ThinkPad
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 1,844
- 232
Dogo wewe ni kichwa lkn bodo watakubishia tu! maana wabongo ndio kazi yao....dogo uko vizuri yaani unajua kufikilia na kutoa kitu chenye akili safi sana.
Tanzania government condemns Israel
- Thread starter Mzee Mwanakijiji
- Start date
Dogo wewe ni kichwa lkn bodo watakubishia tu! maana wabongo ndio kazi yao....dogo uko vizuri yaani unajua kufikilia na kutoa kitu chenye akili safi sana.
omarilyas
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 24, 2007
- 2,130
- 145
Kama mnadhani siasa imeingiliwa na mdudu wa longolongo basi hamjaangalia sekta zingine...no wonder MAFISADI wanapeta. Miaka ya hivi karibuni nimegundua makosa ya huko nyuma nilipokuwa mlimani ambako nilikuwa mstari wa mbele kupambana na kile nilichokiona onevu wa wahadhiri wetu haswa wale wa kitivo cha sheria. With this kind of legal professionals I am sure wale wazee pale walikuwa na kila sababu ya kuwa wakali hata katika masuala yasiyohusiana na taaluma.
omarilyas
Kenya condemns Israel raid on aid ships
- Posted on Wednesday 2 June 2010
AfricaNews reporter in Nairobi, Kenya
The Kenya Government has condemned Israel's attack on aid ships to Gaza and called for an investigation into the incident.
A statement released by foreign ministry said on Tuesday the government denounced the use of "blatant force" by Israel against the flotilla that were delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza on Monday.
"The killing of nine members of this humanitarian mission is grossly callous and a brazen violation of international law," the government said in a statement.
"The government of Kenya expresses deep shock and regret at this tragic loss of civilian lives and calls for a full investigation of this deplorable incident," the statement added.
Kenya urged the investigation to be "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent".
The statement said the incident served to reinforce calls "by the international community for Israel to end the blockade of Gaza".
At least nine people were killed and dozens injured when troops intercepted the convoy of ships dubbed the Freedom Flotilla early on Monday, Israeli radio reported.
Organisers of the flotilla carrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid then diverted their ships and slowed down to avoid a confrontation during the night.
International community criticized Israel's raid on the ships and protesters have rocked on Europe, US, Arab and Muslim World following on the incident.
Israel is one of the few friends that have maintained a strong co-operation with Kenya on security issues and also gives technical training to scientists on ways of improving food production in arid and semi arid areas.
omarilyas
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 24, 2007
- 2,130
- 145
Zawadi kwa ubungoubungo na wenziwe.....u need this
Defending the indefensible: a how-to guide
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 2:55 PM
Powerful states often do bad things. When they do, government officials and sympathizers inevitably try to defend their conduct, even when those actions are clearly wrong or obviously counterproductive. This is called being an "apologist," although people who do this rarely apologize for much of anything.
Some readers out there may aspire to careers in foreign policy, and you may be called upon to perform these duties as part of your professional obligations.
Moreover, all of us need to be able to spot the rhetorical ploys that governments use to justify their own misconduct. To help students prepare for future acts of diplomatic casuistry, and to raise public consciousness about these tactics, I offer as a public service this handy 21-step guide: "How to Defend the Indefensible and Get Away With It." The connection to recent events is obvious, but such practices are commonplace in many countries and widely practiced by non-state actors as well.
Here are my 21 handy talking-points when you need to apply the white-wash:
1. We didn't do it! (Denials usually don't work, but it's worth a try).
2. We know you think we did it but we aren't admitting anything.
3. Actually, maybe we did do something but not what we are accused of doing.
4. Ok, we did it but it wasn't that bad ("waterboarding isn't really torture, you know").
5. Well, maybe it was pretty bad but it was justified or necessary. (We only torture terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or people who might know a terrorist...")
6. What we did was really quite restrained, when you consider how powerful we really are. I mean, we could have done something even worse.
7. Besides, what we did was technically legal under some interpretations of international law (or at least as our lawyers interpret the law as it applies to us.)
8. Don't forget: the other side is much worse. In fact, they're evil. Really.
9. Plus, they started it.
10. And remember: We are the good guys. We are not morally equivalent to the bad guys no matter what we did. Only morally obtuse, misguided critics could fail to see this fundamental distinction between Them and Us.
