[quote]Bambi wrote:
So you’re saying that the IDF weren’t attacking the boat, merely boarding it? to have a tea party no doubt. So they’re not to blame it’s the people attacking the heavy commando team jumping onto their boat in international waters, who are to blame?
I’d say that’s some pretty twisted logic. I support Israel normally but they dropped the ball on that one
Anyway back to thread, I agree with Jewbacca that this is an incredibly evil act but also agree that there is stupidity on both sides. Go me. [/quote]
Yes that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying if they weren’t attacked they would have verbally commanded the Captains to change course. If the Captains refused they would have used appropriate force to take control of the vessels. To suggest otherwise, based on previous Israeli behaviour is dishonest/stupid. The reason they used a Commando team is due to:
[/quote]
Yeah well, rapists rape and to expect anything different would indeed be foolish.
And to the other dhimmiwit, Turkey sent the armed, martyrdom ‘freedom flotilla’ against Israel. Eight of the armed terrorists who were killed were Turks. One of the ships was flying a Turkish flag. Israeli/Turkish relations are comparable to Israeli/Iranian relations currently.[/quote]
Yeah well, attacking and capturing a vessel in international waters that carry another nations flag tends to sour relationships a bit, given that it is an act of war.
[/quote]
ACT OF WAR - any act occurring in the course of declared war; armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.
The vessels were private vessels.
If they had been Turkish Naval vessels it would have been an ‘act of war’ to ignore the blockade.
The Israelis boarded the vessels to enforce the blockade and were attacked with iron bars, stabbed etc. It was only due to some left-wing peaceniks onboard that they weren’t lynched.
The Israelis offered to allow the ‘peace flotilla’ to dock at Ashod, have their cargo unloaded by UN personnel and delivered to Gaza. They refused.
Please don’t respond if you can help it.[/quote]
But how could I help it when you are so utterly wrong and so loud and proud about it on top of it?
Attacking a civilian vessel carrying another nations flag is indeed an act of war and you cannot enforce a blockade in international waters, especially not in rather cramped ones like the Mediterranean Sea.
Also, the people on board of this ship indeed were civilians, remember those people Israel allegedly does not target, and were perfectly within their rights to defend themselves against an act of war and/or piracy.
This is from Craig Murray, former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
Phew, glad that I could lit a little candle in that abyss of ignorance I am quite sure you take to be an informed opinion.
[/quote]
Firstly, Craig Murray is a ‘political activist’ who was fired from the British foreign office for his ‘activism’. He knows nothing about international law.
Secondly, see ‘Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law’ regarding article 22 of the Convention of the High Seas. It states,
‘Even when there is no war, states sometimes claim a right to interfere with foreign merchant ships on the grounds of self-defence, but the law on this point is uncertain’
How is that ‘very plain’ you dickhead?
Thirdly, the Israelis never ‘attacked’ the vessels. They attempted to board them and THEY were immediately attacked. There is video showing an Israeli commando being bashed with an iron bar before he has set foot on the vessel whilst still rappelling down his line. Another was stabbed. Three of the victims had their guns taken from them which were then used to shoot at the helicopter.
Will you fuck off now?[/quote]
Murray was the Head of the British department that dealt with international law, whether he is a “political activist” has little to do with his opinion when it comes to the law of the high seas.
Also, if you come to my house uninvited and my house just happened to be terroritory of another souvereign nation you might get stabbed too, thats just how it goes.
Dont wanna get stabbed, stay the fuck off other peoples property.
Contrary to what some people believe you do not automatically have to roll over and spread them just because a thug in a government issued costume attempts to have his way with you.
And no, I wont.
[/quote]
“Murray was the Head of the British department that dealt with international law”
No he wasn’t. His only qualification is an MA in History and his ‘diplomatic expertise’ was so highly regarded by the British government that they awarded him the post of ambassador to Uzbekistan, of all places. Why are you claiming that he was ‘the Head of the British department that dealt with international law’? Which department is this?
EDIT: I didn’t realise you are the same idiot who was quoting Murray’s rubbish on international law. Please ignore questions.[/quote]
1989-92 Head of Maritime Section, FCO, London
Responsible for negotiation of the UK and Dependent Territory continental shelf and fisheries boundaries, for implementation of the Channel Tunnel treaty and for negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. From August 1990 to August 1991 he was also head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, responsible for intelligence analysis on Iraqi attempts at evading sanctions, particularly in the field of weapons procurement, and with providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo.
You see the reason why you are an idiot is not so much that you have deluded opinions, but that you actually think you can get away with denying facts that are just a google search away.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
How is that ‘very plain’ you dickhead?
