War-mongering states like Israel should not be supported. Israel simply violated all conventional statues regarding international waters. Israel should pay for this

debauchery of human lives. This should also serve as  a litmus-test to the sincerity and conscience of the Obama administration. The US must take definitive

steps to stop the blatant disregard for basic human civility.

Guess what? Israel has compounded her problems. Making enemies from all sides.

The Turks are planning a counter-attack. Let's expect a fully fledged war on that front.

More footage released by IDF (close up view apparently from a nearby Naval vessel).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Still no video feed rom those on board. None that I can find anyways.

Mariory:

More footage released by IDF (close up view apparently from a nearby Naval vessel).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Still no video feed rom those on board. None that I can find anyways.

Sounds like relying on NTA to provide you information about what the Nigerian Army did in Odi.

How can some people be this dumb?

Mariory:

More footage released by IDF (close up view apparently from a nearby Naval vessel).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Still no video feed rom those on board. None that I can find anyways.

Please do not refer to IDF released information with such confidence. They are a bunch of Liars.

The same people that claimed they did not use Phosporous bombs in civilian areas before footage appeared.

Sagamite:

I was scratching my head, wondering how a nation can justify, under international laws, the legitimacy to attack a ship it is aware the occupants are:

1) Unarmed

2) Not an immediate and/or uncontrolable threat to the nation

So I checked the link you provided. It says the following are exempted from attacks:

Especially vessels like this in INTERNATIONAL waters that have notified in advance of their intention, not acting stealthly.

Unfortunately the crew of this ship did not follow the protocol that would have made them exempt. They simply should not have refused. The following is the full print of the section that you posted. It lists when vessels are exempt and the conditions they must follow in order for them to be exempt.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;
(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;
(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:
(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(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;
(d) vessels engaged in transporting cultural property under special protection;
(e) passenger vessels when engaged only in carrying civilian passengers;
(f) vessels charged with religious, non-military scientifc or philanthropic missions, vessels collecting scientific data of likely military applications are not protected;
(g) small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, but they are subject to the regulations of a belligerent naval commander operating in the area and to inspection;
(h) vessels designated or adapted exclusively for responding to pollution incidents in the marine environment;
(i) vessels which have surrendered;
(j) life rafts and life boats.

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;
(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and
(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

Again I can find no international maritime law that prohibits the Isrealis from boarding the ship in the first place.

Afam:

You don't know why? I will let you know.

1. Religious bigotry

2. Hate for Islam

3. hate for Arabs

4. Blind support for anything US or Israel

5. Other irrelevant issues they cling on to justify the hate filled positions where murder of unarmed civilians are supported.

most wars started because people unnecessarily chose sides.the blockade is illegal in the first instance but israel has been enjoying america's terror support for their activities in the gaza strip.the UN,china,russia and other international bodies have condemned the attack and appropriate action should be taken against the israelis.they cant continue to attack innocent citizens on the guise of fighting terrorism.it's time the whole world rose against the injustice.killing of innocent citizens must stop.

Sagamite:

Please do not refer to IDF released information with such confidence. They are a bunch of Liars.

The same people that claimed they did not use Phosporous bombs in civilian areas before footage appeared.

It is simply a video feed. Weather we like it or not, we cannot deny what is happening on the footage. Unless you are trying to suggest the footage was somehow staged?

Mariory:

Unfortunately the crew of this ship did not follow the protocol that would have made them exempt. They simply should not have refused. The following is the full print of the section that you posted. It lists when vessels are exempt and the conditions they must follow in order for them to be exempt.
Again I can find no international maritime law that prohibits the Isrealis from boarding the ship in the first place.

The preceding entries clearly provides guidance that the military force should be applied to enemy combatants and any intended helpers of the enemy in armed conflicts.

I don't think it applies to humanitarianist from across the world that have publicised their intentions globally.

SECTION I : BASIC RULES

38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

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.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:

(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

43. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.

44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly is prohibited.

