Zionist piracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
My God, they are firing at humanitarian aid ships. That is sad, all those poor people on board. What medical help is available to them?
Oh come off it Sam. You know I have no sympathy for Israel, but this was nothing but a publicity stunt. A bunch of fools challenging one of the world's most unforgiving military forces? The people who won't negotiate with terrorists even to save the lives of their own people?

The activists expected to take casualties and win the sympathy of the media. I'm sure everyone who signed up to board one of those boats was told clearly in advance that they were risking their lives for their cause. There was absolutely no way the Israelis were going to allow those boats to dock, and everyone on both sides knew it. This was all staged for the publicity.
 
actually the law doesn't always work that way. when it becomes part of the general law and is applied widespread even a nation not a signatory to it is bound by it.

OT: even Iran and nuclear energy?

:D

Anyway: is there any evidence of this perspective? How are such conflicts actually resolved? I know how Iraq came out.
 
Are you for real? You know that the singers were Jewish? How do you know this? No, really: how do you know? Crystal ball? Did you even look at the link I posted? Will you go back and look at it now, or continue to feign ignorance of it? I'm right on my tippy-toes with the not knowing.

Wait a minute. Israeli commandoes storm aid ships carrying peace activists, and you're obsessed with anti-Jewish songs?

Songs that were apparently (according to you) sung as the Israeli commandoes threatened the flotilla and started jamming their communications..

You think that those songs were sung is more important than Israel's actions?

Ah, you begin to grasp.
So if I am on a ship that is about to be stormed by Somali pirates and I start singing anti-Somali songs, it would justify being shot at?

What is more important Geoff? Songs being sung? Or up to 19 people dead and dozens of peace activists injured, some critically after their aid ships were stormed by armed men who came in shooting?

Let me put it this way Geoff.. The whole building is on fire and you're concerned that the candles are burning unattended in a burning room.

A sensible one? Councillor, are you familiar with the term premeditation?
Whose? The Israeli army as they started harassing the ships and jamming their communication, which is in and of itself, a violent act against ships they knew to be carrying aid and peace activists?

Again, you're telling me that a few songs justifies shooting up to 19 people dead and injuring dozens? You're telling me that a few songs justifies storming a ship full of peace activists and journalists, many of whom were women and children and opening fire?

And the vid links I posted just didn't register at all? You thought the Israeli commandos were rapelling into a garden party? You are unfamiliar with the term "mob"?
They were attacking the ship Geoff. Those passengers were acting lawfully in self defense. You forget that the Israeli commandoes were harassing and threatening them prior to that, stopping them from communicating with the outside world, which is aggressive in and of itself. Those passengers were doing what they had to do to defend themselves against armed aggressors who came in shooting after threatening and aggressively harrassing them. Or did that part escape you somewhat?

Interesting. Did you see guns blazing on the second link I posted? I didn't. (It's below.) It's night vision, I think; surely a blazing series of muzzle flashes should show up as a series of blazing muzzle flashes. Could you point out where that was? "A few iron sticks". My god.
My God indeed. Reporters were able to report, before all communication was lost, that the Israelis were shooting before they came on board. Since then, the world has been prevented from speaking to anyone they have detained, since you know, Israel has prevented outside communication with the journalists and observers who were on those ships. One can only await a full international inquiry into the events and eyewitnesses interviewed.

I'm sorry: did I say this? I think it's reasonable to inspect them, sure: but never you mind what I've said, Bells. Storytelling requires so much more.
Ah, I love your dishonesty. We talk about Israel storming aid ships and shooting peace activists and what do you say? 'But they were singing anti-Jewish songs'..

Wring those hands Geoff.

I think I'd hesitate in trying to yank them off their rappel lines and attack them the moment their boots hit the deck. Maybe that's not such a good idea, I'd probably say to myself. Then again, if I'd spend all day prior working myself up into a frothing hate, maybe I wouldn't. Maybe I'd only see red. Maybe I'd want to "martyr" myself, like the woman on the first vid I posted.
You have no proof that they spent the day building themselves into a frothing hatred. Your attempts to exaggerate is noted however, as is your continued attempts to justify this.

I love the stench of your dishonesty in the day.