Thirdly, the Israelis never ‘attacked’ the vessels. They attempted to board them and THEY were immediately attacked. There is video showing an Israeli commando being bashed with an iron bar before he has set foot on the vessel whilst still rappelling down his line. Another was stabbed. Three of the victims had their guns taken from them which were then used to shoot at the helicopter.
This is Amir writing you after reading what you sent to my father, Eitan. As you know, it was my unit and my friends who were on the ship. My commander was injured badly as a result of the �¢??pacifists�¢?? violence. I want to tell you how he was injured so you could tell the story. It shows just how horrible and inhuman were these activists. My commander was the first soldier that rappelled down from the helicopter to the ship. When he touched ground, he got hit in the head with a pole and stabbed in the stomach with a knife. When he drew out his secondary weapon�¢??a handgun (his primary weapon was a regular paintball gun: a Tippman 98 custom)�¢??he was shot in the leg. He managed to fire a single shot before he was tossed from the balcony by 4 Arab activists to the lower deck (a 12-feet fall). He was then dragged by other activists to a room in the lower deck were he was stripped down by two activists. They took off his vest, helmet and shirt, leaving him with only his pants and shoes on. When they finished they took a knife and expanded the wound he already had in his stomach. They cut his ab[dominal] muscles horizontally and by hand spilled his guts out. When they finished they raised him up and walked him on the deck outside. He was conscious the whole time.
If you are asking yourself why they did all that, here comes the reason. They wanted to show the soldiers their commander�¢??s body so they will be demoralized and scared. Luckily, when they walked him on the deck a soldier saw him and managed to shoot the activist that was walking him down the outside corridor. He shot him with a special non-lethal bullet that didn�¢??t kill him. My commander managed to jump from the deck to the water and swim to an army rescue boat (his guts still out of his body, and now in salty sea water). That was how he was saved. The activists that did this to him are alive, now in Turkey, and treated as heroes."
[/quote]
Thanks for this link. I knew one of the soldiers suffered a serious stab wound in the abdomen but I was unaware of how it came about. The horrific details do not surprise me though.[/quote]
Yeah well, either a pirate or a war criminal got gutted.
Yes Orion, I love his reasoning. Next time Somali pirates board a merchant vessel off the Horn of Africa, THEY aren’t being the attackers it’s the men who are fighting them off who are the nasty attackers.
And to the other dhimmiwit, Turkey sent the armed, martyrdom ‘freedom flotilla’ against Israel. Eight of the armed terrorists who were killed were Turks. One of the ships was flying a Turkish flag. Israeli/Turkish relations are comparable to Israeli/Iranian relations currently.[/quote]
Yeah well, attacking and capturing a vessel in international waters that carry another nations flag tends to sour relationships a bit, given that it is an act of war.
[/quote]
ACT OF WAR - any act occurring in the course of declared war; armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.
The vessels were private vessels.
If they had been Turkish Naval vessels it would have been an ‘act of war’ to ignore the blockade.
The Israelis boarded the vessels to enforce the blockade and were attacked with iron bars, stabbed etc. It was only due to some left-wing peaceniks onboard that they weren’t lynched.
The Israelis offered to allow the ‘peace flotilla’ to dock at Ashod, have their cargo unloaded by UN personnel and delivered to Gaza. They refused.
Please don’t respond if you can help it.[/quote]
But how could I help it when you are so utterly wrong and so loud and proud about it on top of it?
Attacking a civilian vessel carrying another nations flag is indeed an act of war and you cannot enforce a blockade in international waters, especially not in rather cramped ones like the Mediterranean Sea.
Also, the people on board of this ship indeed were civilians, remember those people Israel allegedly does not target, and were perfectly within their rights to defend themselves against an act of war and/or piracy.
This is from Craig Murray, former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
Phew, glad that I could lit a little candle in that abyss of ignorance I am quite sure you take to be an informed opinion.
[/quote]
Firstly, Craig Murray is a ‘political activist’ who was fired from the British foreign office for his ‘activism’. He knows nothing about international law.
Secondly, see ‘Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law’ regarding article 22 of the Convention of the High Seas. It states,
‘Even when there is no war, states sometimes claim a right to interfere with foreign merchant ships on the grounds of self-defence, but the law on this point is uncertain’
How is that ‘very plain’ you dickhead?
Thirdly, the Israelis never ‘attacked’ the vessels. They attempted to board them and THEY were immediately attacked. There is video showing an Israeli commando being bashed with an iron bar before he has set foot on the vessel whilst still rappelling down his line. Another was stabbed. Three of the victims had their guns taken from them which were then used to shoot at the helicopter.
Will you fuck off now?[/quote]
Murray was the Head of the British department that dealt with international law, whether he is a “political activist” has little to do with his opinion when it comes to the law of the high seas.