45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(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;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

There is no need for some to dismiss the video feed as propaganda. If it is fake there various technological means to determine that. Simply dismissing it out of hand because you don't like the content is not being objective. There are even reports that the Israelis commandos boarded with paint guns and tried to use that to disperse the activists. But once they met with effective guerrilla fighting techniques which were injuring their men, they requested permission to use live ammunition, permission which was granted. In some of the videos that is clearly apparent. If the videos are legit then one can understand the difficult circumstances they encountered.

Mariory:

Unfortunately the crew of this ship did not follow the protocol that would have made them exempt. They simply should not have refused. The following is the full print of the section that you posted. It lists when vessels are exempt and the conditions they must follow in order for them to be exempt.
Again I can find no international maritime law that prohibits the Isrealis from boarding the ship in the first place.

Nonsense! None of those applies in international waters, those laws only applies in waters within the territorial jurisdiction of controlling nations/powers. International waters remain free, unless controlled by identifiable powers during wartime.

Stop feeding the gullible with cheap lies.

moved

[size=58pt]PROPAGANDA VIDEO[/size]

Both parties are guilty of propaganda video

montelik:

There is no need for some to dismiss the video feed as propaganda. If it is fake there various technological means to determine that. Simply dismissing it out of hand because you don't like the content is not being objective. There are even reports that the Israelis commandos boarded with paint guns and tried to use that to disperse the activists. But once they met with effective guerrilla fighting techniques which were injuring their men, they requested permission to use live ammunition, permission which was granted. In some of the videos that is clearly apparent. If the videos are legit then one can understand the difficult circumstances they encountered.

A movie is usually a final product after must editing and removing of certain frames.

The footage released by IDF should show when they approached the vessel and not what they want the world to see.

Someone with a camera can slap you and begin filming when you retaliate and what people will see is your won retaliation not what cause it or the first slap.

Cohomology:

Nonsense! None of those applies in international waters, those laws only applies in waters within the territorial jurisdiction of controlling nations/powers. International waters remain free, unless controlled by identifiable powers during wartime.

Stop feeding the gullible with cheap lies.

Misguided to say the least.

Part 2 of the San Remo Manual clearly relates to the following locations.

Part II, "Regions of Operations", specifies the rules applicable to belligerents and neutrals in different areas of the sea: namely, internal waters, the territorial sea and archipelagic waters; international straits and archipelagic sea lanes; the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf; and, finally, the high seas and seabed beyond national jurisdiction.

@ Afam, please read before you comment! This was what i posted and i'm not in support of the israelis on this.



Israel should stop this we against the Arabs propaganda , i used to defend them, but their actions these days are really bad. A ship in international waters, they claim they were attacked with knives, sticks etc, no weapon was fired by the activists, yet the israelis boarded the ship and started shooting, killing over 15! this is really bad, and nobody should support it.

The Biafra/Gaza Complex
--------------------------------
Two similar scenarios:

[size=18pt]A.[/size] Kill Biafrans, including innocent men, women and children, civilians, the elderly, the sick and pregnant; kill them all. Use all forms of blockade, by land, sea and air. Prevent the Red Cross from going into Biafra to supply humanitarian goods and services. Proudly make statements like "blockades are legitimate instruments of war". And don't forget the infamous "I want to see no Red Cross, no Caritas, no World Council of Churches, no Pope, no missionary and no UN delegation. I want to prevent even one Igbo from having even one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves, and when our forces move into Igbo territory, we even shoot things that do not move . . .  " --- Benjamin Adekunle, a.k.a. "Black Scorpion," Commander, 3rd Marine Commando Division, Nigerian Army. Those Biafrans deserve to die for using military coup as a guise to kill political leaders in the Western, mid-Western and Northern regions. We must kill every one of them! Post-war, we must also contain them by continuing to marginalize them on all fronts.

