Printable View
Tenni is no moron and you have deliberately flamed him in this post. Tenni is an extremely intelligent man and makes many fine comments. You may find posts without merit, but this post quoted here, has no merit at all. None whatsoever. It's just insulting.Quote:
Originally Posted by boca.openminded
Unbelievable! No, unfortunately this comment is totally believeableQuote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
Of course is. It's pretty much text book Political Science 101.
Pasa
Again, Pasa, you misunderstand. I meant your comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
I don't misunderstand. I understand you just fine. My only question is, do you have a point? Or are you reduced to one liners and useless commentary with no content?
Pasa
Another video surfaced yesterday it seems. Showing an Israeli soldier shooting an activist while one his knees and killing him... I wonder how they will explain this as self defence.
Probably killed in cross fire form activists shooting at the soldiers.
No Pasa, you do misunderstand me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
One line can sometimes mean far more than a book of words.
You will not agree with those of us, who criticise Israel. You never will. And I think that you would probably disagree, on principle.
I don't put my country and it's government's policies and actions, before my own beliefs, principles and convictions. However, I do believe that some people, decide what to believe, because of the foreign policy, of their country's government.
Critics of the state of Israel, seem to see things, that pro Israel people refuse to acknowledge. It's not a matter of race, or religion. It's about a country's arrogance and attitude and ever growing arrogance and attitude, despite some of it's own citizens being critical.
It's not about a holy land, holy for one people. It's about the land belonging to all and how a people were cruelly exiled from their homelands and an artificially created land allowed to grow and prosper, whilst another group had to live in refugee camps.
Israel exists and is not going to go away. The surrounding countries need to recognise this, but Israel needs to understand, that it is not a chosen nation, but just one of many countries upon this planet and it needs to stop stealing land, take down a wall, built across the land and come to some agreement with the other countries, including Gaza. Remember, Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim.
Unfortunately, any agreements, treaties and peace, are not going to come for a long, long time and most definitely not, if Israel continues it's blockade of Gaza and other types of behaviour. The same goes for Gaza. Things need to change, but there ain't gonna be any messiah coming down from the skies, to put things right, it has to be done by all the different countries, of this world.
The blockade is wrong and anti-humanitarian and the boarding of the aid vessels, and what subsequently happened, was piracy and an act of war. It WAS wrong.
but what led up to the shooting......????Quote:
Originally Posted by hardnbubbly
its easy to view a video and say, omg the israeli soldier killed a person on their knees......
but I am the type of person that wants to know why the shot was fired......
you need to remember that protestors threw a commando over the side of the ship to a lower deck...... witnessing that is enuf to trigger a revenge style reaction in a soldier.... as the soldier would have seen a act of attempted murder.......
now I am not defending israel or the soldiers actions but giving a insight as to what can be going thru a soldiers mind.....
its the same pattern of thinking that would go thru a mans mind if he sees his child killed or somebody act in a deliberate manner to end his child life.....
that aside..... shooting a person on their knees, that is unarmed and subdued.... is nothing short of a execution, regardless of the reasoning......
the protester sounds to have been disarmed and subdued, offering no resistance and a non threatening noncom, they are covered under the geneva convention.... if the soldier was in my platoon, the soldier would have ended up in a body bag.... cos I would have shot them myself
And none of that had anything to do with what I was saying, at all. You butted into a conversation Tenni and I were having, rolled your eyes, and when I called you on it, went off on a tangent. Are you able to focus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
Pasa
bullshit..... show me in the international maritime statues that it was a act of piracy and war...... and yes I have posted the link to the statues in this thread.... I will even repost it for youQuote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
international humanitarian law
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
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
the mavi marmara was flying the flag of turkey.... a neutral country
On 31 May 2010, while en route to Gaza, commandos from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) boarded the MV Mavi Marmara in international waters after communicating warnings that a naval blockade of the Gaza area was in force. In the violent clash that followed, nine activists were killed and several dozen activists and ten IDF soldiers were injured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Laudable LDD - the soldier gives an example of breakdown in discipline.
A misplaced and botched military operation whatever the arguments. (#398 above noted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
hardnbubbly
Thanks for the information in your post #394. If I understand you the victim was on his knees when shot by an Israeli soldier. What was the source where you learned about this video?
In post #326, Heph points out the following as the position of the US government.
"0100hrs BST Announced by the USA:
a) that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is untenable
b) a 400million dollar aid package is being arranged for Gaza
c) the Israelis should succumb to an international enquiry under the UN"
To Pasa and those who support the Israeli soldiers murdering of these activists
Since you all seem to be from the USA, your government is telling you that it disagrees with you. I don't think that there has been significant discussion on this. When combined with the video showing an Israeli soldier killing an activist on his knees, those who continue to defend Israel in this situation, should be rethinking their position. Instead they make accusations about other posters intelligence or other such distractive attempts. I am wondering if we will read words to the sort that the US government is wrong and Obama attacks, etc.?
If Israel refuses to permit the UN to investigate this situation and turn over all video footage,this will not ease the tensions in the middle east. All comments about Israel needing to defend itself with force and this blockade, increases the need for the UN and the US to act. As a key financial supporter, the US should cut off financial aid to Israel but I doubt that will happen. If it doesn't, it demonstates the problem.
The question is what should the world do as a reaction to Israel's actions? Should there be consequences against Israel. Will the US send war ships to protect the promised four hundred dollar aid package for Gazans? Will Israel back down? I doubt that it would stop a US cargo ship with aid for Gaza. I'm sure that it is practising its dance steps on this one.
Signed
The moron :)
Canticle
Thanks for your kind words in post #389
This is the only point I'm going to make, ya it is given back but you don't have to take East Germany for example how long did they have to go before they got their land back. And that's all I'm going to say. Oh and I do think that a creation of a state for the Jews was in need after all WWII was not the first time the Jews were hunted down and murdered in Europe. Look at all the crusades Germany has always had it out for the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
Hmmmmmm.....and there was I, thinking that this was an open forum.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
I often go off on a tangent.......Charlotte Bronte used to do the same thing.......but I don't think that I did.
Guess what, Pasa, I am well able to focus.......so much so, that I am usually very efficient and able to do certain things, extremely well. Focus is needed...and discipline, in many areas of life. I know a few people, who are most undisciplined. I am not one of them.
In terms of international law, Gaza is not a country therefore has no Territorial waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephaestion
Gaza Shares a big border with Egypt. It would have been very easy to go through Egypt. But of course, it would not have been as sensational as Israel commandos boarding a peaceful ship. remember the ship that carried This whole affair is a ploy.
The funny thing about all of this is that nothing was said about North Korea that sank a south Korean ship last march 26. more than 40 sailors died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042503113.html
Why did Israel board the ship? because it has no choice. Many ships have been caught in the past carrying arms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125732536158927651.html
Why can't we all just get along!
DM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Not bullshit and I stand by my opinion. I didn't see that link, before this post. Sorry about that, You missed quite a bit out. I think, from what I read, on the link, that far more than this small piece you have copied and pasted, does apply, to what went on in international waters.
Perhaps all posting here, should re-read the bits about what happens at sea. Each single section. We know what happened. Telling, isn't it, that 9 humanitarian people, lost their lives, many injured. No Israeli forces killed, only injured, in an operation, which took place at night, upon the high seas, in international waters. Hardly a friendly, board and search, party, if helicopers land troops upon ships in the dead of night, whilst surrounding those ships, with other, seafaring vehicles, which are also armed to the teeth.
