Blockade runners
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 8 Jun 2010 18:54 Clocky wrote: >John_H wrote: >> >> Nor is condemnation quite the same thing as "completely and utterly >> Illegal". It would seem that even Aljazeera couldn't find an expert >> on international law prepared to say it's illegal.... >> http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/201063114723151689.html > >So it's not illegal to board a vessel in international waters and murder a >bunch of humanitarians but you're considered a terrorist if you're an >unarmed activist that has boarded a Japanese whaling vessel in international >waters? Yes indeed, martyrs every one of 'em... that's 72 houris apiece (or is it 73)! :) The essential difference being that the "humanitarians" (a Turkey based Islamic group with supposed connections to Hamas) were deliberately violating a blockade that's legitimate under international maritime law... no credible authority has ever claimed otherwise. AFAIK the UN Human Rights Council is to carry out an investigation into the boarding (opposed by the Australian Government BTW) which might result in measures being taken against Israel, but don't hold your breath. AFAIK no one is mounting any legal challenge to the legitimacy of the blockade... in spite of the noise coming from the Islamists (and very few others). Nor are Japanese whaling activities illegal... or at least no one's ever taken them to the international court over it. Rudd says he might, but we all know what his word's worth! >I know they're not the same thing but there is something a bit screwball >about that. Nothing screwball about it at all. Whipping the sheeple into a frenzy and to hell with the facts is what the media does best! -- John H
From: John_H on 8 Jun 2010 18:54 Neil Gerace wrote: >John_H wrote: > >> It's an entirely different situation. No state of war exists to >> justify any military blockade... as it does between Hamas and Israel. > >But not between Turkey (ship's country of registry) and Israel. Don't believe the bullshit you hear on the popular media! As I've previously posted here, the Mavi Mamara is registered in Comoros and was operating under the Comoros flag at the time. It was reflagged not long before the voyage (for reasons that certainly won't be obvious to those who can't grasp the significance of a maritime blockade). The ship is currently owned by the IHH, a Turkey based Islamic charity group with alleged connections to declared terrorist organisations. In any case the ship's country of origin is irrelevant. If it's defying a legitimate blockade (as it was) Israel has the legitimate right to apprehend it (as it did). The way Israel handled the boarding is the only contentious issue IMHO. You might also note that one of the casualties is an Australian citizen. AFAIK the Australian Government has said nothing by way of condemnation. -- John H
From: Noddy on 8 Jun 2010 21:43 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c0e6e9f$0$28660$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > So it's not illegal to board a vessel in international waters and murder a > bunch of humanitarians but you're considered a terrorist if you're an > unarmed activist that has boarded a Japanese whaling vessel in > international waters? Apparently. > I know they're not the same thing but there is something a bit screwball > about that. There is, but it's nothing new. During the early part of WWII when England stood alone against Germany, they had a *very* difficult time battling the U-boats in the North Atlantic with convoy losses being horrendous. Up until November 1941 America was still officially neutral, but at the same time was sympathetic to the plight of the English and helped as much as they could. They escorted English convoys across the Atlantic as far as Greenland, which wasn't really "neutral" under the terms of any neutrality declaration, knowing full well that if they sent their warships into international waters were conflict was taking place they were likely to see some of them sunk as a consequence. The Germans, for their part, considered any ship escorting the English convoys fair game, and as a result a few American vessels were sunk even though at that stage they were not officially involved in the war. Wether that was *legal* in any international sense I can't tell you, but that's how it was. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 8 Jun 2010 21:45 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:nait06tpubds2dgssvja5vg5fm0engtg6b(a)4ax.com... > Nothing screwball about it at all. Whipping the sheeple into a frenzy > and to hell with the facts is what the media does best! That's what sells papers. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Brad on 8 Jun 2010 18:14
"Neil Gerace" <grassynoel(a)iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:4C0E6F64.3050408(a)iinet.net.au... : John_H wrote: : : > It's an entirely different situation. No state of war exists to : > justify any military blockade... as it does between Hamas and Israel. : : But not between Turkey (ship's country of registry) and Israel. There is little to compare situations at all. First of all the militant wankers trying to block the Jap whaling ships navigated their high speed and manageable million dollar toy to in front of a slower moving and extremely unmanageable ship that if it were to go full rudder would have endangered all those on deck and many below, I know from experience that large ships list terribly when at cruising speed and can be dangerous. second, any boarding of another ship at sea without the express permission of the Captain can be considered piracy and the Japanese had every right to hang him on the spot. Especially after the confrontations involving poisonous chemicals they had already engaged in. Israel is basically at war with everyone, has made this clear to the world and the activists made their case to try and embarrass Israel known. Israel believe it or not was not really the aggressor. When boarded the ships to make a point should have surrendered peacefully, as every person with a brain knows that Israel does not pander to those who wish to embarrass it. PS. I really think the Jap whalers should be torpedoed and as for a little thermonuclear fireworks over the middle east - why not. -- Brad Leyden 6� 43.5816' S 146� 59.3097' E WGS84 To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or laugh at my mistakes) > > |