RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:03:53 AM)
quote: 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead. May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war?

DomKen -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:23:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sinequanon22 DomKen said: quote: They didn't start a war. They simply enfored their absolute inviolable right to control their own frontier. Technically the Turkish vessels could have been sunk after the initial order to heave to and proceed to an inspection port was ignored. You realize that Israel raided the flotilla (and killed 9 people, some with execution-style shots to the head and chest at point-blank range), in international waters. Completely legal. A ship that is captained by someone who has stated his intention to violate your national border can be intercepted anywhere and any violent resistance to a boarding for purpose of inspection can be met with lethal force or the entire ship can simply be sunk.

DomKen -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or One quick question, how come it was OK to attack or accost them in international waters ? I thought those were international waters. If the UN was so anti-Israel, why did they condone this ? T^T Because the various treaties that define the law of the sea declare it to be legal.

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:32:31 AM)
quote: Completely legal. A ship that is captained by someone who has stated his intention to violate your national border can be intercepted anywhere and any violent resistance to a boarding for purpose of inspection can be met with lethal force or the entire ship can simply be sunk. Are you saying that if a ship captain states that he/she has the intention to violate another's national border They could be sunk in new york harbor, 201 miles off of cape cod, 1000 miles from your shore? If so I would like to see some validation for that.

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:35:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or One quick question, how come it was OK to attack or accost them in international waters ? I thought those were international waters. If the UN was so anti-Israel, why did they condone this ? T^T Because the various treaties that define the law of the sea declare it to be legal. If this is fact could we have a cite? If not then it would be just your opinion.

DomKen -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 10:43:27 AM)
thompsonx, willbeur has already posted some of the passages in question and you ignored it. Why would I waste my time?

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 11:31:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen thompsonx, willbeur has already posted some of the passages in question and you ignored it. Why would I waste my time? Willbeur's cites have been shown to be less than valid. Unless you wish to hitch your intellectual cart to willbeur's dog and pony show you are going to have to come up with something other than your opinion.

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 12:01:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen thompsonx, willbeur has already posted some of the passages in question and you ignored it. Why would I waste my time? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 19 Willbeur's cites have been shown to be less than valid. Unless you wish to hitch your intellectual cart to willbeur's dog and pony show you are going to have to come up with something other than your opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 12:19:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen thompsonx, willbeur has already posted some of the passages in question and you ignored it. Why would I waste my time? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 19 Willbeur's cites have been shown to be less than valid. Unless you wish to hitch your intellectual cart to willbeur's dog and pony show you are going to have to come up with something other than your opinion. quote: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 19 \ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th state to sign the treaty.[1] To date, 161 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law. While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. Countries that have not signed (17) Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, South Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (and excluding the states with limited recognition). Although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not ratified the Convention Israel has not signed so how is your post relevent?

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 12:29:18 PM)
Which part of article 19 of the convention that israel has not signed do you feel applies? http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf Article 19 Meaning of innocent passage 1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State; (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (i) any fishing activities; (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities; (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:10:55 PM)
quote: What facts do you want me to acquaint myself with? Those of Israelis appearing "out of the blue"? Apparently, you are the only one who has such information, tweak.. and that is not surprising. Wiki is a wholly unreliable source in this area ....look at the discussion pages behind the page in wiki about any ME related issue and you will find pages and pages of controversy. Israel chose to treat this matter - which was clearly a civilian matter - as a military matter. That's why it deployed the IDF, not the Coast Guard or Police for what is a routine police matter. Typical Israeli response to dissent. Look at the rate they shoot Palestinians - over 1350 children since 2000. No other nation in the world approaches border security like this. Israel was determined to make an example of the activists and it did. Now it has backfired in Israel's face. By your account the IDF has a murder case to answer here. Stop blame shifting. Murder is murder. Smearing the victims here is no more acceptable than it is with rape victims. Your argument parallels the despicable "she asked for it" 'defence' offered by rapists. It's pathetic, even by Zionism's gutter standards.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:12:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Murder is murder. Brilliant and true. Equally true: Not murder is not murder. Now if you were only unbiased enough to learn the difference.