You missed out quite a bit, with your cut and paste. I'll just cut and paste the titles of the various sections.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
Full text [Display Introduction] [Display articles]
PART I : GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW
SECTION II : ARMED CONFLICTS AND THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE
SECTION III : ARMED CONFLICTS IN WHICH THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS TAKEN ACTION
SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE
SECTION V : DEFINITIONS
PART II : REGIONS OF OPERATIONS
SECTION I : INTERNAL WATERS, TERRITORIAL SEA AND ACHIPELAGIC WATERS
SECTION II : INTERNATIONAL STRAITS AND ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
General rules
SECTION III : EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF
SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION
PART III : BASIC RULES AND TARGET DISCRIMINATION
SECTION I : BASIC RULES
SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK
SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
SECTION IV : OTHER ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
SECTION VI : PRECAUTIONS REGARDING CIVIL AIRCRAFT
PART IV : METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA
SECTION I : MEANS OF WARFARE
SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
SECTION III : DECEPTION, RUSES OF WAR AND PERFIDY
PART V : MEASURES SHORT OF ATTACK: INTERCEPTION, VISIT, SEARCH, DIVERSION AND CAPTURE
SECTION I :DETERMINATION OF ENEMY CHARACTER OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS
SECTION III : INTERCEPTION, VISIT AND SEARCH OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT
SECTION IV : CAPTURE OF ENEMY VESSELS AND GOODS
SECTION V : CAPTURE OF ENEMY CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND GOODS
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
SECTION VII : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND GOODS
PART VI : PROTECTED PERSONS, MEDICAL TRANSPORTS AND MEDICAL
AIRCRAFT
GENERAL RULES
SECTION I : PROTECTED PERSONS
SECTION II : MEDICAL TRANSPORTS
SECTION III : MEDICAL AIRCRAFT
You cut and pasted one small piece of that document. I have read it and there seem to be many sub-sections, which could be applied to the delivering of humanitarian aid and to the interception of ships upon the high seas, in international waters. Each part, section and sub-section of the document needs to be read. This area is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.
Plus, the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Is it just a sea blockade? Or is this an air and land blockade, also? If so, and if countries and organisations, decide to fly in aid and refuse to land, if ordered to by the Israelis, with Isaraei airforce fighter planes, shoot the such planes, out of the sky.
If Egypt decides to fully open it's border with Gaza, allow ships and planes to land aid in Egypt, so that it can be taken across the border by land, will the Israeli Government, see this as breaking their blockade of Gaza and therefore decide to invade Egypt. After all, they haven't thought it was wrong to invade Lebanon and purely for the sake of Israel....not the Lebanese.
I still say it was piracy and an act of war.
I'm sorry rayjamesus, but I do not see the significance of the link, which you posted. However as that link is on your profile, I assume there must be a valid reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by rayjamesus
I think that most people understand how germany was separated, after WWII and how whole families were unable to see their relatives, for many, many years. All sides wanted a piece of the cake and I think that there was also a fear, that a united Germany, could once again become very powerful and pose a threat to world peace. The Soviet Union wanted its pound of flesh and also to get a boot, not a toe, into the West. As things do, though, it came full circle and the Communist states crumbled. But, heck...that is a whole history book in itself.
Many people died at the hands of the Nazis and over 55 million people died in WWII. I don't think that the holocaust, was a good enough excuse, for artificially creating a state of Isarel and displacing thousands of Palestinians, from their homelands.
That the state of Israel exists and should be recognised, by all states, is without question. What can be questioned and criticised, is how that state behaves. If everyother state on the planet can be criticised and condemned, for the things that go on within those countries and what they do elsewhere, then no exception should be made, where Israel is concerned.
The Jewish race have been persecuted throughout history. Jews have been massacred....at different points in history and in many different countries and they have also been exiled from the countries they settled in. It's never been right, but when we are talking about massacres and exiles, from a few hundred years ago, we tend to look at them in that historical manner, which we cannot, when learning about what happened in Europe, in the 1930s and 40s. Over 60 years ago, it may well be, but it is still a raw wound. Maybe it should always be that way.
I have read about Stalin and watched documentaries about him and his rule of the Soviet Union. It is said that his rule of that collection of states, led to
the killing of far more people, than the Nazis, were guilty of deliberately exterminating.
Unfortunately, it is too easy to bandy numbers about. Millions died in the wars and peace of the 20th century. No doubt, similar things will happen in the 21st century. Indeed, they already are. We've all heard about the deaths at Darfur, how a once wealthy and prosperous Zimbabwe, has been brought to its knees by the ruling regime and so it goes on.....and on and yet, always.....it is the Middle East which is mentioned.
Liquid gold....oil.....the wealthy, big business, influence in high places....politically. Hmmm...............