Also, if you come to my house uninvited and my house just happened to be terroritory of another souvereign nation you might get stabbed too, thats just how it goes.
Dont wanna get stabbed, stay the fuck off other peoples property.
Contrary to what some people believe you do not automatically have to roll over and spread them just because a thug in a government issued costume attempts to have his way with you.
And no, I wont.
[/quote]
“Murray was the Head of the British department that dealt with international law”
No he wasn’t. His only qualification is an MA in History and his ‘diplomatic expertise’ was so highly regarded by the British government that they awarded him the post of ambassador to Uzbekistan, of all places. Why are you claiming that he was ‘the Head of the British department that dealt with international law’? Which department is this?
EDIT: I didn’t realise you are the same idiot who was quoting Murray’s rubbish on international law. Please ignore questions.[/quote]
1989-92 Head of Maritime Section, FCO, London
Responsible for negotiation of the UK and Dependent Territory continental shelf and fisheries boundaries, for implementation of the Channel Tunnel treaty and for negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. From August 1990 to August 1991 he was also head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, responsible for intelligence analysis on Iraqi attempts at evading sanctions, particularly in the field of weapons procurement, and with providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo.
You see the reason why you are an idiot is not so much that you have deluded opinions, but that you actually think you can get away with denying facts that are just a google search away.
[/quote]
I would rather look at a dog turd than look at Craig Murray’s biography.
Murray is not a lawyer. He was a diplomat/negotiator who, on the occasions when he negotiated with other states and the UN on matters where international law was relevant, would have had to rely on the advice of lawyers(i.e. people who hold a law degree as opposed to an MA in modern history).
Nothing else that you have said has any relevance to your baseless claims about Murray and international law.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Yes Orion, I love his reasoning. Next time Somali pirates board a merchant vessel off the Horn of Africa, THEY aren’t being the attackers it’s the men who are fighting them off who are the nasty attackers.[/quote]
There are some really sick people here. Seek help.
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
a) the knowledge
b) the competence
c) the experience
to mouth off about who did what to who, and who the ‘evil people’ are.
Shut the fuck up. If you’re this vocal on T-Nation, then you had better be doing something to help sort the problem out in the real world.
Fucking idiots, bringing up killings here and there as evidence for the wrongdoing of a whole nation. There’s a reason the problem hasn’t been solved yet. It is COMPLEX and fuck knows how it will ever resolve.
I’ll admit, I don’t know the answers. How many people in the world do? My guess is, 0. The only constant that I find in that region of the world is severe paranoia of the enemy, but then who isn’t paranoid of ‘the enemy’?
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
[/quote]
Great, so because we’re not directly involved…we shouldn’t debate and decide right and wrong…cool. I’m sure the people in Sudan would love that argument. Oh, doesn’t bother Americans…so they should stay out of our business of genocide.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
[/quote]
Great, so because we’re not directly involved…we shouldn’t debate and decide right and wrong…cool. I’m sure the people in Sudan would love that argument. Oh, doesn’t bother Americans…so they should stay out of our business of genocide.[/quote]
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
[/quote]
Great, so because we’re not directly involved…we shouldn’t debate and decide right and wrong…cool. I’m sure the people in Sudan would love that argument. Oh, doesn’t bother Americans…so they should stay out of our business of genocide.[/quote]
To help you with this: my point was that we quickly label a good and bad side. That we make uninformed statements on important issues.
Sometimes you make sense. Other times you’re so thick that I feel sorry for you.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
[/quote]
Great, so because we’re not directly involved…we shouldn’t debate and decide right and wrong…cool. I’m sure the people in Sudan would love that argument. Oh, doesn’t bother Americans…so they should stay out of our business of genocide.[/quote]
To help you with this: my point was that we quickly label a good and bad side. That we make uninformed statements on important issues.
Sometimes you make sense. Other times you’re so thick that I feel sorry for you.[/quote]
It’s awkward in another male calls me thick, but thank you for the compliment.
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
[/quote]
Great, so because we’re not directly involved…we shouldn’t debate and decide right and wrong…cool. I’m sure the people in Sudan would love that argument. Oh, doesn’t bother Americans…so they should stay out of our business of genocide.[/quote]
To help you with this: my point was that we quickly label a good and bad side. That we make uninformed statements on important issues.
