US caretaker to ask President to withdraw.

It could and would be pulled if it isn't drawing many viewers, and that is more likely to be the case, if in fact they are being pulled, than some conspiracy to silence them. You can see all sorts of views expressed on, say, Democracy Now! or Book TV. These things have an audience, hence they stay.

 

Nope. It seems that you are.
You quoted Golda Meir and then said that you hadn't. Now you try your deflections hoping no one will have noticed your hilarious display of bad research and/or mindless cut-and-pasting. Pretty clumsy, hey?

 

Actually, America was interfering with Japan's war efforts by aiding China, in effect entering the war on the sly and inviting a retaliation, same as with US aid to Great Britain. Germany never took the bait, but Japan did.

 

1) Britannica evidence - Legal Status: If you are claiming that is International Law that blockades are acts of war, then Britannica is just plain wrong – because for it to be a definite act of war, it must contravene International Law -- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Legal_status. It is not.

#Please do not quote Article 42 of the UN Charter. It says nothing about Blockades in law other than those authorised by the UN. It does NOT say that those not so authorised are illegal.

# Please do not quote the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994. It was never ratified and has therefore not entered into International Law. Again, you will note that Britannica does not claim that it is.

# Borat, you also cite the London Declaration concerning the Laws of War (1909), but even this never went into effect officially - http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm (click). Interestingly though, if one looks at the definitions of a blockade in Chapter 1, it becomes obvious that Nasser’s threat to close the Straits of Tiran was NOT a blockade. It has to be effective (Nasser withdrew ‘de facto’ before Israel attacked); it has to apply impartially to ships of all nations, and Nasser’s stated intention did not include a closure to all ships.

# See the next section (ICJ) for proof that it is not yet International Law.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Borat’s chain of ‘logic’:
I presume that the rest of us can spot Borat’s logical fallacy and other ‘faux pas’ in the following sequence:

2) The Global Research ‘evidence’: “In 2009, it’s believed that the International Criminal Court in the Hague will include blockades against coasts and ports as acts of war.”
Now simple logic tells me that if blockades were already formal acts of war, then the ICC is busy wasting its time. That is obviously not the case. Secondly, did that inclusion actually take place? Nowhere could I find a universal law pertaining to blockades. I realise that ‘Murkans can sometimes very arrogant, but I find it to be the pits to propose that what is customary under US law means that it has to be accepted as international law.

One last point …. Nasser threatened to close the Straits on 22nd May 1967. Know what I am getting at?

<<<Mod Edit: Response to Attack Removed>>>

 

I quoted dozens of sources all confirming that blockade is an act of war. But if you think an anonymous blogger from the world's capital of rape and murder (aka South Africa) knows better than Encyclopedia Britannica and renown international law experts - be my guest, keep making a laughing stock of yourself and keep trying to deflect. The evidence of blockade being an act of war is in irrefutable.

blockade, an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts. Blockades are regulated by international customary law and by international treaty law....The law of blockade, in common with other laws of war...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...69580/blockade

 

The end result of Pearl Harbor was at Nagasaki.

 

Is the cutesy cartoon supposed to mean something, Jonsa?

 

There was zero confirmation because none of it was relevant under International law. It was all just say-so. The "laws" referred to were not internationally ratified. What part of that did you not get?

Also, I can quote you dozens of articles that say that Israel only ever sought peace, but that doesn't mean it is so.

I don't buy the talking-head opinions. I want to see facts; agreements; documentation; verification; ratification, not tongue wagging.

 

International law expert Professor Francis Boyle is very outspoken on this topic as well as on others of equal importance. He defines blockades under international and US law as:

&#8211; &#8220;belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.&#8221;

​

http://www.globalresearch.ca/blockades-acts-of-war/9866

President Eisenhower 1954: Blockade Would Be Act Of War - a blockade of Communist China would be an act of war
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/62546558

North Korea said any U.S. effort to enforce international sanctions over the communist nation&#8217;s nuclear program would be considered an act of war
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aL04tV5Q9tKA

Iran says: Oil blockade constitutes an act of war
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail.fa/62097.html

Falklands Blockade Is an Act of War Toward Britain
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2011/12/falklands_blockade_is_an_act_of_war.html

How does it feel to be the only person on the planet arguing that a military naval blockade is not an act of war? Lonely? LOL

 

You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, the straights were international waterways, I'm not even going to entertain the babblings of a man so determined to hate Israel that he needs proof even for self evident facts; such as, that closing international waterways to trading vessels is a violation of international law, closing them was a blockade of Israeli vessels and thus an act of war.

