Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »Gaza sea convoy incident
That's the way politics are, try to live with it.
International is not about 'oh how ethically good of you; gosh i wish i did that kind of good at my place. Oh you try to motivate me to do that, oh how thoughtful of you'.
No it's about who knows who.
What were you thinking when you hoped the americans would judge this? It's like China saying to North-Korea "Guys stop it!". Such things just don't happen
International is not about 'oh how ethically good of you; gosh i wish i did that kind of good at my place. Oh you try to motivate me to do that, oh how thoughtful of you'.
No it's about who knows who.
What were you thinking when you hoped the americans would judge this? It's like China saying to North-Korea "Guys stop it!". Such things just don't happen
Indeed, you can't expect anything good from the US if it has something to do with Israel. But not that strange from zionists. And I didn't expected to much, but this is even less then that. Both are making a fool out of themselfs, that's the good part :)
Hopefully Turkey doesn't accept this at all, it's all an insult to them by these so called allies. But again we see what US and Israel mean by allies.
Hopefully Turkey doesn't accept this at all, it's all an insult to them by these so called allies. But again we see what US and Israel mean by allies.
It's easy to judge the US but what about china and their friends or russia? Or even Venezuela, Iran, Birma or japan and their whales?
Is this topic about China, Iran or Venezuela? No, this topic is about the brutal Israeli attack on an ally in international waters.
okéy very good but why engage the ships in international waters, that's piracy!
To all of you that don't understand please read 67a - It regards exactly to that .
Isael had all the rights to stop the ship there!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
To all of you that don't understand please read 67a - It regards exactly to that .
Isael had all the rights to stop the ship there!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
Isael had all the rights to stop the ship there!
How's that for selective reading! As you are obviously unfamiliar with legislation, remember that you need to read the whole document.
For example, look at:
4. The principles of necessity and proportionality apply equally to armed conflict at sea and require that the conduct of hostilities by a State should not exceed the degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required to repel an armed attack against it and to restore its security.
and
5. How far a State is justified in its military actions against the enemy will depend upon the intensity and scale of the armed attack for which the enemy is responsible and the gravity of the threat posed.
and that's just for starters. Closer to where you like to pick out something which at first glance seems to support your claim, you will find:
SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK
46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
and
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations
and let's take it from the top once again:
32. Neutral vessels may likewise exercise the right of innocent passage through belligerent international straits and archipelagic waters.
How's that for selective reading! As you are obviously unfamiliar with legislation, remember that you need to read the whole document.
For example, look at:
4. The principles of necessity and proportionality apply equally to armed conflict at sea and require that the conduct of hostilities by a State should not exceed the degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required to repel an armed attack against it and to restore its security.
and
5. How far a State is justified in its military actions against the enemy will depend upon the intensity and scale of the armed attack for which the enemy is responsible and the gravity of the threat posed.
and that's just for starters. Closer to where you like to pick out something which at first glance seems to support your claim, you will find:
SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK
46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
and
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations
and let's take it from the top once again:
32. Neutral vessels may likewise exercise the right of innocent passage through belligerent international straits and archipelagic waters.
An israeli government website trying to justify israeli actions? Colour me surprised!
And how you know it was innocent and didn't carry weapon before checking ?
67a is clear enough and it regard exactly to this !
(edited)
67a is clear enough and it regard exactly to this !
(edited)
You should talk about facts and laws here , we understand your opinion about Israel .
(edited)
(edited)
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
See, the term innocent passage doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it has a strict legal definition.
See, the term innocent passage doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it has a strict legal definition.
And I am talking about facts and laws, that's why we're having this discussion.
Hehe i found the same articles :p
@Abu: laws cannot be read as one wants
but for your defence:
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.
147. Goods on board neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture only if they are contraband.
148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.
You were allowed to seize the cargo but too bad you have to give it back because it's not contraband
@Abu: laws cannot be read as one wants
but for your defence:
146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:
(a) are carrying contraband;
(b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;
(c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;
(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents;
(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or
(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.
Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.
147. Goods on board neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture only if they are contraband.
148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.
You were allowed to seize the cargo but too bad you have to give it back because it's not contraband
we agreed to give Gaza all the cargo after checking but you saw the attack on the soldiers
Ruige, you forgot the line which reads:
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
because that means there has to be justification under such terms as:
41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.
So in fact, they were not justified in attacking and seizing cargo.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
because that means there has to be justification under such terms as:
41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.
So in fact, they were not justified in attacking and seizing cargo.
WTF ???????????????????????????
incite a rebellion, and then you wonder why fight back?
incite a rebellion, and then you wonder why fight back?