[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
I love the lawfare mental masterbation crowd.
Here are the arab occupiers of Gaza celebrating 9/11:
Are some of them good? Sure. There’s a great town called Taybeh where I’ve had a some wonderful times. (It’s also shelled and burned by its neighbors because it produces beer and is Christian.) Lots of Germans were good people, too, circa 1943. Heck, lots of Nazis were good. Indeed, lots of the Pharoah’s troops that chased Israelites across the Red Sea were good.
War, in general, sucks.
The PA is in a state of war with Israel. It is in their constitution to destroy Israel and kill the Jews.
These ships were part of a propaganda trip to break the embargo so they can get weapons to kill Jews. Period.
Israel is more than happy to let the Gazan arabs and the arabs in East Jersalem have their own country, provided they agree they won’t use said new country as a staging area to kill us.
The arabs refuse this reasonable request.
Israel is remarkably restrained. No other country would have put up with this crap for 60 years, and would have pushed them into the sea long ago.
[/quote]
Ah, there is a WAR!!!
OMGZ!!!1!!!
Well, I guess it is ok then to commit an act of war against uninvolved parties.
Because, you know, if we just call it a war, anything goes, right?
But you would not possibly be for giving them all the rights under the Geneva convention wouldnt you?
Because if they can be identified as enough of an army to “wage war” they surely also warrant POW status?
Or is it that there is a “war” when it suits you and “terrorism” when it doesnt?
Well, I guess it is ok then to commit an act of war against uninvolved parties.
But you would not possibly be for giving them all the rights under the Geneva convention wouldnt you?
[/quote]
They were not “uninvolved parties.” These ships were part of a propaganda trip to break the embargo so they can get weapons to kill Jews. Period. If you won’t acknowledge this fact, you out yourself as either a terrorist supporter or a useful idiot.
They were actually given far more than their rights under the Geneva convetion. In fact, instead of being held, they were fed Halal meals and sent home by air, business class the next day, at the expense of the Israeli government. The cargo that was on the boats was checked for contraband and then brought to the PA, who refused it because it was, well, crap like old shoes and out of date medicine piled randomly in the hulls of the ships that the PA didn’t want or need.
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.
What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.
This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.
Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests.
So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:
[/quote]
Oh, you mean like between Israel and Hamas…How’d you overlook that? Seriously, how does anyone opine on the matter and completely forget this? That right there legitimizes the use of blockades.
SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE
Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:
(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebPrint/560-14-ART?OpenDocument
Hello! That’s exactly what happened with the flotilla. [/quote]
Hamas is not a nation state, nor is there a formal war between them and Israel, nor did the flotilla travel under Hamas banners so ???
[/quote]
Ahem…read it again. Even vessels under a neutral flag can be attacked for attempting to breach a blockade, and resisting a visit and search. And there has certainly been,and continues to be, armed conflict between Israel and the PA/Hamas. You’re embarassing yourself now.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.
What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.
This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.
Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]
What does or does not bother me hardly matters when it comes to what is an act of war or not.
It is also not really relevant to the matter that some people seem to change their definitions of what their enemy is whenever it suits them.
Plus, I thought I hated America, do I hate Israel now too?
So, we either need a nation state or at least a military AND an armed conflict for an act of war, so just to make this very clear:
[/quote]
Oh, you mean like between Israel and Hamas…How’d you overlook that? Seriously, how does anyone opine on the matter and completely forget this? That right there legitimizes the use of blockades.
SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE
Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:
(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebPrint/560-14-ART?OpenDocument
Hello! That’s exactly what happened with the flotilla. [/quote]
Hamas is not a nation state, nor is there a formal war between them and Israel, nor did the flotilla travel under Hamas banners so ???
[/quote]
Ahem…read it again. Even vessels under a neutral flag can be attacked for attempting to breach a blockade, and resisting a visit and search. And there has certainly been,and continues to be, armed conflict between Israel and the PA/Hamas. You’re embarassing yourself now.[/quote]
No I dont, because in order to be a war here there would have to be a Palestine state to be at war with, or you would have to be able to call Hamas something resembling a military force.
While they might have the right to stop and search a neutral vessel in case of war, you first need to establish that there is a war.
If anything this is an occupation and those do not entitle you do anything in international waters.
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.
[/quote]
Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.
[/quote]
Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]
tsk, tsk , tsk, this is not a matter of common sense, but a legal issue.
Had they waited until they had reached Israelian territory they could have searched the ship.
However, they did not wait and did it in international waters wich some poster, who is awfully quiet now, thought justified because of “acts of war”.
This is obvious nonsense because the only entity actually able to commit an act of war in all of this is Israel and they promptly did.
I find it funny that that gets you all flustered, including allusions to my alleged deep seated hatred of Israel, and, dare I say it, Jews, but even though I do recognize that Americans are not well versed in legal thinking because their governments do no longer bother to stay within the realm of laws anyqay there are still some areas in this world were words have meanings, especially in a legal context and when it comes to justifications for killing people.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.
[/quote]
Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]
Ah, I just noticed that this a cheerleading issue.
It matters what side you are on.