[size=18pt]B. [/size] Kill Palestinians! They're Muslim terrorists! Bomb Gaza to the stone age and use chemical weapons to poison their lands for ages. Those bas.tards use terrorist organizations like Hamas to kill Israelis in restaurants and public buses. The blockade of Gaza is necessary and any supplies to them must be intercepted. Gazans are starving? Let them starve and die off! Who gives a hoot! Israel has a right to defend herself and killing Palestinian civilians, including innocent women and children is mere collateral damage. The blockade of Gaza is indefinite and the expansion of settler-buildings in the West Bank must continue unabated. The Palestinians will remain under Israeli control as long as Israel feels threatened by the multitude of Arab terrorist nations surrounding her.

The four possible positions:

Support A and Support B: The true sadists and champions of evil. To these mongrels, all subordinates must bow to the powerful or get killed for resisting. Power is the beginning and end to these children of the Devil.

Support A and Against B: The position of hypocrites and fools. To these idiots, the right of Muslims is more important than the lives of innocent Biafrans killed by Mulsim-instigated massacres in Northern Nigeria and within the Nigerian military, circa 1966.

Against A and Support B: The position of hypocrites and fools. To these myopic entities, the hatred of Arab Muslims have blinded them to the shear evil of Israel's terrorist acts against the Palestinians people. They tie a clear link between Muslim intolerance and barbarism in Northern Nigeria and Muslims in Palestine, blaming both for the unsuccessful genocide attempt by federal Nigeria between 19967 and 1970.

Against A and Against B: My position and the position of all those who truly believe in human rights, justice and equity. The sane few and those who condemn evil no matter its color, creed, ethnic group or nationality. Evil is evil and must be condemned, period.

nearest:

@ Afam, please read before you comment! This was what i posted and i'm not in support of the israelis on this.



Israel should stop this we against the Arabs propaganda , i used to defend them, but their actions these days are really bad. A ship in international waters, they claim they were attacked with knives, sticks etc, no weapon was fired by the activists, yet the israelis boarded the ship and started shooting, killing over 15! this is really bad, and nobody should support it.

I can't remember addressing your post so what's the problem? I guess you are the one that needs to watch what you put down.

nearest:

Israel should stop this we against the Arabs propaganda

You should understand that there is no such propaganda. Indeed Isreal's biggest enemy right now are not Arabs. It is of course Iran (Persian not Arab) I am refering to.

On a side note, there are reports that Egpyt offered to collect and tranfer the aid the ships were carrying in order to aviod this kind of confrontation but, the ships refused (I have been unable to verify this though).

Cohomology:

The Biafra/Gaza Complex
--------------------------------
Two similar scenarios:

[size=18pt]A.[/size] Kill Biafrans, including innocent men, women and children, civilians, the elderly, the sick and pregnant; kill them all. Use all forms of blockade, by land, sea and air. Prevent the Red Cross from going into Biafra to supply humanitarian goods and services. Proudly make statements like "blockades are legitimate instruments of war". And don't forget the infamous "I want to see no Red Cross, no Caritas, no World Council of Churches, no Pope, no missionary and no UN delegation. I want to prevent even one Igbo from having even one piece to eat before their capitulation. We shoot at everything that moves, and when our forces move into Igbo territory, we even shoot things that do not move . . .  " --- Benjamin Adekunle, a.k.a. "Black Scorpion," Commander, 3rd Marine Commando Division, Nigerian Army. Those Biafrans deserve to die for using military coup as a guise to kill political leaders in the Western, mid-Western and Northern regions. We must kill every one of them! Post-war, we must also contain them by continuing to marginalize them on all fronts.

[size=18pt]B. [/size] Kill Palestinians! They're Muslim terrorists! Bomb Gaza to the stone age and use chemical weapons to poison their lands for ages. Those bas.tards use terrorist organizations like Hamas to kill Israelis in restaurants and public buses. The blockade of Gaza is necessary and any supplies to them must intercepted. Gazans are starving? Let them starve and die off! Who gives a hoot! Israel has a right to defend herself and killing Palestinian civilians, including innocent women and children is mere collateral damage. The blockade of Gaza is indefinite and the expansion of settler-buildings in the West Bank must continue unabated. The Palestinians will remain under Israeli control as long as Israel feels threatened by the multitude of Arab terrorist nations surrounding her.

