the good in the ship, where switching after the fact can occur, or hidden good may be in the bulkheads.

Not only is that not correct, it's not supported by international law. I posted a link to the relevant laws at least twice since last night. Please do your homework. I would have no problem having a discussion with you, but I hate having to repeat myself over and over again. And FWIW, inspections of vessels in the high seas happens all the time. I would say daily. There's nothing new about it.


I disagree that Israel did the wrong thing. The Israeli forced being attacked tells me they would have continued to sail in, maybe forcing Israel to sink it with 581 passengers. That could have been the master plan. Put the blood of innocent civilians on Israel.

Or Israel could have simply boarded them with commandos once the protesters actually broke a law...

[ElNono]

I think the most idiotic thing I read so far is that protesters were supposed to follow Israeli demands. I mean, do you even know what a protest is?

[Wild Cobra]

I am taking an unbiased look. The problem is you keep neglecting getting informed first, and that's why you come across as biased. For the 3483483249342th time, Israel could have simply requested to inspect the ships in international waters if it suspected of anything. It's spelled out in the UN law of the seas. They did not do that.

They don't inspect at sea. They unload it, inspect it, then move it by ground to Gaza. For the umpteenth time, it is impossible to inspect a complete ship in any timely manner.


You have a lot of reading and catching up to do:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4388967&postcount=133

So now, I'm suppose to believe such things too? Israel has more than 20 newspapers. The biggest paper of your linked list has this in their wiki writeup:

It is published in tabloid format, and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis.
Most of the media does just that. Sell spectacularism.

Oh well, I guess you believe everthing you see on the internet, huh?


Not only is that not correct, it's not supported by international law.

So? I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing what can and does occur.


I posted a link to the relevant laws at least twice since last night. Please do your homework.

I don't care about what the law says. I am not arguing legal and illegal. I understand that Israel will do what they think they must do for their defense. The fact the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce their laws is the problem from the way you want to argue the situation. Israel will continue to break international law just like the illegal immigrants keep coming here. No penalty, no enforcement, free access.

Could the international law not being enforced be a sign the UN agrees with Israel?


I would have no problem having a discussion with you, but I hate having to repeat myself over and over again.
Maybe if you stopped trying to argue against things I'm not arguing for...

And FWIW, inspections of vessels in the high seas happens all the time. I would say daily. There's nothing new about it.

Just because others nations do inferior inspections to Israel doesn't mean they should lower their standards.


Or Israel could have simply boarded them with commandos once the protesters actually broke a law...

Then what? Chance the defiant ship with the flag of a Sunni country set it for a collision course, and not have time to change it?

Just a valid fear. Not saying it would have happened.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the most idiotic thing I read so far is that protesters were supposed to follow Israeli demands. I mean, do you even know what a protest is?
Am I wrong?

I though Free Gaza was an activist group sending aide. Not protesting.

[ElNono]

Am I wrong? I though Free Gaza was an activist group sending aide. Not protesting.

You don't think this group of organizations were protesting the blockade by attempting to deliver aid breaking through it?

That you're a protester doesn't mean you can't do a good deed. They're not mutually exclusive.

Heck, you protest the current executive all the time in here, yet pay your taxes like the rest of us to make sure those in need receive their food stamps.

[ElNono]

They don't inspect at sea. They unload it, inspect it, then move it by ground to Gaza. For the umpteenth time, it is impossible to inspect a complete ship in any timely manner.

That's not what international law says. International law says the vessels must be inspected at sea, and there's no actual limit of time to conduct the inspection. However, if the suspicion is incorrect, the inspected vessel can request compensation for the wasted time.
You would know this if you actually read what the law governing ships in International waters is. Obviously, you keep on not doing that and talking out of your ass instead.


So now, I'm suppose to believe such things too? Israel has more than 20 newspapers. The biggest paper of your linked list has this in their wiki writeup:
Most of the media does just that. Sell spectacularism.
Oh well, I guess you believe everthing you see on the internet, huh?

But you know better? Let's see your quotes from the other 10 newspapers supporting Netanyahu...


So? I'm not arguing the law. I'm arguing what can and does occur.

No, you're repeating what Israel demands were. The protesters were under no obligation to carry out those demands and were not braking any law by doing so.

You do everything everybody tells you to do?


I don't care about what the law says. I am not arguing legal and illegal. I understand that Israel will do what they think they must do for their defense. The fact the UN doesn't have the balls to enforce their laws is the problem from the way you want to argue the situation. Israel will continue to break international law just like the illegal immigrants keep coming here. No penalty, no enforcement, free access.

So you oppose economic sanctions to Iran. Good to know. Since you don't have a problem with Israel breaking international law and getting away with it, I have to assume you're ok with Iran doing the same and getting away with it too. Otherwise, you would have a bias, right?


Could the international law not being enforced be a sign the UN agrees with Israel? Maybe if you stopped trying to argue against things I'm not arguing for...

But Internationa law through UN resolutions or otherwise do get enforced. At least in most cases it does.
My question to you is: Does lack of enforcement automatically mean that no law was broken? Think before you answer this one.


Just because others nations do inferior inspections to Israel doesn't mean they should lower their standards.

Please list the rules governing inspections of vessels in the High Seas, and how does Israeli inspections differ from the standard. I mean, if you claim differing standards, then you must know both, right?


Then what? Chance the defiant ship with the flag of a Sunni country set it for a collision course, and not have time to change it? Just a valid fear. Not saying it would have happened.

Again skipping parts. If the Israeli had any doubts, then could have simply requested to inspect the ships in international waters. That's what international law dictates. I also fully understand that you think Israel is somehow above the law, and that the end always justify the means. I just don't agree with that vision and I don't think it's right at all, especially when there was a lawful way to do this whole thing, and potentially saving human lives in the process.

[Wild Cobra]

Well ElNono, if you've seen the updated news, you will know this was not Israels fault.

Again, the law in this case isn't the issue.

Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by gunfire. Why isn't gunfire a proportional response?

If you want to keep pushing the illegality of it, let me ask you this. If you did nothing wrong, owned weapons, saw an overwhelming SWAT team outside your house, would you shoot at them when they broke the door down because?

