Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Fuhrer

alastair wrote: »

They let 'rioters' on the ship?

I note that one guy is using a giant pencil to attack a commando.

Someone also throws a "Firebomb" that just kinda sits there and doesnt do anything.

alastair

prinz wrote: »

If by bully boy you mean the legitimate forces of law and order then you might be right.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you - the Israeli actions contravened international law, and the flotilla broke none. Not sure how many ways it needs to be said.

jank

alastair wrote: »

They let 'rioters' on the ship?

I note that one guy is using a giant pencil to attack a commando.

If that is the best they can come up with to justify killing 19 people than I not need say anymore about this....

Ben Hadad

Prinz,

I am not picking on you or anthing it's just that we appear to have gotten into a bit of a conversation.

But I am genuinely curious, you must have written over fifty post already, which means that it is very unlikely you are working at the moment, you have also being posting for sometime now, which would mean you are forgoing other pursuits in the interests of this discussion. Your location is Dublin which means you are aware its a nice day outside. Why does this discussion meant so much to you?

Eliot Rosewater

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

This, is false. So where do you propose Hamas is taking this aid? They turning it into weapons?

Presumably Hamas would give it to their soldiers and their members, thus providing an incentive for people in Gaza to join in the armed conflict.

jank

alastair wrote: »

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you - the Israeli actions contravened international law, and the flotilla broke none. Not sure how many ways it needs to be said.

Prinz is all about law and order you know but only his version of the law. I would love if he could explain the law to us that lets Gaza occupy the west bank. I supposed its the law of war, right?

Nijmegen

Fuhrer wrote: »

Someone also throws a "Firebomb" that just kinda sits there and doesnt do anything.

I notice the protestor footage is rather chopped.

I want to see all footage, in order it was shot.

prinz

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Prinz you're bull****ting again mate.
This, is false. So where do you propose Hamas is taking this aid? They turning it into weapons?

The UN have said it. I already linked the relevant piece.

jank wrote: »

Have a look at YOUR analogy? The ireland france one. Sucks being caught by the balls doesn't it?

So, again, where did I say Israel and France were practically at war? My analogy says nothing about the nationality of a ship being stopped does it?

Augmerson

prinz wrote: »

Yes perfectly entitled to, once you accept the consequences.



Better some aid getting through than none at all. As for the UN and aid in Gaza perhaps you should note that Hamas are taking first dibs on whatever aid does get through, leaving the worse affected civilian population worse off, so hold them to account too.

Really? I wasn't aware Hamas were doing that, can you back that up? Just that if I were to take that onboard as fact I'd like something to support it.

Selkies wrote:

Wow that's horrible, the can you link for that?

I assume you want a link? Ok, well it's easy enough to find out that Israel is letting in 15,000 tonnes of aid to Gaza weekly, typing it into Google will give you that. 15,000 for 1.5 million people isn't great really.

This link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm says that the UN say 15,000 is only a quarter of what is needed. The Freedom Flotilla was carrying 10,000 I think.

prinz

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Your location is Dublin which means you are aware its a nice day outside. Why does this discussion meant so much to you?

You know funnily enough I wondered the same thing about other people.

jank wrote: »

Prinz is all about law and order you know but only his version of the law. I would love if he could explain the law to us that lets Gaza occupy the west bank. I supposed its the law of war, right?

Gaza is occupying the West Bank now is it?

bambooze

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

This San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and signed by all UN members, says in paragraph 67:

"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".

partyguinness

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Prinz,

I am not picking on you or anthing it's just that we appear to have gotten into a bit of a conversation.

But I am genuinely curious, you must have written over fifty post already, which means that it is very unlikely you are working at the moment, you have also being posting for sometime now, which would mean you are forgoing other pursuits in the interests of this discussion. Your location is Dublin which means you are aware its a nice day outside. Why does this discussion meant so much to you?

Sorry to butt in....I see where you going with this and but I am working (in the very loose sense of the word) and this discussion means alot me (not that it makes a blinding difference)...it doesnt mean I have ulterior motives or have Hamas connections....lets give Prinz the benefit of the doubt.

You may be looking too much into it.

2kool4skool

Interesting to look at the heavily edited with posted commentary dvd posted by idfnadesk (Israeli Defence Forces). The last section you seem to see a lot of bodies lying on the deck. Piece where they were shot is left out and yet all of the alleged attacks on the IDF are shown. So can we take it that there were no attacks on the IDF immediately prior to the shooting from the soldiers on board (They had shot and killed at least one person prior to boarding at all).

Selected

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Israel's first duty of care is to its own citizens, and unfortunately this duty involves causing an immense amount of hardship to Gaza residents.

That same rationale was prevalent in Germany from the late 1920's to the mid 1940's.

prinz

Augmerson wrote: »

Really? I wasn't aware Hamas were doing that, can you back that up? Just that if I were to take that onboard as fact I'd like something to support it..

No problem

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL4273371._CH_.2400

Glenshane Pass

The UN have said it. I already linked the relevant piece.