Sometimes you make sense. Other times you’re so thick that I feel sorry for you.[/quote]
It’s awkward in another male calls me thick, but thank you for the compliment.[/quote]
LOL. That was one of the ones that made sense. But I hope you got the point I was making, which wasn’t to encourage people to stop talking about it, but rather a case for not making hasty generalisations based on iffy sources.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Yes Orion, I love his reasoning. Next time Somali pirates board a merchant vessel off the Horn of Africa, THEY aren’t being the attackers it’s the men who are fighting them off who are the nasty attackers.[/quote]
There are some really sick people here. Seek help.[/quote]
Don’t let me pointing out your logical fallacies get in the way of your ad hominems.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Yes Orion, I love his reasoning. Next time Somali pirates board a merchant vessel off the Horn of Africa, THEY aren’t being the attackers it’s the men who are fighting them off who are the nasty attackers.[/quote]
There are some really sick people here. Seek help.[/quote]
Don’t let me pointing out your logical fallacies get in the way of your ad hominems.[/quote]
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
Why are we fucking taking sides at all? The truth is we’re all sat in our cosy homes talking about the Israel/Palestine problem as if we have:
a) the knowledge
b) the competence
c) the experience
to mouth off about who did what to who, and who the ‘evil people’ are.
Shut the fuck up. If you’re this vocal on T-Nation, then you had better be doing something to help sort the problem out in the real world.
Fucking idiots, bringing up killings here and there as evidence for the wrongdoing of a whole nation. There’s a reason the problem hasn’t been solved yet. It is COMPLEX and fuck knows how it will ever resolve.
I’ll admit, I don’t know the answers. How many people in the world do? My guess is, 0. The only constant that I find in that region of the world is severe paranoia of the enemy, but then who isn’t paranoid of ‘the enemy’?[/quote]
People who support democracy, freedom, equal opportunity(i.e. Israel) ‘bring up’ murders i.e. lynchings, live disembowelments, beheadings, throat slittings and suicide bombings.
People who support populations that send out mongoloids/children/women strapped with high explosives, ball bearings and rat poison then celebrate in the street(i.e. Palestinians) ‘bring up’ the targeted assaassination of terrorists and the subsequent deaths of human shields i.e. ‘civlians’(read dead Palestinians who aren’t actually clutching a gun in their dead hand) and pretend it’s a ‘war crime’.
Isn’t this the ‘politics and world issues’ part of the forum? Why shouldn’t we be talking about this? Just because you, orion, bambi, oleena and others don’t have the knowledge, competence or experience doesn’t mean that applies to everyone else.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
SexMachine- Do you think I support Palestine in their war efforts?
Do you think I support Israel?
Why?
[/quote]
“Do you think I support Palestine in their war efforts”
Yes. Unintentionally. By posting ridiculous ‘war diaries’ and other propaganda and by making statements that clearly imply that both sides have equal legitimate grievances and both sides are equally to blame. It’s not always like that. See WWII.
“Do you think I support Israel”
No. See above.
As I have already stated, I believe you are one of those naive people who thinks problems can always be solved by being nice, even handed, making concessions, appeasement anything other than facing up to the facts and accepting that war and violence are and have always been a necessity for self defence against hostile invaders. See WWII again.
EDIT: But you’re going to learn Jujitsu for some reason. Better choice for a pacifist would be Aikido. Both start with Ikkyo and Nikyo instruction though. You might not like hurting someone’s wrists.
Theo Van Gogh’s dying words as he was being repeatedly stabbed to death by an Islamist:
‘Can’t we just talk about this?’
[quote]Oleena wrote:
SexMachine- Do you think I support Palestine in their war efforts?
Do you think I support Israel?
Why?
[/quote]
“Do you think I support Palestine in their war efforts”
Yes. Unintentionally. By posting ridiculous ‘war diaries’ and other propaganda and by making statements that clearly imply that both sides have equal legitimate grievances and both sides are equally to blame. It’s not always like that. See WWII.
“Do you think I support Israel”
No. See above.
As I have already stated, I believe you are one of those naive people who thinks problems can always be solved by being nice, even handed, making concessions, appeasement anything other than facing up to the facts and accepting that war and violence are and have always been a necessity for self defence against hostile invaders. See WWII again.[/quote]
How can posting a war diary (legitimate, btw, confirmed, check it out yourself if you want. It’s from a collection called “Stolen Voices”. It also includes an Israeli girl’s diary) of someone’s pain be support for them and against the other side?
Are you saying that the simple act of acknowledging that someone on the opposing side is suffering is anti-Israel?
EDIT: But you’re going to learn Jujitsu for some reason. Better choice for a pacifist would be Aikido. Both start with Ikkyo and Nikyo instruction though. You might not like hurting someone’s wrists.
[/quote]
BTW, comparing war to agreed-on fighting matches is ridiculous. I have no problem with killing and violence, truth be told, when the people executing it both agree on it and are not taking anyone who didn’t with them.
If the country’s leaders would simply have death matches in a field somewhere, life would be better. Instead, people who have no idea what they’re getting into get brainwashed into doing the dirty work and everyone suffers.