Aylee -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:20:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Maritime law has changed a lot since then, but there is still considerable disagreement about whether the Lusitania was a legitimage military target. Under today's maritime law I think its hard to argue that she wasnt a legit target. I was actually using that example to agree with you. A boat, in international waters, carrying munitions, and the British had been told that the Germans were going to sink ships. Although. . . Britain was not exactly neutral.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:25:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead. May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war? You have claimed the above elsewhere to suggest the US inveigled itself into WWI making out its a conaspiracy theory. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US entered the war in April 1917. There was diplomatic trouble over the incident but it actually calmed down til Germany ceased diplomatic relations and tried to encourage Japan and Mexico to make war. If you need to blame someone for the entry of the US into the war then look to the British who used propaganda, such as minting a German medal supposedly celebrating the incident which is regarded as turning the mood of the public in the US toward war. BTW the ship was only carrying munitions for small arms so it was not a legitimate target for Germany.

Aylee -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead. May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war? Crew and passangers on the Lusitania was slightly under 2000. 128 American citizens died. About a tenth of the total dead.

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:43:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: What facts do you want me to acquaint myself with? Those of Israelis appearing "out of the blue"? Apparently, you are the only one who has such information, tweak.. and that is not surprising. Wiki is a wholly unreliable source in this area ....look at the discussion pages behind the page in wiki about any ME related issue and you will find pages and pages of controversy. Israel chose to treat this matter - which was clearly a civilian matter - as a military matter. That's why it deployed the IDF, not the Coast Guard or Police for what is a routine police matter. Typical Israeli response to dissent. Look at the rate they shoot Palestinians - over 1350 children since 2000. No other nation in the world approaches border security like this. Israel was determined to make an example of the activists and it did. Now it has backfired in Israel's face. By your account the IDF has a murder case to answer here. Stop blame shifting. Murder is murder. Smearing the victims here is no more acceptable than it is with rape victims. Your argument parallels the despicable "she asked for it" 'defence' offered by rapists. It's pathetic, even by Zionism's gutter standards. I'm not smearing anyone, unless the truth is a smear. And you are incorrect. Enforcement of a blockade is a military matter, not a civilian one. The civilian role occurs prior to that in diplomatic circles. Do you want to insist that never happened either? If you do, let me know. I'll give you the links to demonstrate that it most certainly did. This has nothing to do with rape and you know it. It is not anywhere equivalent. I've said and will repeat, any soldier who committed an execution type slaying should be prosecuted. So should the activists who chose to beat, stab, and throw soldiers from the deck. It was an incident that never should have occurred and occurred primarily because of actions on the activists part. Argue that until you're blue in the face but it patently clear in this case they ignored the warnings, escalated the conflict, and initiated the violence. Maybe next time, UFO's will appear "out of the blue". That'll be Israel's fault too though I suppose.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen thompsonx, willbeur has already posted some of the passages in question and you ignored it. Why would I waste my time? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Article 19 Willbeur's cites have been shown to be less than valid. Unless you wish to hitch your intellectual cart to willbeur's dog and pony show you are going to have to come up with something other than your opinion. thompson is a fucking liar and has been ignored since the 3rd or 4th post of his that I suffered through. He cant find a single cite of mine thats been shown to be less than valid, unless that term means "thompson doesnt like it".

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Maritime law has changed a lot since then, but there is still considerable disagreement about whether the Lusitania was a legitimage military target. Under today's maritime law I think its hard to argue that she wasnt a legit target. I was actually using that example to agree with you. A boat, in international waters, carrying munitions, and the British had been told that the Germans were going to sink ships. Although. . . Britain was not exactly neutral. Yes, I know you were. I was just fleshing it out for those in the crowd who don't understand the facts around the "legality" of her sinking.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 1:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead. May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war? You have claimed the above elsewhere to suggest the US inveigled itself into WWI making out its a conaspiracy theory. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US entered the war in April 1917. There was diplomatic trouble over the incident but it actually calmed down til Germany ceased diplomatic relations and tried to encourage Japan and Mexico to make war. If you need to blame someone for the entry of the US into the war then look to the British who used propaganda, such as minting a German medal supposedly celebrating the incident which is regarded as turning the mood of the public in the US toward war. BTW the ship was only carrying munitions for small arms so it was not a legitimate target for Germany. There's still much disagreement over that Anax. Again, under current maritime law I think it would be difficult maintain that she wasn't a legitimate target. Of course youre right about the rest of it.

Kirata -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/19/2011 3:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle No warnings were given... A helicopter appeared out of the blue and the IDF commandos - not Coast Guard not civil police - attacked the ship Ohferchrissake, Israel issued a clear warning before the flotilla even left port. As for "attacking" the ship, I guess we'll have to leave that as a matter of interpretation. Personally, I'd say the IDF is losing its touch. Looks to me like clown suits should have been the uniform of the day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bSKYO7Jhmc&feature=related K.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875