[TDMVPDPOY]

that ship is a sitting duck anyway out at sea, no point trying to launch a missile when israel can send something out there take the crew down

[Cry Havoc]

Well ElNono, if you've seen the updated news, you will know this was not Israels fault.

Again, the law in this case isn't the issue.

Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by gunfire. Why isn't gunfire a proportional response?

If you want to keep pushing the illegality of it, let me ask you this. If you did nothing wrong, owned weapons, saw an overwhelming SWAT team outside your house, would you shoot at them when they broke the door down because?


A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.


Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.


There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.



Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.



Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.


In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

Why is Israel exempt from the law, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

Why is Israel exempt from the law, WC?
Nobody is exempt from the law, but there are mitigating circumstances. When life or death is on the line, especially that of a nation, nobody in their right mind will allow extermination because of legal loopholes.

This, to me, is not a legal issue. It's a survival issue. Israel has stopped so many shipments of Arms to Hamas with these practices. The International law has not been enforced. Just like our illegal immigration, why should Israel worry about the law if nobody enforces it?

[ElNono]

Well ElNono, if you've seen the updated news, you will know this was not Israels fault.

What updated news would those be? Why did Turkey break diplomatic relations with Israel if they don't consider it's their fault?


Again, the law in this case isn't the issue.

Sure it is. That you don't want to talk about it, doesn't mean it's not an issue.


Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by gunfire. Why isn't gunfire a proportional response?

I don't have a problem with the Israeli reaction, and stated so at least twice since the news broke out. If you actually would have read the thread(s) about this topic, then you would know this already.

However, I do take issue with the illegality of the boarding in the first place, which wether you like it or not, triggered the exchange of violence and eventually the deaths. And I'm pretty sure that any other nation not named the US or Israel would have had to answer for that.

Now, I'm fully aware that you're the kind of guy that could care two shits about international law, and that for you, the end always justify the means. You will always have a scenario out of 24 at hand to justify circumventing the law (Used two in this thread alone: what if they had missiles? they screamed jihad!).

What's even worse is the admitted double standard. If North Korea pulls this shit, you would be all over them. When Israel points fingers at Iran for their enriched uranium so they get sanctioned, then 'international law must be respected and enforced'.

I have no problem with Israel. I think they have it rough. But I also expect them to be the ones with the moral high ground and the fortitude to admit and apologize when they make a mistake. We're all human and make mistakes, there's no shame in that.


If you want to keep pushing the illegality of it, let me ask you this. If you did nothing wrong, owned weapons, saw an overwhelming SWAT team outside your house, would you shoot at them when they broke the door down because?

Straw man. What we're discussing here is if the SWAT team had any rights to break into the house or not. And if it's established that they did not, wether they should answer to anybody for their mistake and the damage they caused in the process.

Shooting or not shooting after the fact is entirely irrelevant. If I shoot, and they entered illegally, they still entered illegally. If I do not shoot, they still entered illegally.

[ElNono]

Nobody is exempt from the law, but there are mitigating circumstances. When life or death is on the line, especially that of a nation, nobody in their right mind will allow extermination because of legal loopholes.

This, to me, is not a legal issue. It's a survival issue. Israel has stopped so many shipments of Arms to Hamas with these practices. The International law has not been enforced. Just like our illegal immigration, why should Israel worry about the law if nobody enforces it?

And I rest my case :lol

[MannyIsGod]

After that post, WC better never trumpet how sacred the constitution is.

[RandomGuy]

Nobody is exempt from the law, but there are mitigating circumstances. When life or death is on the line, especially that of a nation, nobody in their right mind will allow extermination because of legal loopholes.

This, to me, is not a legal issue. It's a survival issue. Israel has stopped so many shipments of Arms to Hamas with these practices. The International law has not been enforced. Just like our illegal immigration, why should Israel worry about the law if nobody enforces it?

Mitigating circumstances in this case are that an armed military boarded ships illegally in international waters.

The protestors would be within their rights to shoot an invading army within their borders, as the ship were essentially Turkish territory at that point.

If the Israelis has simply shadowed the ships and waited until they were within Israeli waters, that would have been legally a different ballgame.

If a bunch of armed men who weren't the police burst into your house and you were armed, would you be within your rights to shoot at them?

[Wild Cobra]

After that post, WC better never trumpet how sacred the constitution is.
My God...

You really that stupid?

This has nothing to do with our constitution. This has nothing to do with international law. It has to do with the preservation of a nation under attack.

[Cry Havoc]

This, to me, is not a legal issue.

Too bad. Israel broke international law and committed what appears to be an act of war on Turkey. It doesn't matter if they were provoked after the fact, hit with sticks, shot at, whatever. They knowingly, willfully broke the law and that led directly to the needless deaths of at least 10 people. Unless those soldiers were denounced as rogue, they were acting as representatives of the state, which means they preemptively murdered 10 Turkish civilians in a time of peace on behalf of the State.

Unfortunately for you, WC, you are not the adjudicator of the seas. You are attempting to assess a situation that runs contrary to the law because you have a biased moral standpoint and cannot be objective in the situation, even for one moment. It's clearly stated that you're wrong in this case, so you're wrong, along with Israel. Your opinion of "what's important" does not trump international law.

[ElNono]

IMHO, this is a plausible scenario on how this could have been handled:

- Israel requests inspection of the ships in international waters
** If the protesters decline or defy the order, then Israel has legal grounds to proceed with the forceful boarding.
** If the protesters accept, then Israel can spend all the time it wants making sure there are no rockets, weapons, etc etc etc. And also warn the protestors that as soon as they leave international waters they will be boarded forcefully. If weapons, rockets, etc are found, then Israel has legal ground to forcefully board the ships.

After that, Israel has every right to board the ship if they leave international waters and enter the Israeli waters or the vicinity of the blockade area.

It's entirely baffling that they did what they did.

[RandomGuy]

After that post, WC better never trumpet how sacred the constitution is.

