RAW Video: Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob

[CurveLight]

If they attempt to breach a blockade they are, by definition, belligerent forces. During WWII both sides would attack belligerent ships docked in neutral ports on the theory that them being there made the port non neutral. Neutral countries strictly enforce the non belligerent forces rule to avoid being drawn into a conflict they prefer to remain neutral in.

No they are not.

From YOUR document.

"The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:

(a) engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, engaging in visit and search of neutral merchant vessels or attacking other merchant vessels;"

Breaking a blockade is not in these categories.

And you might not want to cite WWII precedent for what is legal and illegal under international law

Blockades apply to all vessels, military and civilian you dumbfuck.

 

[CurveLight]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

 

[Nik]

Are you fucking kidding? I already linked the law so you're asking for evidence that has already been posted. Guess I gotta hold your hand and walk you through it. Slowwwwly.

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2

Let me highlight the thumper:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area."

The scary part is I suspect you're hunting for a scapegoat. Hope I'm wrong.

Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.

READ the links you post. From your own damn link.

"430 The Areas of Naval Warfare

a. THE GENERAL AREA OF NAVAL WARFARE. The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

Does it say anywhere in there the territorial sea of neutral parties? No. No it does not.

That you are permitted to do something under int'l law doesn't suddenly negate all other rules under international law. Saying "it is legal to go to war with country x in y situation" doesn't mean you get to nuke civilian populations since you are at war. Other rules still apply.

Oh and if you are going to be a complete **** when responding, might want to make sure you have your facts straight.

Holy. Fuck. You are one pathetic ****. Do you think completely ignoring what I posted helps anything?

Yes you dumbfucking cocksucker it specifically addresses neutral waters for a blockade. Hell, I posted it twice and you still fucking ignored it. Let's see you make an ass of yourself again.


"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area."


2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"


Are you really so fucking stoopid you can't comprehend that? If a ship is liable to capture for an attempted breach of a blockade and it is immaterial if that ship is in neutral ports.......

Maybe this time you can take the non-sequitur path to another level and post a recipe for cookies in response you sooper dumb ****.

Do I need to draw you a fucking diagram?

BELLIGERENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTACK SHIPS IN NEUTRAL WATERS. That is EXACTLY what the quote I posted says.

Christ. Just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you can scream fire in a crowded theater. laws are BOUNDED, they are not unlimited.

Fucking hell. Learn some basics about jurisprudence before you come in here acting as if you know fuck all about anything.

 

[Nik]

If they attempt to breach a blockade they are, by definition, belligerent forces. During WWII both sides would attack belligerent ships docked in neutral ports on the theory that them being there made the port non neutral. Neutral countries strictly enforce the non belligerent forces rule to avoid being drawn into a conflict they prefer to remain neutral in.

No they are not.

From YOUR document.

"The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:

(a) engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, engaging in visit and search of neutral merchant vessels or attacking other merchant vessels;"

Breaking a blockade is not in these categories.

And you might not want to cite WWII precedent for what is legal and illegal under international law

Blockades apply to all vessels, military and civilian you dumbfuck.

No shit you fucking piece of shit. But thanks for stating the obvious that contributes nothing at all to the point. At least you, for once, got something right.

Well done.

 

[Nik]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

 

[Nik]

The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory.

Please tell us all how you can interpret that to allow belligerents to attack neutrals in neutral water

Fucking tool.

 

[CurveLight]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

You're a useless **** because you keep ignoring the laws on blockades.

 

[Nik]

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

You're a useless **** because you keep ignoring the laws on blockades.

The law on blockades FALLS UNDER THE GENERAL RUBRIC OF LAWS OF NAVAL WARFARE.

Maybe if I make it bigger you'll get it.

The law on blockades FALLS UNDER THE GENERAL RUBRIC OF LAWS OF NAVAL WARFARE.

 

[CurveLight]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory.

Please tell us all how you can interpret that to allow belligerents to attack neutrals in neutral water

Fucking tool.

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2


Do you realize your punk ass still hasn't addressed this?

You're a dishonrest ****. Prove me correct by ignoring the blockade laws again.


What do you think this means you fucking crybaby bitch?

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

 

[Nik]

That isn't the issue. Humanitarian aid can be delivered but by blockade law the ship can be inspected. If the ship does not allow an inspection then force is authorized.

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory.

Please tell us all how you can interpret that to allow belligerents to attack neutrals in neutral water

Fucking tool.

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2


Do you realize your punk ass still hasn't addressed this?

You're a dishonrest ****. Prove me correct by ignoring the blockade laws again.


What do you think this means you fucking crybaby bitch?

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

Are you really this fucking ignorant?

JUST BECAUSE IT IS TREATED AS BREAKING A BLOCKADE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN BREAK OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO STOP IT.

Oh, well, its breaking a blockade. Does that mean you can nuke Japan in response? NO. OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS APPLY. One of those laws is you CANNOT INVADE THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF A NEUTRAL STATE.

Christ. Its as if you think any law exists in a vacuum where no other laws apply.

 

[CurveLight]

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory.

Please tell us all how you can interpret that to allow belligerents to attack neutrals in neutral water

Fucking tool.

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2


Do you realize your punk ass still hasn't addressed this?

You're a dishonrest ****. Prove me correct by ignoring the blockade laws again.


What do you think this means you fucking crybaby bitch?

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

Are you really this fucking ignorant?

JUST BECAUSE IT IS TREATED AS BREAKING A BLOCKADE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN BREAK OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO STOP IT.

Oh, well, its breaking a blockade. Does that mean you can nuke Japan in response? NO. OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS APPLY. One of those laws is you CANNOT INVADE THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF A NEUTRAL STATE.

Christ. Its as if you think any law exists in a vacuum where no other laws apply.

Okay you crybaby twat. One last time. Explain what this means:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob"

Is that legal?

Yes it is!

Just trying to stay on topic.

 

[Cal]

To all you dumbasses that fell for the propaganda spin. Watch it n' weep. Clearly soldiers are being attacked just as they are landing on the boat.

Anti-Israel sharks sniff O's weakness - NYPOST.com

Fucking thugs, they should of just machine gun sprayed that whole crowd.

Would you feel the same way if say, it was hamas bording an israeli ship in the middle of international waters..and israeli fought back? No, you'd of course be with israel. Don't get me wrong, I love israel..But a good friend will be honestly blunt..Israel was wrong in this one..dead wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again...this debate is academic.

Which is why you are having so much trouble with the underlying concepts.

 

[Nik]

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2


Do you realize your punk ass still hasn't addressed this?

You're a dishonrest ****. Prove me correct by ignoring the blockade laws again.


What do you think this means you fucking crybaby bitch?

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

Are you really this fucking ignorant?

JUST BECAUSE IT IS TREATED AS BREAKING A BLOCKADE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN BREAK OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO STOP IT.

Oh, well, its breaking a blockade. Does that mean you can nuke Japan in response? NO. OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS APPLY. One of those laws is you CANNOT INVADE THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF A NEUTRAL STATE.

Christ. Its as if you think any law exists in a vacuum where no other laws apply.

Okay you crybaby twat. One last time. Explain what this means:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"

Oh my god.

It means that you are thought to be in breach of blockade as soon as you do that. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade...AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT VIOLATING OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you feel the same way if say, it was hamas bording an israeli ship in the middle of international waters..and israeli fought back? No, you'd of course be with israel. Don't get me wrong, I love israel..But a good friend will be honestly blunt..Israel was wrong in this one..dead wrong.

Is Hamas enforcing a legal blockade that I am unaware of? Never mind, let us assume that they are.

If Israel sent a ship to breach a legal blockade then Hamas would be justified in boarding that ship for inspection, and using force if the people on that ship resisted.

Do you now understand the difference between a position based on reasoning and one based on the belief that one side is always wrong?

 

[Nik]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

 

[CurveLight]

It CANNOT BE INSPECTED IN NEUTRAL WATERS.

Just as the quote fucking says.

"The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory."

That does NOT include neutral waters.

This is a GENERAL rule which encompasses ALL naval warfare. Yours is a specific rule. Mine trumps. Thats how law works, fuckwit.

The general area within which the naval forces of belligerents are permitted to conduct operations includes: the high seas, the territorial sea and internal waters of belligerents, the territory of belligerents accessible to naval forces, and the air space over such waters and territory.

Please tell us all how you can interpret that to allow belligerents to attack neutrals in neutral water

Fucking tool.

"Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels and aircraft are bound to a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area."

2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade"
Law of Naval Warfare NWIP 10-2


Do you realize your punk ass still hasn't addressed this?

You're a dishonrest ****. Prove me correct by ignoring the blockade laws again.


What do you think this means you fucking crybaby bitch?

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area"

Are you really this fucking ignorant?

JUST BECAUSE IT IS TREATED AS BREAKING A BLOCKADE DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN BREAK OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO STOP IT.

Oh, well, its breaking a blockade. Does that mean you can nuke Japan in response? NO. OTHER INTERNATIONAL LAWS APPLY. One of those laws is you CANNOT INVADE THE SOVEREIGN TERRITORY OF A NEUTRAL STATE.

Christ. Its as if you think any law exists in a vacuum where no other laws apply.

"Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob"

Is that legal?

Yes it is!

Just trying to stay on topic.

I don't see how discussing the laws on blockades is off topic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Civilians sending aid to civilians. Is that listed as a "belligerent act?" Oh the horror of it all.

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

I already did, go back and look.