• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bill Ayers and obama top bundler, flotilla activists

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
The group behind the Gaza flotilla that engaged in deadly clashes with Israeli commandoes today counts among its top activists Weather Underground terrorist founders William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as well as Jodie Evans, the leader of the radical activist organization Code Pink.
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/klein-ayers-dohrn-top-activists-in-gaza-flotilla-group/

"Before the flotilla entered Israeli waters, rumour had it that the organisers (of the aid initiative) had links with the al-Qaeda terrorist network," Arthur Avnon was quoted as saying on the website of public broadcaster DR.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
May 30, 2010

“Portrait of IHH
additional information1

By Col.(Ret.)Jonathan Fighel2”

SNIPPET: “1. Prominent among the coalition organizations participating in the aid flotilla scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip in the coming days is the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi, IHH, “humanitarian relief fund”). It is a radical Islamic organization which was established in 1992 and formally registered in Istanbul in 1995.

2. Already back in 1996,the organization was identified by the CIA as a radical Islamic humanitarian organization bearing the name of INTERNATIONAL HUMANITAIRE HILFSORGANIZATION (IHH) A.K.A International Humanitarian Relief Organization, whose main offices were located in Zagreb and Sarajevo, its Headquarters in Germany, established by a member of the Turkish Refah Party. The CIA report mentioned that the organization was at that time in connections with Extremist groups in Iran and Algeria.

3. The January 1996 CIA report” “International Islamic NGOs” and links to terrorism” was declassified by the USA government after September 2001 Al Qaeda attacks in the USA as part of the government trails against captured Al Qaeda members facing trails in the US. The report portrays a large number of identified Islamic organizations linked to radical Islamic groups.

4. The CIA report deals with the charities and their involvement in terrorism in the context of the conflict situation at that time in Bosnia, where aiding Muslims in distress was an Islamic religious duty. Islamic activists dominate the leadership of the largest charities, and prominent members of some smaller organizations have been identified as extremists. The main objectives of these organizations include proselytizing, helping the needy, and defending Muslim communities from enemies. Where Muslims are engaged in armed conflict, some Islamic organizations provide military aid as part of a “humanitarian” package.”

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam.../eng_n/.../hamas_e107.pdf
 

Steve

Well-known member
it appears the "flotilla" was intended to provoke a fight.. not provide aid..

A soldier identified only as a sergeant told reporters at a military briefing that the activists on board "were armed with knives, scissors, pepper spray and guns." He said he was armed only with a paintball rifle. "It was a civilian paintball gun that any 12-year-old can play with," he said. "I saw my friends on the deck spitting blood."

The high-seas confrontation was a nightmare scenario for Israel, which insisted its soldiers were simply unprepared for what awaited them on the Mavi Marmara, the ship carrying 600 of the 700 activists headed for Gaza. Instead of carrying their regular automatic rifles, the Israelis said they went in with non-lethal paintball guns and pistols they never expected to use.

"If they were really interested in the well being of the people of Gaza, they would have accepted the offers of Egypt or Israel to transfer humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, along with the other 15 thousand tons sent every week," he said.

The flotilla is "invited to dock at Ashdod port, to unload their cargo and transfer it to Gaza, after a security check, either via the Israeli authorities or via the humanitarian organizations," the ministry said.

if ships forced there way into our ports, ignoring requests to be boarded and inspected,.. would we sit idly by?
 

don

Well-known member
given that they boarded in international waters the israelis have screwed the pooch again. it was an act of piracy and apparently the israelis were too nervous and trigger happy to let the ships enter gaza waters. the usa will have to bail out israel again. they've got you by the short ones.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
given that they boarded in international waters the israelis have screwed the pooch again. it was an act of piracy and apparently the israelis were too nervous and trigger happy to let the ships enter gaza waters. the usa will have to bail out israel again. they've got you by the short ones.

Israel claims they were justified to impose the blockade in International waters. Are they correct? I guess we'll see, but I did find the "San Remo Manual, which I have linked to at the International Red Cross.


Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM

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.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48222



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

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

11. The parties to the conflict are encouraged to agree that no hostile actions will be conducted in marine areas containing:

(a) rare or fragile ecosystems; or
(b) the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species or other forms of marine life.

12. In carrying out operations in areas where neutral States enjoy sovereign rights, jurisdiction, or other rights under general international law, belligerents shall have due regard for the legitimate rights and duties of those neutral States.


SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

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.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
don said:
given that they boarded in international waters the israelis have screwed the pooch again. it was an act of piracy and apparently the israelis were too nervous and trigger happy to let the ships enter gaza waters. the usa will have to bail out israel again. they've got you by the short ones.

Israel claims they were justified to impose the blockade in International waters. Are they correct? I guess we'll see, but I did find the "San Remo Manual, which I have linked to at the International Red Cross.


Ministry of Foreign Affairs 31 May 2010 - distributed May 31, 2010 5:18 PM

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.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48222



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

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;
(b) the high seas; and
(c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

11. The parties to the conflict are encouraged to agree that no hostile actions will be conducted in marine areas containing:

(a) rare or fragile ecosystems; or
(b) the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species or other forms of marine life.

12. In carrying out operations in areas where neutral States enjoy sovereign rights, jurisdiction, or other rights under general international law, belligerents shall have due regard for the legitimate rights and duties of those neutral States.


SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

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.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

don it sure looks like Israel did it by the book!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
HERE DON Links to Montreal

Home

Turkish group linked to Montreal cell
History Of Weapons Trafficking: Investigator; 'Important Role'

Stewart Bell, National Post; With Files From The Daily Telegraph
Published: Tuesday, June 01, 2010



Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom
Digg

LinkedIn

More
Mike Faille & Richard Johnson , National Post .
The Turkish group behind the Gaza flotilla, the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), has a history of weapons trafficking and was linked to a Montreal terrorist cell, according to a former French counter-terrorism investigator.

Jean-Louis Bruguiere testified about the IHH during the 2001 trial of "Millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, the Montreal-based Algerian terrorist who tried to bomb Los Angeles airport.

Mr. Bruguiere testified that the IHH played an "important role" in the Montreal cell and was also "implicated or involved in weapons trafficking," according to the court transcript.

Although a judge, under the French system, Mr. Bruguiere played the role of terrorism investigator. He investigated the Montreal cell in the late 1990s because of its links to attacks in France.

A report that Mr. Bruguiere wrote following his investigation of the Monreal cell says that Turkish authorities began investigating IHH in 1997, following allegations it was buying automatic weapons.

Police searched the group's Instanbul offices and seized weapons, explosives and bomb-making instructions. The IHH president Bulent Yildrim was also arrested, the report says.

The group was accused of planning the violent overthrow of the Turkish government in order to impose Shariah law, Mr. Bruguiere wrote in his report.

"In particular, men were sent to Muslim countries at war for combat experience," he wrote, adding the group also sent firearms, knives and explosives to countries, as well as financial aid, to secure their political support.

Mr. Bruguiere's testimony at Ressam's trial in Los Angeles was disallowed by the judge, who ruled that "the force of his reputation" might taint jurors. He has since left the judiciary.

Israel does not dispute that the IHH foundation provides relief compatible with its official status, including supplying food and medicines to orphans and conflict zones, and investing in education.

But the Israelis also accuse it of overtly supporting Hamas, designated as a terrorist group by both the United States and the European Union, and also of being in contact with al-Qaeda cells and with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.


Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=3094790#ixzz0pe2rAslQ
 

don

Well-known member
so the specialists in international law on ranchers disagree with considered opinions published around the world. keep a happy thought boys. israel may eventually have to live by the law or the usa can keep sheltering them.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
don said:
so the specialists in international law on ranchers disagree with considered opinions published around the world. keep a happy thought boys. israel may eventually have to live by the law or the usa can keep sheltering them.

Probabally about like the specialist named don!!! :wink: :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
so the specialists in international law on ranchers disagree with considered opinions published around the world. keep a happy thought boys. israel may eventually have to live by the law or the usa can keep sheltering them.

Don, I did not say either way. I only posted some "considered opinions published around the world".

What law states that it was piracy in International waters?

Are there any cases of blockades being enforced in International waters?

Was there ever a blockade in International waters, in regards to Cuba?
 

Steve

Well-known member
This case examines why Canada’s claim of rights to the Northwest Passage is a point of contention between Canada, and various nations of the world. The Canadian perspective is that they have full sovereignty encompassing the islands/waterways and thereby will assert complete control over all activity in that specific region (1). However, many countries perceive the Northwest Passage to be an international waterway between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Canadian government has continually stated that is does support international shipping through the Northwest Passage, as long as Canadian awareness and regulations, rather than international law, are followed.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/northwest-passage.htm

I guess on issues of Canadian Sovereignty it is different...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Why the need for the flotilla anyway? Aid can be shipped via land and Israel is even willing to help transport it.