Sorry sport but a) Nasser was not the President of Syria, and b) threats do not equate to actions nor violations of international law or acts of war, similar threats were made by the Arabs as well including Nasser, and what's more he followed through with his threats by illegally closing international waterways and blockading the state of international as a clear and overt act of war.

Actually conducting free trade, boycoting, or sending economic or military aid are not acts of war.

 

Blockades are an act of war as per the Declaration of Paris AND the Declaration of London; furthermore, closing international waterways is a violation of international law.

 

Pffft. You wouldn't take issue with someone aiding your enemy? OK..

 

red herring;

 

“Casus Belli” number 3 – The closure of the Straits of Tiran – Part 3 – Legal

Dear readers ... Let us check this claim of “self-evident facts”. If correct, there should be absolutely no uncertainty .... right?

# The Declaration of Paris of 1956 was aimed at privateering. What is privateering, Face, Your? “Privateers are armed vessels that are owned, equipped and officered by one or more private persons” - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/privateer.htm. Poof goes “Paris”. Gone. Vanished.

# You were shown that the Egyptian actions in 1967 did not conform to the definition of a blockade. Double whammy to “Paris” - no “self-evident” fact remains. Buried.

# You were shown that the Declaration of London was not international law. “The declaration was ratified by the United States Senate, but not by many other powers; it never went into effect officially.” Poof went the Declaration of London. Cremated.

# You were shown that there was no agreement at the time between legal authorities as to whether the Straits of Tiran in fact represented International Waters. In fact, some of the more comprehensive reviews show remarkably myopic cheery picking. Israel and the USA “said” that they were international waters. So what? In 1955 Israel attempted to gain a verdict from the International Law Commission in favour of “non suspendible passage”. The Commission refused because the position was not unequivocal. The Strait runs between the Sinai coast and Tiran Island. That island is administered by Egypt and (other than Israel 1967-1982), occupied by her habitually. A case could therefore be made that the Straits are internal Egyptian waters, and not open-sea territorial waters. What I am demonstrating is that the legal situation was by no means clear.

# Even were the legal status of the Straits were to have been clear (which it wasn’t), you were still shown that the UN Law of the Sea only safeguards passage in international waters if such passage is “INNOCENT”. You were referred to Hakim’s discussion on this issue.

Now, take an invasion by Israel of Syria a month before, add the mutual defence pact between Egypt and Syria, add the statements of Israeli leaders against Syria which the UN Secretary General U Thant called “"so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory” such as that the regime in Damascus should fall, mix in the fact that Israel’s oil (mostly imported through the Straits) is of undeniable military strategic significance, and now tell me that all of that adds up to “INNOCENT” passage. Yeah … right.

Yet, Face Your, with all of that known to you, here you are repeating EXACTLY the same debunked post that you tried a week or two ago.

There is a word to describe posters who do that. Unfortunately some mods feel that telling the truth is against forum rules.

I am amazed that you admit this. I will register your thoughts. Remember that the Apologists use Nasser's threats as justification for war.

Oh ... silly me ... I forgot that Israel is allowed to be exempt from almost all customary prohibitions ... she is "special" after all.

And isn't it astounding how facts are equated with hatred when it comes to the views of Zionist Apologists.

 

So you have joined Face Your in repetitions of "Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909", having been shown that the first was directed at privateering and the latter was never ratified.

Some expert!!!



Sorry about that, Borat. But the "expert" bit just plain tickled me.

By the way, Borat, can you tell us EXACTLY WHAT Egypt DID 'blockade'?

I mean like how many ships were refused passage? How many had their cargo confiscated? All of them? Some? One or two? None?

When you have let us know we can look again to see whether Israel's invasion of Egypt was proportional to these Egyptian actions, as John Quigley has reasoned it should have been so as not to totally trash the UN Charter..

 

If Obama went 'rogue', and spoke out against say Israeli nukes, he would be killed by a 'lone wolf'.