Well played, sir, although that would be kinda hard given his current siggy (a pic of the constitution)

[David Bowie]

I very much see this as a ploy to provoke Israel and to enrage the ubber liberals. Israel had said that it was fine with the ships going there as long as Israeli military officials would be able to check whats on board the ships. With everything that has happened to Israel, its a legitimate request. Why is it so inplausible to believe that that there could have been weapons on those ships. Anyway, the ships just kept on going. I don't see how else Israel could have responded. Of course, no matter what action Israel takes, the public is always outrage. And I think that was the whole point of this "Aid Mission."

[RandomGuy]

My God...

You really that stupid?

This has nothing to do with our constitution. This has nothing to do with international law. It has to do with the preservation of a nation under attack.

Under attack by a shipment of building supplies? ooooh scary. :wow

Seriously though, I see your point, but the law is the law. His point was that you seem to pump up the rule of law when you find it convenient and discard it when you don't just as you accuse liberals/democrats of doing when they proposed raising the liability limits for BP after their happy-fun spill.

[Cry Havoc]

I don't see how else Israel could have responded.

How about, "Waiting until the ships are out of international waters and have entered the area controlled by Israel to start making demands"?


Of course, no matter what action Israel takes, the public is always outrage.

Yes, you're completely right. The public would be so outraged if Israel wanted to inspect ships that were in Israeli waters. :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad. Israel broke international law and committed what appears to be an act of war on Turkey. It doesn't matter if they were provoked after the fact, hit with sticks, shot at, whatever. They knowingly, willfully broke the law and that led directly to the needless deaths of at least 10 people. Unless those soldiers were denounced as rogue, they were acting as representatives of the state, which means they preemptively murdered 10 Turkish civilians in a time of peace.

Unfortunately for you, WC, you are not the adjudicator of the seas. You are attempting to assess a situation that runs contrary to the law because you have a biased moral standpoint and cannot be objective in the situation, even for one moment.
Bullshit. If you want to go there, that ship already declared war on Israel. There is no doubt they were on their way to supply port at a land in conflict with Israel. Right or wrong by written law, Israel has every natural right to protect themselves with natural laws rather than man made laws.


Natural Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights) theories

The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that “if there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.” John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence.


Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law) or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Any first world nation recognizes natural laws and rights. Most intelligent people would agree that man's law is in question when it interferes with these.

[Wild Cobra]

Under attack by a shipment of building supplies? ooooh scary. :wow

Israel doesn't know if it's just food and building supplies until they inspect. They cave confiscated several tons of weapons bound to Hamas terrorists inspecting past shipments.


Seriously though, I see your point, but the law is the law.

There are often reasonable exceptions.

If the law makes it such that you will die without breaking the law, will you break the law, or not?


His point was that you seem to pump up the rule of law when you find it convenient and discard it when you don't just as you accuse liberals/democrats of doing when they proposed raising the liability limits for BP after their happy-fun spill.

believe as you will. That isn't the case. This is a special case because natural rights of preservation are in play.

[ElNono]

I very much see this as a ploy to provoke Israel and to enrage the ubber liberals. Israel had said that it was fine with the ships going there as long as Israeli military officials would be able to check whats on board the ships. With everything that has happened to Israel, its a legitimate request. Why is it so inplausible to believe that that there could have been weapons on those ships. Anyway, the ships just kept on going. I don't see how else Israel could have responded. Of course, no matter what action Israel takes, the public is always outrage. And I think that was the whole point of this "Aid Mission."

It was absolutely a provocation. I have no doubt about it.
That said, Israel demanded the ships to go to a nearby port for inspection, a demand that has no basis at all in international law. They never requested to inspect them at sea, which IS lawful under the UN Laws of the Sea.

The difference here is in the lasting image. Israel could have been seen as simply enforcing international laws from a bunch of protestors that broke it. Instead, they broke the law first and now they're going to have to deal with a lot more international pressure to sustain that blockade.

[Wild Cobra]

It was absolutely a provocation. I have no doubt about it.
That said, Israel demanded the ships to go to a nearby port for inspection, a demand that has no basis at all in international law. They never requested to inspect them at sea, which IS lawful under the UN Laws of the Sea.

The difference here is in the lasting image. Israel could have been seen as simply enforcing international laws from a bunch of protestors that broke it. Instead, they broke the law first and now they're going to have to deal with a lot more international pressure to sustain that blockade.
Since you are so stuck on the law issue, what do you think of Hamas attacking Israel, therefore the reason of the blockade. Because of this, Israel has every right through natural law and natural rights to do as they think best to protect themselves. I see two laws in conflict. I will go with the one that allows a nation to protect itself.

[ElNono]

Bullshit. If you want to go there, that ship already declared war on Israel.

Do you even know what a declaration of war is?

[ElNono]

Since you are so stuck on the law issue, what do you think of Hamas attacking Israel, therefore the reason of the blockade. Because of this, Israel has every right through natural law and natural rights to do as they think best to protect themselves. I see two laws in conflict. I will go with the one that allows a nation to protect itself.

What does Hamas has to do with it?
Do you have any evidence that the people on the ships were not civilians?

You know, not liking Israel or chanting Jihad doesn't automatically make you a) a terrorist or b) a member of Hamas or any other terrorist organization.

Israel attacked the ships, when they had a recourse not to. What's so hard to understand?

[Wild Cobra]

What does Hamas has to do with it?
Do you have any evidence that the people on the ships were not civilians?

You know, not liking Israel or chanting Jihad doesn't automatically make you a) a terrorist or b) a member of Hamas or any other terrorist organization.

Israel attacked the ships, when they had a recourse not to. What's so hard to understand?

My God, you are being a stupid bitch. It's obvious you haven't absorbed the points I make. One by one, I would say you are right. However, the sum of the reasons make any shipment a highly possible threat that must be dealt with.

Considering I don't believe you to be that stupid, I will now believe you are a Jew hater. I bet you deny the holocaust also.

[ElNono]

My God, you are being a stupid bitch. It's obvious you haven't absorbed the points I make. One by one, I would say you are right. However, the sum of the reasons make any shipment a highly possible threat that must be dealt with.
Considering I don't believe you to be that stupid, I will now believe you are a Jew hater. I bet you deny the holocaust also.

What? Did I hit a nerve? :lol

BTW,
On Wednesday, Israel moved to deport those activists by bus and airplane, opting to release them all, including those it suspected of having taken part in attacks on soldiers who boarded the floating convoy.