11. The results may have been imperfect, but our intentions were noble. (Invading Iraq may have resulted in tens of thousands of dead and wounded and millions of refugees, but we meant well.)
12. We have to do things like this to maintain our credibility. You don't want to encourage those bad guys, do you?
13. Especially because the only language the other side understands is force.
14. In fact, it was imperative to teach them a lesson. For the Nth time.
15. If we hadn't done this to them they would undoubtedly have done something even worse to us. Well, maybe not. But who could take that chance?
16. In fact, no responsible government could have acted otherwise in the face of such provocation.
17. Plus, we had no choice. What we did may have been awful, but all other policy options had failed and/or nothing else would have worked.
18. It's a tough world out there and Serious People understand that sometimes you have to do these things. Only ignorant idealists, terrorist sympathizers, craven appeasers and/or treasonous liberals would question our actions.
19. In fact, whatever we did will be worth it eventually, and someday the rest of the world will thank us.
20. We are the victims of a double-standard. Other states do the same things (or worse) and nobody complains about them. What we did was therefore permissible.
21. And if you keep criticizing us, we'll get really upset and then we might do something really crazy. You don't want that, do you?
Repeat as necessary.
Defending the indefensible: a how-to guide
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 2:55 PM
Powerful states often do bad things. When they do, government officials and sympathizers inevitably try to defend their conduct, even when those actions are clearly wrong or obviously counterproductive. This is called being an "apologist," although people who do this rarely apologize for much of anything.
Some readers out there may aspire to careers in foreign policy, and you may be called upon to perform these duties as part of your professional obligations.
Moreover, all of us need to be able to spot the rhetorical ploys that governments use to justify their own misconduct. To help students prepare for future acts of diplomatic casuistry, and to raise public consciousness about these tactics, I offer as a public service this handy 21-step guide: "How to Defend the Indefensible and Get Away With It." The connection to recent events is obvious, but such practices are commonplace in many countries and widely practiced by non-state actors as well.
Here are my 21 handy talking-points when you need to apply the white-wash:
1. We didn't do it! (Denials usually don't work, but it's worth a try).
2. We know you think we did it but we aren't admitting anything.
3. Actually, maybe we did do something but not what we are accused of doing.
4. Ok, we did it but it wasn't that bad ("waterboarding isn't really torture, you know").
5. Well, maybe it was pretty bad but it was justified or necessary. (We only torture terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or people who might know a terrorist...")
6. What we did was really quite restrained, when you consider how powerful we really are. I mean, we could have done something even worse.
7. Besides, what we did was technically legal under some interpretations of international law (or at least as our lawyers interpret the law as it applies to us.)
8. Don't forget: the other side is much worse. In fact, they're evil. Really.
9. Plus, they started it.
10. And remember: We are the good guys. We are not morally equivalent to the bad guys no matter what we did. Only morally obtuse, misguided critics could fail to see this fundamental distinction between Them and Us.
11. The results may have been imperfect, but our intentions were noble. (Invading Iraq may have resulted in tens of thousands of dead and wounded and millions of refugees, but we meant well.)
12. We have to do things like this to maintain our credibility. You don't want to encourage those bad guys, do you?
13. Especially because the only language the other side understands is force.
14. In fact, it was imperative to teach them a lesson. For the Nth time.
15. If we hadn't done this to them they would undoubtedly have done something even worse to us. Well, maybe not. But who could take that chance?
16. In fact, no responsible government could have acted otherwise in the face of such provocation.
17. Plus, we had no choice. What we did may have been awful, but all other policy options had failed and/or nothing else would have worked.
18. It's a tough world out there and Serious People understand that sometimes you have to do these things. Only ignorant idealists, terrorist sympathizers, craven appeasers and/or treasonous liberals would question our actions.
19. In fact, whatever we did will be worth it eventually, and someday the rest of the world will thank us.
20. We are the victims of a double-standard. Other states do the same things (or worse) and nobody complains about them. What we did was therefore permissible.
21. And if you keep criticizing us, we'll get really upset and then we might do something really crazy. You don't want that, do you?
Repeat as necessary.