You didn't answer my question, did you? You can post that article, fine, but you're adding you're own bit to it, as if Hamas is taking it for Hamas alone, which is bull****.

Hamas is the government, they are the law, they are elected, they can do what the want. And whether you like it or not, or whether you respect it or not, they have the support of the people and always will as long as black propaganda against them exists. Israel wants a government like the Abbas one that will bow down to them, Hamas won't do it, and thats why they won.

Augmerson

Fuhrer wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE

Straight from the IDF News Desk, a source you can trust..

kleefarr

RasTa wrote: »

Anyone else find it funny that if it's Hammas, crowds, schools, boats whatever it's always the other side that attacks first?

Yep, I've noticed that as well.

wes

bambooze wrote: »

International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

This San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and signed by all UN members, says in paragraph 67:

"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".

Blockade is illegal, so it doesn't apply. The had no contraband, and were checked several times on the way there, and as such Israel had no right to stop them, and are in the wrong, when they started firing and boarded the ship.

Fuhrer

Nijmegen wrote: »

I notice the protestor footage is rather chopped.

I want to see all footage, in order it was shot.

Yeah sure, maybe they'll release a directors cut that you can buy on blu-ray

BluePlanet

So basically, in the eyes of Israel and their supporters here: there is no such thing as "International Waters" if Israel decides to board a ship at sea, the people on that ship are legally required to allow Israel to board, they cannot resist and must obey!

How convenient!

2kool4skool

Perhaps Nijmegan you might ask your friends in the IDF to release an unedited copy of the video from the helicopter at the same time (in particular the sequence when the Israeli Defence personnel shot the passengers.

partyguinness

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yeah sure, maybe they'll release a directors cut that you can buy on blu-ray

I have asked for the 10 DVD Boxset for Xmas with all extras and optional Kelsey Krammer voice over...

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

This San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea and signed by all UN members, says in paragraph 67:

Well, aside from the absense of an armed conflict at sea, the same law states:

15. Within and over neutral waters, including neutral waters comprising an international strait and waters in which the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised, hostile actions by belligerent forces are forbidden. A neutral State must take such measures as are consistent with Section II of this Part, including the exercise of surveillance, as the means at its disposal allow, to prevent the violation of its neutrality by belligerent forces.

16. Hostile actions within the meaning of paragraph 15 include, inter alia:

(a) attack on or capture of persons or objects located in, on or over neutral waters or territory;
(b) use as a base of operations, including attack on or capture of persons or objects located outside neutral waters, if the attack or seizure is conducted by belligerent forces located in, on or over neutral waters;
(c) laying of mines; or
(d) visit, search, diversion or capture.

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

2kool4skool

In the context of the declared media offensive that the Israelis have announced this morning, I can't help noticing that Nijmegan has been promoting the Israeli version of events from 7:44 this morning on. What time do you get off work?

My apologies if I am wrong but your comments insult our intelligence and are simply incredible.

partyguinness

alastair wrote: »

Well, aside from the absense of an armed conflict at seam the same law states:

15. Within and over neutral waters, including neutral waters comprising an international strait and waters in which the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may be exercised, hostile actions by belligerent forces are forbidden. A neutral State must take such measures as are consistent with Section II of this Part, including the exercise of surveillance, as the means at its disposal allow, to prevent the violation of its neutrality by belligerent forces.

16. Hostile actions within the meaning of paragraph 15 include, inter alia:

(a) attack on or capture of persons or objects located in, on or over neutral waters or territory;
(b) use as a base of operations, including attack on or capture of persons or objects located outside neutral waters, if the attack or seizure is conducted by belligerent forces located in, on or over neutral waters;
(c) laying of mines; or
(d) visit, search, diversion or capture.

Even if the boat originated in Gaza or even Iran, Israel cldnt touch it in international waters....worse again the boat originated from a 3rd party country who have no act or part to play in the conflict....

Israel has no respect so how in Gods name does it expect others to respect it as a civilised country that abides by international and social norms!!

Scofflaw

Israel's first duty of care is to its own citizens, and unfortunately this duty involves causing an immense amount of hardship to Gaza residents.

I have a duty of care to my family. It's generally recognised, though, that I can't use that as a cover for harming my neighbours.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have a duty of care to my family. It's generally recognised, though, that I can't use that as a cover for harming my neighbours.

I agree. If people read what I said without thinking "this guy's an Israeli apologist" it might be clear that I'm only trying to explain causes - not justify them.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I agree. If people read what I said without thinking "this guy's an Israeli apologist" it might be clear that I'm only trying to explain causes - not justify them.

It might have been better, in that case, to have phrased it more like this:

From Israel's point of view Israel's first duty of care is to its own citizens, and Israel has decided that this duty involves causing an immense amount of hardship to Gaza residents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

So you'll be able to point out what law has been broken then? Please do, article, section, subsection...



UN resolutions have been broken. But what's the relevance to this case? What law of the sea has been broken?

My 3rd time posting these to you

article 87(a) provides for "freedom of navigation."
article 88, states, "The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes."
article 89 states, "No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty."
article 90 states, "Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas"