Gaza Freedom Flotilla Attacked, 2 killed 50 Injured - Israeli Murder and Piracy

[Nik]

I know what personal capacity means you moron. What you choose not to see is human reality. Do you honestly think the UN, it's members and committee electees function in a utopian moral vacuum?
That's polliannish at best, delusional at worst.

Really?

So care to explain this report lambasting Tunisias human rights records from the 14 members....one of whom is from Tunisia?

Human Rights Committee - 92nd Session
Human Rights Committee - Members

Nobody said the UN, or anyone else, lives in a Utopian moral vacuum. But if you don't know the difference between individuals serving in their personal capacity and individuals serving in a representative capacity, you are incredibly stupid. Individuals serving in a personal capacity, largely do NOT serve in a representative capacity, regardless of what uninformed morons like yourself may think.

Tunasia - you just answered your own question (see bolded). Boy, are you dense!
As for the second part keep telling yourself that. You would think someone trained as a lawyer would have at least a slight grasp of human nature or maybe you're just out of law school and haven't had the experience in this realm.

Oh? Please do explain how I answered my own question. I am just too dense to see why a representative of the government of Tunisia would criticize itself via an international body.

Nothing in human nature says that people act as representatives of their governments wherever they go. Jesus you are just too stupid for words.

 

[Ringel05]

Really?

So care to explain this report lambasting Tunisias human rights records from the 14 members....one of whom is from Tunisia?

Human Rights Committee - 92nd Session
Human Rights Committee - Members

Nobody said the UN, or anyone else, lives in a Utopian moral vacuum. But if you don't know the difference between individuals serving in their personal capacity and individuals serving in a representative capacity, you are incredibly stupid. Individuals serving in a personal capacity, largely do NOT serve in a representative capacity, regardless of what uninformed morons like yourself may think.

Tunasia - you just answered your own question (see bolded). Boy, are you dense!
As for the second part keep telling yourself that. You would think someone trained as a lawyer would have at least a slight grasp of human nature or maybe you're just out of law school and haven't had the experience in this realm.

Oh? Please do explain how I answered my own question. I am just too dense to see why a representative of the government of Tunisia would criticize itself via an international body.

Nothing in human nature says that people act as representatives of their governments wherever they go. Jesus you are just too stupid for words.

Politics you lobotomized bozo. Something you obviously don't understand. And yes, they do. Especially in this case. If Tunisa didn't get something of value in return for this vote then they will find a way to recall that individual back home and work on getting someone else more amenable to them elected in his/her stead. Duh!

 

[Nik]

Tunasia - you just answered your own question (see bolded). Boy, are you dense!
As for the second part keep telling yourself that. You would think someone trained as a lawyer would have at least a slight grasp of human nature or maybe you're just out of law school and haven't had the experience in this realm.

Oh? Please do explain how I answered my own question. I am just too dense to see why a representative of the government of Tunisia would criticize itself via an international body.

Nothing in human nature says that people act as representatives of their governments wherever they go. Jesus you are just too stupid for words.

Politics you lobotomized bozo. Something you obviously don't understand. And yes, they do. Especially in this case. If Tunisa didn't get something of value in return for this vote then they will find a way to recall that individual back home and work on getting someone else more amenable to them elected in his/her stead. Duh!

Christ you are fucking stupid. There is no way to recall them, they are elected to set terms.

You know fuck all about the committee, but yet you think you know the politics of how it works? Get educated before spewing your bullshit.

 

[Ringel05]

Oh? Please do explain how I answered my own question. I am just too dense to see why a representative of the government of Tunisia would criticize itself via an international body.

Nothing in human nature says that people act as representatives of their governments wherever they go. Jesus you are just too stupid for words.

Politics you lobotomized bozo. Something you obviously don't understand. And yes, they do. Especially in this case. If Tunisa didn't get something of value in return for this vote then they will find a way to recall that individual back home and work on getting someone else more amenable to them elected in his/her stead. Duh!

Christ you are fucking stupid. There is no way to recall them, they are elected to set terms.

You know fuck all about the committee, but yet you think you know the politics of how it works? Get educated before spewing your bullshit.

Are you saying a country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Especially a country like Tunisia? Talk about ignorantly spewing bullshit. Damn Sparky, even the dictionary has your picture posted as the example for lost in la la land.

 

[Nik]

Politics you lobotomized bozo. Something you obviously don't understand. And yes, they do. Especially in this case. If Tunisa didn't get something of value in return for this vote then they will find a way to recall that individual back home and work on getting someone else more amenable to them elected in his/her stead. Duh!

Christ you are fucking stupid. There is no way to recall them, they are elected to set terms.

You know fuck all about the committee, but yet you think you know the politics of how it works? Get educated before spewing your bullshit.

Are you saying a country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Especially a country like Tunisia? Talk about ignorantly spewing bullshit. Damn Sparky, even the dictionary has your picture posted as the example for lost in la la land.