Not sure what you are trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DareMe
Territorial water would have been those waters in which by their proximity to land would have given Israel legal right to exercise some kind of customs activity in rather than international waters where it had none.
Put up job? The accepted idea was to give the Palestinians in Gaza humanitarian aid. Nobody forced the Israelis to deploy the wrong strategy.
As for aid to Gaza going in via Egypt that is exactly what has now happened as a result. If it was a put up job then it was a masterstroke to simultaneously: open borders; ensnare the Israelis masterminds into world wide condemnation; embarrass them as incompetent and ill disciplined; damage the relationship with their main allies. The Israelis did themselves great disservice.
-----
Yes, there were 40 South Korean navy sailors killed in an attack by the North Koreans who are still at war with the South Koreans. So despite the apparent 'cease-fire', the attack was part of an on-going war which by some may be seen as a 'Fair game' move in a squabble over territorial waters. The majority probably see such events as a tragic waste of life. Was the South Korean ship being intentionally provocative? One side will say yes the other side will say no. Why doesn't somebody start a thread on this?
.
I asked you to show me where under the international humanitarian law.....that it was a act of piracy and war...... not a wall of text that means nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
the part I copied and pasted, showed under the law, where the activists breached the law protecting them.....
btw the local airport is closed for minor repairs
local airport
Hmmmmm!!! Pretty obvious why the airport is closed and totalled!!! Could it be that Isarael, had a hand in that???
any investigation by the un, will find what we already know......Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
the activists failed to stop, they were boarded, people died.....
regardless of who investigates, the facts speak for themselves.....
as for the us government disagreeing with people.... its a bit like the us ignoring international opposition to the war on iraq....... they will do as they see fit, not what the majority of the world feels is the right move to make....
hell in nz, there is a wall of silence from our government and thats nothing unusual, nz has less balls than a eunuch when it comes to speaking up and even then, they are careful not to upset most of nz, rather than be honest....
and regardless of what the un or any government says..... I stand by the simple ruling that if the ships has stopped, this shit never would have happened......
others can argue that the blockage is wrong.... and yes thats fair enuf... but in rebuttal to that, what alternative as they suggesting, in regards to stopping the transfer of weapons to people intent on using them on civilians....
instead of saying the blockage is wrong, yadda yadda..... give us your recommendations for stopping the civilian deaths...... without suggesting that people be uprooted and moved from one place to another, as most countries would not allow or condone that anyway
if you read the link, you would see that yes the IDF did it in 2001..... sighs....Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
thats why I posted the bloody link.... cos it states that clearly.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
The ships were sailiing under the Israeli's local ally's flag. That should have been sufficient reassurance for the Israelis that nothing of consequence was being carried. Turkey is the kind of country that would have known what was going on and would have stopped the flotilla had it thought that things would have degenerated as they did.
Why did matters degenerate? We have debated this at length: A military response in international waters rather than one of Customs declaration in local waters; Witnesses say firing from the outset; loss of discipline at crucial moments etc.
Turkey's official reaction post event was not critical of the flotilla but one of anger at the Israelis. No doubt that telephone lines betweeen Ankara and Washington glowed since, as Turkey appears to have calmed down and with the USA stepping in as a replacement guaranteur - temporarily?.
Lastly, as far as can be assertained, nothing was found. Surely this suggests that humanitarian aid via Turkey is the simplest viable answer for relief. The recomencement would do two things. One, is that it would provide what is necessary - humaintarian relief. Two, it would set Israel and Turkey back to being mutually appreciative; the Israelis would trust the supplies with routine customs overview and the Turks would have made a point that they are to be trusted. The alternative would be to lose Turkey to an even more islamic stance.
.
.
nods yeah.... the part that concerns me is that the protestors that attacked the soldiers, boarded at a different port of call, so I would contend that the ships were loaded at a official port of call, but that the extra boarding of people was not as a official capacity....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephaestion
I tend to have the view that turkey played no part in this beyond the aid.... they were actively assisting in a strictly humanitarian role .....
turkish protestors were killed, but that doesn't, in my mind, lay blame on turkey.... as people do not always represent their countries with actions and words....