Mkuu unaongea utumbo sasa. Wewe unakubali hakuna sheria inayoruhusu Blockade international water lakini nchi kama Israel wanaruhusiwa kwenda International water kuvamia meli ambayo WANAHISI ina vitu vibaya..sasa what is what!. Huruhusiwi kisheria kuvamia meli international water lakini unaweza kama unahisi meli hiyo imechukua vitu vibaya ndani ya international water.. Nimeomba kifungu cha sheria hiyo hujakitoa! bali unazunguka tu.
Pili, Blockade ya Israel ya mwaka 2007 ni within the territorial of Gaza....hadi kesho mipaka yake inalindwa na askari wa Israel. Ukitokea Egypt au Jordan unapitia kizuizi cha Israel na wao ndio wanaruhusu kinachoingia Gaza. Na ndio maana watu wanasema Gaza is under Israel Occupation, hii pekee ni kinyume cha sheria za kimataifa. Kisha basi kuna meli sita zilingia Gaza siku hiyo unazungumza kitu gani..
Lakini huwezi wewe kuhalalisha meli iliyoko nje ya mipaka yako kuivamia kama unahisi ina vitu vibaya ndio kusema wewe unahalalisha kitendo cha North Korea kuizamisha meli ya South Korea. Unalazimisha kwamba tanzania tunaweza kabisa kuzuia meli zinazopita baharini kama wale Wasomali tukazikagua hata kama hazipo ktk maeneo yaliyopigwa marufuku...Kumbuka No fly zone ya Iraq, hazikusimamishwa ndege nje ya maeneo yale ati kwa sababu Marekani wali declare blockade..North Kore na South wanayo Blockade lakini hawawezi kuzuiana ktk International water hata kama mmoja wao anahisi vipi.. Sheria haipo kwa kufuata hisia au kukisia vitu.
Mkuu jaribu kurudi darasani chuo kikuu, hizi habari za madrasa za kikristu zitakuharibu sana maanake unazungumza kama terrorist...Na hivi huyo Myahudi ni nani kwangu?..hata nimwonee chuki!
omarilyas
JF-Expert Member
- Jan 24, 2007
- 2,130
- 145
What do terrorists look like?
Posted By Blake Hounshell Friday, June 4, 2010 - 4:34 PM
This account by an Israeli commando is getting wide play online today:
On Thursday, S. sat down with The Jerusalem Post at the Shayetet's base in northern Israel for an exclusive interview, during which he described the dramatic events aboard the Mavi Marmara on Monday; he is being considered for a medal of valor. "When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes," S. told the Post.
"These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us."
Two points here. One, were they really terrorists? I don't sympathize with the agenda or the methods of the Turkish Islamists who fought with the Israeli troops, but their actions don't fit the conventional definition of terrorism -- using violence against civilians to advance political goals. Second, can you really tell if someone is a terrorist by the look in their eyes? You can certainly tell if they are angry, but I'd imagine the best terrorists are pretty good at blending into society.
Posted By Blake Hounshell Friday, June 4, 2010 - 4:34 PM
This account by an Israeli commando is getting wide play online today:
On Thursday, S. sat down with The Jerusalem Post at the Shayetet's base in northern Israel for an exclusive interview, during which he described the dramatic events aboard the Mavi Marmara on Monday; he is being considered for a medal of valor. "When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes," S. told the Post.
"These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us."
Two points here. One, were they really terrorists? I don't sympathize with the agenda or the methods of the Turkish Islamists who fought with the Israeli troops, but their actions don't fit the conventional definition of terrorism -- using violence against civilians to advance political goals. Second, can you really tell if someone is a terrorist by the look in their eyes? You can certainly tell if they are angry, but I'd imagine the best terrorists are pretty good at blending into society.
Zak Malang
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 30, 2008
- 5,404
- 234
Kwenye red: We should also be very careful about Western propaganda about terrorism, or the so called terrorists' aims. The West, particularly the US, don't agree that war, conventional war that is, is also terrorism, and insist terrorists are only the people who kill innocent civilians to advance their political goals.
If that is so, then even conventional war (such as the Iraq war following US invasion) is terrorism, pure and simple, because innocent civilians got killed – all for political goals.
