Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

The oil smuggled ouit of Iraq could have been stopped. It seemed at the time that there was not the will to do it. A case of people turning a blind eye. why could Israel have not searched the ship stopped today. It was a fairly small ship and it was in calm waters. They could then have let it continue. The real reason is that they want the blockade to exist for all the damage it does. It is also easier to demand that no ships pass instead of searching them.

But it looks like all the hard work by Israel in maintining the blockade will come to nothing as the Egyptians have opened up the Rafah crossing on a permanent basis.

05/06/2010 - 05:26 PM

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip is illegal and should be lifted, and renewed her call for an investigation into the massacre committed by Israel last Monday against international sympathizers on board the Freedom Flotilla vessels, upon which dozens were left dead and wounded .

Pillay said at a news conference on Saturday in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, where she is taking part in a fact-finding mission for human rights, "International humanitarian law prohibits starvation of civilians as a war tactic, and prohibits the imposition of collective punishment against civilians," reminding the UN Security Coucnil member states that the siege on Gaza is illegal and should be ended.

When asked if the Security Council is obliged to refer the situation in Gaza to the International Criminal Court, Pillay, a former judge of the International Criminal Court, noted that "the Council imposed sanctions in the past and referred the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan to the International Criminal Court."

"The oil smuggled ouit of Iraq could have been stopped. It seemed at the time that there was not the will to do it."

Haystack, why do you persist in making yourself look like an ill-informed fool?

You clearly demonstrate you know nothing about the smuggling of Iraqi oil and the steps taken to prevent it. I doubt you know very little if anything about the oil smuggling business, just sweeping dumb statements about this subject and anything else you care to post an opinion on.

It is going to be pretty academic soon. Egypt has now broken the blockade to Gaza and Israel is going to come under increasing pressure to do so as well.

Not the will to stop the oil smuggling!

US 'ignored Iraq oil smuggling'

Smuggled oil made 40 times as much as oil-for-food kickbacks
The US turned a blind eye to the former Iraq regime's $8bn trade in smuggled oil, a new US Senate report says.
The report says the US was well aware of both the smuggling and the kickbacks Iraq solicited from players in the UN's oil-for-food programme.

The new report focuses on both the $228m Saddam Hussein's regime is estimated to have made through illegal surcharges on the oil-for-food programme, and on the $8bn it made through sanctions-busting oil sales to Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

US oversight was weak on both fronts, the report says - and sometimes amounted to facilitation of the illicit trades.

But it also said that the far bigger smuggling trade was carried out with tacit US approval.

Much of the oil went out by land through Turkey and Syria, but much also went by sea.

The report takes the example of a series of shipments from the port of Khor al-Amaya in southern Iran in the month before the US-led coalition began its 2003 invasion.

Jordan paid $53m in hard currency for 7.7 million barrels on seven tankers, all of which were explicitly allowed to pass by the US naval blockade.

"The US was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said.

"On occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

'but much also went by sea'

It probably did, which illustrates how difficult it was to stop and search small vessels, or perhaps not stop, but 'find', which was my point all along.

I take it you were embarked onboard the US/AUS/UK warships charged with preventing the smuggling of oil and have first hand personal experience of the warships turning a blind eye?

You spend far too much time sat in front of your PC googling, offering ill-informed opinions, you should try and get out of the house more and experience life.

I think a US Senate investigationt would have a greater experience of studying the stopping of oil smuggling than you, but perhaps you are an expert on such a subject. It would have thought it was unlikely as I have only come across meaningless rubbish that you post.

Part of the problem with the Iraqui oil-for-food abuse was that senior UN personnel were lining their pockets - including familily members of the then Secretary-General. Another reason why the US was pissed with the UN.

Very true. The main drawback to stopping the oil was corruption in almost every area. There were allegations about French officials, George Galloway and plenty of others. Syria, Jordan, Turkey were all in on the act as well. One of the biggest leaky holes was through Iran.

'but perhaps you are an expert on such a subject'

It took you a while, but you eventually got something right!

I had already realised that you think yourself to be an expert on many things.

oi, pth! How dare you!

I think a re-clarification of roles is necessary.

It's *my* job to squabble with Haystack on this thread.

