Thread: Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship

Turkey, after sucking on a large portion of Uncle Sam's satanic cock, is now much less pissed off with Israel, apparently...

Originally Posted by SnotGoblin

With the Palestinians caged up and locked into the Gaza strip, it does seem very similar to a ghetto from WW2.

" The children of Hitler " have learned fast.
(Yeni Şafak)

Originally Posted by superman

Originally Posted by panama hat

Oh dear, that disqualifies me for an answer then?

Oh dear, if you must, but I'd prefer it from Mr Wilson.

I did answer, go back and read post 129

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Further criticism of Israel came from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday.
In an interview with the AFP news agency he said Israel's blockade of Gaza was responsible for the deadly raid.
"Had Israelis heeded to my call and to the call of the international community by lifting the blockade of Gaza, this tragic incident would not have happened," he said.

Gutless wimp, it was not a tragic accident!

Originally Posted by louis key

i think you will find they use armed marines, same as uk, usa thailand and anyone else with a shore line to defend

Except that Israel had no need to defend their shoreline from an Aid flotilla to Gaza!

Originally Posted by Bower

If Israel attacks a Turkey escorted convoy this would be a pure act of war?

Why Turkey is flexing its puny muscles against Israel is beyond me. Israel has a blockade up, so you try to go through it and its forces will stop you. Simple. There are two ports for Gaza aid.

Originally Posted by Bower

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Not very impressive, looks like anything that comes to hand on a large vessel, or did i miss something?

Only the molotov cocktails. Who knows what's in the rest of the cargo.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

• The UN Charter on the Law of the Sea says only if a vessel is suspected to be transporting weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, can it be boarded in international waters. Otherwise the permission of the ship's flag carrying nation must be sought.
• The charter allows for naval blockades, but the effect of the blockade on civilians must be proportionate to the effect on the military element for the blockade to be legally enforceable.
• A ship trying to breach a blockade can be boarded and force may be used to stop it as long as it is "necessary and proportionate".

So, where did Israel go wrong? Israel suspected weapons. The passengers started attacking the commandos, they responded.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Further criticism of Israel came from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday.
"Had Israelis heeded to my call and to the call of the international community by lifting the blockade of Gaza, this tragic incident would not have happened," he said.

Ya, and Gaza would be bombing Israel more frequently. The UN? Pulleeeeeeease.

The United Nations Security Council can’t decide how to sanction Iran or punish North Korea over killing 46 South Korean Sailors in last month’s unprovoked attack on one of its submarines. But on Monday, the UN called an emergency session to take Israel to task over the boarding of a Turkish registered boat on its way to deliver aid to Gaza which led to at least nine deaths following violent altercations between Israeli forces and a significant number of armed protestors.
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...-terror-links/

Originally Posted by louis key

Except that Israel had no need to defend their shoreline from an Aid flotilla to Gaza!

Theoretically true, but Israel does need to defend its border with Gaza.

I'm still with Israel on this one. And what timing for this event! Iran continues to enrich uranium, the WH's dirty political purchase scandal swept under the rug, and *sob* nobody cares that Al Gore is splitting from his wife of 40 years.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by Bower

If Israel attacks a Turkey escorted convoy this would be a pure act of war?

Why Turkey is flexing its puny muscles against Israel is beyond me. Israel has a blockade up, so you try to go through it and its forces will stop you. Simple. There are two ports for Gaza aid.

Originally Posted by Bower

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Not very impressive, looks like anything that comes to hand on a large vessel, or did i miss something?

Only the molotov cocktails. Who knows what's in the rest of the cargo.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

• The UN Charter on the Law of the Sea says only if a vessel is suspected to be transporting weapons, or weapons of mass destruction, can it be boarded in international waters. Otherwise the permission of the ship's flag carrying nation must be sought.
• The charter allows for naval blockades, but the effect of the blockade on civilians must be proportionate to the effect on the military element for the blockade to be legally enforceable.
• A ship trying to breach a blockade can be boarded and force may be used to stop it as long as it is "necessary and proportionate".

So, where did Israel go wrong? Israel suspected weapons. The passengers started attacking the commandos, they responded.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Further criticism of Israel came from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday.
"Had Israelis heeded to my call and to the call of the international community by lifting the blockade of Gaza, this tragic incident would not have happened," he said.

Ya, and Gaza would be bombing Israel more frequently. The UN? Pulleeeeeeease.