In reality, the Western definition of terrorism and terrorists should be that these use ‘crude' and ‘uncivilised' methods and equipment (such as suicide bombings, crude rockets etc) in killing innocent people, while the West (in their conventional wars) use ‘civilised' and ‘advanced' weaponry and methods in killing innocent people.
Zak Malang
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 30, 2008
- 5,404
- 234
Zak, Umenena Mkuu. Kuna undumilka kuwili (double standards) uliokithiri unaofanywa na nchi za Magharibi hasa katika sera zao kuhusu nchi za nje. Hawatumii usawa na ndiyo maana migogoro haiishi.
Mfano ni hii Mahakama ya Kimataifa ya Jinai (International Criminal Court – ICC) ambayo sasa kimekuwa chombo cha nchi hizo kuonea nchi au watu wengine wasiokubali kukaa kwenye mstari wao. – na hasa nchi dhaifu.
ICC ilitoa hati ya kumkamata Hassan Bashir wa Sudan kwa uhalifu wa kivita – ambapo inadaiwa kasababisha vifo vya Wadarfur zaidi ya laki 3 – ingawa hati haisemi kama yeye mwenyewe binafsi alishiriki katika mauaji hayo.
Papo hapo, Bush na Blair walisababisha vifo vya karibu milioni moja nchini Iraq tangu majeshi yao kuvamia nchi hiyo 2003. hatujaona ICC kutoa hati kuwakamata wawili hao. Hii haijatulia sawasawa.
Ndiyo maana binafsi, naisapoti sana AU kwa kuipuuzilia mbali hati ya ICC ya kumkamata Bashir.
Na tusisahau kwamba baada tu ya vita ya wenyewe kwa wenyewe kule Sri Lanka kati ya majeshi ya serikali na wapiganaji wa tamil Tigers, kulitokea wito kutoka nchi za magharibi kwamba iundwe tume ya kuchunguza mauaji ya kikatili ya raia wa kawaida wa Tamil yaliyofanywa na majeshi ya serikali katika wiki za mwisho mwisho za vita hivyo.
Kujibu hoja hiyo Msemaji mmoja wa serikali ya Sri Lanka alisema kwamba mbona baada ya uvamizi wa Martekani nchini Iraq hakukuwepo wito wa kuunda tume ya kuchunguza mauaji ya kikatili ya raia wa kawaida wa Iraq – hasa pale majeshi ya Marekani yalipowadondoshea mabomu wakazi wa mji wa Falluja mwaka 2004?
Mfano mwingine: Ripoti ya Gladstone (iliyoundwa na Umoja wa Mataifa) kuhusu uvamizi wa Israel huko Gaza (Nov 2008) imeshutumu waziwazi majeshi ya Israel kwa uhalifu wa kivita, kwa kuingia katika majumba ya wakazi wa Wagaza na kluwamiminia risasi wanawake na watoto wao waliokuwa wakiwabeba.
Hadi leo hii Ripoti hiyo haijawasilishwa kwenye Baraza la Usalama la Umoja huo kwa pressure ya Marekani. Hebu fikiria: Ripoti kama hiyo ingekuwa ndiyo iunaishutumu Iran
Kwa mfano, zamani Ripoti hiyo ingeshatinga Baraza la Usalama na Maazimio kadha yameshatolewa kuilaani na kuiwekea vikwazo nchi hiyo.
Uonezi na kukiukwa kwa haki kwa namna hii ndiyo – ambao ni wa miaka mingi -- kunazidishha vitendo vya ‘kigaidi' duniani.
Kuna wakati fulani, baada ya uvamizi wa Iraq, Bush aliulizwa kwa nini, anavyofikiri yeye, magaidi walilipua majengo nchini mwake Sep 11 2001. Alijibu kwamba ni kwa sababu wanaionea wivu nchi yake kwa maendeeo yake makubwa!
Ajabu ni kwamba mbona walichagua Marekani na siyo nchi nyingine za Ulaya zilizoendelea pia? Ni kutokana na sera tu za miaka mingi ya nchi hiyo zisizofuata misingi ya haki kuhusu nchi za nje – hasa mashariki ya Kati.
