Israel Attacks Civilian Aid Ships

[Skip8282]

Just for the purpose of discussion, the analogy you provided seems a little off.   Gaza isn't a nation like America is.  Also, I understand the reasoning and position Israel is in.  But there had to be a better way to go about this.  They could have waited until it was with in the 12 miles zone considered territorial waters.  To attack it outside of the 12 mile territorial water zone.  Which brings in fault on their part. 

That wasn't the point.  She was using the countries as an analogy and I was pointing out the bias.

Why should they have waited?  What does international maritime law state?  What is the supporting case law?  What are the relevant legal histories.  I don't have a clue.  I just keep seeing people like you throwing out "international waters" like your some legal expert.  For example, this passage that I found when snooping around on the subject seems to suggest there may be reasons a country can board on the high seas.

"(5) Universal jurisdiction. According to Henry Kissinger, "the doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereign immunity or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers." Under the relevant treaties, any State can board a ship on the high seas if the ship is suspected of piracy, transporting slaves, or broadcasting illegally. A ship and its occupants can be arrested for piracy and illegal broadcasting by a warship of any State. For other crimes, the arresting State must get the consent or assistance of the flag state. Also, a ship that flies two flags (flags of convenience) or a ship flying no flag may be visited for further inquiry by any State's ships. Ships without flags, and those that fly flags of convenience are subject to the jurisdiction of any State. While some scholars disagree, national courts have upheld convictions based on such arrests. "


Keep in mind, this passage is not on point with what we are discussing, I'm simply illustrating that Israel, depending on what treaties it's engaged in, how the law is interpreted, etc., may very well have been within their rights.  Not being a legal expert, I simply don't know.  But people acting as though "international waters" means hands-off, are clearly just as clueless.

[Dos Equis]

Isn't dead, dead?

Dead is dead. 

[OzmO]

I don't know if I'd call it an attack, but it would be pretty hostile.  The difference I see is we don't go around trying to murder people. 

I don't know about that   lol

[OzmO]

That wasn't the point.  She was using the countries as an analogy and I was pointing out the bias.

Why should they have waited?  What does international maritime law state?  What is the supporting case law?  What are the relevant legal histories.  I don't have a clue.  I just keep seeing people like you throwing out "international waters" like your some legal expert.  For example, this passage that I found when snooping around on the subject seems to suggest there may be reasons a country can board on the high seas.

"(5) Universal jurisdiction. According to Henry Kissinger, "the doctrine of universal jurisdiction asserts that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators should not escape justice by invoking doctrines of sovereign immunity or the sacrosanct nature of national frontiers." Under the relevant treaties, any State can board a ship on the high seas if the ship is suspected of piracy, transporting slaves, or broadcasting illegally. A ship and its occupants can be arrested for piracy and illegal broadcasting by a warship of any State. For other crimes, the arresting State must get the consent or assistance of the flag state. Also, a ship that flies two flags (flags of convenience) or a ship flying no flag may be visited for further inquiry by any State's ships. Ships without flags, and those that fly flags of convenience are subject to the jurisdiction of any State. While some scholars disagree, national courts have upheld convictions based on such arrests. "


Keep in mind, this passage is not on point with what we are discussing, I'm simply illustrating that Israel, depending on what treaties it's engaged in, how the law is interpreted, etc., may very well have been within their rights.  Not being a legal expert, I simply don't know.  But people acting as though "international waters" means hands-off, are clearly just as clueless.

I'm not trying to act like or assume myself as a "legal expert" in these matters, but it is common knowledge that any further than 12 miles off shore is typically considered international waters.   So for the IDF to board a ship in international waters seems wrong.  Now, someone else provided an unlinked reference to a law that states they were with in there rights.  So if they were they were. 

But that doesn't in my mind excuse the disaster that has occurred and Israel doesn't go in the direction of solving this problem, IMO. 

[Dos Equis]

I don't know about that   lol

I said "murder," not "kill."   

[drkaje]

I said "murder," not "kill."   

Like it really matters, LOL!

There's no difference between unilaterally declaring or funding war to people on the receiving end of a bullet. They're still dead despite any flowing political language that might make us feel better, justified or OK with their passing. This is simply another example of how political necessity determines right and wrong.

[Dos Equis]

Like it really matters, LOL!

There's no difference between unilaterally declaring or funding war to people on the receiving end of a bullet. They're still dead despite any flowing political language that might make us feel better, justified or OK with their passing. This is simply another example of how political necessity determines right and wrong.

If you're talking about whether a person is equally dead, I agree.  If the issue is whether a country has been repeatedly attacked and you're analyzing what steps the country can take to defend itself, then yes it matters.   

[OzmO]

I said "murder," not "kill."   

Like, I said:  I don't know about that.   