Haystack's job is generally to troll and specifically to agree with Fred; To repost discredited bollocks time and time again using a broken keyboard that can't spell words like 'negotiate'. (NB Haystack retains chief Fred squabbling rights on all domestic political threads).

Fahel's in charge of pidgin english cut-and-pastes from dodgy radical islamist websites.

Clubman is in charge of attention seeking poo jokes, puerile faecal posts and other wastes of bandwidth. He may soon be up for promotion to willy jokes.

Your role, ptholden, together with MM and Isaacs is to be the voices of reason. You're supposed to pop up every now and again and destroy pages and pages of waffling argument with a well aimed single line post that decisively cuts to the heart of the matter and allows the argument to move on (after Haystack gets the last word by reposting some other discredited nonsense whilst pretending not to realise that what he's posting has just been proven to be crap).

Cynic, as Fred's understudy, is learning well when it comes to rambling posts expressing spurious opinions backed up by quotes from dubious sources that singularly fail to make any point, beyond the standard: "Israel, America and the Tories are the great Satans". He needs to work more on understudying Fred's use of Bold Text. In general though, he sticks well to his role.

Who have I missed?

After BP's well started dumping tens of thousands of
barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, it took WEEKS to
get Obama to even begin to posture on the problem.

Yet within minutes after reports of Israeli commandos
slaughtering relief workers in international waters,
Obama was on the phone offering his political help to
the Israeli prime minister.

What a total disgrace.

Video:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/858.html

terrorism weapons Marmara Turkish ship

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEBKu2TvVaE&annotation_id=annotation_82093&feature=iv

Palestine.

1. When was it founded and by whom?


2. What were its borders?


3. What was its capital?


4. What were its major cities?


5. What constituted the basis of its economy?


6. What was its form of government?


7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?


8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?


9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?


10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?


11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.


12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?


You are lamenting the "low sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?


And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.


The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel ; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed it in Gaza , Judea, and Samaria . How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza , respectively?

Fahel-I will accept your answers on a postage stamp.

Gausie-you forgot me.

Yuff,

With the statement:

"If the people you mistakenly call "Israelis" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over -- or thrown out of -- the Arab world,"


I thought it could be accurately applied when describing the New Israelis.

Check and compare the generic constitution of Arabs and Israelis.

ptholden
I have asked someone with experience of cargo ships about this stop and search business. He was an officer in the Merchant Navy for more than 40 years. He sees no reason that in most situations, you can't search a ship at sea.

He did come up with one suggestion that does show up Israel's real intentions though. He said that if the ships are taken to the port of Ashdod why can't they search the ships there and let them proceed to sail to Gaza which looks to be about 30 miles to the northerly end, instead of offloading their cargo and transporting it by road to Gaza as the Israeli have suggested. The ships can easily be monitored to be sure that no further cargo is loaded onto them.

Gausie - lol

haystack - what are the many things? You have strayed into my area of expertise, I know the maritime, first hand knowledge and experience. You on the other hand, don't.

06/06/2010 - 08:50 AM

Two non-governmental organizations announced in Beirut on Saturday that a Lebanese ship loaded with humanitarian assistance would set sail to Gaza Strip next week.

The Free Palestine movement and reporters without borders held a joint press conference during which they announced the new plan.

The head of Free Palestine movement, Yasser Al-Qashlaq, said that the ship would carry educational material and other relief aid to the besieged Palestinian children in Gaza.

He invited freedom-loving individuals to join the sea voyage.

Thaer Ghandour, speaking for reporters without borders, said that the ship would also carry 50 reporters and 25 European activists including MPs.

Even in the San Remo manual searches at sea are expected.

Section II Visit and search of merchant vessels

There was no consent from the marchant ship

119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination.

The stopping and diverting of the ship yesterday was neither impossible nor unsafe. The passangers had surrendered without incident and the ship was in calm waters.

121. If visit and search at sea is impossible or unsafe, a belligerent warship or military aircraft may divert a merchant vessel to an appropriate area or port in order to exercise the right of visit and search.

Haystack - "The passengers had surrendered without incident" - Do you really believe that statement? Do you think that if you say it enough times it will become true?

I don't understand why you keep on posting the same discredited crap, time and time again. Do you really believe it? Or is posting these lies your favourite trolling technique?