The recall of South Africa's envoy to Israel leaves the Jewish community in South Africa with a "great sense of discomfort", says Zev Krengel, chairperson of the Jewish Board of Deputies.
South Africa is recalling Ismail Coovadia from Tel Aviv following the Israeli attack on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian relief to Gaza, Ebrahim Ebrahim, the deputy international relations minister, said on Thursday.
"This recent Israeli aggression of attacking the aid flotilla severely impacts on finding a lasting solution to the problems of the region," Ebrahim said.
Krengel told the Mail & Guardian the recall "is a source of major concern to us". The board of deputies is "uncomfortable that the government has chosen to do this without a full investigation into the attacks. It is a knee-jerk reaction that is unprecedented for this country," he said.
This is only the second time South Africa has recalled an ambassador since 1994. The first was during Nelson Mandela's presidency when Nigeria executed human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
"The government has chosen to do this when South Africa's ambassadors in other hotspots around the world are still there," Krengel said.
Earlier this week Ebrahim's deputy, Sue van der Merwe, called in the Israeli ambassador to South Africa and issued a démarche -- a diplomatic expression of displeasure. The last resort would be to kick out Israeli's ambassador to South Africa, but the government is not considering that at the moment, insiders say.
Trade union federation Cosatu has urged the South African government to break all diplomatic ties with Israel.
South Africa hopes that recalling its ambassador will "force [Israelis and Palestinians] to go back to the drawing board" and explore ways of finding each other, an international relations department source told the M&G.
South Africa is recalling Ismail Coovadia from Tel Aviv following the Israeli attack on a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian relief to Gaza, Ebrahim Ebrahim, the deputy international relations minister, said on Thursday.
"This recent Israeli aggression of attacking the aid flotilla severely impacts on finding a lasting solution to the problems of the region," Ebrahim said.
Krengel told the Mail & Guardian the recall "is a source of major concern to us". The board of deputies is "uncomfortable that the government has chosen to do this without a full investigation into the attacks. It is a knee-jerk reaction that is unprecedented for this country," he said.
This is only the second time South Africa has recalled an ambassador since 1994. The first was during Nelson Mandela's presidency when Nigeria executed human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.
"The government has chosen to do this when South Africa's ambassadors in other hotspots around the world are still there," Krengel said.
Earlier this week Ebrahim's deputy, Sue van der Merwe, called in the Israeli ambassador to South Africa and issued a démarche -- a diplomatic expression of displeasure. The last resort would be to kick out Israeli's ambassador to South Africa, but the government is not considering that at the moment, insiders say.
Trade union federation Cosatu has urged the South African government to break all diplomatic ties with Israel.
South Africa hopes that recalling its ambassador will "force [Israelis and Palestinians] to go back to the drawing board" and explore ways of finding each other, an international relations department source told the M&G.
Da Womanizer
JF-Expert Member
- May 24, 2010
- 1,577
- 150
The world is full of shit. If you can not fight them then join them............habari ndiyo hiyo
mageuzi1992
JF-Expert Member
- Apr 9, 2010
- 2,503
- 253
No Research no right to speak!
Baba_Enock
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 21, 2008
- 7,076
- 2,445
Ni wangapi wanastahili kupiga kura - kwa Gaza na Ufukwe wa Magharibi? Au hiyo takwimu ni ya eligible voters? Halafu mbona unapojibu au kuchangia hoja unaingiza viji-maneno vya "kitchen-party"?
Ubungoubungo
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,502
- 740
sasa wewe una akili ya sifuri kwasababu badala ya kunisahihisha mimi kwa wewe kuleta sheria yako, unaongea vapor. kwa kukusaidia, huo ndo ukweli halisi, kama wewe unabisha, lete sheria zako wewe, lete argument zako ndo utakuwa na sauti ya kuongea, kama hauna kifungu cha sheria utakacholeta kupambanisha na changu, nyamaza kimyaaaaa.
Ubungoubungo
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,502
- 740
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
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.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
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.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.