“Ships forcing their way into Gaza will do nothing to aid the people there. Existing land crossings are more than capable of meeting their needs. International aid organizations and the private sector of Gaza ensure that all the necessary food, medicine and clothing are provided to the Strip via Israel… The land crossings remain the most efficient system to transfer goods to Gaza, and the flotilla organizers are well aware of this fact… Israel has invited the organizers of the flotilla to use the land crossings, in the same manner as all the reputable international organizations.

“However, they are less interested in bringing in aid than in promoting their radical agenda, playing into the hands of Hamas provocations. While they have wrapped themselves in a humanitarian cloak, they are engaging in political propaganda and not in pro-Palestinian aid. If the organizers were truly interesting in providing humanitarian aid -- as opposed to engaging in publicity stunts -- they would use the proper channels to ensure delivery of any supplies.”

MFA spokesman Yigal Palmor
 

don

Well-known member
not even a good try steve. canada isn't embargoing humanitarian aid, hasn't committed piracy in international waters and hasn't been expanding its borders. the international waters have only been in dispute with the awareness of natural resources. i don't know why you always throw the canadian thing at me. i criticize canadian injustice as much as any other. forget your prejudices and get objective. israel doesn't deserve a free pass on this or other things like white phosphorus.
 

don

Well-known member
or maybe now you'll tell me fireworks in canada on july 1 are blinding americans living close to the border.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Don, did you find any law that states that blockades in International waters are illegal, and boarding a ship during a legal blockade is an act of piracy?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
i guess you don't read any credible media.

I'd be very interested in reading any article that claims this was an act of "piracy", and then cites International Law, defining it as such.

I've heard and read lots of opinions that this was an act of "piracy". Most seems to be playing on emotions, and are a little light on facts, backed up with legal references.

Do you have any law that you can cite, that would define this as an act of piracy, because it was carried out in International Waters?

Hint:

UNCLOS Article 101: Definition

In the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, "maritime piracy" consists of:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).[105]


I doubt the UN even asks the question: Was this an act of "piracy"?

These credible media sources you read, might possibly be more accurate if they were to ask, if this was an illegal act of war?
 

don

Well-known member
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-chief-israel-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

reinforces what i said earlier in the thread from a source you have to accept

no i'm not going to quote law. we've both read credible sources saying the israelis were in violation of international law.

judging by international reaction would you say israel's actions were constructive to its own cause? i get the sense that americans are starting to tire of supporting a nation that just wants to use american support to further its territorial ambitions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
don said:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-chief-israel-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

reinforces what i said earlier in the thread from a source you have to accept

no i'm not going to quote law. we've both read credible sources saying the israelis were in violation of international law.

judging by international reaction would you say israel's actions were constructive to its own cause? i get the sense that americans are starting to tire of supporting a nation that just wants to use american support to further its territorial ambitions.

don you are as full of crap as a thanksgiving turkey. :?

If more countries were to stand against evil and not worry about manipulation by the media sharia law would not be tearing down countries in europe and taking hold!

The un and all this bending and bowing is what is undermining society today. Isreal is doing right. Where is your outrage over thousands of missels being fired at innocent CITIZENS IN ISRAEL DAILY? :? :???: :mad:

EVERYTIME Israel signs a peace agreement the other side violates it and there is no public outcry about the palestenians and their wanting to wipe Israel off the map. The only thing that will shut Israels adversaries up is if they could drive Israel into the sea.

WELL GUESS WHAT THAT DAY WILL NEVER EVER COME. :wink:
GOD says HE will bless those that bless ISRAEL and curse those that curse them.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
don said:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-chief-israel-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

reinforces what i said earlier in the thread from a source you have to accept

no i'm not going to quote law. we've both read credible sources saying the israelis were in violation of international law.

judging by international reaction would you say israel's actions were constructive to its own cause? i get the sense that americans are starting to tire of supporting a nation that just wants to use american support to further its territorial ambitions.

Sorry don, I wasn't aware I was only supposed to agree with your last 2 sentences, and disagree with the first 2.




don said:
given that they boarded in international waters the israelis have screwed the pooch again. it was an act of piracy and apparently the israelis were too nervous and trigger happy to let the ships enter gaza waters. the usa will have to bail out israel again. they've got you by the short ones.
 
Top