The four possible positions:

Support A and Support B: The true sadists and champions of evil. To these mongrels, all subordinates must bow to the powerful or get killed for resisting. Power is the beginning and end to these children of the Devil.

Support A and Against B: The position of hypocrites and fools. To these idiots, the right of Muslims is more important than the lives of innocent Biafrans killed by Mulsim-instigated massacres in Northern Nigeria and within the Nigerian military, circa 1966.

Against A and Support B: The position of hypocrites and fools. To these myopic entities, the hatred of Arab Muslims have blinded them to the shear evil of Israel's terrorist acts against the Palestinians people. They tie a clear link between Muslim intolerance and barbarism in Northern Nigeria and Muslims in Palestine, blaming both for the unsuccessful genocide attempt by federal Nigeria between 19967 and 1970.

Against A and Against B: My position and the position of all those who truly believe in human rights, justice and equity. The sane few and those who condemn evil no matter its color, creed, ethnic group or nationality. Evil is evil and must be condemned, period.

Excellent analysis.

I dey for the last one jo.

Afam:

Excellent analysis.

I dey for the last one jo.

I couldn't agree more.

Mariory:

Misguided to say the least.

Part 2 of the San Remo Manual clearly relates to the following locations.

Why do you keep feeding the gullible with garbage pseudo-intellectual gibberish?

Firstly, the San Remo Manual is a manual on the applicability of international law to armed conflicts at sea. Ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters do not count as "armed conflict".

Secondly, you only point to Louise Doswald-Beck's summary of the San Remo Manual and not the actual contents of the manual. Deception? Well, let's see what the actual contents of the relevant section of Part 2 of the manual says:

SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION

36. Hostile actions on the high seas shall be conducted with due regard for the exercise by neutral States of rights of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the sea-bed, and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond national jurisdiction.

37. Belligerents shall take care to avoid damage to cables and pipelines laid on the sea-bed which do not exclusively serve the belligerents.

[size=18pt]The Mavi Marmara was "neutral" because it was Turkish (flying the Turkish flag) and Turkey is not currently involved in any armed conflict with Israel.
[/size]
It's sad that too many novices of international law come out here and feed gibberish to the unsuspecting readers on NL.

Israel's actions violated international laws, simple!

Stop trying to dig through articles you don't understand to justify the actions of Israel!

Conclusion:

Looking back, Hitler was very right.

That is all I can say.

Afam:

Excellent analysis.

I dey for the last one jo.

Sagamite:

I couldn't agree more.

Afam and Sagamite, thanks. At least some of us can still ignore ethnic and religious biases and condemn oppression and injustice.

otawa:

Conclusion:

Looking back, Hitler was very right.

That is all I can say.

LOL

He saw the evil in them. Ask yourself who killed Jesus Christ the most known figure in the world today.

Israel is a notoriously hostile State; they have been for years but anytime you try and call them on their behavior, they throw the Holocaust in your face. Palestinians have special license plates, IDs, neighborhoods and other tags; why is it alright for Israel to implement such rules but bad when done by Germany? I really want to know. Now, people are arguing and bending the rules on what you can and can't do in international waters; absolute rubbish at its finest.

Travelista:

Israel is a notoriously hostile State; they have been for years but anytime you try and call them on their behavior, they throw the Holocaust in your face. Palestinians have special license plates, IDs, neighborhoods and other tags; why is it alright for Israel to implement such rules but bad when done by Germany? I really want to know. Now, people are arguing and bending the rules on what you can and can't do in international waters; absolute rubbish at its finest.

Thank you. The world must come together to condemn Israel's continued oppression and murder of non-Jews. They oppress Christians in Palestine as well as Muslims.

otawa:

Conclusion:

Looking back, Hitler was very right.

That is all I can say.

Ikomi:

LOL

He saw the evil in them. Ask yourself who killed Jesus Christ the most known figure in the world today.

You are both retarded.

Sick generalising, ill-educated morons.

Before we all start screaming "holocaust", "massacre" or anything else here, I think we need to calm down, step back and look at this calmly.

1. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians inhumanely in Gaza, no doubt about it

And

2. The ship had not only the option of being received at Israel to transfer its humanitarian cargo to Gaza - but also Egypt expressly offered this as well.

If that's true, then the purpose of what this convoy was about wasn't humanitarian delivery (because they could have gone to Egypt and ensured delivery) - but to force something like this to happen.

So what they were really doing was to make a political point by trying to break the blockade. Note - I am not judging whether this is right or wrong, but it should be made clear what this was all about really.

Then we can judge it one way or another.

^^^^ You may be right.

But it does not make sense for Isreal to impunitively think they can act any way they like.

It would have made more sense to let the ship enter Isreali waters and THEN fire a light weapon at the ship to let them know it will be sunk. If they still do not heed, then sink it with heavier weapon and then rescue the occupants and deport them.

Sagamite:

^^^^ You may be right.

But it does not make sense for Isreal to impunitively think they act any way they like.

It would have made more sense to let the ship enter Isreali waters and THEN fire a light weapon at the ship to let them know it will be sunk. If they still do not heed, then sink it with heavier weapon and then rescue the occupants and deport them.

Sinking the ship may have been interpreted as a declaration of war with Turkey. The ship was hoisting Turkish flag. The diplomatic fall out would have been tragic for Israel.

Israel should have allowed the flotilla to continue to their destination, as a symbol of goodwill. However, warmongering Netanyahu desires the taste of blood and wanted to use the murder of the civilians to send a message.

Chiddysville:

Before we all start screaming "holocaust", "massacre" or anything else here, I think we need to calm down, step back and look at this calmly.

1. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians inhumanely in Gaza, no doubt about it

And

2. The ship had not only the option of being received at Israel to transfer its humanitarian cargo to Gaza - but also Egypt expressly offered this as well.

If that's true, then the purpose of what this convoy was about wasn't humanitarian delivery (because they could have gone to Egypt and ensured delivery) - but to force something like this to happen.

So what they were really doing was to make a political point by trying to break the blockade. Note - I am not judging whether this is right or wrong, but it should be made clear what this was all about really.

Then we can judge it one way or another.

Sometimes it is necessary to violate oppressive laws to break them, even if lives are lost.

Blacks in America, Blacks in South Africa, resistance movements in occupied France, in occupied Palestine, in occupied Soviet Union, constantly violated the laws of the oppressive/occupying powers so as to break them even at high costs in lives and property!

You cannot break the yoke of oppression by complying with the same oppressive laws that keep you oppressed!

Cohomology:

Why do you keep feeding the gullible with garbage pseudo-intellectual gibberish?

Firstly, the San Remo Manual is a manual on the applicability of international law to armed conflicts at sea. Ships carrying humanitarian supplies in international waters do not count as "armed conflict".

Secondly, you only point to Louise Doswald-Beck's summary of the San Remo Manual and not the actual contents of the manual. Deception? Well, let's see what the actual contents of the relevant section of Part 2 of the manual says:

SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION

36. Hostile actions on the high seas shall be conducted with due regard for the exercise by neutral States of rights of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the sea-bed, and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond national jurisdiction.

37. Belligerents shall take care to avoid damage to cables and pipelines laid on the sea-bed which do not exclusively serve the belligerents.

[size=18pt]The Mavi Marmara was "neutral" because it was Turkish (flying the Turkish flag) and Turkey is not currently involved in any armed conflict with Israel.
[/size]
It's sad that too many novices of international law come out here and feed gibberish to the unsuspecting readers on NL.

Israel's actions violated international laws, simple!

Stop trying to dig through articles you don't understand to justify the actions of Israel!

I don't want this to get out of hand because I am not in the mood to trade insults. However, you should probably take your own advise on things you don't understand. You claim deception? far from it. After all, i was the one that posted the full link.
Moving on, the ship was indeed neutral no one is disputing that. I don't know why you are getting so emotional over the fact that the ship is neutral. Anyways, I have already mentioned this before but, just for your benefit, see below.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

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;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.