Ubungoubungo
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,502
- 740
bofya hapa kwa hapa nilipobandika juu
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010
mwangalie biden naye alivosema..manake nikiongea mimi sana mnanitukana...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833
The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background 31-May-2010
mwangalie biden naye alivosema..manake nikiongea mimi sana mnanitukana...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833
UbungoUbungo,
Unaandika maneno amengi pasipo hata kujifunza toka kwa wenzako. Nimekwambia toka nyuma kwamba hakuna sheria inayoruhusu Blockade ndani ya International water - HAKUNA na ulikubali sasa unakuja kwa nukuu ya Myahudi mwingine anavyofikiria yeye kwa utetezi kama wako pasipo kutumia vifungu vya sheria.
Pengine labda pitia wikipedia utaelewa kwamba hizo blockade haitambuliki na vyombo vya kimataifa na hata hivyo kuwepo kwake haikugusa International water kwa sababu sheria hairuhusu. Kifupi muulize huyo aliyeandika hayo akupe kifungu cha sheria ambacho yeye anakizungumzia..
The fact is Hamas walishinda Uchaguzi na nchi za magharibi hawakupenda kwa sababu demokrasia yao haikuweza kufanya kazi. Wao wanamtaka Mahmood Abbas ambaye ni kibaraka wao, na kumpa hadi wadhifa wa rais wa Palestine japokuwa alishindwa Uchaguzi. Palestine is the only country dunia hii ikiongozwa na rais aliyeshindwa Uchaguzi, yet bado wanadai ndio demokrasia.
Mwisho unatakiwa kusoma zaidi ufahamu kwamba kuna tofauti kubwa sana baina ya JEWS na ZIONISM. Wapo viongozi wengi wa Kiyahudi (Rabbai) na wafuasi wa dini wanapinga harakati za Zionist ambazo ni sawa kabisa na Apartheid..Hata sisi hatukuwachukia Makaburu kwa sababu walikuwa wazungu, laa hasha isipokuwa Kisiasa waliweka sheria za kibaguzi zenye kutukandamiza, sheria hizo hazikutambulika kimataifa lakini bado walizitumia dhidi ya weusi. Kuzitumia kwao hakuwezi kuhalalisha maovu yoyote waliyoyafanya...
Mkuu wangu, imani yangu nitaendelea kuamini kwamba JEWS ni wafuasi wa dini ya Judea na Moses sii kizazi kinachotokana na mwanamke Myahudi. Kwa sababu wapo wengi tu mfano wa kina Natanyahu ambao mama zao walikuwa convert ktk Judaism, wakaolewa na baba mrusi, MPolish au Muingereza kisha watoto zao wanaitwa Wayahudi hata kama hawaifuati dini ati kwa sababu mama yao alikuwa Myahudi.. F...that.
Dini ni imani ya mtu sio uzawa wake, na sisi sote Waislaam, Wakristu, Wayahudi, Hindu na kadhalika tumeanza kufuata Gosple ya shetani (binadamu) kuamini kwamba unaweza kuwa Muislaam au Mkristu kwa kuzaliwa sii lazima kuwa muumini wa dini au Mungu..Ati mtu akiona jina la mtu Mohammed au Joseph tayari tumekwisha mpachika dini pasipo hata kuangalia ibada zake. Hizi dini gani jamani mnazo tunga siku hizi kupima imani ya mtu kwa uzawa wake!...hivi ndivyo mlivyofundishwa..
Mungu aliwaita Wayahudi kwa sababu ilikuwa dini na walifuata mafundisho yake,hakuwa na maana wana wa Israel wote walikuwa Wayahudi, walikuwepo Wana Israel ambao hawakuamini kama tulivyo sisi ktk dini zetu..
Unaandika maneno amengi pasipo hata kujifunza toka kwa wenzako. Nimekwambia toka nyuma kwamba hakuna sheria inayoruhusu Blockade ndani ya International water - HAKUNA na ulikubali sasa unakuja kwa nukuu ya Myahudi mwingine anavyofikiria yeye kwa utetezi kama wako pasipo kutumia vifungu vya sheria.
Pengine labda pitia wikipedia utaelewa kwamba hizo blockade haitambuliki na vyombo vya kimataifa na hata hivyo kuwepo kwake haikugusa International water kwa sababu sheria hairuhusu. Kifupi muulize huyo aliyeandika hayo akupe kifungu cha sheria ambacho yeye anakizungumzia..
