Page 114 of 147 FirstFirst ... 1464104112113114115116124 ... LastLast
Results 1,131 to 1,140 of 1469

Thread: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

  1. #1131
    Student CrazyMcCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    08-27-13 @ 03:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    233

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocalypse View Post
    Al-Jazeera was really trying hard, you can give them that.

    But you should not have any problem with this edited video, it doesn't show that Israeli soldiers are attacking them before they are being attacked and doesn't show anything useful at all.
    It annoying debating these kind of things with people who do not understand how mass edited videos can and are...

    I got to agree with Laila on this one. "...the real losers are the Palestinians in Gaza who have been used as bait again."
    'DON'T WORRY SIR, I'M FROM THE INTERNET.'

    THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UN ( Click on the UN to see! )

  2. #1132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    ...
    ...
    I'm arguing that it DOES apply to each subpart. If you acknowledge that it applies to each subpart, then this should be very easy for you to understand.

    Look: In order for Israel's action to be illegal under Art. 14 or Art. 6, it has to be a violation of Art. III. In order for it to be a violation of Art. III, the following has to be proved:



    One of the elements of a violation of Art. III is that the action itself was illegal. If the action itself was not illegal, then there can be no violation of Art. III (and by proxy Art. 6 or Art. 14). You cannot use a violation of a subpart to prove an element of the Article. That's circular reasoning.

    edit: Consider this example:

    Imagine there is a law that says:



    Now imagine that someone used a blue crayon. The fact that someone used a blue crayon is not sufficient to show that a crime has been committed. You have to show that someone used a blue crayon and that the person also used a red crayon.

    Now go back to the case at hand. It's obvious that someone seized control of the ship under subpart (a). However, nothing in the Convention applies unless you also show that it was done so unlawfully. This is why I've been telling you over and over that this Convention does not answer the question of whether the action was unlawful.
    Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":
    Article 6

    1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

    (a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed; or

    (b) in the territory of that State, including its territorial sea; or

    (c) by a national of that State.

    2. A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such offence when:

    (a) it is committed by a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or

    (b) during its commission a national of that State is seized, threatened, injured or killed; or
    You said this once. I will repeat this. This is basic legal interpretation.

  3. #1133
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,093

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":
    Actually not correct. The main ship where the deaths occurred was flying a flag of convenience.. the Comoros Islands. But as far as we know at this time, the Israelis did not request permission to board the ship from said government.
    PeteEU

  4. #1134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Actually not correct. The main ship where the deaths occurred was flying a flag of convenience.. the Comoros Islands. But as far as we know at this time, the Israelis did not request permission to board the ship from said government.
    I could've sworn the Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag.


    Ah, I see. It's homeport is the capital of Turkey and the flag it was flying on the way to Gaza was the Turkish flag (along the Palestinian flag):

  5. #1135
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I honestly have neither the inclination nor the patience to do this. I'm sorry if that sounds like a copout, but I can assure you that it's fairly well accepted that the UNGA and other international bodies focus disproportionately on Israel as opposed to other human rights violators.
    So it's disingenuous to make a claim against the UN that you can't back up. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    -- My understanding is that Israel allows all sorts of aid materials to enter Gaza via land. Someone cited 100 trucks/day, though I'm not sure of the details on that.
    There are posts with links way back in this thread that quote the UN view that what Israel lets in (in terms of food and other civilian supllies) is only a quarter of what it needed or used before the blockade went up.

    Quote Originally Posted by deltabtry View Post
    Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
    Right now, there are International Law experts at different universities and agencies around the world who have differing opinions. I can probably speak with certainty that the legality of this raid won't be resolved anytime soon.


    Quote Originally Posted by DeeJayH View Post
    -- they attacked and killed people who were armed with nothing more than painball guns --
    It was the IDF who were armed with paintball guns - no Israelis died as far as I can recall

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeJayH View Post
    the initial team had paint ball guns
    when the 'innocent passengers began assaulting the contraband inspectors' the following IDF forces entered with REAL GUNS--
    If I recall correctly, Netanyahu spoke with the guy we see thrown off the ship in the early stages of the commandos coming on board - I believe this guy had his gun stolen during that melee. Certainly another commando has his gun taken off him too - and that's where the 2 guns come from that the IDF later said had been used against them.
    Last edited by Infinite Chaos; 06-03-10 at 08:32 AM.

  6. #1136
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,217

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    It was the IDF who were armed with paintball guns - no Israelis died as far as I can recall
    Two soldiers were seriously wounded, and a few others have suffered from gunshot wounds.
    That they did not die is hence only fortune playing its role, and I can't see how you're planning to use it to justify the lynch.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  7. #1137
    Professor
    Cassandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Last Seen
    11-02-17 @ 02:39 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,319

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Given that there were no incidents on any of the other boats and that the audio of the encounter indicates that the troops were very startled by the resistance, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

    Moreover, why on earth would the Israelis want this to turn into a violent confrontation? Both sides knew full well that a violent incident would arouse sympathy for the activists, so that's exactly what the Israelis were trying to avoid and what the activists sought out.
    Well, that is the question. Keystone cops perhaps?
    As for the paint ball guns, this is what Ambassador Peck-who was there- had to say on the matter:

    EDWARD PECK: Yeah, this is the other thing. You know, I did not expect that the government of Israel would refer to us as tree-hugging, you know, flowerchildren. Of course we’re also savage, murdering, you know, anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian—aw, come on, get off it. But of course he has to say this. This is Israel’s position. But it’s as full of holes as a window screen. You know, if you look at the people who were there and the stuff that we were bringing, and he quotes—forgive me, I get—I’ve been talking about this since I got back yesterday morning, just about this time, I guess. The international law, he says, you know, you can do this if it’s provoking a danger, but Gaza does not belong to Israel. It is illegally occupied by international law, so you can’t really stop ships from going there. Well, you can, and they did, but if people try to resist what you’re trying to do, you cannot really accuse them of attacking your heavily armed soldiers. And they were heavily armed. On our little boat, a couple of them had paint guns attached to their submachine guns, along with stun grenades and the pepper spray and the handcuffs and the pistols, you know. So this is sort of a twisting reality, which of course I understand why they’re trying to do it. I’ve been a diplomat. But it’s laughable."

  8. #1138
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyMcCool View Post
    Yeah apperntly we can control the world media, but our PR skills suck [/sarcasam]
    What I find amazing are the number of truly mind-numbingly stupid people who talk about all the supposed influence you folks have over the media and then go on and on about how they are justified in hating you because all their little mates hate you and their media hates you and the U.N. hates you, etc.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  9. #1139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    I could've sworn the Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag.


    Ah, I see. It's homeport is the capital of Turkey and the flag it was flying on the way to Gaza was the Turkish flag (along the Palestinian flag):
    That boat was payed for by the IHH, it was a jihadist owned and operated ship.

  10. #1140
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":

    You said this once. I will repeat this. This is basic legal interpretation.
    This is the last thing I'm going to say to you on this.

    You're saying that Article III was violated.
    You're saying that the reason Article III was violated is because Article VI was violated.
    Article VI says:

    1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:
    In essence, you're saying that Article III has been violated because Article VI has been violated because Article III has been violated because Article VI has been violated...
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •