Turkish Navy and PM to accompany more aid ships to Gaza

[gambit]

Turkish civilians were murdered so Turkish government is well within in rights to respond. Moreover I have stated my reason for knee jerk response from EU and the rest of the world on the incident.

The word 'murder' is overused. Nevertheless, if Turkey want to respond militarily, I never said Turkey cannot. I said that no NATO member would consider this event an assault and a threat to Turkish national interests.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Right to peaceful passage can be nullified IF there is an intention to violate someone else's territory. Or in the case of Somali piracy, there is a clear intention of committing a crime.

BBC News - Nato warship destroys pirate boats in Somali Basin

UNCLOS -Right To Innocent Passage

"... ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.

"Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

"Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
any fishing activities;
the carrying out of research or survey activities;
any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage

So what do you think which of the above clauses were being violated?

 

[hamza the lion]

i think pakistan turky iran shoud start war agenst israel and FINSH ISRAELY IN THE WORLD THE AL R DEVIL

 

[araz]

As always we are neutral for WWIII. If Pakistan wants to join it they can we promise we will not attack........

You are banned.You do not exist and dont deserve a response.
Araz

 

[apophenia]

I said that no NATO member would consider this event an assault and a threat to Turkish national interests.

Agreed the NATO reaction will be proportional and each member will decide what it will do.

Right to peaceful passage can be nullified IF there is an intention to violate someone else's territory.

Those ships didn't violate article 87 (freedom of the high seas) as they posed no direct threat to Israel but were bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza. Gaza which in itself is a situation against international law.Also if anyone read the United Nations Human Rights Charter they will note that its against all international law, even in a state of war, for any party to block humanitarian aide reaching civilians. So what was done was unjustifiable.

 

[Aslan]

Keyboard and brain not working...??? Or is using keywords searches beyond your ken?

No every thing is fine here but apparently your crappy attempt to link Hezbollah and Hammas with the earlier presence in Gaza fell your face. And you ran with your tail between your legs like you always do when some one confronts your bs with an argument.

 

[gambit]

So what do you think which of the above clauses were being violated?

The question is whether or not the ship's passage conform to accepted intentions and meanings of 'innocent passage'...

UNCLOS - Part II

Article 19. Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

The ship's passage fully intends to violate Israel's territorial waters. To violate here means to enter without permission. I do not need to have my property actually trespassed in order to preemptively prevent a violation.

 

[Dr.Evil]

In concrete terms what action is Turkey taking or contemplating ?

Or else are they like toothless paper tiger OIC.

All talk no show.

 

[gambit]

No every thing is fine here but apparently your crappy attempt to link Hezbollah and Hammas with the earlier presence in Gaza fell your face. And you ran with your tail between your legs like you always do when some one confronts your bs with an argument.

YOU...have no arguments. Hezbollah's presence in Gaza is known...

Defense Update News Analysis: Hamastan Gaza- to become a Wahhabist Outpost? - by David Eshel

The most pressing goal in the Saudi Monarch's sights was Haniyeh’s personal guarantee to scale down in stages the Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Gaza and nullify Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's painstaking efforts, made last year to establish Tehran's strategic Mediterranian outpost in Gaza "Hamastan".

This is just one of the many sources available. This is the last time I will school you on this.

 

[ameer219]

Right to peaceful passage can be nullified IF there is an intention to violate someone else's territory. Or in the case of Somali piracy, there is a clear intention of committing a crime.

BBC News - Nato warship destroys pirate boats in Somali Basin

Gambit, the source and statement you provided does not correlate with the situation faced in Gaza.

If you understand the situation in Somalia, you know that they the pirates were endangering the ships passing through. And even that, they were careful enough not to cause too much collateral damage, or loss of lives.

But if you compare with this case, its an aid ship, and it was heading for Gaza in international waters. Why did Israel had to send Commandos onto the ship, which meant no harm?

Furthermore, and of course its a natural reaction to attack someone if someone who lands on your boat . What did you expect, to garland them?

If they wanted to stray away the ship from Gaza, they could have at least done it more appropriately by signaling them or warning them, not indiscriminately attacking the ship

So few questions here you have to answer if you want to justify an attacked on a ship.

Honestly, I respect you a lot Gambit, cos I have seen your debating skills and your experience, but justifying an attack on a Civilian ship, by comparing this situation with the one with Somalia, is in-despicable.

 

[Aslan]

YOU...have no arguments. Hezbollah's presence in Gaza is known...

Defense Update News Analysis: Hamastan Gaza- to become a Wahhabist Outpost? - by David Eshel

This is just one of the many sources available. This is the last time I will school you on this.

Defense Update is an online defense magazine published in the United Kingdom by OHI Ltd.
Military Advisor: Col. David Eshel ex IDF

Seriously I could do nothing but at your stupidity. Carry on the good work.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

The question is whether or not the ship's passage conform to accepted intentions and meanings of 'innocent passage'...

UNCLOS - Part II

The ship's passage fully intends to violate Israel's territorial waters. To violate here means to enter without permission. I do not need to have my property actually trespassed in order to preemptively prevent a violation.

I doubt that the "argument" that this was "breach Israel's sovereignity" will hold in a court of law..but then lets assume for the the sake argument, it holds true and Turkish ships did not have the Right to Passage.
But then Question arises..Which law permits Israel to preempt a violation by committing a violation??

You know you can not punish a person for crime he might have committed...but did not commit.

 

[gambit]

Gambit, the source and statement you provided does not correlate with the situation faced in Gaza.

If you understand the situation in Somalia, you know that they the pirates were endangering the ships passing through. And even that, they were careful enough not to cause too much collateral damage, or loss of lives.

The argument was that merely being in international waters renders one immune from being boarded, or 'right to visit'. That is not true. The nature and intention of the ship are factors in said immunity. If it was that simple: being in international waters, then no navy is justified in boarding any pirate ship until an act of piracy have been committed.

UNCLOS - Part VII

Article 105. Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

One cannot board a 'pirate' ship unless one is reasonably certain that a ship is a pirate ship and therefore is fully justified in boarding said ship without the pirates committing a crime.

But if you compare with this case, its an aid ship, and it was heading for Gaza in international waters. Why did Israel had to send Commandos onto the ship, which meant no harm?

It is a ship whose intention is to flaunt the laws of a State and that intention is known. Whether it is commandos or seaman recruits is irrelevant.

Furthermore, and of course its a natural reaction to attack someone if someone who lands on your boat . What did you expect, to garland them?

No...To comply peacefully. But if the crew resort to physical assault, then the boarders are justified to respond in kind.

If they wanted to stray away the ship from Gaza, they could have at least done it more appropriately by signaling them or warning them, not indiscriminately attacking the ship

The group already made its intention known: To violate someone's territory. So why would they all of a sudden become amenable to persuasion?

So few questions here you have to answer if you want to justify an attacked on a ship.

Honestly, I respect you a lot Gambit, cos I have seen your debating skills and your experience, but justifying an attack on a Civilian ship, by comparing this situation with the one with Somalia, is in-despicable.

Do not care if you like me or not...

 

[gambit]

Defense Update is an online defense magazine published in the United Kingdom by OHI Ltd.
Military Advisor: Col. David Eshel ex IDF

Seriously I could do nothing but at your stupidity. Carry on the good work.

Absolutely you can laugh at me. I have been laughing at your stupidity all this time, boyo...

 

[gambit]

I doubt that the "argument" that this was "breach Israel's sovereignity" will hold in a court of law..but then lets assume for the the sake argument, it holds true and Turkish ships did not have the Right to Passage.
But then Question arises..Which law permits Israel to preempt a violation by committing a violation??

You know you can not punish a person for crime he might have committed...but did not commit.

Fine...The next time someone threatened your little sister with a knife or 'flash' himself at her, tell everyone it is nothing since no crime has been committed.