Umm, no. A country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate. I'm not even sure if you mean citizens who are serving in the UN or citizens in general, but either way you are wrong.

 

[tommywho70x]

Last I checked Turkey was part of NATO.

would it be too much to ask the rev putzkopf and his flock to keep the focus of their side talk on topic or take it to its own thread?

People here will post what and where they want and have been doing so since long before even I arrived. If you don't like it you know where the door is.

carry on with your chickenshit ranting, girls. i could give a shit less. if you don't understand the value of focusing on the topic you don't. not my problem. there are plenty of others here who do.

 

[Ringel05]

would it be too much to ask the rev putzkopf and his flock to keep the focus of their side talk on topic or take it to its own thread?

People here will post what and where they want and have been doing so since long before even I arrived. If you don't like it you know where the door is.

carry on with your chickenshit ranting, girls. i could give a shit less. if you don't understand the value of focusing on the topic you don't. not my problem. there are plenty of others here who do.

Jeeze.... Must you really be this self righteous? like I said and I'm pretty sure the mods will say it also - don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Putz.

 

[Ringel05]

Christ you are fucking stupid. There is no way to recall them, they are elected to set terms.

You know fuck all about the committee, but yet you think you know the politics of how it works? Get educated before spewing your bullshit.

Are you saying a country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Especially a country like Tunisia? Talk about ignorantly spewing bullshit. Damn Sparky, even the dictionary has your picture posted as the example for lost in la la land.

Umm, no. A country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate. I'm not even sure if you mean citizens who are serving in the UN or citizens in general, but either way you are wrong.

Yeah sure. You haven't been around long have you? Are you sure you're not still in Jr High? Or are you judging other countries by our standards? That would be a big oops!

 

[Nik]

Are you saying a country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate? Especially a country like Tunisia? Talk about ignorantly spewing bullshit. Damn Sparky, even the dictionary has your picture posted as the example for lost in la la land.

Umm, no. A country can't recall any of it's citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate. I'm not even sure if you mean citizens who are serving in the UN or citizens in general, but either way you are wrong.

Yeah sure. You haven't been around long have you? Are you sure you're not still in Jr High? Or are you judging other countries by our standards? That would be a big oops!

Please do give examples of a country "recalling" its citizens so I can figure out wtf your deluded ass is referring too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if Russian commandos illegally boarded an American boat, the Americans should just sort of lay back and accept it?

The boarding was legal.

If you disagree, prove it by citing international law that prohibits navies from boarding and inspecting ships in international water. While you are at it, you will simultaneously need to defend the fact that the United States claims the right to do this for any vessel they believe is suspicious, which is, according to you, illegal.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

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.

Since the blockade is illegal, the attack was illegal.

And *gasp* you mean the US might break international law as well? No...never. I mean the US wouldn't torture anyone...would it?

FYI

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights is not a lawyer and has no authority to delclare anything illegal. Until you can cite some sort of international legal authority the blocade of Gaza is legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, well, they had some knives.

That surely justified shooting 40 people.

Zing.

There is no way someone with a knife can ever hurt anyone.

 

[Nik]

The boarding was legal.

If you disagree, prove it by citing international law that prohibits navies from boarding and inspecting ships in international water. While you are at it, you will simultaneously need to defend the fact that the United States claims the right to do this for any vessel they believe is suspicious, which is, according to you, illegal.

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

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.

Since the blockade is illegal, the attack was illegal.

And *gasp* you mean the US might break international law as well? No...never. I mean the US wouldn't torture anyone...would it?

FYI

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights is not a lawyer and has no authority to delclare anything illegal. Until you can cite some sort of international legal authority the blocade of Gaza is legal.

The "UN Commissioner for Human Rights" is not a position within the UN. If you are referring to the UN Human Rights official quoted before, she has a Law Degree from Natal University and a LLM from Harvard. If you are referring to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that again is Pillay, and I have already described her educational pedigree.

 

[Nik]

Oh, well, they had some knives.

That surely justified shooting 40 people.

Zing.

There is no way someone with a knife can ever hurt anyone.

You can hurt someone with just your hands too. That doesn't mean its ok to kill someone just because they have hands.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are, at a minimum, 9 dead civilians 0 dead soldiers.

Regardless of what you saw, it is evident and obvious that the use of force against the civilians was MUCH worse than the use of force against the soldiers. You only saw a particular view because the Israeli military has only released the footage they want to release.

You do know that Israel doesn't let in a lot of goods into Gaza, right? Such terrorist implements such as...umm...chocolate....They were trying to bring in things that Israel disallowed them from bringing in, but they clearly weren't bringing in missiles.