But there seems to be a tiny discrepancy between the way you describe the fight first - "how could itty bitty malnourished Palestinian children hit people with bars made of soft, gentle iron?" - and how you describe it immediately after - "what would you do, cowardly Geoff, if Israeli hasbara commandos infected with rabies and spraying rotary cannons from each hand descended on your ship and started attacking you for no reason, after you tried to gently reason with them using soft iron bars and breakaway deck chairs"? Like Tiassa sometimes says: genuine is genuine. I've reposted my link so there can be no avoidance of what happened during the rappel in.
Where did I say that it was malnourished Palestinian children hitting the armed forces storming the flotilla ships with iron sticks? Can you point me to where? I never once said such a thing, so prove your claim that I did.

Your intellectual dishonesty does nothing but betray your pathetic attempts to justify this Geoff. Now, provide links that I have said what you have claimed. I detest liars Geoff. And at the moment, you are lying.

Feeble. Unlike anyone you know, I've actually been in dangerous occupations.
You know nothing about me Geoff. Then again, what we can see of you, a man who is desperately justifying the violence used against those passengers, going on and on about songs, who has in the past continuously joked about an attempted rape, for example.. Frankly, any dangerous occupation you may have had mean zip to be honest, because you portray yourself as an unfeeling and lying individual on this forum.

I shouldn't be surprised that this is your reaction to this. Sadly, for you, it is expected.

Normally I don't get into debates with people having a tenuous command of English. But you also don't understand context and premeditation. Which is kind of sad for a lawyer, I guess.
Ah, here we go.

Again, expected. What a sad little man you are.

Why don't you go on about the songs some more. You know, keep trying to justify this while denying you're not trying to justify this.

Aid ships, carrying aid and peace activists are boarded by armed commandoes who open fire and kill up to at least 19 people and injure dozens. Apparently singing some songs and trying to defend one's self with some iron sticks and plastic chairs against men carrying and shooting guns is a bad thing.. Your argument is laughable as it is pathetic.
 
Mmmm, yes and no, nirakar. The siege on Gaza is deplorable, but in this specific incident, it seems that the Israelis were indeed attacked by the mob.

After they stormed those ships.

Stop carrying on as if they came in with flowers and chocolates and were attacked. You're going on and on about how Israelis were attacked and "gasp" they sung songs about Jews.. Those Israeli soldiers attacked first when they stormed those ships with guns. What part of that don't you quite get?
 
Are you aware of what the 'Exclusive Economic Zone' entails under International Law? Or more to the point, what rights Israel has under the "Zone"? I'll give you a hint, it applies to exploration and natural resources, such as fishing and oil and gas exploration and research. Now unless those ships were illegally fishing, which we all know, they were not, Israel's actions were in fact illegal. Those ships in the flotilla posed no threats to Israel's rights in the EEZ. I would strongly suggest that you read Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is quite enlightening in regards to what rights Israel, as a State, has in enforcing an embargo and controlling the seas in the EEZ.

I will try to summarize; Israel ratified continental shelf convention (already includes EEZ area) and this even covers submarine cables and pipelines. Sovereign country can exercise power to protect this area. I mean, they can find a way to justify military existence, it is very difficult to question the presence of it.

But don't concentrate on this. There are other conditions, rules in International Law that Israel can use if it likes: Israel gave clear message not to disturb the situation and it already extended its area of exercising power beyond its territorial waters. It might sound bit weird but in International law, if there is no opposing force, a state can give this right to itself and which is still legal. Because there is only one objection to one state in international arena, which is another states. Since Turkey has no natural rights on the subject waters, and since this area is already within the continental shelf of the Israel, there is no opposition.

That means, Israel can use the "national security" card up to 350 miles (not practically, because this extension would disturb Cyprus which is also ratified continental shelf convention. But the incident has nothing to do with Cyprus and Israel can exercise this power if it means Israel accept the approaching vessel as a clear danger to its law, security or economic benefit.

Legality or illegality issue only becomes a subject to discussion if Israel didn't warn this ship beforehand "when the area is beyond its territorial and the continuous part of territorial water (what is this beyond; simply EEZ and Continental shelf)". I know that Israel followed this path and warned the vessel so any resistance will give rights to intervention without causing any breach of International Sea Law.

Think about this situation: What if Israel -or any other country- catches a ship, boat, plane within the territorial sea and/or air zone? In this case, this country can hit this vessel without any warning, and it is still "legal".
 
