On June 01 2010 08:03 cursor wrote: I love how weapons and support of Palestine is Terrorist sympathy and Contra ban... Yet F-16's and guns and bombs shipped to Israel are... what? Just fine.
Compound that by the fact that the one getting all the weapons legitimately is the one who invaded the other and is occupying and settling?
Iran helps Palestine = Terrorists US helps Isreal = ? Guess who is killing civilians in FAR greater numbers. Not to mention the humanitarian Crisis.
Actually i believe Israel uses French made jets not american jets =p
Israeli/Palestinian conflict imo is an Israeli/Arab conflict, let's face it the whole Arab countries surround Israel not liking Israel has been around from when Israel was created.
People just focus on the Palestinian becuase that's is what left over from the messy political crap of the 6 day war.
People focus on the Palestinians but in reality until the whole area changes it's mentality both Israeli and Arab shit isn't going to happen, and frankly i don't see it happening for another 30-50 years when the old guard with the memories of what happened pass away.
On June 01 2010 08:05 Klockan3 wrote: Yeah, I mean when they act like this against military personnel of a foreign country how in hell can anyone sympathize with them?
The soldiers are doing something that is illegal (boarding on a ship that is on the international waters), the crew has every right to do whatever the hell they want to do even though it is stupid. The soldiers are the real provocateurs here, not the crew...
And I'm not disputing the fact that Israel broke international waters law or anything. I think the laws of common sense overrides everything else.
If a policeman with a gun pointed at you tells you to lie down on the ground and stop coming forward, then fucking do it do it.
Don't fucking come forward and complain about US laws this or human rights bullshit. The guy has a gun pointed at you, just do what he says and bitch about it later.
On June 01 2010 07:16 Mothxal wrote: I don't understand all the contempt for the aid organization who "provoked the attack by breaking a blockade". First of all, as many have said Israel has no right entering ships in international waters, so technically they didn't provoke anything.
Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality
5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion.
Basically the boarding was legal.
International waters. Boarding illegal, try again.
That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
On June 01 2010 08:03 toadstool wrote: Simple way of looking at it is:
If some military gun ship with trained soldiers with guns tell you to turn around and go somewhere or face the consequences, then fucking do it.
No one has the right to tell you where to go when you are in the international waters.
If I tell you to start mopping and I'm a huge 6.4 guy with big arms and beard you better jump on it or face the consequences.
This posted five freakin posts above you.
Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality
5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion.
Too many posts in this thread were made without thinking for a second.
On June 01 2010 08:05 Klockan3 wrote: Yeah, I mean when they act like this against military personnel of a foreign country how in hell can anyone sympathize with them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
Lets say 3 North Korean troops came, 1 at a time, onto your boat in international waters. You'd serve them tea I'm sure. They had no right.
You should atleast except them =p you're not giving context it's not like there were in the middle of the Atlantic, after broadcasting they were going to land on the Gaza Strip and settling in for the night right out of Israeli waters, don't act like they are totally Innocent they were the clear instigators in this.
On June 01 2010 08:10 Han Solo wrote: That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
You think? This couldn't include international waters because then I can attack any merchant ship that I believe to be dangerous anywhere on the planet.
Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality
5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion.
On June 01 2010 08:05 Klockan3 wrote: Yeah, I mean when they act like this against military personnel of a foreign country how in hell can anyone sympathize with them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
Lets say 3 North Korean troops came, 1 at a time, onto your boat in international waters. You'd serve them tea I'm sure. They had no right.
Actually, if I had declared my intentions to breach North Korean waterspace in a few hours despite being warned not to, I would accept that their boarding would probably make sense.
The FF had firmly broadcasted their intent to flout the blockade and explicitly stated they would not be stopped except forcibly; the Israelis decided to do just that. If they were just passing by of course it would be completely unjustifiable, but like I said, how the fuck does it matter to anybody but nitpicking lawyers that they were boarded the evening before they entered Israeli waters, instead of the morning of?
On June 01 2010 08:03 toadstool wrote: Simple way of looking at it is:
If some military gun ship with trained soldiers with guns tell you to turn around and go somewhere or face the consequences, then fucking do it.
No one has the right to tell you where to go when you are in the international waters.
If I tell you to start mopping and I'm a huge 6.4 guy with big arms and beard you better jump on it or face the consequences.
Too many posts in this thread were made without thinking for a second.
No one has the right to start attacking soldiers on international waters either.
