Zionist piracy

[Billy T]

Of course it's been done in situations where the crew wanted to be saved. Can you think of one situation where what you are suggesting has worked? I bet not, because it's not practical. What if the captain chooses a route that brings it close to underwater hazards? Then a loss of control and power could easily make martyrs of them all. How do they know a storm won't come up? What if they deliberately sail during a storm? What if they spring a leak? What if the crew scuttles the ship? I don't see any way of getting around the fact that to seize a ship, you need to take control of it completely.

You post this in reply to my post 1595, which was entirely to show you don't know what your are talking about when stating that ship is in "mortal danger" if disabled by Israel so they could not dare do that.

Your post is a non sequitur to my refutation of your false claim about "ship in mortal danger", so I will assume this "reply" post is saying that only a willing ship can be taken in tow. That Israel could not take and tow an unwilling one (without even greater loss of life). That too is more nonsense from you.

The pirates off Somali are much less capable than Israel and rarely kill any of the people on board the ships (never nine per ship). They take the ship in tow or under its own power to anchor off the Somali coast. At any given time there are three or four ships anchored off the Somali coast or in natural harbors and coves, waiting for the ransom negotiations to be completed.

 

[Bells]

*Snort*

The Prime Minister's Office announced on Thursday that the security cabinet had agreed to relax Israel's blockade on the Gaza Strip, but as it turns out, no binding decision was ever made during the cabinet meeting.

The Prime Minister's Office issued a press release in English following the meeting, which was also sent to foreign diplomats, was substantially different than the Hebrew announcement – according to the English text, a decision was made to ease the blockade, but in the Hebrew text there was no mention of any such decision.

It is not clear whether this discrepancy was a deliberate attempt to buy time in the face of international pressure, or a clerical omission on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office.

--------------------------------------

Two official statements came out of the Prime Minister's Office in regard to the security cabinet meeting – one in Hebrew for the Israeli media and another in English for the foreign media and foreign diplomats. The English version said that "It was agreed to liberalize the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza [and] expand the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision." The Hebrew version addressed mainly remarks made by Netanyahu, but failed to mention any decision or agreement.

The Hebrew version also failed to mention whether the prime minister's position was formally approved. "Israel will alter the system in order to allow more civilian goods into Gaza," the Hebrew statement read.

In addition to the English statement, word was sent to foreign consulates and embassies indicating that the decision made by the security cabinet will be implemented immediately. However, according to the officials charged with the actual monitoring of the transfer of goods into Gaza, they have not been notified of any change in policy as a result of the cabinet meeting.

--------------------------------------

Sources at the Prime Minister's Office admitted that there was no decision, and no vote, during the security cabinet meeting. One of the sources said that "it was a briefing by the prime minister," and another source said it was a "declaration of intent."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-announces-let-up-to-gaza-siege-but-only-in-english-1.296809

And so it goes.

 

[Billy T]

Israel has many blockades and many race based classes of citizens. Yesterday one was slightly lessened by the administration and another was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. Most blockades are against the free movement of people instead of goods. The "security wall" is the most notorious physical blockade but there are nearly a hundred check points.

At the bottom of the racial discriminations are the Bedouins. They have essentially no rights. Bedouins are not allowed to own, or even live on, the land their ancestors lived on 5000 years ago. Their Ottoman Empire deeds to it are not recognized by Israel. If you are born to Bedouin parents, you must live in one of the concentration camp cities where you are totally dependent upon the government for food and water. If you are an adult and slip out (The concentration camps have no fence – just the armed Green Guards surrounding the camp) on a moonless night and try to grow some crops on the land you were evicted from without any compensation, soon an Israeli crop duster plane will spray your field with herbicide.

A little higher up the social ladder are the Arab citizens of Israel. They have free movement within their restricted enclaves but need permits to pass thru the many check points to an adjoining enclave. More distant movement, for example from Gaza to the West bank is almost never permitted as is entry into the Jewish part of Israel, but menial laborers are given day passes (must leave Jewish Israel at the end of the day).

At the bottom of the Israeli Jewish society are the Sefardias (Jews whose ancestors did not live in Europe) they can freely move in Jewish Israel (with minor restrictions) but their children must attend very inferior schools. This is what the Supreme Court declared yesterday was illegal. Sefardiac Jews now have the right to go to the school of the Ashkenazi Jews (ancestors born in Europe). Forty Ashkenazi families have refused to send their children to school with Sefardic Jews and are currently given by the court 15 days to comply or go to prison. Most are concerned that their daughter would be exposed to Sefardic Jewish girls (Not boys as these religious schools are also segregated by sex). In protest to the court’s ruling, “dozens of thousands” (way my newspaper expressed it) of Ashkenazi Jews marched thru the streets of both Jerusalem and the Bnei Bark district of Tel Aviv.

