RAW Video: Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob

[CurveLight]

Israel does NOT have the right to search Japanese boats in Japanese territorial waters. Period.

I am paying attention. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. Territorial waters means it is that countries territory. They have FULL sovereign control of that territory. Israel going onto Japanese waters to attack a Japanese ship would be treated as a declaration of war on Japan regardless of the stated intent of the Japanese vessel.

It would be no different than Israel bombing a land convoy on Japanese land.

"The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010

Congratulations. That doesn't mean that Israel can legally invade a neutral countries territory to do anything about it.

You're a dumbfuck. The naval blockade didn't choke military supplies because those have been delivered mainly through land crossings.

The blockade covers both the land and the ocean, not just the ocean. I am not talking about the naval blockade, which is only a portion of the blockade, exclusively.

Want to try again?

I thought not.

How silly of me to think you were talking about the naval blockade in a thread exlcusively discussing the naval blockade.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How silly of me to think you were talking about the naval blockade in a thread exlcusively discussing the naval blockade.

How silly of me to think that the thread is about Israel being attacked by terrorist sympathizers trying to enforce the naval portion of the blockade.

 

[Shai]

Everyone talk about the Israeli blockade but what about the Egypty blockade? Egypt also dose everything she can to control what came in into Gaza. You think she do that because she love and support Israel or because she know exactly who is the Hamas? Plus Gaza is Not all the Palestinos its the Palestions who support Hamas. There is also an Israeli-Arabs Palestions and the Fatah-Palestions in west bank why they dane nothing to help their "borthers" who live in Gaza? Maybe because they also know who the Hamas is. And by the way more Palestions died by the hand of Hamas then is all the wars with Israel.

**Sorry for my bad English.

 

[AllieBaba]

We're used to bad English. After all, Gaybiker posts here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Israel does NOT have the right to search Japanese boats in Japanese territorial waters. Period.

I am paying attention. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. Territorial waters means it is that countries territory. They have FULL sovereign control of that territory. Israel going onto Japanese waters to attack a Japanese ship would be treated as a declaration of war on Japan regardless of the stated intent of the Japanese vessel.

It would be no different than Israel bombing a land convoy on Japanese land.

"The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010

Congratulations. That doesn't mean that Israel can legally invade a neutral countries territory to do anything about it.

WHich neutral country owns Gaza?

Here's more evidence the ship was a set up operation:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg]YouTube - Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World[/ame]

 

[Nik]

"The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010

Congratulations. That doesn't mean that Israel can legally invade a neutral countries territory to do anything about it.

Oh I see...you want the upgraded CL treatment. Pay attention closer you ******* cocksucking asswipe:

"....a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."

This is an internationally recognized law you ******* ignorant ****. A ship in Japan's water is not afforded the legal protections of Japan's Sovereignty because it waives that legal right upon announcement of intending to go through a naval blockade. If a Japanese military vessel makes the statement it plans to go through the blockade then that is equivalent to a declaration of war against the nation having the naval blockade.

Really? Please cite the applicable law which says sovereignty is waived. International law is premised on the fact that sovereignty is the MOST important thing. So its not going to be waived without EXPLICIT language. So feel free to point to that language.

Aside from the fact that you apparently don't seem to recognize the difference between something being in violation of a blockade and it being legal to do anything about it.

Go ahead and embarrass the **** out of yourself some more. Since no one is nore against what Israel did than I am you cannot hide behind the claim I'm biased. No matter how much I hate an action I never let my emotions overrule Reason. Give it a shot sometime Supertar.

I have no idea if you are biased or not. I do know, however, that you are talking out of your ass.

If anyone on board the flotillas impeded an IDF cargo investigation then the IDF had the legal right to use force. It may suck but without the Rule of Law there would be nothing.

Incorrect. This is dependent on the blockade being legal, which its not. The IDF also does NOT have the right to invade another countries sovereign territory.

 

[Nik]

"The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010

Congratulations. That doesn't mean that Israel can legally invade a neutral countries territory to do anything about it.

WHich neutral country owns Gaza?

Here's more evidence the ship was a set up operation:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg]YouTube - Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World[/ame]

Read the thread, dipshit. CL was talking about if hypothetically the IDF attacked a boat in Japanese territorial waters.

Evidence? Are you really this stupid? Its a video produced by a far-right neocon.

 

[CurveLight]

Congratulations. That doesn't mean that Israel can legally invade a neutral countries territory to do anything about it.

Oh I see...you want the upgraded CL treatment. Pay attention closer you ******* cocksucking asswipe:

"....a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."

This is an internationally recognized law you ******* ignorant ****. A ship in Japan's water is not afforded the legal protections of Japan's Sovereignty because it waives that legal right upon announcement of intending to go through a naval blockade. If a Japanese military vessel makes the statement it plans to go through the blockade then that is equivalent to a declaration of war against the nation having the naval blockade.

