Biden defends Israel's handling of raid on Gaza aid flotilla (legal, activist)

[murfles]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

You and your Israel-hating friends keep parroting this bit about international waters and illegality. You have absolutely NO idea of what you are talking about.
I direct your attention to 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.

I highlighted the relevant clauses. IT WAS LEGAL.

Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it true. Educate yourself.

Very good points here, but they will be met with resistance and spin.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

You and your Israel-hating friends keep parroting this bit about international waters and illegality. You have absolutely NO idea of what you are talking about.
I direct your attention to 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.

I highlighted the relevant clauses. IT WAS LEGAL.

Repeating a lie a thousand times does not make it true. Educate yourself.

Don't assume people to be idiots. What armed conflict BTW? But, it does sound like this law allows any nation to storm into Israel's ships (and return the favor).

[Visvaldis]

Wow! An American politician agreeing with Israel! That is really so much different from the usual, ain't it?

[lamontnow]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Don't assume people to be idiots. What armed conflict BTW? But, it does sound like this law allows any nation to storm into Israel's ships (and return the favor).

WHAT ARMED CONFLICT???
There's no need for me to assume idiocy. I think your question clearly speaks for itself.

[jetair]

Originally Posted by High_Plains_Retired

Ah to be a fly on the wall of the White House this morning. I'll bet Biden has already been scolded.

Absolutely spanked, but I have to take my hat off to him this time. Perhaps he will have a chance to be President sometime between "now" and 2013

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by lamontnow

WHAT ARMED CONFLICT???
There's no need for me to assume idiocy. I think your question clearly speaks for itself.

I never assumed idiocy. Israel can declare itself to be in perpetual state of war to continue with its atrocities, but none of that makes it legit.

The laws are designed to go both ways. Only a matter of time when favors are duly returned.

[Pretzelogik]

He's pushing for the #1 job

[burdell]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

This is a simple case of you believing what you want to believe, but not what is a fact.

These boardings happen ALL the time. They're expected because there is currently a blockade, preventing the illegal smuggling of weapons into a place that intends to use them to kill Israelis.

They were not surprised by this boarding. They were prepared for it and decided to attack military commandos. If they had nothing to hide, they would have done like the many before, and let them board peacefully.

Let's be clear...BOTH sides were armed. You're just upset because the Israelis won.

If someone is smuggling things to my neighbor, and they're planning on attacking and harming my family with those weapons, we're going to have a problem and only one of us will be walking away.

I see, so people defending themselves when attacked by commandoes are wrong yet if you defend yourself when attacked you're in the right?

Talk about believing what you want to believe

[burdell]

Originally Posted by sol11

Go do the research. You are correct about the year, so the rest of your question should be a cake-walk.

You made the statement, why should I do the research to support what is at this point nothing but your allegation?

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

Wow! An American politician agreeing with Israel! That is really so much different from the usual, ain't it?

Well, according to the right wing mass media, this admin hates Israel. Sooo...