Turkish terrorist organization IHH involved bigtime in the Gaza flotilla fiasco

[srkruzich]

I'm not justifying anything.  But when someone breaks into your house, you fight them, right?  I mean, they have the right to defend themselves, don't they?  Are you saying that you wouldn't have defended yourself if some soldier drops out of the sky onto your boat?

They didn't attack the soldeirs genius, the soldiers attacked the boat....

Defense of their home??  ROTFLMAO  you really are stretching. 
You drive your boat/car/mule or whatever and meet my defense border, and then refuse to stop, I'm going to shut your butt down right there.   Secondly these nimrods have no business entering someone elses territory without permission.  They did not have permission to cross into the area. 

That flotilla was a unsanctioned entry into controlled waters protecting the israeli nation.  When they refused to alter course, to a offered port in israel, they became a military target.  And these idiots knew it would happen and they knew what would illicit a miltary response once boarded and engaged the soldiers in order to drum up sympathy.   

Lets put it this way, they asked for it, and when they got what they asked for they start calling foul. 

[srkruzich]

     In a "cause" like this you are going to have 99% people who are sincere in their desire to bring humanitarian aid and 1% looking to "make a point". Generally the ones who are sincere in their desire to help are the ones who end up with busted heads and dead.
    Personally I have ALways thought Israel is arrogant, argumentative and confrontational in the extreme. They are like the chihuahua my Dads cousin had when I was a kid...I absolutely HATED that dog..it would run out and bite you and when you swelled up at it run back under the furniture where you couldn't get at it yippin like IT was in pain and get MY ass whupped......that's what I think of when I think of Israel.......they are the chihauhau with the god complex and the USA is the furniture it hides under when it bites.
   And before you trot out the well they are "the Chosen" people of God.........whatever......yeah THEY think THEY are.....WE are just a TOOL they are usin to get what they want.......

Lets put it this way, they handle themselves very well on their own.  No other nation in this world has taken on a 3 front war to its borders, and won. 

This bunch maybe had good intentions but the 1% in there your talking about had the control apparantly.  What idiot on a humanitarian aid boat fires at soldiers?  That is sheer stupidity.  Your a** is sitting on a metal tub in the middle of a deep body of water with nowhere to go.   

[jarhead]

Anmar,I'm getting off track here but a few months back before you dropped off the radar you said on the forum that you had been to basic training (or boot camp) and another forum member asked where you had went to boot camp at. You departed the forum world before you gave an answer but I'd still like to hear where you went to basic training and what branch of service you were in.

[sixdogsmom]

This incident occurred in international waters--- looks like piracy to me! 

[srkruzich]

This incident occurred in international waters--- looks like piracy to me! 

Now even the UN doesn't say its piracy. now thats stretching! 

It is however defensive move that is justified.  Since those waters are known for terrorist organizations to move weapons to gaza, then it is justified maneuver for israel to patrol those waters to stop them from delivering their weapons.   And if these groups were legit, why aren't they cooperating with allowing their vessels to be checked? 

SOrry but your piracy theory doesn't hold water.  IF it did then what many nations are doing down there near somolia patrolling international waters is piracy.

[Anmar]

They did not enter Israeli waters, the attack occured in INTERNATIONAL waters.  There was no attack on Israel, it was the Israelis who attacked the convoy.  How much are you willing to lie and sell your principals in order to distort the facts?

About Basic, that info is classified.

[srkruzich]

They did not enter Israeli waters, the attack occured in INTERNATIONAL waters.  There was no attack on Israel, it was the Israelis who attacked the convoy.  How much are you willing to lie and sell your principals in order to distort the facts?

About Basic, that info is classified.

IF the boats were attacked, they would have used fire from the helicopters.  The boarding is not an attack.  THey were warned many times before getting there that they would have to come to and be searched. 

Heres something for yall to peruse, International law concerning just this topic.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. Specifically, paragraph 67-68:

    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.

So these were ostensibly merchant vessels who were flying the flags of neutral states (since Turkey and Greece have not declared that they officially side with Hamas in their war for Israel's destruction). However, there was definitely reasonable grounds to believe that they were carrying contraband and breaching a blockade (since that was their very public, stated intention). After receiving prior warning (see this YouTube video) they intentionally refused to stop, and they quite clearly resisted visit, search or capture.

[srkruzich]

Just in case you didn't know, a blockade can be and is legal to setup in international waters.  And all nations as well as civilian ships are subject to that blockade and may not cross it without permission of the country enforcing the blockade.  To do so constitutes an attack on that country. 
So your opinion that the israelis attacked first is wrong, the flotilla violated the law.   Secondly, the israelis followed the international law of the sea to the letter.
Look at the following

    1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

    2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

    3. A  blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

    4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

    5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla.  Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

    6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

    7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area.  That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

    8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

    9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

    10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were  relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

    11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

    12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

[jerry wagner]

Just in case you didn't know, a blockade can be and is legal to setup in international waters.  And all nations as well as civilian ships are subject to that blockade and may not cross it without permission of the country enforcing the blockade.  To do so constitutes an attack on that country. 
So your opinion that the israelis attacked first is wrong, the flotilla violated the law.   Secondly, the israelis followed the international law of the sea to the letter.
Look at the following

    1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

    2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

    3. A  blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

    4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

    5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla.  Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

    6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

    7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area.  That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

    8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

    9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

    10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were  relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

    11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

    12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

You are absolutely correct.... if Israel acknowledges that they are in an INTERNATIONAL armed conflict.... as the rules of the sea require that there be a war (according London Declaration) or while San Remo refers to "the parties to an armed conflict at sea".... which opens quite a can of worms since Israel doesn't recognize Gaza as a state.  Therefore to legitimize it as a conflict and not an internal struggle then they would have to recognize Gaza as a state.  Even then it is debatable whether there blockade has legal standing since they are not armed parties at Sea as they are neighboring states in a NIAC. 

[srkruzich]

You are absolutely correct.... if Israel acknowledges that they are in an INTERNATIONAL armed conflict.... as the rules of the sea require that there be a war (according London Declaration) or while San Remo refers to "the parties to an armed conflict at sea".... which opens quite a can of worms since Israel doesn't recognize Gaza as a state.  Therefore to legitimize it as a conflict and not an internal struggle then they would have to recognize Gaza as a state.  Even then it is debatable whether there blockade has legal standing since they are not armed parties at Sea as they are neighboring states in a NIAC. 

I don't believe that it matters in international law and the law of the sea if the armed conflict is with a state or not.   Piracy is not armed conflict with a state as well as terrorists are not a state yet we recognized them as a threat and are in a armed conflict.

The second the palestinians elected hamas as their government (terrorist government) that technically gave Israel a State (not necessarily the palestinians but Hamas) to which it could respond to within the international law.  So now the blockaid is there still against hamas, to prevent it from using that area of ingress and egress to transport weapons and supplies to its terrorists operating in the territory.

IF israel was in violation of international law, then you would see more countries including allies of israel condemning it.  The only ones raising a stink about it are the islamic nations and the UN.


Secondly Israel isn't in armed conflict with Gaza, its in armed Conflict with hamas which is a recognized government now.