Ya know... all those terrrerists chanting Jihad! were so dangerous that even Israel is letting them walk away... :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

Ya know... all those terrrerists chanting Jihad! were so dangerous that even Israel is letting them walk away... :rolleyes
No shit. I read that. It's because of public pressure, not because they have no reason to.

Hit a nerve. Only the one that hates ignorance and racism.

Which is it. Are you a Jew hater, or believe man made laws supersede natural laws?

What would you do...

If you knew that someone was out to track you down and kill you with a gun, but guns were illegal, and someone you knew offered you a gun to equal the odds... would you take and use that gun to protect your life?

[xrayzebra]

What? Did I hit a nerve? :lol

BTW,
On Wednesday, Israel moved to deport those activists by bus and airplane, opting to release them all, including those it suspected of having taken part in attacks on soldiers who boarded the floating convoy.

Ya know... all those terrrerists chanting Jihad! were so dangerous that even Israel is letting them walk away... :rolleyes

Hit a nerve, indeed. You are stuck on stupid. Israel has been at war
since their inception in 1948. Of course you may be a product of our
schools and not know history.

They have every right to protect themselves. And these damn
"love" boats are nothing more than what they are people who want to
invoke a conflict. Civilians, what
in the hell has that got to do with having clubs, knives and whatever
on board. Like those aren't weapons.

Our left wing, communist, President sits around and demands Israel give
him a full accounting. :lol

I would give him a full accounting. A boot up the rearend.

[sook]

lol, the jew-hater card.

Holyshit, it is getting even more annoying than the because I'm black excuse.


Its quite sad tbh. I guess 80% of the world hates jews right now and are just fucked in the head.

[sook]

Hit a nerve, indeed. You are stuck on stupid. Israel has been at war
since their inception in 1948. Of course you may be a product of our
schools and not know history.

They have every right to protect themselves. And these damn
"love" boats are nothing more than what they are people who want to
invoke a conflict. Civilians, what
in the hell has that got to do with having clubs, knives and whatever
on board. Like those aren't weapons.

Our left wing, communist, President sits around and demands Israel give
him a full accounting. :lol

I would give him a full accounting. A boot up the rearend.

you're calling him stupid? What part of international law are you too stupid to interpret?

Pull israel's left testicle out of your asshole and talk with common sense and less of a bias, unless you are an Israeli.

If that is the case, its clear whose interests you have at hand.

[sook]

No shit. I read that. It's because of public pressure, not because they have no reason to.

Hit a nerve. Only the one that hates ignorance and racism.

Which is it. Are you a Jew hater, or believe man made laws supersede natural laws?

What would you do...

If you knew that someone was out to track you down and kill you with a gun, but guns were illegal, and someone you knew offered you a gun to equal the odds... would you take and use that gun to protect your life?
Bravo! :lol. brilliant analogy, what about the one where I come to your house and shoot you in the face when you try to kick me out?
I'm concerned about my own life and have a right to protect myself. The only thing giving way to you in this case would be THE LAW.

There are certain gray areas, they are there because it is presumed that over 90% of the people aren't stupid enough to bring up stupid arguments like yourself.


If you don't like it, than shut the fuck up.

I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, but they are either too stupid to realize that you can't invade in international waters, or that they feel that they can get away with the jew hater excuse just like everyother time, and be let loose.

Man up WC, you're better than this.

[Wild Cobra]

you're calling him stupid? What part of international law are you too stupid to interpret?

Has Xray or myself tried make this a legal issue? My only point to the constant illegal cry was that it is proper under natural law and rights.

Why can't the two of you acknowledge natural rights and laws?

[ElNono]

Hit a nerve, indeed. You are stuck on stupid. Israel has been at war since their inception in 1948. Of course you may be a product of our schools and not know history.

That doesn't give it any rights to attack civilian ships in international waters. Talk about being stuck on stupid.


They have every right to protect themselves. And these damn "love" boats are nothing more than what they are people who want to invoke a conflict. Civilians, what in the hell has that got to do with having clubs, knives and whatever on board. Like those aren't weapons.

Is that the evidence you have that they were not civilians?


Our left wing, communist, President sits around and demands Israel give him a full accounting. :lol
I would give him a full accounting. A boot up the rearend.

Considering that you probably have both a knife and a club on your premises and by inciting violence against the executive of this country you have effectively declared war against the United States, so you're no longer to be considered a civilian, but instead a terrorist.

This is the retarded logic I'm dealing with here.

[Gummi Clutch]

Has Xray or myself tried make this a legal issue? My only point to the constant illegal cry was that it is proper under natural law and rights.

Why can't the two of you acknowledge natural rights and laws?


Israel has a right to protect itself. It does not however have the right to act under utter stupidity.. They don't have a hold over their use of force, it keeps happening over and over.

[Cry Havoc]

My God, you are being a stupid bitch. It's obvious you haven't absorbed the points I make. One by one, I would say you are right. However, the sum of the reasons make any shipment a highly possible threat that must be dealt with.

Considering I don't believe you to be that stupid, I will now believe you are a Jew hater. I bet you deny the holocaust also.

Full WC meltdown in progress.

[sook]

WC, you're absolutely right when it comes to that, but this isn't "Just" an act of protecting itself. Its an act of bullying and flexing its muscles.

Ever since Natayu has come into office there has been this constant excessive use of force.


Rabbin was probably the best, its sad that he was killed by one of his own people for helping with the peace process, and sharon to an extent.

[xrayzebra]

you're calling him stupid? What part of international law are you too stupid to interpret?

Pull israel's left testicle out of your asshole and talk with common sense and less of a bias, unless you are an Israeli.

If that is the case, its clear whose interests you have at hand.

What part of suicide do you not understand. International waters. You are
eat up with dumbass.

Bias, you bet your no brain, brain, I am bias. Israel is the country that is
going to save your dumbass from Iran. And Obama's stupidity from himself.

If you think I am taking sides with a bunch of radical Muslims you got
rocks in your head. I'll take my chances with Israel. You go do a little
living under the Muslims Shari’a law and see how you like it. Or better
still have someone tell you, you are doomed and we will annialiate you.

