Mhz, you already capitulated and conceded, that the blockade is legal, the boarding was legal, and the deaths, the tragic result of the Israeli's being forced to defend themselves. Why do you continue to flail around like a fish out of water?
JFK put a naval blockade on Cuba for weapons of war, ships were checked at sea and then allowed to deliver the good if they were humanitarian items and not military hardware. Israel has already supplied the pictures of things it calls weapons, normal items to most of us would seem to be items that should not exist in Gaza and the West Bank. Axes, pliers, wrenches, CD's, etc.
They were looking for missiles mhz. They're kind of conspicuous.
Prove it, the points of loading would also have a copy of what was loaded art the ports, the ones where Israel snuck aboard and sabotaged at least one ship, the Rachael Cory. Same time they would have had photo's of everyone on board. A head count of the 'missing' could have been 'friendlies' that were tossed overboard and then picked up from the sea. Can't tell if anybody is missing yet so that part will need top be settled later in the on-going investigation.
You and your conspiracy theories.
Israel doesn't rule the seas, Turkey had already said if the convoy was interfered with
their would be warships sent as escorts with the next one.
That's Turkey's choice, though I highly doubt they'll go to war with Israel over this.
First item up should be the legality of the blockade under the rules set out for such affairs.
You already proved it was legal, thanx by the way.
So far Israel hasn't been real supportive of independent investigations.
Look at the reactions so far. Do you think there is such a thing as an independent body now? Don't answer, that was rhetorical.
Independent in this case would seen to exclude all NATO countries also because of our ties Turkey.
Ummm, k.
Yes, full stop. The article you posted, said straight out, legal blockade, legal boarding, legal defence. FULL STOP.
the point the article made was they could board if they were in a declared state of war. Declaring war on a democratically appointed Government is not something that our past leaders signed in for with our agreements with the various UN documents.
You can try and spin it any way you want mhz, your own post kills your position. Israel and Hamas are in a state of conflict, full stop.
You do if you want to know the contents of a ship leaving a foreign port for a foreign port. Let alone stealing part of the cargo once they had their hands on it, how shabby is that?
It isn't, because it was lawful, as you have already pointed out.
The contact was made several hours before the actual boarding from some reports I have read.
Yes, by radio, where all attempts to remedy the siutation were ignored by the activists.
The posted article is correct if the base for the blockade had some merit, it it dies not have a legal blockade then it is one based on military strength alone, the next boats will be clearly armed, they will be the big gray boats.
I read your whole article, links included, your post was accurate, Israel is completely justified, the blockade legal, the boarding legal, the deaths, sad, but legal.
Thank you for posting that awesome article, links and conceding to fact.
How would you know, your eyes and ears close as soon as somebody disagrees with you.
LMAO!!!
I can't find support at the UN for this current blockade, backing from the US is all it has.
Irrelevant, a blockade does not need UN approval.
Now with NATO forced to put it's forces behind Turkey the US is going to support Israel over their NATO Allies.
You need to read up on NATO.
If there is a document that covers blockades then there is an 'approved way' and a way that is not.
Absolutely correct, and Israel was following the rules as to the who to do it right, when they boarded the Miva Marmara. As you already conceded to with your posted article.
Plain and simple, when Canada declared war in WWII it made page one and had big letters that said CANADA DECLARES WAR. Which newspaper carried Israel's declaration of war with Gaza?
You do not need a declaration of war, you need to be in an armed conflict with. You really should start learning a little more, before you start spouting off and looking like a tool.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:
(a) religious objects;
(b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;
(c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;
(d) items destined for prisoners of war, including individual parcels and collective relief shipments containing food, clothing, educational, cultural, and recreational articles;
(e) goods otherwise specifically exempted from capture by international treaty or by special arrangement between belligerents; and
(f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict,
Bingo, that's awesome, you keep providing the ammo to sink your own platform, thanx...LMAO!!
I'm not. I'm not the one who wants to see war. And bringing Alberta into a discussion about Israel, lmao.
Alberta is some distance from the people making decisions. Canada as a signatory of UN181 and should have done something in the past 70 years to make the events of today impossible because there should not be a blockade at all or even a war in '67 of in '48. Face it Canada made promises to the Arabs as well as to the Jews and then we hung one party out to dry.
No one party stomped off and started a war, the Arabs.
I think you are a little more fuked than that.
Of course you do, that way you can simply dismiss what I say, without actually providing anything based on reality to prove me wrong, lol.
It is one thing to get the willies when hanging out a chopper door by a thin life-line, quite another when you have a weapon firing rounds at imagined human targets while sporting some sort weapon you called a 'woodie' in some other thread.
Your point?
They are only childish if they are directed at you.
Wow, I'm glad you recognize your childishness, but it is childish, no matter who you direct it at.
Not really as their crime of interfering with the delivery of humanitarian aid is something that quite apparent. over decades not just the last few years.
Again, you have alreaqdy proven that they haven't committed a crime. From your own links "A belligerent party may inspect any aid" Full Stop.
You ignore the original documents as well so what does it matter and you certainly never see all that I read on any subject. lol
I ignore the original documents? LMAO. You haven't posted any, not with specific context anyways, just cut and paste whole conventions without ever showing how it applies. That's not proof, that's baffle gab and BS. Something you're amazingly good at.
Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, 208 Consol. T.S. 338 (1909).
Art. 44. A vessel which has been stopped on the ground that she is carrying contraband, and which is not liable to condemnation on account of the proportion of contraband on board, may,
when the circumstances permit, be allowed to continue her voyage if the master is willing to hand over the contraband to the belligerent warship. The delivery of the contraband must be entered by the captor on the logbook of the vessel stopped, and the master must give the captor duly certified copies of all relevant papers.[/quote]Nice try in your selective reading, lol.
Lets hope they comply before someone gets sunk.
fify yet again.
Art. 50. Before the vessel is destroyed all persons on board must be placed in safety, and all the ship's papers and other documents which the parties interested consider relevant for the purpose of deciding on the validity of the capture must be taken on board the warship.
No vessel was destroyed, so this is more of your BS.
The rest of your post I won't reply to, it's more of your conspiraciy god wad shyte.
LMAO!!!
I'm saying a public announcement at this time is like saying "So what?".
Ya so?
You ought to know civilians don't give a damn of a soldiers' life.
That sucks, and I don't care what the uneducated morons in the general public think.
Anyways, I'm going catfishin', you guys have a good time.