Well, I am on the rule of law side, especially when it comes to governments killing people.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jewbacca something you need to know about Orion is he has been on this ridiculous rant for years. Whenever there is a bad actor who has a run in with someone who isn’t going to bullshit around and play games he goes off on these moralistic rants.
What you will find with Orion is his indignation is highly conditional. For example it does not bother him that Hamas has been indiscriminately hurling missiles into Israel for years. Nor does it bother Orion that Hamas has engaged in pogroms against Palestinian Christians in Gaza. The Israelis have good reason to be concerned about what is being given to Hamas.
This is what Hamas did with a group of Fatah members after Hamas seized control of Gaza.
Hamas are ruthless killers. Yet there are idiots like Orion who will insist the Israelis should play games with them. It was known beforehand that those ships intended to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza. So the Israelis did what they had to do to protect their best interests. [/quote]
Thank you very much. I assumed Orion was an idiot, but you never know.
A lot of people get their news from the BBC or the alphabet networks, so they lack the basic knowledge, and when informed of basic facts (e.g., “arab East Jerusalem” was a mixed Jewish/moslem/Christian neighborhood for over a 1000 years until Jordan came in and killed or expelled the Jews and Christians in 1948) they change sides or stop moral relavism.
The lawfare folks who quote the UN (which is an absurd joke) or gin-up a lather about perceived legal violations (we had a Turkish flag on our blockade runner!) and ignore things like lobbing missles at school children are transparent evil people, and I can’t be bothered.
[quote]orion wrote:
Oh, and here is Craig Murray, who is a former British Ambassador and also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:
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.
So if someone who is an expert in maritime law actually agrees with my position, I guess my embarassement is bearable.
[/quote]
Sure, if you can live with–like him–switching off your brain in order to take an anti-Israeli posistion. Armed conflict, blockade legitimate, an announced blockade runner was stopped, they resisted visit and search.[/quote]
tsk, tsk , tsk, this is not a matter of common sense, but a legal issue.
Had they waited until they had reached Israelian territory they could have searched the ship.
However, they did not wait and did it in international waters wich some poster, who is awfully quiet now, thought justified because of “acts of war”.
This is obvious nonsense because the only entity actually able to commit an act of war in all of this is Israel and they promptly did.
I find it funny that that gets you all flustered, including allusions to my alleged deep seated hatred of Israel, and, dare I say it, Jews, but even though I do recognize that Americans are not well versed in legal thinking because their governments do no longer bother to stay within the realm of laws anyqay there are still some areas in this world were words have meanings, especially in a legal context and when it comes to justifications for killing people.
[/quote]
Actually, as I quoted, naval actions CAN take place on the high seas (international waters).
And they were attempting to breach a blockade. In fact, it was their announced purpose. And Israel has been in armed conflict with with the PA/Hamas.
"67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;"
I got a joke for you. How do you kill jews, seek to destroy a nation, recieve and use military equipment (launchers, etc.), explicitly state geo-political goals, and still not participate in armed conflict and acts of war? Well, for a Rockwellian, apparently you just don’t sew on a patch. It’s a lot like a bugs bunny cartoon; patch on-armed conflit, patch off-no armed conflict, patch on-armed conflict, and continue on with the gag until eternity. Of course, anyone with a brain also understands palestinian political leadership has aided and abetted both badged and patchless combatants (or is it non-combatants, in a non-conflict, if they aren’t wearing a patch?).
Allusions to your deep seated hatred of jews? No, no, let me state it explicitly. You, like any of your type, are most certainly anti-jewish. Your comfortable little Austrian butt, in your already settled and peaceful borders, with your armed conflicts behind you, expects a majority and characteristically Jewish state to tolerate what no western state would ever, ever, allow to continue. Best case scenario, you’re a clueless and spoiled European, parroting what you see on Antiwar and Lewrockwell.com. “Well, if they trade with Hamas, the PA, and the Muslim brotherhood, some cheap Chinese made t-shirts, they’ll remove the destruction of Israel from their charters. Hyuck. That’s the power of the Savior-come-to-Earth, the Free Market. Hyuck.”
Somebody really should make an animated cartoon skit. You could have Palestinian leadership asking for donations from muslim states for “charity”, and discussing among themselves how their ‘special charities’ need more money, in an obvious wink/wink tone. Cut to a scene, set two weeks later, of new and improved launchers firing rockets off into Israeli towns. When the Israelis show up, they come under fire. When they go to return fire, they see no military patches.
So, dejected, they retreat under fire. Then some low ranking soldier looking back notices that the now laughing ‘non-combatants’ have applied velcroed patches to their arms, and have returned to firing off rockets. The Israelis advance again, but just before coming into range the combatants strip off their patches, becoming non-combatants who are whistling in a comedic ‘who me? I’m not doing anything!’ manner. The Israelis retreat again. This repeats a few times until the scene fades to the old Warner Bros theme and end screen. Tha-Tha-Tha-That’s all folks!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m just getting very impatient with people whose ideological unrealities are actually prolonging this conflict, therefore, the killing. [/quote]
Like the Israeli settlers building illegal settlements in Palestinian territories?