RAW Video: Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob

[Nik]

If a Japanese ship is thought to breach the Israeli blockade, can Israel nuke Japan in response?

If not, why not?

Please do explain CL.

 

[Nik]

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

I already did, go back and look.

Please re-post it. I'm pretty sure you didn't post actual proof of it.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Holy fuck you are a sad whiny ****. That's been posted a few times and even you admitted a blockade applies to civilian ships. You're the kind of anal retentive fuckwad that would say "Look at that obese person" then turn around and claim you didn't say the person is fat. Fuck you.

 

[Nik]

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

Holy fuck you are a sad whiny ****. That's been posted a few times and even you admitted a blockade applies to civilian ships. You're the kind of anal retentive fuckwad that would say "Look at that obese person" then turn around and claim you didn't say the person is fat. Fuck you.

Do you know the difference between a blockade applying to civilian ships and a civilian ship breaking a blockade becoming a belligerent because it tries to break the blockade?

Belligerent is a term of art in international law. Just because you looked it up at dictionary.com doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fucking hell. You make me weep for humanity.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

If a Japanese ship is thought to breach the Israeli blockade, can Israel nuke Japan in response?

If not, why not?

Please do explain CL.

You can't even comprehend simple laws regarding a blockade but you want to enter the arena of nuclear weapons....rotfl!

 

[Nik]

No, but civilians breaking a blockade is.

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

If a Japanese ship is thought to breach the Israeli blockade, can Israel nuke Japan in response?

If not, why not?

Please do explain CL.

You can't even comprehend simple laws regarding a blockade but you want to enter the arena of nuclear weapons....rotfl!

Way to dodge the question.

 

[CurveLight]

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

Holy fuck you are a sad whiny ****. That's been posted a few times and even you admitted a blockade applies to civilian ships. You're the kind of anal retentive fuckwad that would say "Look at that obese person" then turn around and claim you didn't say the person is fat. Fuck you.

Do you know the difference between a blockade applying to civilian ships and a civilian ship breaking a blockade becoming a belligerent because it tries to break the blockade?

Belligerent is a term of art in international law. Just because you looked it up at dictionary.com doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fucking hell. You make me weep for humanity.

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.

I get it now.....you're just fucking stoopid. Pay close attention:

"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"

If they are liable for capture while being in a neutral port that means it is not breaking international law to seize the vessel you dumbfuck. If the blockade enforcers had to wait until the vessels reached international water it would not say:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield..."


Blimy fucks o' lickn' dumbass rednecks like you are an embarrassment to common sense.

 

[Nik]

Holy fuck you are a sad whiny ****. That's been posted a few times and even you admitted a blockade applies to civilian ships. You're the kind of anal retentive fuckwad that would say "Look at that obese person" then turn around and claim you didn't say the person is fat. Fuck you.

Do you know the difference between a blockade applying to civilian ships and a civilian ship breaking a blockade becoming a belligerent because it tries to break the blockade?

Belligerent is a term of art in international law. Just because you looked it up at dictionary.com doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fucking hell. You make me weep for humanity.

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.

I get it now.....you're just fucking stoopid. Pay close attention:

"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"

If they are liable for capture while being in a neutral port that means it is not breaking international law to seize the vessel you dumbfuck. If the blockade enforcers had to wait until the vessels reached international water it would not say:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield..."


Blimy fucks o' lickn' dumbass rednecks like you are an embarrassment to common sense.

Yeah. I read it. And explained it.

Now explain this.

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.

Good luck with that.

 

[Nik]

And explain this while you are at it.

The belligerent right of visit and search may be exercised anywhere outside of neutral jurisdiction upon all merchant vessels and aircraft

 

[Nik]

And this.


Belligerents are forbidden to use neutral territory, territorial sea, or air space as a base for hostile operations.

 

[Nik]

And this.


As a general rule, all acts of hostility in neutral jurisdiction are forbidden. This includes both visit and search and capture or destruction.

Guess thats enough, since you are probably crying like a bitch at this point.

 

[CurveLight]

Really?

Please provide proof of this.

If a Japanese ship is thought to breach the Israeli blockade, can Israel nuke Japan in response?

If not, why not?

Please do explain CL.

You can't even comprehend simple laws regarding a blockade but you want to enter the arena of nuclear weapons....rotfl!

Way to dodge the question.

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

 

[Nik]

You can't even comprehend simple laws regarding a blockade but you want to enter the arena of nuclear weapons....rotfl!

Way to dodge the question.

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

Right. I'm too stupid to comprehend the blockade laws that say that acts of hostility are forbidden in neutral ports?

God damned you are fucking stupid.

 

[CurveLight]

Do you know the difference between a blockade applying to civilian ships and a civilian ship breaking a blockade becoming a belligerent because it tries to break the blockade?

Belligerent is a term of art in international law. Just because you looked it up at dictionary.com doesn't mean you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fucking hell. You make me weep for humanity.

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.

I get it now.....you're just fucking stoopid. Pay close attention:

"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"

If they are liable for capture while being in a neutral port that means it is not breaking international law to seize the vessel you dumbfuck. If the blockade enforcers had to wait until the vessels reached international water it would not say:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield..."


Blimy fucks o' lickn' dumbass rednecks like you are an embarrassment to common sense.

Yeah. I read it. And explained it.

Now explain this.

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.

Good luck with that.

You've never explained it you lying useless ****.

Link the post where you explained you unbelievably whiny bitch.