I will try to summarize; Israel ratified continental shelf convention (already includes EEZ area) and this even covers submarine cables and pipelines. Sovereign country can exercise power to protect this area. I mean, they can find a way to justify military existence, it is very difficult to question the presence of it.

But don't concentrate on this. There are other conditions, rules in International Law that Israel can use if it likes: Israel gave clear message not to disturb the situation and it already extended its area of exercising power beyond its territorial waters. It might sound bit weird but in International law, if there is no opposing force, a state can give this right to itself and which is still legal. Because there is only one objection to one state in international arena, which is another states. Since Turkey has no natural rights on the subject waters, and since this area is already within the continental shelf of the Israel, there is no opposition.

That means, Israel can use the "national security" card up to 350 miles (not practically, because this extension would disturb Cyprus which is also ratified continental shelf convention. But the incident has nothing to do with Cyprus and Israel can exercise this power if it means Israel accept the approaching vessel as a clear danger to its law, security or economic benefit.

Legality or illegality issue only becomes a subject to discussion if Israel didn't warn this ship beforehand "when the area is beyond its territorial and the continuous part of territorial water (what is this beyond; simply EEZ and Continental shelf)". I know that Israel followed this path and warned the vessel so any resistance will give rights to intervention without causing any breach of International Sea Law.

Think about this situation: What if Israel -or any other country- catches a ship, boat, plane within the territorial sea and/or air zone? In this case, this country can hit this vessel without any warning, and it is still "legal".

where the hell do you get the random ass 350 miles mark. asking because I know for a fact its bullshit.


and it wasn't in any area which they could have acted legally.
 
Hmm. Calm down and elucidate your arguments. You are bordering on the abstract. I am not psychic. :m:

You unnecessarily politicized my technical answers, so you are responsible from this, don't complain.
 
Wait a minute. Israeli commandoes storm aid ships carrying peace activists, and you're obsessed with anti-Jewish songs?...You think that those songs were sung is more important than Israel's actions?

So that's a "no" to your understanding premeditation. Do you also have the timeline of radio jamming wrong? I suspect so.

So if I am on a ship that is about to be stormed by Somali pirates and I start singing anti-Somali songs, it would justify being shot at?

Miscomprehension.

Whose? The Israeli army as they started harassing the ships and jamming their communication, which is in and of itself, a violent act against ships they knew to be carrying aid and peace activists?

I'm going to channel your discussion so far so you can see how it looks: Let me get this straight - a gang of "peace activists" is preparing stun grenades, iron-ish bars and molotov cocktails to attack boarders in international waters (the flag-bearing country having not signed the Convention of the Sea, BTW) and you're worried about communications?

They were attacking the ship Geoff. Those passengers were acting lawfully in self defense.

Interesting. Under which maritime law, councillor?

My God indeed. Reporters were able to report, before all communication was lost, that the Israelis were shooting before they came on board.

Link, please. Thanks.

You have no proof that they spent the day building themselves into a frothing hatred. Your attempts to exaggerate is noted however, as is your continued attempts to justify this.

Dear me - I only have al Jazeera itself to rely on. What a horrible misinformer am I!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Where did I say that it was malnourished Palestinian children hitting the armed forces storming the flotilla ships with iron sticks? Can you point me to where? I never once said such a thing, so prove your claim that I did.

:bugeye: You really didn't understand that was comic semi-hyperbole?

Really?

Why don't you go on about the songs some more. You know, keep trying to justify this while denying you're not trying to justify this.

Bells - and I've had to make this point before - I'm sorry you don't understand what this is about. I've tried to make the point to you, but you either i) are too ignorant to get it or ii) are lying - or at least being disingenuous. You tell me you "hate liars", so I must assume the latter. Thus, I'll explain it again: I, supported by al Jazeera's report, believe that a number of the passengers engaged in a popular anti-Jewish chanting session the day prior, which inflamed their own tensions, and which largely led to the fighting, and possibly thereby to the violence. Since there's a news blackout, I can't say for sure, but it seems the most likely development. There! it is explained. No thanks necessary.

