Turkey Identifies 174 Israeli Soldiers Implicated in Mavis Marmara Massacre

[gryfin]

You missed the news -- the raid was legal. The ICC isn't going to prosecute a raid that the UN SC investigation has approved you moron.

If the Israeli soldiers are identified they should be given medals for justly and properly shooting armed terrorists who attempted to interfere violently with a lawful naval interdiction.

Again...what UN Security Council investigation?

You certainly can't be such an appalling lickspittle that you are referring to the Palmer Report are you?

Because, if you are, you certainly have not read it (no surprise given your sycophant style), because it says:


"It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability."

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf


So, it did not rule on the legality of the blockade.

 

[groggy]

And just to jog your memory, Fuji, here are some of the findings of the report with a legal basis:

The three-member mission said there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of crimes such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36086&Cr=flotilla&Cr1

 

[Aardvark154]

Nato would have to step in on Turkey's side in the conflict.

For an act of agression on Turkey's part? I suggest rereading the North Atlantic Treaty.

 

[blackrock13]

For an act of agression on Turkey's part? I suggest rereading the North Atlantic Treaty.

To save us all some time, I hope DM will C&P the appropriate section. He's good at C&P.

 

[Aardvark154]

You guys are amazing, George Orwell would be proud of you. Nato is a defensive alliance except when the US decides to invade a country.

Actually it is you Danmand for being unable to see the difference between these two points.

 

[danmand]

Actually it is you Danmand for being unable to see the difference between these two points.

Your selective memory must have erased the posts you made a while ago arguing that the Nato treaty required Nato members to participate when the US invaded Afghanistan. You claim to be an attorney, so maybe you are practising arguing both sides of a case.

 

[Aardvark154]

Your selective memory must have erased the posts you made a while ago arguing that the Nato treaty required Nato members to participate when the US invaded Afghanistan.

9/11 was held by NATO (and not at the request of the U.S.A.) to have activated Article 5.

 

[danmand]

9/11 was held by NATO (and not at the request of the U.S.A.) to have activated Article 5.

Thank you for confirming the point I made.

 

[Aardvark154]

Thank you for confirming the point I made.

May I suggest Danmand that you immediately write angry letters (unless you have already done so) demanding to know why Canada and Denmark didn't veto the resolution.

Also I don't believe it confirms your point whatsoever.

 

[fuji]

You certainly can't be such an appalling lickspittle that you are referring to the Palmer Report are you?

Yes, the Palmer report, the report commissioned by the UN Security Council, which concluded the blockade was legal.

It needs to be understood from the outset that this Panel is unique. Its methods of inquiry are similarly unique. The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability."

The Panel did not rule on legal issues in a definitive, binding way. What it did was return an opinion, which is now essentially the opinion of the UN. Its opinion was that the blockade was legal, and it gave strong and compelling legal reasons for that opinion.

Turkey has said it will take the case to the ICJ which will rule in a definitive way, and for the reasons given strongly in the Palmer report, the ICJ is likely to rule the blockade legal.

Plainly Turkey is looking for a way out. It's backed itself into a diplomatic corner, over-extending itself and setting itself on a course for war with Israel. I think Turkey is hoping that the ICJ will rule against it, so that it can go away grumbling about how it dislikes the result, but will "respect the decision of the court". That will give Turkey a way to stand down from war in a face saving way. The Turks will be able to say they did everything they could, and point to the ICJ decision as to why they won't be doing any more.

 

[fuji]

And just to jog your memory, Fuji, here are some of the findings of the report with a legal basis:

The UN HRC, aka the Arab League, has no legal basis. The UN HRC has no status, standing, or authority to make pronouncements on security issues. It can and does issue "recommendations", but those are resoundingly ignored by the UN SC, because everybody knows that the thugs who run UN HRC--people like Moamar Ghadaffi--are not trustworthy or credible.

 

[fuji]

Your selective memory must have erased the posts you made a while ago arguing that the Nato treaty required Nato members to participate when the US invaded Afghanistan.

NATO concluded that Afghanistan had underwritten an attack on a NATO member (9/11). In what way has Israel attacked a NATO member?

If Turkey attacks Israel by running a lawful Israeli blockade then Turkey is going to be on its own.

 

[danmand]

Y'all are forgetting that Turkey is of pivotel importance to Nato, and a rising power in the region. The US/Israel may not care about losing Turkey as a member of the alliance, but european powers may be less sanguine.

 

[fuji]

Y'all are forgetting that Turkey is of pivotel importance to Nato, and a rising power in the region. The US/Israel may not care about losing Turkey as a member of the alliance, but european powers may be less sanguine.

Danmand, you may not LIKE the facts--you're entitled to your opinion--but at least acknowledge them. NATO powers are not *obliged* to enter a war unless a NATO power is attacked. NATO is not obliged to go to war every time the US goes to war, and NATO is not obliged to go to war if Turkey starts one either.

As for Turkey's importance in NATO--I think if Turkey actually started a war with Israel, NATO would kick Turkey out. Nobody wants to be obliged to come to the defense of a loose cannon. In light of that, there will be intense pressure on Turkey NOT to start any war with Israel, and also in light of that, unless the Turks are idiots, they WON'T start any war with Israel.

Thus I think that Turkey's talk about starting a war with Israel is just so much bluster. It isn't really going to happen. Turkey will find a way to stand down, maybe by going to the ICJ so that they can "reluctantly accept the ruling of the court".

 

[Aardvark154]

Y'all are forgetting that Turkey is of pivotel importance to Nato.

In addition to Fuji's comments above. Are you not one of the people who feels it is foolish to be concerned about Russia?

If you believe V.V. Putin gets "a warm and fuzzy feeling" when he thinks of the Soviet period then the value of Turkey as a member of NATO goes up, but if you don't. . . .

 

[danmand]

Danmand, you may not LIKE the facts--you're entitled to your opinion--but at least acknowledge them. NATO powers are not *obliged* to enter a war unless a NATO power is attacked. NATO is not obliged to go to war every time the US goes to war, and NATO is not obliged to go to war if Turkey starts one either.

My point has always been that Nato was designed as and should continue to be a defensive alliance, hence it should not engage in aggressive wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or as it is happening now, in Libya.

I realize that is akin to asking, why the US war machine is called the department of Defense.

However, no matter your views (which I do not share) on Israels right to attack Turkish commercials ships or warships, if it happens it will create grave problems for Nato.

 

[fuji]

Afghanistan was a defensive war. NATO members went to Iraq and Libya by choice, not because they were obliged to go.

That Iraq and Afghanistan were handled poorly is a different question/issue.

 

[danmand]

Afghanistan was a defensive war.

Must be, when the US Department of Defense is leading it. Here is a link to 1984, look up the Ministry of Truth.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

NATO members went to Iraq and Libya by choice, not because they were obliged to go.

No, not individual Nato members; Nato went to Libya.

 

[Aardvark154]

I realize that is akin to asking, why the US war machine is called the department of Defense.

Because the Truman Administration was merging the Department of War and the Department of the Navy (the Department of the Air Force was created at the same time as the DoD) and they very well couldn't name the new department what one of the old departments had been named.

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/54900/54980/54980_seal_war_lg.gif

However, no matter your views (which I do not share) on Israels right to attack Turkish commercials ships or warships, if it happens it will create grave problems for Nato.

Indeed it will.

 

[danmand]

Because the Truman Administration was merging the Department of War and the Department of the Navy (the Department of the Air Force was created at the same time as the DoD) and they very well couldn't name the new department what one of the old departments had been named.

How convenient.