The fact is Hamas walishinda Uchaguzi na nchi za magharibi hawakupenda kwa sababu demokrasia yao haikuweza kufanya kazi. Wao wanamtaka Mahmood Abbas ambaye ni kibaraka wao, na kumpa hadi wadhifa wa rais wa Palestine japokuwa alishindwa Uchaguzi. Palestine is the only country dunia hii ikiongozwa na rais aliyeshindwa Uchaguzi, yet bado wanadai ndio demokrasia.
Mwisho unatakiwa kusoma zaidi ufahamu kwamba kuna tofauti kubwa sana baina ya JEWS na ZIONISM. Wapo viongozi wengi wa Kiyahudi (Rabbai) na wafuasi wa dini wanapinga harakati za Zionist ambazo ni sawa kabisa na Apartheid..Hata sisi hatukuwachukia Makaburu kwa sababu walikuwa wazungu, laa hasha isipokuwa Kisiasa waliweka sheria za kibaguzi zenye kutukandamiza, sheria hizo hazikutambulika kimataifa lakini bado walizitumia dhidi ya weusi. Kuzitumia kwao hakuwezi kuhalalisha maovu yoyote waliyoyafanya...
Mkuu wangu, imani yangu nitaendelea kuamini kwamba JEWS ni wafuasi wa dini ya Judea na Moses sii kizazi kinachotokana na mwanamke Myahudi. Kwa sababu wapo wengi tu mfano wa kina Natanyahu ambao mama zao walikuwa convert ktk Judaism, wakaolewa na baba mrusi, MPolish au Muingereza kisha watoto zao wanaitwa Wayahudi hata kama hawaifuati dini ati kwa sababu mama yao alikuwa Myahudi.. F...that.
Dini ni imani ya mtu sio uzawa wake, na sisi sote Waislaam, Wakristu, Wayahudi, Hindu na kadhalika tumeanza kufuata Gosple ya shetani (binadamu) kuamini kwamba unaweza kuwa Muislaam au Mkristu kwa kuzaliwa sii lazima kuwa muumini wa dini au Mungu..Ati mtu akiona jina la mtu Mohammed au Joseph tayari tumekwisha mpachika dini pasipo hata kuangalia ibada zake. Hizi dini gani jamani mnazo tunga siku hizi kupima imani ya mtu kwa uzawa wake!...hivi ndivyo mlivyofundishwa..
Mungu aliwaita Wayahudi kwa sababu ilikuwa dini na walifuata mafundisho yake,hakuwa na maana wana wa Israel wote walikuwa Wayahudi, walikuwepo Wana Israel ambao hawakuamini kama tulivyo sisi ktk dini zetu..
Ubungoubungo
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,502
- 740
mkandara, siwezi kurely kwenye wikipedia hata siku moja, tangu mwanzo nimekuwa nikukuambia kuwa, kwa israel kuingia kwenye international water kukagua meli, si kosa, hiyo inayoitwa international water ni mipaka tu inayowekwa kama ulivyompaka na kenya, ukipita kwenye nautical miles za kwako ndo unaingia kwenye maji ya watu wote, na hakuna sheria inayokataza kuingia kwenye maji ya watu wote,....ndio maana ya maji ya kimataifa, that means kila mtu ana uhuru kuingia huko bila ridhaa ya nchi ingine...hakuna sheria inayoikataza israel kuingia kwenye maji hayo..you seem not to understand na inanisumbua kwasababu unakuwa mgumu kuelewa...ilivyobidi nikupatie hata link walau ya wizara nchini israel, labda pengine utaelewa kidogo kwasababu sio kwamba because they are jews watakuwa biased, hapana, hawawezi kuandika uongo kwasababu international community ingewacorrect, lakini hadi sasa hakuna mwenye point ya kuwakorect...nilikupatia kotesheni ya kweney san remo manual ukakataa, nimekupatia basi hii ya wizara nchini israel ambako ndo wanaongoza kuwa na vyuo bora vya kivita pamoja na marekani, russia, china, japan na uingereza, labda pengine kwasababu ulikuwa haunielewi ungewaelewa wengine...