Nice, huh?

[Wild Cobra]

That doesn't give it any rights to attack civilian ships in international waters. Talk about being stuck on stupid.

They boarded the ship. They defended themselves. Did their boarding warrant getting two of their own shot, and other beaten by metal pipes?

[Wild Cobra]

Full WC meltdown in progress.
If getting fed up with libtards is a meltdown, then OK.

[sook]

What part of suicide do you not understand. International waters. You are
eat up with dumbass.

Bias, you bet your no brain, brain, I am bias. Israel is the country that is
going to save your dumbass from Iran. And Obama's stupidity from himself.

If you think I am taking sides with a bunch of radical Muslims you got
rocks in your head. I'll take my chances with Israel. You go do a little
living under the Muslims Shari’a law and see how you like it. Or better
still have someone tell you, you are doomed and we will annialiate you.

Nice, huh?
What does have to with radical islamists? It was a humanitarian vessel, and sorry I don't understand the beginning paragraph, probably because English may not be your first language and you're posting from a diff country.

[Spur_Fanatic]

Israel not only just lost their only ally in the region.
They've made it an enemy in less than a day.

Has to be a new record in political screw-ups.

If we are lucky (for the rest of the world, that is) both sides will kill each other.
Of course, then the "International" part on our daily's newspapers will get very boring...

[sook]

I'm going to be very pissed if we take any sides.

IMO, israel was wrong but I would rather have us be quiet and let the rest of the world know we don't give a fuck.

[Ignignokt]

It's pretty simple, turkey knew there were inspections of ships going into the WB.

This cannot be blamed on israel. The turks provoked the attack by having (armed) passengers shouting death threats and lynching israeli commandos.

I don't know how more proportionate can you get. THey went in armed with their primary weapon being paintball guns.


PAINTBALL GUNS.


If anything we should be investigating the intent of Turkey in this.

[ElNono]

Why can't the two of you acknowledge natural rights and laws?

I can acknowledge anything you want. However, what we're discussing is a legal matter. That you don't want to discuss it doesn't mean it isn't so.

Furthermore, the burden of proving that these people 'broke' any 'natural law' or stepped on any 'natural rights' is entirely on you, which you have not done. It's also on you the burden to prove that natural rights or laws unequivocally trump legal rights and laws in this instance, another thing you have not done either.

You keep claiming 'Israel has a right to defend itself', which in this conversation is a complete and utter straw man, because nobody here is claiming that they don't have that right.

As a matter of fact, you're actually making a case for the civilians, who were undeniably attacked, and have the same natural rights and laws you invoke.

Unless you're a hypocrite and claim that somehow Israel's natural laws and rights somehow are more important than somebody else's natural laws and rights.

[Ignignokt]

What does have to with radical islamists? It was a humanitarian vessel, and sorry I don't understand the beginning paragraph, probably because English may not be your first language and you're posting from a diff country.

Not only do you omit relevant information in articles but it's clear you omit facts. The ship was not only humanitarian, it was loaded with hostiles and weapons ready to confront with force and death.

Why do you have a serial habit of lying and omiting facts.

Could you be honest with yourself for once?

[sook]

Not only do you omit relevant information in articles but it's clear you omit facts. The ship was not only humanitarian, it was loaded with hostiles and weapons ready to confront with force and death.

Why do you have a serial habit of lying and omiting facts.

Could you be honest with yourself for once?

what the fuck are you talking about you idiot?


Do you honestly think any ship in the see is going to be without weapons, whether basic ones?

Have you ever been on a ship?

Why do you think they were throwing metal poles if they had legit weapons.

The zionist leader in this forum has just owned himself. Congrats.

[Ignignokt]

I can acknowledge anything you want. However, what we're discussing is a legal matter. That you don't want to discuss it doesn't mean it isn't so.

Furthermore, the burden of proving that these people 'broke' any 'natural law' or stepped on any 'natural rights' is entirely on you, which you have not done. It's also on you the burden to prove that natural rights or laws unequivocally trump legal rights and laws in this instance, another thing you have not done either.

You keep claiming 'Israel has a right to defend itself', which in this conversation is a complete and utter straw man, because nobody here is claiming that they don't have that right.

As a matter of fact, you're actually making a case for the civilians, who were undeniably attacked, and have the same natural rights and laws you invoke.

Unless you're a hypocrite and claim that somehow Israel's natural laws and rights somehow are more important than somebody else's natural laws and rights.

El Nono, i know you're foreign, but that doesn't excuse you to be ignorant.

Self Defense is not instigating or making the first blow.

From the video, the crowd clearly dragged and beat, stabbed the commando before he even landed on the ship. He was taken atop his descending rope.


This is not about civilians defending themselves, but about a political group and country trying to frame a whole country when they already knew the precedents going in concerning ship inspections.

Their propaganda works on useful idiots, and i'm sad to say you are one of them.

[xrayzebra]

It is really something when a bunch of Liberals, Communist or Humanist always fall back
on the same old BS. Civilian ships on the high seas with only civilians on board and
those mean old Jews attack them for no reason.

What do you think you are talking to a bunch of idiots that believe all this gibberish?

This was a deliberate attempt to provoke. Just like the next attempt will be.
So grow up and talk like adults.

This old man has been around for many years and trying to educate a bunch of you
is getting downright tiresome. Either study a little history and I mean history before
Martin Luther King and JFK and the civil rights movement and even before the
McCarthy era. You do know about the McCarthy era, right? Or in case you ever
read the newspapers in that time, McCarthy was right.

[ElNono]

They boarded the ship. They defended themselves. Did their boarding warrant getting two of their own shot, and other beaten by metal pipes?

Why don't you ask the 10 dead citizens how they feel about the illegal boarding?
I hate the fact that violence broke out and people were both dead and hurt.
This could have been entirely avoided.

[sook]

Eggnog, you are either one naive fucker, or you don't konw how the world works. You carry basic protection when you travel by sea due to fear of piracy, especially cargo ships carrying supplies like this one.

Hijacking a ship at sea is more difficult than in air.

[sook]

sigh*, the zionists on this board have no moral standing whatsoever.