Given this internal race based discrimination even against an Israeli citizen by birth, one can easily understand the official High Kill Ratio policy of the government against the Palestinians and that like the Bedouin Citizens of Israel (most are now as they were born in the land of Israel), the government wants to keep them totally dependent on it for even the food they eat. Any form of independence is considered dangerous to the state. That is why, even with the changed policy on imports, fishing rods, fish hooks, etc. and cloth* are still on the "not allowed to import" list. Nor are thin walled plastic pipes for irrigation, non-Israeli newspapers, school notebooks, etc. but Chocolate, cement, construction wood, biscuits and nuts may now be imported.

SUMMARY: Two of Israel's boycotts were relaxed yesterday, but many still remain within this highly-racial apartied society.

--------------
* It is not clear from my newspaper article if sewing thread and needles can be imported now or not. My Brazilian newspaper was no doubt reporting from Israel's English Language version of the new import policy, but according to the quote from Haaretz in prior post 1602 that may just be propaganda for the west as the Hebrew version indicates that there is as of yet no change in the import policy.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Well...I didn't really believe the paintball gun thing...but that's a paintball gun.

That sure is, out standing picture, Israeli Commandos caught dead to rights attacking poor Palestinian Peace Protesters with deadly paint balls.

Yes, the Palestinians Peace Protesters were in their right to respond with deadly force.

 

[S.A.M.]

At the bottom of the Israeli Jewish society are the Sefardias (Jews whose ancestors did not live in Europe) they can freely move in Jewish Israel (with minor restrictions) but their children must attend very inferior schools. This is what the Supreme Court declared yesterday was illegal. Sefardiac Jews now have the right to go to the school of the Ashkenazi Jews (ancestors born in Europe). Forty Ashkenazi families have refused to send their children to school with Sefardic Jews and are currently given by the court 15 days to comply or go to prison. Most are concerned that their daughter would be exposed to Sefardic Jewish girls (Not boys as these religious schools are also segregated by sex). In protest to the court’s ruling, “dozens of thousands” (way my newspaper expressed it) of Ashkenazi Jews marched thru the streets of both Jerusalem and the Bnei Bark district of Tel Aviv.

According to Ha'aretz it was 100,000 Ashkenazi Haredi

100,000 Haredim protest for right to segregated education

More than 100,000 ultra-Orthodox demonstrators thronged the streets of Jerusalem earlier Thursday in support of the Ashkenazi parents' right to keep their children in classes segregated from their Sephardi peers. It was one of the largest ultra-Orthodox demonstrations in recent years.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/nationa...-school-row-to-spend-shabbat-at-home-1.296746

Thats quite a turnout in favour of segregation. They couldn't get 1000 people to protest the Gaza war.

That sure is, out standing picture, Israeli Commandos caught dead to rights attacking poor Palestinian Peace Protesters with deadly paint balls.

Yes, the Palestinians Peace Protesters were in their right to respond with deadly force.

And yet, there are no dead Israelis and nine dead activists [plus 6 missing bodies]. One wonders, why, when Israelis are not even trying, they still kill more people than uneducated, untrained, teenaged Somalian pirates. There is something seriously whacked out when teenagers in Somalia are more accomplished at meeting their goals without killing civilians than an elite commando unit from a military regime. 30 close range gunshot wounds in 9 people? They don't even trust their head shots to work?

 

[Bells]

That sure is, out standing picture, Israeli Commandos caught dead to rights attacking poor Palestinian Peace Protesters with deadly paint balls.

Soooo if I shoot you with a paintball that has a shard of glass embedded in it, what do you think that's going to do to you? At close range? How about if I aim at your head or your groin? Will it be 'woot paintball fun times' for you? Or will it result in severe trauma and tissue damage?

Yes, the Palestinians Peace Protesters were in their right to respond with deadly force.

That's interesting.

Now this would be the case if any Israelis actually died. But seeing that we have 9 activists dead, so far, and several others missing, including doctors who were providing aid, I think it is a safe bet to say that it was the Israeli's who responded with deadly force. I mean I understand that you might not see the IDF executing Americans and other nationalities in International waters as being violent or using deadly force. But in the "real world", when you shoot someone in the back of the head and execute them, that is called using deadly force. Especially after you storm a ship in International waters and do so violently. In "Buffalo world", it might be normal or desired to shoot peace activists in the back of the head, after all, 'that's what them's yokel's do, innit?'. In the "real world", it's illegal and a bad thing. Just so you know.