.hivi kama kitu cha kweli, kwasababu kimeongelewa na myahudi basi wewe unasema si cha kweli, kwani we mkandara ni una profession gani? ya sheria za kimataifa, sasa mbona unapinga kitu ambacho wewe hauko huko? hauoni kuwa ni upungufu wa akili? zaidi ya yote ulichonipa hapa kwenye wikipedia ni nini maan aya blockade na namna israel inavyoifanya iyo blockade, nchi mbalimbali zinavyofikiri, na umoja wa mataifa etc..understand that the issue here is not the blockade per se, ndio maana hata hao unaowatetea walijua kuwa kuna blockade ndo maana walisimama kwenye international water, issue hapa ni "uhalali wa israel kuikamata meli kwenye international water", hakuna anayepinga kuwa blockade ile ni halali...ile blockade ni halali na hata waarabu wenzio wanakubali kuwa kuna blodkade ndomaana kilichobaki ni kuiomba israel iruhusu tu..unajua kuwa hata misri ndugu zako wameweka blockade kwa wa gaza?...unaelewa bwamdogo? usichanganye mambo usiyoyajua, pia usijefikiri unaweza kusoma sheria humo kwenye google na wikipedia ukawa lawyer, hauna point ya kisheria kabisa..
narudia tena, kwa kukusadiia, nenda hapa http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...lockade_Gaza-Legal_background_31-May-2010.htm
UbungoUbungo,
International water haina nchi wala mipaka mkuu wangu vipi wewe! ati ni sawa na mpaka wa Kenya na Tanzania damn wapi zamani mkulu!..
Hutaki kupitia Wikipedia sawa.. Ntarudia nionyeshe sheria inayoruhusu nchi kuvamia meli ndani ya international water! halafu unakataa kwamba Blockade ya Israel ni yao wenyewe haina baraka za UN isipokuwa Marekani pekee!..Kifupi nipe hata dawa kidogo inayotokana na sheria za kimataifa ambayo Israel wameitumia labda tutaelewana.
International water haina nchi wala mipaka mkuu wangu vipi wewe! ati ni sawa na mpaka wa Kenya na Tanzania damn wapi zamani mkulu!..
Hutaki kupitia Wikipedia sawa.. Ntarudia nionyeshe sheria inayoruhusu nchi kuvamia meli ndani ya international water! halafu unakataa kwamba Blockade ya Israel ni yao wenyewe haina baraka za UN isipokuwa Marekani pekee!..Kifupi nipe hata dawa kidogo inayotokana na sheria za kimataifa ambayo Israel wameitumia labda tutaelewana.
Ubungoubungo
JF-Expert Member
- Jul 28, 2008
- 2,502
- 740
wewe ni mgumu kuelewa, nimekwambia kitu kinachotofautisha maji mengine yaitwe national na mengine international ni mipaka tu kama ya nchi ya kenya na tz...nikiwa na maana kuwa, katika kila nchi ufukweni huwa kuna neutical miles kadhaa ambazo ni sawa tu na ardhi ya kwenye nchi hiyo na hauruhusiwi kungia huko hadi ridhaa ya nchi hiyo kama ilivyo mtu kuingia kutoka kenya kwenda tz....
unauliza swali la kizushi, unataka kuniuliza ati nikuonyeshe sheria ipi inaruhusu nchi kuvamia meli ndani ya international water? wewe nionyeshe ile inayozuia ndo na mimi nitakuonyesha ile inayoruhusu..ninaifahamu lakini kwasababu naongea na layman..sitaki kupoteza ufahamu wangu kwa mtu ambaye hataelewa..kama wewe unajua kinachoongelewa hapa nionyeshe sheria inayokataza...na mimi nitakuonyesha sheria inayoruhusu..
Similar Discussions
-
Ripoti: Vita ya Israel na Hamas imeua Wapalestina 34,789 hadi sasa- Started by BARD AI
- Replies: 11
-
-
Will Tanzania's New Region Bear the Name of the Ulanga River? Splitting Morogoro Region- Started by Tabutupu
- Replies: 68
-
Kenya imepunguza bei ya mafuta kwa kiasi kikubwa. Je, Tanzania kulikoni?
- Started by koryo1952
- Replies: 3
-
Tamko la Ubalozi wa Palestina Nchini Tanzania juu ya vita inayoendelea dhidi ya Israel- Started by JanguKamaJangu
- Replies: 165