[Spur_Fanatic]

1) Israel had no right to board turkish ships in international waters (not without permission of Turkey). Turkey is rightfully pissed.
2) Funnily enough, the turkish crew is permitted to defend itself (in international waters) when agressed (for example, same applies when Somalian pirates attack your ship in international waters...)

[Ignignokt]

what the fuck are you talking about you idiot?


Do you honestly think any ship in the see is going to be without weapons, whether basic ones?

Have you ever been on a ship?

Why do you think they were throwing metal poles if they had legit weapons.

The zionist leader in this forum has just owned himself. Congrats.


I must say i've never met a ship armed with SLINGSHOTS!!!!! :lmao

not only that, but knives.

Do you think if that they would have been worried about fending off pirates they would have armed the ship personell with more than just slingshots?

Are you sincerely believing this shit?.

It's not the ship was simply armed. But that it's civilians were armed and ready to take on the commandos when all the other ships were complying and knew of the rules.

All the other ships were actually contributing humanitarian aide. THis ship had other intentions.

It doesn't take a literate person to figure this out.

[ElNono]

El Nono, i know you're foreign, but that doesn't excuse you to be ignorant. Self Defense is not instigating or making the first blow.
From the video, the crowd clearly dragged and beat, stabbed the commando before he even landed on the ship. He was taken atop his descending rope.
This is not about civilians defending themselves, but about a political group and country trying to frame a whole country when they already knew the precedents going in concerning ship inspections.
Their propaganda works on useful idiots, and i'm sad to say you are one of them.

Being American doesn't excuse you from being able to read. Unless you're ignorant.


I don't have a problem with the Israeli reaction, and stated so at least twice since the news broke out. If you actually would have read the thread(s) about this topic, then you would know this already.



It was absolutely a provocation. I have no doubt about it.
...
The difference here is in the lasting image. Israel could have been seen as simply enforcing international laws from a bunch of protestors that broke it. Instead, they broke the law first and now they're going to have to deal with a lot more international pressure to sustain that blockade.

[Spur_Fanatic]

Also, as for the activists... I totally don't see a Nobel prize winner and some newspaper reporters carrying AK-47's to Hamas. :D

[Ignignokt]

Why don't you ask the 10 dead citizens how they feel about the illegal boarding?
I hate the fact that violence broke out and people were both dead and hurt.
This could have been entirely avoided.

You're right. Israel could have not inspected the ships. That would have sent a new precedent for other organizations to manuever out of getting inspected. Jam a bunch of protesters wielding bats and knives and thusly you could store weapons and not get inspected.

Genius, you should go to the middle east and solve all their problems, but i guess that's why you were born in the americas as a blemish to the hispanic race.

[ElNono]

It is really something when a bunch of Liberals, Communist or Humanist always fall back on the same old BS. Civilian ships on the high seas with only civilians on board and those mean old Jews attack them for no reason.
What do you think you are talking to a bunch of idiots that believe all this gibberish?
This was a deliberate attempt to provoke. Just like the next attempt will be.
So grow up and talk like adults.
This old man has been around for many years and trying to educate a bunch of you is getting downright tiresome. Either study a little history and I mean history before Martin Luther King and JFK and the civil rights movement and even before the McCarthy era. You do know about the McCarthy era, right? Or in case you ever read the newspapers in that time, McCarthy was right.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel, ray?

The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?
Maybe giving those damned women a right to vote wasn't that wise after all, uh?

:rolleyes

[Ignignokt]

Being American doesn't excuse you from being able to read. Unless you're ignorant.

I know what you said. The problem is, is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

You're saying that the israelis acted within their own right, but then you go on to say that the passengers were only defending themselves against the offensive of the commandos.

Both those statements negate each other.

And about image, fine. You then agree with me. This does no good to israels image. But we all knew that, and it's 2010. This whole conflict didn't start in 2008, it's been going on a while. The world will act according to script so we shouldn't give a fuck about the world.

[sook]

I must say i've never met a ship armed with SLINGSHOTS!!!!! :lmao

not only that, but knives.

Do you think if that they would have been worried about fending off pirates they would have armed the ship personell with more than just slingshots?

Are you sincerely believing this shit?.

It's not the ship was simply armed. But that it's civilians were armed and ready to take on the commandos when all the other ships were complying and knew of the rules.

All the other ships were actually contributing humanitarian aide. THis ship had other intentions.

It doesn't take a literate person to figure this out.

wait....so I guess you didn't read the part about them going unstopped that last 5 times they delivered aid? They just happened to this this one time?

Idiot, please read the whole story.

[ElNono]

You're right. Israel could have not inspected the ships. That would have sent a new precedent for other organizations to manuever out of getting inspected. Jam a bunch of protesters wielding bats and knives and thusly you could store weapons and not get inspected.
Genius, you should go to the middle east and solve all their problems, but i guess that's why you were born in the americas as a blemish to the hispanic race.

Israel could have inspected the ships in international waters instead of boarding them with commandos. That was an actual lawful option.

There's two threads full of information about the subject so you can educate yourself. Unfortunately, I suspect you prefer to remain ignorant.

On a personal level, please tell me:
Are you mad I'm taking one of your American jobs?
Are you mad that I married an American girl?

Why don't you tell me how much does that bother you?

[Ignignokt]

1) Israel had no right to board turkish ships in international waters (not without permission of Turkey). Turkey is rightfully pissed.
2) Funnily enough, the turkish crew is permitted to defend itself (in international waters) when agressed (for example, same applies when Somalian pirates attack your ship in international waters...)

Point two is bullshit.

The weapons on board of the ship were instigating weapons and not proper weapons that could deter pirates who have rpg's and AK's. Don't tell me that they were going to defeat pirates with slingshots. They're not the lostboys and the pirates aren't the Capn Hook kind. LOL x10000000

[ElNono]

I know what you said. The problem is, is that you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You're saying that the israelis acted within their own right, but then you go on to say that the passengers were only defending themselves against the offensive of the commandos.
Both those statements negate each other.

How do they negate each other?

[Ignignokt]

Israel could have inspected the ships in international waters instead of boarding them with commandos. That was an actual lawful option.


El Nono strikes again. Great logic. You would send unarmed inspectors to get lynched by the turkish mob.