 

[ElectricFetus]

.One wonders, why, when Israelis are not even trying, they still kill more people than uneducated, untrained, teenaged Somalian pirates. There is something seriously whacked out when teenagers in Somalia are more accomplished at meeting their goals without killing civilians than an elite commando unit from a military regime. 30 close range gunshot wounds in 9 people? They don't even trust their head shots to work?

This is an interesting argument, can you show us the death toll rates for Somali pirates? Mind you they are invading ships that most often have non-belligerent crews of less then 40, crews that at most hid in a safe-room and surrender rather then try to become martyrs when a gun is aimed at them. And the fact they often kill no one is a minor miracle considering how often they are shotting with everything they have got, consider ships attacked with RPG holes in them!

 

[S.A.M.]

This is an interesting argument, can you show us the death toll rates for Somali pirates? Mind you they are invading ships that most often have non-belligerent crews of less then 40, crews that at most hid in a safe-room and surrender rather then try to become martyrs when a gun is aimed at them. And the fact they often kill no one is a minor miracle considering how often they are shotting with everything they have got, consider ships attacked with RPG holes in them!

They have captured cruise ships with 300 passengers and in all my reading I found only one record of one person killed. There may be more unrecorded deaths, no doubt, but these are untrained young men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_attacked_by_Somali_pirates

Maybe they could train the Israelis in how they manage to be offensive without becoming killers.

 

[ElectricFetus]

They have captured cruise ships with 300 passengers and in all my reading I found only one record of one person killed. There may be more unrecorded deaths, no doubt, but these are untrained young men.

I did say "most often" and i don't think cruise ships passengers and crew were whacking the pirates with sticks and iron bars or stabbing them either.

Heck I found 4 men killed by Somali pirates on the first page of a Google search, so I don't think your looking very hard.
http://www.somaliweyn.org/pages/news/Dec_08/20Dec26.html
http://www.antaranews.com/en/view/?i=1238386432&c=INN&s=
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6719091.stm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ship-captain-forces-free-vessel-update1-.html

Also another fun fact, the majority of somali pirates are between the ages of 20-35 so calling them teenagers is probably an insulting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7650415.stm

 

[GeoffP]

Quite so. Who is resisting the Somalis? Compare that, if you will.

 

[Bells]

Heck I found 4 men killed by Somali pirates on the first page of a Google search, so I don't think your looking very hard.

So the Somali pirates have killed less people in total than the IDF did in one raid. My, there's something to be proud of. That pirates haven't killed as many as the IDF has...

 

[GeoffP]

Who is resisting them with knives and "iron-y sticks"?

Notice that? Irony.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So the Somali pirates have killed less people in total than the IDF did in one raid. My, there's something to be proud of. That pirates haven't killed as many as the IDF has...

So one Google page is a full census? Again the this raid and Somali piracy are two very different things.

 

[iceaura]

and back in circles we go: an enforcer can claim self-defense when criminals attacks them.

That would require the "enforcer" to be enforcing law - hence "criminal".

No one is claiming Israel was enforcing law, there. Israel was attacking a ship on the high seas, far outside the jurisdiction of Israeli law. As the aggressors, they can't claim "self defense".

If you didn't bother to read my posts, even the sections you chose to quote for reply, the irrelevancy of your repetitive responses is less of a mystery, but the fact of them more so.

What are you doing?
”
I trying to get you to state your question clearly so that I may answer it as you desire.

You quoted my question, it's a simple one in plain English - - still no answer, we notice.

Still the elaborate reframing of the discussion around the technicalities of a body of international law no one has enforced against Israel in forty years.

Let's try again, more narrowly for easier comprehension by the typical Israeli apologist: are civilians on ships subjected to armed assault in international waters entitled to use force in repelling the assailants?

 

[spidergoat]

You post this in reply to my post 1595, which was entirely to show you don't know what your are talking about when stating that ship is in "mortal danger" if disabled by Israel so they could not dare do that.

Your post is a non sequitur to my refutation of your false claim about "ship in mortal danger", so I will assume this "reply" post is saying that only a willing ship can be taken in tow. That Israel could not take and tow an unwilling one (without even greater loss of life). That too is more nonsense from you.