The United Nations Security Council can’t decide how to sanction Iran or punish North Korea over killing 46 South Korean Sailors in last month’s unprovoked attack on one of its submarines. But on Monday, the UN called an emergency session to take Israel to task over the boarding of a Turkish registered boat on its way to deliver aid to Gaza which led to at least nine deaths following violent altercations between Israeli forces and a significant number of armed protestors.
Gaza Clash: Turkish Charity’s Terror Links

Originally Posted by louis key

Except that Israel had no need to defend their shoreline from an Aid flotilla to Gaza!

Theoretically true, but Israel does need to defend its border with Gaza.

I'm still with Israel on this one. And what timing for this event! Iran continues to enrich uranium, the WH's dirty political purchase scandal swept under the rug, and *sob* nobody cares that Al Gore is splitting from his wife of 40 years.

FOX NEWS TROLL !

Originally Posted by zygote1

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by superman

Originally Posted by Panda

Since when has the Australian navy been hijacking foreign cargo ships in international waters under force of arms ?

When searching for illegal immigrants ? Most countries do it on a daily basis. Not only for illegals but for drugs, weapons and other forms of smuggling. Australia currently intercept 'illegals' in international waters and return them to their country of origin. If they get caught in Australian waters they can automatically ask for asylum. So Australia, and others, intercept them on the high seas.

Can you justify that statement with a link?

Australia does not forcibly intercept anybody in international waters as it would be a highly illegal act of piracy under international maritime law.

The Australian navy has intercepted many illegal immigrants and illegal fishermen in Australian territorial waters near Ashmore Reef, which does happen to be in the middle of nowhere halfway between Indonesia and Australia.

Do you honestly believe that defense officials will wait for a sea vessel to enter the 12 mile limit, which is the conventional demarcation, before they will intervene? Almost every intercept of a vessel whether it is off the coast of the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. usually happens well outside this line. The reasons are attributable to;
- National security: If there are escapees, or dangerous cargo, the further away from shore the better the intercept
- Ease of containment: It is easier to surveille and contain when the bad guys aren't close to shore.

Here's the Australian Navy's position. What part of this do you not comprehend?

Further up the threat scale, ACPBs contribute to the national task of fisheries protection as part of the Border Protection Command (BPC) managed national effort. Other tasks for BPC involve maritime barrier operations, which include the prevention of illegal immigration, supporting anti-smuggling operations conducted by Federal and State police agencies, and assisting in Australia’s quarantine effort. Currently there are seven ACPBs assigned to Operation RESOLUTE, the ADF’s contribution to the whole of government effort to protect Australia’s borders and offshore maritime interests. Two additional ACPBs are available should the threat level warrant further response capability.[3] Each year Australian patrol boats respond to hundreds of foreign vessel sightings. They routinely intercept and board vessels suspected of breaching Australian laws. Examination and inspection by trained and experienced patrol boat boarding parties may result in the apprehension of the vessels concerned
The Armidale class vessels, while designated multi purpose have an extended range which was specifically intended to allow offshore operations.
Again, the issue of the intercept is moot as the precedent has already been set. Nor does the interdiction meet the legal requirements for piracy or hijacking. You can call it an agressive or stupid act with dire consequences etc., but it doesn't meet the definition of piracy.

Your quote above says absolutely nothing about Australia forcibly detaining foreign vessels in international waters. (absence of a link is noted also).

Australia does however detain foreign vessels carrying out illegal opperations such as illegal fish poaching and people smuggling in Australian waters. That is no secret at all and what your quote above pertains to.

Best you and Superman get back and do some more Google searches to try and dig up something to justify your false claims.

#155 JG
Good post and agree.

^

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided Monday that Israel will not prosecute or continue to hold the participants it captured from the Gaza protest flotilla, despite earlier indications from Israel that some of those who attacked the Israeli soldiers boarding the ships will be prosecuted.

All flotilla activists to be deported

Dozens of passengers who were aboard the Mavi Marmara Turkish passenger ship are suspected of having connections with Global Jihad-affiliated terrorist organizations, defense officials said Tuesday, amid growing concerns that Turkey will dispatch Navy warships to accompany a future flotilla to the Gaza Strip.

IDF: Global Jihad on flotilla

Hmmm, anyone have a view on why Turkey is changing its stance on Israel? What does it have to gain from transporting "aid" from its ports or, indeed, send its navy to escort these ships? Something's up...

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

connections with Global Jihad-affiliated terrorist organizations

Somehow I doubt a wanted Terrorist would incarcerate himself on a boat in an aid convoy, waiting to be boarded by the IDF.

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

erm, yes.

So give us an example as to how the Australian military combat the threat from vessels trying to enter their waters.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

I also strikes me that the 600 people on the ship must have been sharing.

There was never 600 people on the one ship.

Bloody shame that the Israelis didn't slaughter the lot. Muslims = human garbage.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Panda

Sounds remarkably similar to Abhisit.

False equivalency is false. Try again.

He can't help himself. Natural born idiots usually have that problem.

Then again, I saw some dog poop on a lawn today -- sounds remarkably similar to Panda.

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by Panda

The ships were attacked and highjacked in international waters which constitutes an act of piracy under international law.

The Israeli government has a long and horrible record of flouting international laws, no reason to expect them to change their ways now.

Don't waste your time lecturing Panda - plus, he shows that his display of 'international maritime law' is a bit hazy.

Any nation has the right to board a suspicious vessel in international waters, for inspection and search.

In this case, after the Israeli forces boarded the vessel, the 'peaceful passengers' attacked them with weapons and forced the Israeli forces to defend themselves -- also demonstrating quite clearly the peaceful flotilla's intentions were less than peaceful, seeing as how the Israeli forces clearly identified themselves, and clearly stated their intentions to be 'search'.

It was only after the 'peaceful passengers' attacked, that the IDF countered in defense - and obviously, blood spilled.

Oh, wait -- there ARE after all parallels to the situation in Thailand. Who'd have thought (albeit this didn't quite work the way Panda envisioned)

Originally Posted by Jools

Bloody shame that the Israelis didn't slaughter the lot. Muslims = human garbage.

Nevermind the fact that not all those on board were Muslim, calling for a group of people to be slaughtered on the basis of a gross generalisation like that is of itself indicative of a fairly 'garbage' person and mind.

Originally Posted by Jools

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Jools

Bloody shame that the Israelis didn't slaughter the lot. Muslims = human garbage.

Nevermind the fact that not all those on board were Muslim, calling for a group of people to be slaughtered on the basis of a gross generalisation like that is of itself indicative of a fairly 'garbage' person and mind.

Guilt by association is the legal term, I believe. Feck 'em.

Well then once again you believe incorrectly; the law does not recognise guilt by association therefore it's not a "legal term". Zero from 2 so far.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Israel is a fascist state, no surprise they would "pre-empt" any perceived threats to further their fascist agenda

Anti-Semitic posts are the lifeblood of Teakdoor.

Originally Posted by Jools

It may not be a "legal term" in your country but it damn sure is in mine.

Well your location says Korat and it's not a legal term in Thai law. However that being said since you're neither Thai nor is this your country then I can only presume you're referring to the UK, specifically England, and in which case you're wrong about that too -- English law, statutory or the common law, does not recognise a principle of "guilt by association" either.

Zero for 3 now, thanks for playing. Want to try again?

Originally Posted by Jools

Bloody shame that the Israelis didn't slaughter the lot. Muslims = human garbage.

Originally Posted by Jools

anti-Semitic posts are the lifeblood of Teakdoor.

Classic.

Originally Posted by Jools

It may not be a "legal term" in your country but it damn sure is in mine.
There are laws against "criminal association" (like the mafia or street gangs) whose purpose is criminal activity. Also it is illegal to "conspire" to commit a crime. Simply being with another person during the commission of a crime could make you an "accessory" if you helped them in any way to commit or to conceal the crime.
You might also become liable for their crime if you were involved in another crime at the same time. An example of this is the "felony murder rule". For example if you were committing a robbery with someone and that other person caused a death, you would also be guilty of murder.

You really shouldn't have bothered with the post edit. You've gone from claiming "guilt by association" as a legal term to outlines of "criminal association"; 'conspiracy'; "accessory"; and "felony murder rule" that look like you've simply cut 'n pasted from somewhere else.

And not that any of that matters in any event because they are all seperate and distinct from any notion of "guilt by association", all involving active participation in either the planning or commission of a crime.

Zero for 4. This is becoming a habit.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Zero for 4. This is becoming a habit.

The irony of Ant - Ad nauseam

Originally Posted by Jools

Guilt by association is the legal term, I believe. Feck 'em.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Well then once again you believe incorrectly; the law does not recognise guilt by association therefore it's not a "legal term". Zero from 2 so far.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Zero for 3 now, thanks for playing. Want to try again?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Zero for 4. This is becoming a habit.

Why doesn't Jools just give up posting shite . . . he is clearly clueless and tries to clean up his mess by editing after the fact . . .