Why are you brown? you disgrace me.

[Spur_Fanatic]

Mind you, personally, as I said before, both sides suck.

Best the US can do is let go of Israel's hand, and let both sides kill each other...

Or let the U.N do it's fucking job: Tell both sides to sit, and threaten both sides with hell and doom, bombs and war, blockades and nukes; to stay put till a peace is arranged. You give the palestinians the state they want, you tell the arabs to stop threatening Israel, you tell Israel to stop being such a retarded kid...

After that, you disarm everyone, and you keep a close eye in the region for decades to come. It's hard, but it's the only way to ensure peace. The rest of the world of tired of this children always fighting each other. Seriously, don't you see that if we do nothing, they'll just continue the fighting, the wars, and that the rest of the world will suffer because of it?

I'll say it again, I wish both sides dissapear.
They are both a threat to Peace world-wide.

[Ignignokt]

How do they negate each other?

Because you are saying that the israelis fired upon the mob therefore the mob also had the right to fire back. That's not the way things went down.

[ElNono]

El Nono strikes again. Great logic. You would send unarmed inspectors to get lynched by the turkish mob.

Quote in international law where it says they have to be unarmed?

They can be armed. However, there has to be a REQUEST for inspection.

Boy you're both dumb and dense.

[ElNono]

Because you are saying that the israelis fired upon the mob therefore the mob also had the right to fire back. That's not the way things went down.

How did they go down?

[Spur_Fanatic]

Point two is bullshit.

The weapons on board of the ship were instigating weapons and not proper weapons that could deter pirates who have rpg's and AK's. Don't tell me that they were going to defeat pirates with slingshots. They're not the lostboys and the pirates aren't the Capn Hook kind. LOL x10000000

Point 2 is international law. Crews are entitled to use water-guns, and even fire-arms if boarded without proper jurisdiction. I believe that even with proper jurisdiction, you need to have a permit to board merchant ships, but not sure on this one. I'll later find out.

[Spur_Fanatic]

Ok, from what I'm told, only in your own waters you can board other countries ships. You must show proper documentation, though. Then you are allowed to inspect the cargo, and you can check the crew's papers.

Only the UN can inspect ships in international waters, I guess. Problem here is that after 9/11, a lot kinda changed. Well, "changed". More like it was "ignored".

Here is a good read, if people care to know.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2438/is_3_29/ai_n29237459/

[hater]

Ok, from what I'm told, only in your own waters you can board other countries ships. You must show proper documentation, though. Then you are allowed to inspect the cargo, and you can check the crew's papers.

Only the UN can inspect ships in international waters, I guess. Problem here is that after 9/11, a lot kinda changed. Well, "changed". More like it was "ignored".


makes sense

also the Interpol and some other organizations: DEA, etc. Probably can board ships to look for contraband/drugs and they will only board if allowed by the boat's crew. They are not going to force their way into the boat in the middle of the night, that is just plain crazy.

If the boat's crew were to deny them boarding, they are probably will be in deep shit as they will be followed to their destination.

[Spur_Fanatic]

DEA simply can't. Is a strict US agency. But I know of cases they've shared intel, training and expertise in some countries. Even then, only when permitted by the host nation (so only in that country's national waters). Interpol has more freedom, yes, but has no juridisdiction in international waters. Needs permission from host country, I guess.

In case of Interpol, they can't act solo, need to be joint-ops.
I'm guessing is the same with the DEA, most probably.

[hater]

DEA simply can't. Is a strict US agency. But I know of cases they've shared intel, training and expertise in some countries. Even then, only when permitted by the host nation (so only in that country's national waters). Interpol has more freedom, yes, but has no juridisdiction in international waters. Needs permission from host country, I guess.

In case of Interpol, they can't act solo, need to be joint-ops.
I'm guessing is the same with the DEA, most probably.

wait, international waters means they don't belong to any country. So no need to ask permission?

I saw the Interpol boarding a boat in international waters in Lord of War :)

[xrayzebra]

Why don't you tell us how you really feel, ray?

The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?
Maybe giving those damned women a right to vote wasn't that wise after all, uh?

:rolleyes
The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?

What conversation are you in. Obviously not this one.
:rollin

[Spur_Fanatic]

I remember that movie. And I remember that scene.

If I'm correct, Nicholas Cage is an arms dealer, moving weapons to Colombia.
He is not in international waters, but in colombian waters. See that speedboat Ethan Hawke is in? Rewind that part, I bet the speedboat came from a colombian destroyer.

Even if he still in international waters, if the ships is sheduled/in the logs headed to Colombia, maybe they can be searched. From what I know, the whole international waters statutes is such a mess... I'd not be surprised of exceptions and different countries approachs, which would all be as well admitted into it.

I honestly can't say if what Israel did was right or wrong. If they were on their right or not, I mean. Of course, Turkey is rightfully pissed. You just don't hop on someone else ships, specially not in international waters.

Imagine it like this. You are in open sea, international waters, in a american aircraft carrier. You are cleaning the deck, all is quiet. All of the sudden, russian commandos assault the bridge and try to take control of the ship!

Woudn't you be pissed? I know one thing is a carrier and another a floating crap. But it's the same thing, Turkey should feel offended, and rightfully should do something about it.

If not, it's a message you can board turkish boats whenever you feel like it... AND HERE LIES THE PROBLEM! Turkey, by pride, has to do something. Flex some muscles. Show determination. Israel, as stupid as the operation went, can't just back down. If the Prime Minister back downs, he'll lose support of the hard-liners...

There'll be no war (crosses fingers).
But Israel will be further isolated in the political arena.

[ElNono]

The quicker we get back to slavery, the better, right?

What conversation are you in. Obviously not this one.
:rollin

Sorry, ray, I'm just following your lead...


This old man has been around for many years and trying to educate a bunch of you is getting downright tiresome. Either study a little history and I mean history before Martin Luther King and JFK and the civil rights movement and even before the McCarthy era. You do know about the McCarthy era, right? Or in case you ever read the newspapers in that time, McCarthy was right.

[xrayzebra]

What ever rings you bell.

[RandomGuy]

In your analogy, were you living on a house boat heading for a blockade?