 

I finally had a chance to check the speech by Golda Meir about which you said "citing international law ....".

Respecting your reply I read it again, and nowhere did Ms Meir cite the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

LOL you are obsessed with Golda Meir. She did not cite Encyclopedia Britannica, I did not say she did. She did not need to. Encyclopedia Britannica defines blockade as an act of war, blockade had been considered a military tool and an act of war for thousands of years all over the world, international law experts define blockade as an act of war, all countries consider blockade to be an act of war. Blockade was a part of war arsenal 1,000 years ago and it still is. Golda Meir did not need to prove that blockade was an act of war because everyone knew it, including Nasser.

Under the traditional concept of blockade, a belligerent was entitled to proclaim a blockade of all or part of the enemy&#8217;s coast and to use warships to enforce that blockade.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/blockade-as-an-act-of-war/

You are the only person on the planet who claims that blockade is an act of peace. The entire world considers it to be an act of war and always has.

 

You quoted the following Borat .... I am not about to let you forget it:

Just for the reference, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran in 1967.

Your reference, not mine mate.

 

Borat, you posted the following, right?

I looked up reference [84] of your justification and source and found that it was a speech given to the UN by Golda Meir. You then claimed that you had never quoted her, but as we can all see, you did, even if you didn't know it.

When I asked you where your own reference cited international law .... you provided the Britannica story. So what is more logical than to presume that you were answering my question ... namely that the international law that Meir cited in her speech was Britannica?

I can therefore only conclude that you had no earthly idea what the international law was that you said she had cited. And you still have none. So complain as much as you want to, but you would be far more convincing simply answering the question - what international law did Israel (Ms Meir to be precise) cite to justify viewing the closure of the Straits of Tiran as a "casus belli"?

You seem to be avoiding a logical query that flows from your own post..

 

LOL, the international criminal court did not exist in 1967, that does not mean that causes of war were different then. I also quoted this:

Under the traditional concept of blockade, a belligerent was entitled to proclaim a blockade of all or part of the enemy&#8217;s coast and to use warships to enforce that blockade.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide...an-act-of-war/

Blockades have 1,000 history of being used as a war tactic buddy and there is nothing you can possibly do to prove that the Egyptian blockade of Israel was somehow an exception.

 

Government sanctioned invasions, arial bombardments, blockades,rocket attacks etc are undisputed and undeniable acts of war, they don't need to be defined because they are universally accepted acts of war and have been for thousands of years and all over the world. International law does not provide word definition and does not have an explicit list of "acts of war", it relies on the meaning of words (aka Encyclopedia Britannica) and common sense that everybody except you have. LOL

Do you seriously believe that Encyclopedia Britannica and International law experts are wrong and you can set them straight. Why don't you contact Encyclopedia Britannica and tell them that you don't believe blockade is an act of war? Let us know how it went LOL

 

Again you missed the point Borat. "It was believed that the ICC would include 'blockades' as acts of war" ... that was YOUR posted justification that blockades are Acts of War. Which means that under international law, at least in 2009, they are not. I mean why would the ICC need to include 'blockades' if they WERE already in law. As you correctly point out, that means that neither were they law in 1967. Get it?

So what does that mean for Britannica and other sources claiming that Blockades are acts of War? Nothing. Just their opinions, that's all. And the reason that blockades have not yet been included is because the courts and UN member countries can see huge problems with declaring them to be. 'Murka and Israel BOTH want to retain the right to blockade without being judged to have declared war.

2) Hence my (unanswered) question to you as to the status of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Does that mean that Israel is at war with the Palestinian Authorities?

3) And you have still not responded to my post that Nasser's actions did not fit the definition of "blockade", so all of your attempts could well be wasted oxygen.

4) And finally we have my question as to what exactly did Egypt block? What is the name of any ship that was actually denied passage? I presume you know the difference between threat and action, like a threat by someone to do harm, and the actual act of doing it.

 

OK. So from your lack of ability to support your "reference 84 claim" that blockades are against international law, I presume that you will understand that your claim just fell completely away .... they are not against International Law.

Thank you for the default lack of focussed response. I knew you couldn't.

 

Wrong. I never did anything of the sort. Therefore you post was a clear chat to a strawman. No biggie

Instead I claimed it was not against international law. You said it was.