I don't really want to insult you but you don't seem to comprehend with what has happened.
1) Soldiers boarding on a ship illegally. 2) Crew taking action.
Where does it say that, taking defensive action against illegally boarding soldiers is illegal? Don't be so biased. It is the crew trying to fight off the soldiers. It is stones and sticks against machine guns.
On June 01 2010 08:10 Han Solo wrote: That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
You think? This couldn't include international waters because then I can attack any merchant ship that I believe to be dangerous anywhere on the planet.
Thats because you can if you were a sovereign nation. And your actions would be subject to the analysis of the rest of the world to determine if the ship was actually doing anything wrong.
In this case, it's explicitly clear that the ship was bound to break the Blockade. So there isn't any debate about that.
On June 01 2010 08:14 besiger wrote: and the same post was debunked just a few posts below, so drop it.
No, it wasn't debunked. It was shown conflictory to a separate set of laws posited by the U.N. I could write a whole fucking laundry list of stuff that every single world power has that is conflictory with U.N. policy. Off the top of my head, most recently, unmanned drones usage in the war by the U.S.
then unload it at the dock that was suggested by the Israelis.
Heared about some suggestion for transporting all this cargo by land after unloading at Israeli port - sounds unreal or they could recieve it in ~5 years. Plus blockade blocks everything including humanitarian aid.
On June 01 2010 08:10 Han Solo wrote: That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
You think? This couldn't include international waters because then I can attack any merchant ship that I believe to be dangerous anywhere on the planet.
It's specific to military rather obviously.
The trouble is I don't actually know how many countries recognise this as genuine laws for Naval Warfare.
On June 01 2010 08:10 Han Solo wrote: That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
You think? This couldn't include international waters because then I can attack any merchant ship that I believe to be dangerous anywhere on the planet.
Thats because you can if you were a sovereign nation. And your actions would be subject to the analysis of the rest of the world to determine if the ship was actually doing anything wrong.
In this case, it's explicitly clear that the ship was bound to break the Blockade. So there isn't any debate about that.
On June 01 2010 08:14 besiger wrote: and the same post was debunked just a few posts below, so drop it.
No, it wasn't debunked. It was shown conflictory to a separate set of laws posited by the U.N. I could write a whole fucking laundry list of stuff that every single world power has that is conflictory with U.N. policy.
Does the fact that the blockade is not recognized as legal not affect that maritime law ?
On June 01 2010 08:10 Han Solo wrote: That includes international waters I think.
But like Mothxal said, the blockade is illegal in the first place.
You think? This couldn't include international waters because then I can attack any merchant ship that I believe to be dangerous anywhere on the planet.
Thats because you can if you were a sovereign nation. And your actions would be subject to the analysis of the rest of the world to determine if the ship was actually doing anything wrong.
In this case, it's explicitly clear that the ship was bound to break the Blockade. So there isn't any debate about that.
On June 01 2010 08:14 besiger wrote: and the same post was debunked just a few posts below, so drop it.
No, it wasn't debunked. It was shown conflictory to a separate set of laws posited by the U.N. I could write a whole fucking laundry list of stuff that every single world power has that is conflictory with U.N. policy.
Does the fact that the blockade is not recognized as legal not affect that maritime law ?
Does the fact that the blockade is not recognized as legal not affect that maritime law ?
Aspects of the Blockade is illegal. However, the prohibition of illegally shipping munitions is not. Thus, they would be perfectly within jurisdiction to at least search the ship for munitions, which was violently resisted.
Also, I'd like the see the source on the U.N confliction. To my knowledge, the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality references UNCLOS, a U.N. treaty.
On June 01 2010 08:03 toadstool wrote: Simple way of looking at it is:
If some military gun ship with trained soldiers with guns tell you to turn around and go somewhere or face the consequences, then fucking do it.
No one has the right to tell you where to go when you are in the international waters.
If I tell you to start mopping and I'm a huge 6.4 guy with big arms and beard you better jump on it or face the consequences.
Too many posts in this thread were made without thinking for a second.
No one has the right to start attacking soldiers on international waters either.
Roosevelt said, regarding the marine forces in pacific & atlantic ocean: speak softly but carry a big stick. Now if you scream as hell and only have some bottles and sticks to back you up youre pretty much SOL. This is no question of right or wrong but rather if you choose to be aggressive and with what measures. Regarding this i think this could be handled much more intelligent by the Israeli side; the guys on the convoi were just dumb as hell to even try shit like that imho.
EPT