According to what I understand of the maritime law, ship in international waters is essentially soveriegn territory of the nation whose flag it flies.

In this case, if that territory was invaded by another country's military that is essentially a hostile invasion.

It doesn't matter that the boat was going to attempt to run a blockade or deliver beanie babies.

Israel should have simply shadowed the ships and intercepted them inside Israeli waters, then it would have jurisdiction.

[ElNono]

Ok, from what I'm told, only in your own waters you can board other countries ships. You must show proper documentation, though. Then you are allowed to inspect the cargo, and you can check the crew's papers.

Only the UN can inspect ships in international waters, I guess. Problem here is that after 9/11, a lot kinda changed. Well, "changed". More like it was "ignored".

UN Law of the Sea - High Seas (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm)

Check Article 110...

[Spur_Fanatic]

Somewhat, yes. But not as you put it.
An embassy is sovereign territory, thus untouchable.

The International Waters statutes is not as definitive and clear.
Still, is not something you can pull off without some expected backlash after the fact.

[ElNono]

According to what I understand of the maritime law, ship in international waters is essentially soveriegn territory of the nation whose flag it flies.

In this case, if that territory was invaded by another country's military that is essentially a hostile invasion.

It doesn't matter that the boat was going to attempt to run a blockade or deliver beanie babies.

Israel should have simply shadowed the ships and intercepted them inside Israeli waters, then it would have jurisdiction.

I think Israel could have rightfully requested to inspect the ships in international waters, claiming suspicion of any number of stipulated reasons (pirate activity, broadcast, etc).

This is what I wanted to discuss from the get go. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the noise.

[Spur_Fanatic]

My previous post was an aswer to RandomGuy.


UN Law of the Sea - High Seas (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm)

Check Article 110...

Thanks for the link. Is more or less what I though it would be.
I admit is more clear on some matters than I though it would be, though.

[ElNono]

Thanks for the link. Is more or less what I though it would be.
I admit is more clear on some matters than I though it would be, though.

You can't tell me after reading it that Israel couldn't have come out standing a lot better from this whole thing, and even possibly prevented some of this.

[Spur_Fanatic]

Read my previous posts. I agreed that Israel should have planned this better. As I said in the other thread that covers this incident, I´m not biased on either side. To me, both sides "suck balls".

[RandomGuy]

It is really something when a bunch of Liberals, Communist or Humanist always fall back
on the same old BS. Civilian ships on the high seas with only civilians on board and
those mean old Jews attack them for no reason.

What do you think you are talking to a bunch of idiots that believe all this gibberish?

This was a deliberate attempt to provoke. Just like the next attempt will be.
So grow up and talk like adults.

This old man has been around for many years and trying to educate a bunch of you
is getting downright tiresome. Either study a little history and I mean history before
Martin Luther King and JFK and the civil rights movement and even before the
McCarthy era. You do know about the McCarthy era, right? Or in case you ever
read the newspapers in that time, McCarthy was right.

No, McCarthy was wrong, and provably so. McCarthy accused so many people that some of them were bound to be actual communists.

The problem for McCarthy's conspiracy theory is that it collapsed under its own weight, just as the 9-11 truth movement has.


"How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. . . .What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. . . ."

"Compare that passage to this more recent expression of the same sentiment:
In fact, conspiracy is very plausible. People who control a grossly disproportionate share of the world's wealth will take measures to consolidate their position. They will destabilize the public by inciting a series of wars and other mind-boggling hoaxes. . . . The government-inspired 9-11 atrocity proves Bush and his accomplices are criminals, traitors and impostors. . . ."

The first quotation is from Senator Joe McCarthy, speaking in 1951 about the vast army of Communists he claimed had infiltrated the U.S. government. The second is from the Web site www.rense.com.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4199607

Pfft. Only a fellow conspiracy theorist would find validation in McCarthy's claims.

[ElNono]

Read my previous posts. I agreed that Israel should have planned this better. As I said in the other thread that covers this incident, I´m not biased on either side. To me, both sides "suck balls".

If you look at my exchange with Shastafarian on the other thread when the news broke out, you'll see you and I are in complete agreement.

[RandomGuy]

I think Israel could have rightfully requested to inspect the ships in international waters, claiming suspicion of any number of stipulated reasons (pirate activity, broadcast, etc).

This is what I wanted to discuss from the get go. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the noise.

Yeah, it was poorly handled by Israel.

They got suckered by someone looking to make news.

I doubt they could have made the "piracy" case though. I read through article 110, and it didn't address a blockade.

[ElNono]

I doubt they could have made the "piracy" case though. I read through article 110, and it didn't address a blockade.

What I mean is, they could have used any number of those exceptions listed to request inspection of the ship at sea (you know, to ensure there were no missiles, etc). Israel merely has to say: "That white civilian flag is bullshit and we're suspicious that there are military in there", and that's it. The ships have to allow the boarding and the inspection, and if they do not, then Israel is fully justified to do what it did, and can point to that Article and say they were compliant.

It was a fuckup. They took the bait and swallowed it whole.

[Josepatches_]

According to what I understand of the maritime law, ship in international waters is essentially soveriegn territory of the nation whose flag it flies.

In this case, if that territory was invaded by another country's military that is essentially a hostile invasion.



True.That's the law

[vy65]

What I mean is, they could have used any number of those exceptions listed to request inspection of the ship at sea (you know, to ensure there were no missiles, etc). Israel merely has to say: "That white civilian flag is bullshit and we're suspicious that there are military in there", and that's it. The ships have to allow the boarding and the inspection, and if they do not, then Israel is fully justified to do what it did, and can point to that Article and say they were compliant.

It was a fuckup. They took the bait and swallowed it whole.

There really isn't an exception under art. 110 that Israel could use.

Even if Israel violated the article, there's no enforcement mechanism ... Our laws always provide a remedy for breach, i.e. jail. That's obviously harder to do with laws international in scope. The point being: why the fuck does israel care if it breaks international law?

[angrydude]

Reuters seems to think it was legal.....



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602
Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?
9:16am EDT

By Jonathan Saul

LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?

None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.

"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.

For links to the maritime declarations click on: here!OpenDocument

here