Really? Please cite the applicable law which says sovereignty is waived. International law is premised on the fact that sovereignty is the MOST important thing. So its not going to be waived without EXPLICIT language. So feel free to point to that language.

Aside from the fact that you apparently don't seem to recognize the difference between something being in violation of a blockade and it being legal to do anything about it.

Go ahead and embarrass the **** out of yourself some more. Since no one is nore against what Israel did than I am you cannot hide behind the claim I'm biased. No matter how much I hate an action I never let my emotions overrule Reason. Give it a shot sometime Supertar.

I have no idea if you are biased or not. I do know, however, that you are talking out of your ass.

If anyone on board the flotillas impeded an IDF cargo investigation then the IDF had the legal right to use force. It may suck but without the Rule of Law there would be nothing.

Incorrect. This is dependent on the blockade being legal, which its not. The IDF also does NOT have the right to invade another countries sovereign territory.

Are you ******* 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.

 

[Nik]

Oh I see...you want the upgraded CL treatment. Pay attention closer you ******* cocksucking asswipe:

"....a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade."

This is an internationally recognized law you ******* ignorant ****. A ship in Japan's water is not afforded the legal protections of Japan's Sovereignty because it waives that legal right upon announcement of intending to go through a naval blockade. If a Japanese military vessel makes the statement it plans to go through the blockade then that is equivalent to a declaration of war against the nation having the naval blockade.

Really? Please cite the applicable law which says sovereignty is waived. International law is premised on the fact that sovereignty is the MOST important thing. So its not going to be waived without EXPLICIT language. So feel free to point to that language.

Aside from the fact that you apparently don't seem to recognize the difference between something being in violation of a blockade and it being legal to do anything about it.



I have no idea if you are biased or not. I do know, however, that you are talking out of your ass.

If anyone on board the flotillas impeded an IDF cargo investigation then the IDF had the legal right to use force. It may suck but without the Rule of Law there would be nothing.

Incorrect. This is dependent on the blockade being legal, which its not. The IDF also does NOT have the right to invade another countries sovereign territory.

Are you ******* 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 ******* 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What about this one?

17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary.

 

[Nik]

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.

What about this one?

17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary.

Merchant ships are NOT belligerent forces whether they want to breach a blockade or not.

 

[Nik]

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.

What about this one?

17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary.

Aside from that, thats a rule specifying what belligerent forces may NOT do. If they DO do it, that doesn't justify any action on Israels part.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

Aside from this, as I said, even assuming you are correct in this (which you aren't) it wouldn't prove your point. That a belligerent takes harbor in neutral waters does not allow them to be attacked.

Oh...and under the Hague Conventions, a belligerent can rest at a neutral port for 24 hours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

That makes enemy merchant vessels military targets, it does not define belligerent forces. The portions I posted earlier defined blockade runners as belligerent forces.

 

[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

That makes enemy merchant vessels military targets, it does not define belligerent forces. The portions I posted earlier defined blockade runners as belligerent forces.

Engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy....EG means those are examples of belligerent acts. Breaking a blockade isn't on there.

And really? You posted a definition which defined blockade runners as belligerent forces? I somehow highly doubt that. But please re-post if you did.

Again...this debate is academic. Even if they are belligerent forces, that doesn't allow Israel to attack them at a neutral port.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

 

[CurveLight]

Really? Please cite the applicable law which says sovereignty is waived. International law is premised on the fact that sovereignty is the MOST important thing. So its not going to be waived without EXPLICIT language. So feel free to point to that language.

Aside from the fact that you apparently don't seem to recognize the difference between something being in violation of a blockade and it being legal to do anything about it.



I have no idea if you are biased or not. I do know, however, that you are talking out of your ass.



Incorrect. This is dependent on the blockade being legal, which its not. The IDF also does NOT have the right to invade another countries sovereign territory.

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

Yes you dumbfucking ********** it specifically addresses neutral waters for a blockade. Hell, I posted it twice and you still ******* 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 ******* 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 ****.

 

[CurveLight]

Really? Please cite the applicable law which says sovereignty is waived. International law is premised on the fact that sovereignty is the MOST important thing. So its not going to be waived without EXPLICIT language. So feel free to point to that language.

Aside from the fact that you apparently don't seem to recognize the difference between something being in violation of a blockade and it being legal to do anything about it.



I have no idea if you are biased or not. I do know, however, that you are talking out of your ass.



Incorrect. This is dependent on the blockade being legal, which its not. The IDF also does NOT have the right to invade another countries sovereign territory.

Are you ******* 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 ******* 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.

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.

What about this one?

17. Belligerent forces may not use neutral waters as a sanctuary.

The subject is a blockade and he ******* quoted a non-sequitur.