The pirates off Somali are much less capable than Israel and rarely kill any of the people on board the ships (never nine per ship). They take the ship in tow or under its own power to anchor off the Somali coast. At any given time there are three or four ships anchored off the Somali coast or in natural harbors and coves, waiting for the ransom negotiations to be completed.

You ask the Coast Guard if any ship on the ocean with a loss of power isn't in mortal danger. It must be treated so, even if conditions happen to be calm at the time. Those Somalian pirates board and seize the vessels in question, using guns, and the crew, once it gets to that point, usually does not resist.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That would require the "enforcer" to be enforcing law - hence "criminal".

No one is claiming Israel was enforcing law, there. Israel was attacking a ship on the high seas, far outside the jurisdiction of Israeli law. As the aggressors, they can't claim "self defense".

It had a legal blockade, it was enforcing it legally, and it had th right to stop and take over anyone running the blockade.

Let's try again, more narrowly for easier comprehension by the typical Israeli apologist: are civilians on ships subjected to armed assault in international waters entitled to use force in repelling the assailants?

Let me provide a straight-forward answer for an insulting fallacious argument maker: Civilians intending to run a blockade, no they are not entitle to use force to repel blockade enforcers that are legally allow to stop them by means equal to or great then the force they apply.

I'm not an israeli apologist, an I'm tired of you and your ilk keep ad homineming everyone that argues against you as one. I don't like the blockade, I would prefer it ended, that the gazans be left alone as much as possible, that the settler be removed from the west bank or better yet grant the west bank full israeli citizenship, but in this specific of this raid my disgust for Israeli draconian-ism and selfish greed is not going to blind me into accepting these protesters as free of responsibility, as completely good despite the whacking sticks and knifes which can be seen even in the video they them selves claim is free of Israeli censorship and *snicker* CGI, and is not going to prevent me from making an unbiased review of the maritime laws covering this which unfortunately but factually are on the israelis side.

 

[pjdude1219]

It had a legal blockade, it was enforcing it legally, and it had th right to stop and take over anyone running the blockade.

Blocakeding food from getting in was made illegal I believe after world war 1

 

[pjdude1219]

Let's try again, more narrowly for easier comprehension by the typical Israeli apologist: are civilians on ships subjected to armed assault in international waters entitled to use force in repelling the assailants?

your just going to piss him off by calling him what he is.

 

[iceaura]

It had a legal blockade, it was enforcing it legally, and it had th right to stop and take over anyone running the blockade.

Tautology, there.

But that was not the question, anyway.

Civilians intending to run a blockade, no they are not entitle to use force to repel blockade enforcers that are legally allow to stop them by means equal to or great then the force they apply.

So Israeli commandos on the high seas making predawn assaults are enforcing the rule of law, in this view. So no one Israel might have identified on the high seas as intending to do whatever Israel has identified as intending to run whatever is legal about its blockade of Gaza, has the right to repel armed assault by anyone who might turn out to be a legitimate enforcer of Israel's blockade.

Understood.

I'm curious about the range of this all-important intention field, that mandates subservience to Israeli enforcement of its self-designated blockade by whatever means Israeli commandos may select: How far away from Israel do these intentions of blockade running invalidate resistance to armed assault by Israeli commandos? Does the field extend into other oceans, for example? Airspace?

Meanwhile, I don't see why the Somalis could not make use of these same principles. They have missed a bet, clearly.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Blocakeding food from getting in was made illegal I believe after world war 1

They allowed food, just not some kinds of food for some draconian reason or another, how do I say this so you can understand...huh ok see they are jews they know how to do something legally that really should not be legal.

So Israeli commandos on the high seas making predawn assaults are enforcing the rule of law, in this view. So no one Israel might have identified on the high seas as intending to do whatever Israel has identified as intending to run whatever is legal about its blockade of Gaza, has the right to repel armed assault by anyone who might turn out to be a legitimate enforcer of Israel's blockade.

basically.

I'm curious about the range of this all-important intention field, that mandates subservience to Israeli enforcement of its self-designated blockade by whatever means Israeli commandos may select: How far away from Israel do these intentions of blockade running invalidate resistance to armed assault by Israeli commandos? Does the field extend into other oceans, for example? Airspace?

The law does not specify distant, they could hypothetically strike anywhere though I figure that would lead to all sort of problems both politically and legally they at least limited them selves to very close to Israel, in international water.

Meanwhile, I don't see why the Somalis could not make use of these same principles. They have missed a bet, clearly.

The somali government has not declared a blockade.