[drkaje]

If you're talking about whether a person is equally dead, I agree.  If the issue is whether a country has been repeatedly attacked and you're analyzing what steps the country can take to defend itself, then yes it matters.   

I'm saying right and wrong are political definitions.

If our side, politics, or national interests changed, overnight, Israel would be wrong. Pretending any criticism has a moral basis is asinine.

[OzmO]

I'm saying right and wrong are political definitions.

If our side, politics, or national interests changed, overnight, Israel would be wrong. Pretending any criticism has a moral basis is asinine.

I think that's where murder and kill get muddled   

[drkaje]

I think that's where murder and kill get muddled   

Deaths that suit out current political goals are OK.

[jtsunami]

It was about time the Jews love murder, and they haven't been able to do it openly and kill the goyum like this, it must really be a blood lust for them, they are probably feening for more.

[Dos Equis]

I'm saying right and wrong are political definitions.

If our side, politics, or national interests changed, overnight, Israel would be wrong. Pretending any criticism has a moral basis is asinine.

I disagree.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter what side you're on.  Any country that is being attacked by terrorists has the right to defend itself. 

I think moral skepticism is nonsensical. 

[tonymctones]

It was about time the Jews love murder, and they haven't been able to do it openly and kill the goyum like this, it must really be a blood lust for them, they are probably feening for more.

first off what the fuck is "feening"?

second off is the jews love murder the palestenians must love being murdered 

[drkaje]

I disagree.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter what side you're on.  Any country that is being attacked by terrorists has the right to defend itself. 

I think moral skepticism is nonsensical. 

I'm not saying right and wrong don't exist. Simply that they are political definitions, and not concrete, in almost every circumstance.

[OzmO]

I disagree.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Doesn't matter what side you're on.  Any country that is being attacked by terrorists has the right to defend itself. 

I think moral skepticism is nonsensical. 

I don't think what's going on down there is as simple as that and I also don't think either side is free of moral transgressions. 

People will fight for what they believe is right and for many the end justifies the means.   

[jtsunami]

first off what the fuck is "feening"?

second off is the jews love murder the palestenians must love being murdered 

you know exactly what I was saying, here is a link to explain http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feening.

Second shows your complete lack of morals, you must be a jew sympathizer or a jew, if you are a jew sympathizer you should know they do not value non jew life at all and to them you are goyum.

jt

[Dos Equis]

I'm not saying right and wrong don't exist. Simply that they are political definitions, and not concrete, in almost every circumstance.

I agree in part.  I'd say "not concrete in every circumstance." 

[Fury]

you know exactly what I was saying, here is a link to explain http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=feening.

Second shows your complete lack of morals, you must be a jew sympathizer or a jew, if you are a jew sympathizer you should know they do not value non jew life at all and to them you are goyum.

jt

Kind of like how you Muslims view all non-Muslims as inferior garbage and want to subjugate us so you can force us to pay the jizyah tax just so we can live in your "glorious" and "superior" shadows?

[jtsunami]

Kind of like how you Muslims view all non-Muslims as inferior garbage and want to subjugate us so you can force us to pay the jizyah tax just so we can live in your "glorious" and "superior" shadows?

hey look, if you are non Muslim you have a chance to conform and go the right path and not be killed.  But in Judaism all non jew are considered goyum and are free for the slaughter of a jew.  Not the same my friend. 

[Fury]

hey look, if you are non Muslim you have a chance to conform and go the right path and not be killed.  But in Judaism all non jew are considered goyum and are free for the slaughter of a jew.  Not the same my friend.  

Conform? Nice wording. In reality, it's pay the jizya and acknowledge that you're a 2nd class citizen to the Muslims, convert to Islam, or die.  

Funny how Islam is the only religion whose entire purpose is to establish a caliphate that stretches the entire globe and subjugates everyone to Sharia. This is almost funny as when you, an American citizen, actively called for the murders of Americans and sang the praises of terrorists. You're trash.  

[Skip8282]

hey look, if you are non Muslim you have a chance to conform and go the right path and not be killed.  

That's pretty much all anybody needs to know about Islam right there.

Worthless fucks.

[jtsunami]

That's pretty much all anybody needs to know about Islam right there.

Worthless fucks.

Islam is the right way and the only way to peace in this world, that is why it is so important for people to conform and become Muslim or die.  They see the full picture.

[loco]

hey look, if you are non Muslim you have a chance to conform and go the right path and not be killed.  But in Judaism all non jew are considered goyum and are free for the slaughter of a jew.  Not the same my friend.  

Oh yeah?  Then why are Muslims murdering other Muslims?

[George Whorewell]

Islam is the right way and the only way to peace in this world, that is why it is so important for people to conform and become Muslim or die.  They see the full picture.

Ok this confirms that this fat queer is a gimmick account.