Madison420 @ Madison420 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

3,074

Joined

2 yr. ago

And then you double down, neat! I will advise you harassing me isn't the best choice but you do you.

I mean you seem to really want it, you complain that I'm furthering conversation to have the last word and your solution is to continue the conversation yourself but solely to complain about it.

Tilting at windmills, you should really read the series because that quote doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

You get that particular idiotic attempt at a dig goes equally well to you correct?

You seem to have responded specifically to get the last word, of you didn't want a response maybe don't respond?

No one is staying you didn't, im saying your definition of violence is contrary to both dictionary definition and legal understanding and only helps to validate authoritarian concerns.

they very publicly declared they were bound for a blockaded port.

Not illegal.

which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.

Not detain and seize, maritime law is very specific in that a blockade cannot block aid unreasonably. A super famous ship you've searched that's filled solely with celebrities and aid is something you shouldn't turn away so long as they accept security arrangements like boarding and searching. This isn't star wars nor are they the trade union and total blockades like your implying are very illegal as defined by the law you're sourcing.

Notice you never said they did breach the blockade which btw by international law they have to be given time and allowed to leave even if they enter without permission which they didn't do nor is Israel claiming they did.

Intercept and detain yes, board, seizur, deport and treat as their own... No because duh.

Correct, they hadn't entered the area yet though so they technically heeded their warning.

Stolen, if you take something from someone and dispense it as your own you're guilty of theft and conversion something they say Hamas does with aid. And moreover delivering aid doesn't negate the whole unlawful boarding, seizure and forcible human trafficking thing.

Cool.

If you spit on a cop or may or may not be depending on context and even then force has to be met with equal force. Try a dictionary then:

the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

No you're too ignorant to know the difference and too obstinate to accept that your concept of violence may be skewed by capitalist interests.

Yeah so what? It's smoke it's not meant to harm, the smoke they fire at protestors is meant to harm and is actually more strictly controlled on the battlefield then the civilian policing world.

If they are wearing riot gear it's not meant to harm it's meant to say get the fuck out which is generally pretty easily discerned when they're chanting get the fuck out. Saying it's violence is what makes it a riot genius it's why of you support it you shouldn't die on this dumb hill.

Something like that but the important thing is Israel is not claiming they entered the exclusion zone and similarly they even if they did the result is supposed to be being forcibly turned away not kidnapping and property theft.

Correct to an extent, the accepted meaning is that they must agree to security measures to pass through. It is not and never has been a way to willfully prevent aid and aide staff into combat zones.

They weren't in a blockaded zone as far as I'm aware, Israel only says they were approaching and providing intented destination as you must when attempting to pass through a blockade.

Even ignoring that they must be allowed to leave even if they enter the blockaded area without permission, it isn't a seize your property and imprison your crew for being in the general area openly providing intent kinda thing.

When they shoot you with rubber bullets, pepperballs and tear has throwing them back at them is disorderly not violent.

Maybe you are?

My position hasn't really changed, conflating property crime with violence is a time honored authoritarian talking point to the extent that you can find newspapers of the foundational protests that created this country that say essentially "why can't these protestors protest correctly?" "I was with them until the property crime!"

So why are you repeating it then?

It's not like Israel boarded a ship that just happened to be in the area,

That's exactly what happened, blockade borders have to be announced and ships have to be allowed time to leave the area. Israel left their blockade and kidnapped people aboard a ship they did not allow to leave an area they weren't in.

these freedom flotilla yahoos very publicly declared they were bound for Gaza, which under Maritime Law permits Israel to board it.

Once they breach the blockade yes arguably though with only aid that gets more complex. Essentially aid entry is allowed so long as you agree to security arrangements that are both reasonable and lawful. That could mean Israel could board and search, or doesn't mean they can blockade all aid to starve a population which is specifically and in multiple very very illegal.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/blockade

Their sources section is awash with good relevant information and specifically findings on the last Israeli famous Israeli blockade and subsequent boarding (and death of iirc 9) which was found to be a legal blockade so long as the purpose was not starvation and aid could enter with security arrangements.

You're confusing the shit they're bought to care about with the things they actually care about which are quite clearly dollars and cents not morals and ideologies.

How so.

No. They never entered anywhere Israel is legally allowed to exclude even in war It being full of aid and verifiable non combatants.

It's kidnapping.

Just like how the US abducted people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your example is also kidnapping but even excluding that bit of nuance the key word is "in" they never entered territorial waters and thus were never "in" Israel or Palestine. Israel can declare 1500mi of the coast of Somalia an exclusion zone then kidnap people there and that would make just as much sense in a legal view.

I don't agree there.

They're for sure bought but giving up their own power means they can't be bought again because why would anyone? Historically courts and government officials generally when relieved by bribery kill themselves or see themselves in court for bribery in a much more rigged court. Authoritarianism is pretty vicious to those involved especially if you're higher up and can't manage to stay in office.

So far they've ruled against him more often then for him on immigration, citizenship and a third term.