I see that you and myself think similarly.... a official and neutral loading area with inspectors from a neutral country.... no other port of call after that..... the ships sail to ashdod port, are unloaded and transported ( tho I doubt hamas would allow that, based around their statements that they will not accept any aid that the israelis has had anything to do with) or allowed to sail thru the blockade and unload where hamas will accept the aid......
after reading in a report from nov last year, about a shipment of weapons interceded by israel... I can understand why israel is so hot under the collar.....
Doesn't matter how long ago the airport was totalled. If it's not usable and because of Israeli attack and the ruling forces in Gaza don't have the dosh to rebuild it, there's gonna be nowhere to land large planes. If the ruling forces, in Gaza, also know, that if they did rebuild, that upon completion, Israel would most likely, destroy the airport again.....there is little point in them doing so. So....apparently.....they are not supposed to have aid brought in by air or sea. I hope that as much aid, as is at all possible, will get through to Gaza, via Egypt, I truly do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Coming back to this....
''I asked you to show me where under the international humanitarian law.....that it was a act of piracy and war...... not a wall of text that means nothing
the part I copied and pasted, showed under the law, where the activists breached the law protecting them.....
btw the local airport is closed for minor repairs''
I stated why I was posting the titles of the parts and of the different sections, of those parts, of that document. You quoted one small piece. Upon reading the document, it appeared to me, that many more sections and sub-sections of said document, apply to what happened upon May 31st. In such a matter, it should not be a case, of pick and choose what is and isn't relavent, to a situation. Like I said, things are not black and white. There are many shades of grey.
RE: post 413
Actully, aid through Egypt " a Neutral Avenue "is the best approach, afterall iad has used this "way" for a long time, without incident they seem to find any questionable "goods" and let true aid flow through. Thank You "Balfour" 1916.:(
I think that in many ways, I agree with you Marie. If all the aid bound for Gaza, could get there, without the fear of Israel, intervening, in the way it did on May 31st....three cheers! However, This does not get rid of the blockade and Gaza, being kept from having freedom, of it's own waters and receiving visits from ships. I think that Israel would find an excuse for detroying anything that might be innocent and not anti-Israel. The bombing of an airport...no matter how long ago....is one example. Seems like they don't want anyone getting in or out of Gaza.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariersa
in simple english, you can not share any laws that prove a act of piracy and war......Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
its just a personal perception.......
I used a set of laws that were created to cover the situation that happened, that PROTECTED the ships..... the actions of people on board the ship, changed the nature of the ship and breached the law that protected it....
that is why I never focused on the laws pertained to aircraft etc.... cos the protestors were in ships, not planes......
as for the bombing of the airport...... etc.... read around..... all israel is trying to do is stop the importing of weapons that are being used to kill people......
hama is intent on killing people, they have clearly stated that......
I find it interesting that there is a big outcry over the protestors getting killed, yet silence over the use of weapons to kill civilians......
that tells me more about each countries stance of the whole picture, rather than just the deaths of nine protestors
An international law to specifically cover one incident, or, at least, very similar incidents? I do not see how that is at all possible, when there are so many grey areas. It's not a cut and dried situation.
Great feeling of power...the ability to have a country rich enough, that although it is only small, can afford the necessary arms, to obliterate an airport, therefore denying access to Gaza by air and then have the capability to blockade sea routes.
No body wants the innocent to die......Jewish, Muslim, Christian.....Arab or Israeli. Any terrorism is wrong, but so are the retaliations, because they just cause another response.....and so it goes on.
A land called the Lebanon was rebuilding itself, rebuilding Beruit, when the Israelis decided to bomb it to bits and took no notice of world condemnation. They never do.
I copied and pasted all the titles of parts and sections....those covering planes as well, because the document you put a link to, includes them and because I was going to make a reference to what kind of a blockade was this. Sea, alone, or Sea, land and air. I would have thought that this was quite obvious.
The event on may 31st cannot be covered by only a few lines, from one document. There is a bigger issue there.
I perceive that it was piracy and an act of war. I don't need simple English used. I speak the Queen's English, quite well, thank you very much.