What is your fixation with chocolate? Is it a necessity of life or something? As long as Israel allows everthing needed to sustain life through their blockade what difference does it make that people in Gaza are deprived of chocolate? The aim of the blockade is to force Hamas out of Gaza in order to keep them from firing missiles randomly into Israel. If they don't have chocolate bars while they are setting up missiles I do not particularly care, and it might actually encourage someone there to help get rid of them.

 

[Godboy]

Oh, well, they had some knives.

That surely justified shooting 40 people.

Zing.

There is no way someone with a knife can ever hurt anyone.

You can hurt someone with just your hands too. That doesn't mean its ok to kill someone just because they have hands.

What if those hands are around your neck? You are a fool if you think they shot a bunch of people simply because they saw a cook that happened to have a knife in his hands. There is little doubt that the knives were used in a life threatening manner.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus Christ. What are you all trying to win an award for stupidity?

Human Rights Committee - Members

"Human Rights Committee - Members

The Human Rights Committee is composed of 18 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights.

Members are elected for a term of four years by States parties in accordance with articles 28 to 39 of the Covenant. Members serve in their personal capacity and may be re-elected if nominated. "

Compare that to the human rights COUNCIL

Human Rights Council - Homepage

"The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the UN system made up of 47 States responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe."

I get it, the individuals on the committee are elected by the states that serve on the council.

 

[Nik]

There are, at a minimum, 9 dead civilians 0 dead soldiers.

Regardless of what you saw, it is evident and obvious that the use of force against the civilians was MUCH worse than the use of force against the soldiers. You only saw a particular view because the Israeli military has only released the footage they want to release.

You do know that Israel doesn't let in a lot of goods into Gaza, right? Such terrorist implements such as...umm...chocolate....They were trying to bring in things that Israel disallowed them from bringing in, but they clearly weren't bringing in missiles.

What is your fixation with chocolate? Is it a necessity of life or something? As long as Israel allows everthing needed to sustain life through their blockade what difference does it make that people in Gaza are deprived of chocolate? The aim of the blockade is to force Hamas out of Gaza in order to keep them from firing missiles randomly into Israel. If they don't have chocolate bars while they are setting up missiles I do not particularly care, and it might actually encourage someone there to help get rid of them.

Just curious. What would your feelings be if a foreign power stopped you from getting anything on that list. Including chocolate.

Sorry, but humans need more than the bare necessities to have a meaningful existence. Its pathetic that you people justify a blockade against civilians.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

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.

Since the blockade is illegal, the attack was illegal.

And *gasp* you mean the US might break international law as well? No...never. I mean the US wouldn't torture anyone...would it?

FYI

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights is not a lawyer and has no authority to delclare anything illegal. Until you can cite some sort of international legal authority the blocade of Gaza is legal.

The "UN Commissioner for Human Rights" is not a position within the UN. If you are referring to the UN Human Rights official quoted before, she has a Law Degree from Natal University and a LLM from Harvard. If you are referring to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that again is Pillay, and I have already described her educational pedigree.

What authority does she have under international law to declare anything illegal. I checked her CV and saw nothing to indicate any knowledge of maritime law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are, at a minimum, 9 dead civilians 0 dead soldiers.

Regardless of what you saw, it is evident and obvious that the use of force against the civilians was MUCH worse than the use of force against the soldiers. You only saw a particular view because the Israeli military has only released the footage they want to release.

You do know that Israel doesn't let in a lot of goods into Gaza, right? Such terrorist implements such as...umm...chocolate....They were trying to bring in things that Israel disallowed them from bringing in, but they clearly weren't bringing in missiles.

What is your fixation with chocolate? Is it a necessity of life or something? As long as Israel allows everthing needed to sustain life through their blockade what difference does it make that people in Gaza are deprived of chocolate? The aim of the blockade is to force Hamas out of Gaza in order to keep them from firing missiles randomly into Israel. If they don't have chocolate bars while they are setting up missiles I do not particularly care, and it might actually encourage someone there to help get rid of them.

Just curious. What would your feelings be if a foreign power stopped you from getting anything on that list. Including chocolate.

Sorry, but humans need more than the bare necessities to have a meaningful existence. Its pathetic that you people justify a blockade against civilians.

The blockade is against Hamas, not the civilians. Are we supposed to ignore Hamas becuse they hide behind women and children?

 

[Nik]

FYI

The UN Commissioner for Human Rights is not a lawyer and has no authority to delclare anything illegal. Until you can cite some sort of international legal authority the blocade of Gaza is legal.

The "UN Commissioner for Human Rights" is not a position within the UN. If you are referring to the UN Human Rights official quoted before, she has a Law Degree from Natal University and a LLM from Harvard. If you are referring to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that again is Pillay, and I have already described her educational pedigree.

What authority does she have under international law to declare anything illegal. I checked her CV and saw nothing to indicate any knowledge of maritime law.

She doesn't any any authority. But merely because a judge hasn't ruled on something doesn't make it legal or illegal. And we aren't talking about maritime law, genius. We are talking about blockades, which fall under the laws of war.