18
   

Israel Kills 10 in Palestinian Aid Convoy

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 04:52 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Carpet bombing in Vietnam 3 to 4 million killed
Absolute dribble ! How many ??

Because of your mental illness you seem to be chanting a mantra....allow me to repeat my previous response as you have raised no new points.

Quote:
Quote:
Carpet bombing in Vietnam
Carpet bombing in Laos and CambodiaOf supply lines and trails in the jungle.
What about the Vietnamese cutting of the arm of children that had ben innoculated under the "hearts and minds" program ? The Vietnamese use of women and children as soldiers ? Clearly you are picking and choosing which side to attack.

Quote:
Nuclear bombs against Japanese
Just how many people do you think would have died otherwise ? But we cant use Nuclear weapons because it has nuclear in it and low brow fools like you dont know what it means.

Quote:
My Lai Massacre
Did the Vietnamese ever put any of their people on trial for war crimes ?

Quote:
Fire bombing in Tokyo
Of all the war crimes committed by the Japanese you choose to attack the allies.....why is that ?

Quote:
Nicaragua
El Salvador
The Philippines
The Cold War was a war.

Quote:
US official documents that have been recently been declassified show that......
What documents ? More left wing bullshit.

You have no morals just an anti-US stance that is a sign of considerable mental disorder and a need for help.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 04:57 pm
@Sentience,
Quote:
Freedom of Seas dictates that any civilian ship may pass through international waters unobstructed.
Freedom of the Seas doesnt dictate anything. Blockades have been around since time in memorial. You run them at your own risk. If the Israelis are that bad how come the only ones killed were on the ship that attacked them ? Why didnt they shoot anybody on any of the other ships ?

Why did the press attack the Israelis ?? Why didnt that ship run around in Somali waters till they got boarded if Freedom of the Seas is the issue ?
dagmaraka
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:07 pm
UN Convention on the High Seas, 1958

Article 2
The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these articles and by the
other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States:
(1) Freedom of navigation;
(2) Freedom of fishing;
(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
(4) Freedom to fly over the high seas.

These freedoms, and others which are recognized by the general principles of international law, shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of
the high seas.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:28 pm
@dagmaraka,
Have you changed the subject to attack the anti-whaling movement now ?

What do you regard as the high seas ? 200 mile economic exclusion zones ? Continental shelves ? Disputed territorial waters ?

How does war impact on article 2 ?
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:33 pm
@Sentience,
Welcome to A2K, Sentience. Wear a hard hat and gird your loins on the political threads. You will find, though, that there are some folks on either side of an issue who are rational and polite.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:34 pm
@Ionus,
there are legal definitions for that. look'em up. they don't depend on my opinion.
besides, israel was not at war at the time of the ship incident.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:44 pm
@dagmaraka,
Quote:
Israel was not at war at the time of the ship incident.
WWII was the last formally declared war I am aware of...certainly Israel has been attacked several times without a declaration of war.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:44 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Freedom of Seas dictates that any civilian ship may pass through international waters unobstructed.
Freedom of the Seas doesnt dictate anything.

I'm pretty sure it is what lets us criminalize piracy. It DOES dictate things when you approve of it.

Ionus wrote:

Blockades have been around since time in memorial. You run them at your own risk.

They never made it to the blockade.

Ionus wrote:

If the Israelis are that bad how come the only ones killed were on the ship that attacked them ?

They attacked the ship first. There own reports declare they fired shots and dropped grenades prior to boarding.

Ionus wrote:

Why didnt they shoot anybody on any of the other ships ?

Perhaps they hoped to. Perhaps this is exactly what they (thought) they wanted. They wanted to try and make these groups look dangerous, and when they didn't successfully get the reaction they desired, they decided to escalate the situation on the 6th boat first.

Ionus wrote:

Why did the press attack the Israelis ??

Because the IDF made a huge mistake, and things got bloody. Really bloody.

Ionus wrote:

Why didnt that ship run around in Somali waters till they got boarded if Freedom of the Seas is the issue ?

So now you recognize the Freedom of Seas?

A
R
T
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 05:52 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
They never made it to the blockade.
They were boarded when they refused to head for an Israeli port for inspection and repeatedly declared their intention of proceding to Gaza.
Quote:
There own reports declare they fired shots and dropped grenades prior to boarding.
And these "civilians" were so terrified that instead of running and hiding they attacked armed men with weapons they had collected before.
Quote:
Quote:
Why didnt they shoot anybody on any of the other ships ?
Perhaps they hoped to. Perhaps this is exactly what they (thought) they wanted. They wanted to try and make these groups look dangerous, and when they didn't successfully get the reaction they desired, they decided to escalate the situation on the 6th boat first.
Perhaps...perhaps...perhaps....you lefties do a lot of perhapsing.