 

[Nik]

I get it now.....you're just fucking stoopid. Pay close attention:

"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"

If they are liable for capture while being in a neutral port that means it is not breaking international law to seize the vessel you dumbfuck. If the blockade enforcers had to wait until the vessels reached international water it would not say:

"It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield..."


Blimy fucks o' lickn' dumbass rednecks like you are an embarrassment to common sense.

Yeah. I read it. And explained it.

Now explain this.

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.

Good luck with that.

You've never explained it you lying useless ****.

Link the post where you explained you unbelievably whiny bitch.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...e-attacked-by-flotilla-mob-8.html#post2378498

Now. Going to respond to any of the quotes I posted? Or are you such an unbelievably dishonest fuck that you will just continue to ignore them?

Maybe I need to make them red as well to get them to sink into your incredibly small brain?

 

[Nik]

And this.


As a general rule, all acts of hostility in neutral jurisdiction are forbidden. This includes both visit and search and capture or destruction.

Guess thats enough, since you are probably crying like a bitch at this point.

Is that better for you, dumbshit?

 

[CurveLight]

Way to dodge the question.

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

Right. I'm too stupid to comprehend the blockade laws that say that acts of hostility are forbidden in neutral ports?

God damned you are fucking stupid.

Now you are straight up lying. The laws stated in paragraph 632 make it clear it is "immaterial" if a vessel is in a neutral port because it is still guilty of attempting to breach a blockade. You are purposefully trying to conflate different laws because you are a dishonest whiny ****.

 

[CurveLight]

Way to dodge the question.

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

Right. I'm too stupid to comprehend the blockade laws that say that acts of hostility are forbidden in neutral ports?

God damned you are fucking stupid.

And this.


As a general rule, all acts of hostility in neutral jurisdiction are forbidden. This includes both visit and search and capture or destruction.

Guess thats enough, since you are probably crying like a bitch at this point.

Is that better for you, dumbshit?

Yeah. I read it. And explained it.

Now explain this.

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.

Good luck with that.

You've never explained it you lying useless ****.

Link the post where you explained you unbelievably whiny bitch.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...e-attacked-by-flotilla-mob-8.html#post2378498

Now. Going to respond to any of the quotes I posted? Or are you such an unbelievably dishonest fuck that you will just continue to ignore them?

Maybe I need to make them red as well to get them to sink into your incredibly small brain?

It is not a violation of international law to inspect a ship in a neutral port in attempt of breaching a blockade you dumb ****. That is why the law says it is immaterial......fuck. It's been posted several times you dumb ****.

Were you one of the dumb twats that claimed israel couldn't inspect the flotillas because it was in international water?

 

[Nik]

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

Right. I'm too stupid to comprehend the blockade laws that say that acts of hostility are forbidden in neutral ports?

God damned you are fucking stupid.

Now you are straight up lying. The laws stated in paragraph 632 make it clear it is "immaterial" if a vessel is in a neutral port because it is still guilty of attempting to breach a blockade. You are purposefully trying to conflate different laws because you are a dishonest whiny ****.

It is immaterial AS FAR AS IT GOES IN DECLARING THEM TO BE IN BREACH OF A BLOCKADE.

it is NOT immaterial AS FAR AS IT GOES IN ATTACKING THEM FOR BEING IN SAID BREACH.

Try...just fucking TRY to defend yourself against this.

As a general rule, all acts of hostility in neutral jurisdiction are forbidden. This includes both visit and search and capture or destruction

And conflating different rules? Wtf? Do you think a rule only applies because you found it?

All the rules I have quoted CAME FROM THE DOCUMENT YOU CITED.

Jesus fucking christ. This will teach me to try to argue the law with someone who has no legal background, doesn't know what law fucking is, and has the brain of a mentally retarded child.

International law IS PREMISED ON THE IDEA OF SOVEREIGNTY. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INVADE SOMEONE ELSES SOVEREIGN SPACE UNLESS IT IS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED. IT IS NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOWED IN THE EXAMPLE YOU KEEP CITING.

Jesus fuck you are stupid.

 

[Nik]

Except.....I just demonstrated you are too fuxxing stoopid to comprehend the blockade laws.....what'd the barber say?

Next!

Right. I'm too stupid to comprehend the blockade laws that say that acts of hostility are forbidden in neutral ports?

God damned you are fucking stupid.

You've never explained it you lying useless ****.

Link the post where you explained you unbelievably whiny bitch.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-m...e-attacked-by-flotilla-mob-8.html#post2378498

Now. Going to respond to any of the quotes I posted? Or are you such an unbelievably dishonest fuck that you will just continue to ignore them?

Maybe I need to make them red as well to get them to sink into your incredibly small brain?

It is not a violation of international law to inspect a ship in a neutral port in attempt of breaching a blockade you dumb ****. That is why the law says it is immaterial......fuck. It's been posted several times you dumb ****.

Were you one of the dumb twats that claimed israel couldn't inspect the flotillas because it was in international water?

THE LAW THAT MENTIONS IT BEING IMMATERIAL DOES NOT MENTIONS SEARCHING SHIPS YOU STUPID FUCKING IDIOT.

Again. Since you are so fucking dense.

Keep in mind, this is from the document YOU cited.

As a general rule, all acts of hostility in neutral jurisdiction are forbidden. This includes both visit and search and capture or destruction

Do you know what forbidden means? IT MEANS NOT ALLOWED.

Christ, are you fucking drunk or something?