Aid ships, carrying aid and peace activists are boarded by armed commandoes who open fire and kill up to at least 19 people and injure dozens. Apparently singing some songs and trying to defend one's self with some iron sticks

"Iron sticks" and plastic chairs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI

Well, what's the worry, then, Bells? The Israelis were only protecting themselves with "iron sticks" too. :shrug:

Seriously, councillor, grow some perspective or some honesty.
 
Stop carrying on as if they came in with flowers and chocolates and were attacked.

So you saw them attack as they repelled in? Which part of the vid is that on? I must have missed it.

You're going on and on about how Israelis were attacked and "gasp" they sung songs about Jews...What part of that don't you quite get?

The part where you claim to understand the timeline.

I can't spell piss off.




contiguous zone

I thank you.
 
There are well established procedures for inspecting a ship that may be carrying drugs or weapons, that if followed would have avoided this loss of life. Those procedures begin by asking the captain for permission to board and inspect. The US Coast guard and many other national naval forces do this every day. If permission is denied then greater force can be used.

Israeli IDF ignored this. Started with commando raid at night. What did they expect?

Actually, I don't think they did. Bells mentioned cutting communications, for starters. Also, Israeli footage indicates that they asked the flotilla to dock at Ashdod.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4&feature=related

Edit: didn't I get into it with Sam about Ashdod previously? I'm sure I remember that. Not about this case, but an earlier one.
 
No need to thank me it is the duty of the educated and intelligent to pass along knowledge to the not intelligent and ignorant.

Yes: this is my usual line.

I have to laugh sometimes at how things go when I extend an olive branch. :D
 
where the hell do you get the random ass 350 miles mark. asking because I know for a fact its bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf (read the bottom bit "Economic significance") This 350 miles does not cover Israel for sure, but for the topic of "Continental Shelf" some countries may exercise if there is no objection from other country -if the subject area is not shared- and if the sea bed allows it (you see, it's continental "shelf"; if continent finishes and open see starts it becomes meaningless).

and it wasn't in any area which they could have acted legally.

Yes maybe, but there is a trick of law in general, and international law in particular: "There is no legal base" does not necessarily mean that there is an illegal action. And there is another issue: In international law, only one state can demand jurisdiction of another state. Individuals, or non-state organisations are not/can not be parties of International Law. This ship was not registered to Turkey, Turkey already calculated this before hand and found a state called "Union of the Comoros" as owner of this ship; clearly didn't want to pursue a legal fight if anything goes wrong.

Who is going to pursue this justice now? Comoros? Don't think so. Other states can not open any case against Israel as they were not subject or affected parties from this incident (Unless one country claims that this incident caused/resulted such and such damage to its economy/relation/peace etc.). In any case even this country can not pursue the legal rights of people who died in this incident: Because they were Turkish citizens, this fantasy country can not defend them.

All in all, Turkey sent its own citizens to a clear death, and no one will compensate their rights. Sad, but true.
 
the people in gaza are not Israeli citizens

Israel does not accept them as citizens.Most Israelis don't want them as citizens. The Palestinian Authority pretends to be like a sovereign government and would claim them as citizens. I don't think the Palestinians want to be Israeli citizens.

But only one nation Israel exists. People born in Israel are Israeli citizens as far as I am concerned and I don't care what judges say or what the people want; I only care what the reality is. The Israeli government is in charge of Palestine and therefore anybody born their and living their is an Israeli citizen regardless of whether they want to be a citizen or whether the government wants them as citizens.

Granted my definition of citizen is different and more inclusive than other definitions of citizens. To not grant citizenship to people born in your nation should be illegal. There are neo-nazi white supremacists in Idaho who might like to not be citizens of the USA but the USA is the nation that rules them therefore as far as I am concerned they are US citizens whether they want to be or not and for the same reason Palestinians in Gaza are Israeli citizens whether they or anybody else wants them to be or not.

Israel's interception of the aid ships shows that Israel is in fact the government of Palestine.

Occupied territories are are part of the occupying nation. Nations should not take land by force but they have. It is 40 + years now that Israel has controlled Gaza. This is not temporary like the US occupation of Japan.

I think that if we call Palestinians Israeli citizens it makes the situation more clear and less easy pretend that the situation is something other than what it is. If a two state solution happens then Palestinians would no longer be rightless Israeli citizens. There will not be a two state solution in my lifetime. Why let Israel pretend that it gives equal rights to all of it's people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top