Quote:
Why did the press attack the Israelis ?? Because the IDF made a huge mistake, and things got bloody. Really bloody.
More so then if rockets are fired into Israel ? How do you propose to stop that from happening, because that is the real problem.

Quote:
Quote:
Why didnt that ship run around in Somali waters till they got boarded if Freedom of the Seas is the issue ?
So now you recognize the Freedom of Seas?
Of course. I always did. I just dont think it can be applied to a declared blockade.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:00 pm
A nation that is enforcing a blockade in wartime has the right to board a ship that it reasonably suspects of carrying contraband for the cordoned-off area.

Quote:
"Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people." ~ United States Vice-President Joe Biden





0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:02 pm
@Ionus,
According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel has been at war 8 times since WWII. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Israel+wars/

BTW, it was you who brought up war.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:23 pm
@dagmaraka,
Surely you can see the difference between a physical war and a declared war ? Germany was at a declared war with France and Britain for the first months of WWII and nothing happened. Korea was a UN police action. Vietnam was an undeclared war. None of those wars you mentioned Israel as fighting in were declared.
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 06:28 pm
@Ionus,
Actually, some of them were indeed declared.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jun, 2010 07:30 pm
@dagmaraka,
Which ones ? But still you say some...so were they wars or not ? What hangs on the declaration ? Certainly not wether it is legal to declare a blockade.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:44 pm
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:
Moral matters and 'who shot first' aside, I would like to point out that Freedom of Seas dictates that any civilian ship may pass through international waters unobstructed.

The law is on the side of the protesters.


Nope. The law you quoted does not apply to wartime blockades.

The law says Israel had the right to torpedo and sink that ship.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:46 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I focus on the targeting of civilians because that is the element that makes terrorism so objectionable.


Phosphorus bombs in Iraq


Aimed at military targets = civilians not targeted.



JTT wrote:
Nuclear bombs against Japanese


Aimed at military targets = civilians not targeted.

Just how ignorant are you? Hiroshima must have been the biggest military target in history.



Aside from the nonsense about phosphorus, I gave a full response to all your points already. No need for me to go cut-n-paste my previous answer I hope.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:47 pm
@dagmaraka,
dagmaraka wrote:
UN Convention on the High Seas, 1958

Article 2
The high seas being open to all nations, no State may validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by these articles and by the
other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States:
(1) Freedom of navigation;
(2) Freedom of fishing;
(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
(4) Freedom to fly over the high seas.

These freedoms, and others which are recognized by the general principles of international law, shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of
the high seas.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf


I don't see anything there about a right of smugglers to run a wartime blockade.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:50 pm
@dagmaraka,
dagmaraka wrote:
besides, israel was not at war at the time of the ship incident.


Yes they were.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 01:52 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Blockades have been around since time in memorial. You run them at your own risk.


They never made it to the blockade.


That is incorrect. The blockade is what boarded them and seized their ship.



failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
If the Israelis are that bad how come the only ones killed were on the ship that attacked them ?


They attacked the ship first. There own reports declare they fired shots and dropped grenades prior to boarding.


That does not answer the question of why the only people who died were the ones attacking Israeli soldiers.



failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Why didnt they shoot anybody on any of the other ships ?


Perhaps they hoped to. Perhaps this is exactly what they (thought) they wanted.


It is futile to try to prop up your unwarranted demonization of Israel by pretending that "maybe they secretly wanted to commit a crime".



failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Why did the press attack the Israelis ??


Because the IDF made a huge mistake, and things got bloody. Really bloody.


No mistake on the Israelis' part. They successfully prevented the smugglers from breaching the blockade.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 02:00 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Blockades have been around since time in memorial. You run them at your own risk.


They never made it to the blockade.


That is incorrect. The blockade is what boarded them and seized their ship.

Sounds like they didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth rock landed on them.

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
If the Israelis are that bad how come the only ones killed were on the ship that attacked them ?


They attacked the ship first. There own reports declare they fired shots and dropped grenades prior to boarding.


That does not answer the question of why the only people who died were the ones attacking Israeli soldiers.

Ii is the same reason that the only Israeli soldiers that were attacked were the soldiers that attacked the ship.

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Why didnt they shoot anybody on any of the other ships ?


Perhaps they hoped to. Perhaps this is exactly what they (thought) they wanted.


It is futile to try to prop up your unwarranted demonization of Israel by pretending that "maybe they secretly wanted to commit a crime".

Results are results.

oralloy wrote:

failures art wrote:
Ionus wrote:
Why did the press attack the Israelis ??


Because the IDF made a huge mistake, and things got bloody. Really bloody.


No mistake on the Israelis' part. They successfully prevented the smugglers from breaching the blockade.

I thought you said they WERE the blockade.

Weak sauce oralloy.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/06/2021 at 09:43:02