Double K

Even stars & planets change, die, and explode/implode.

I think maritime law is a little more complicated than what is being made out here. Just because they (israel) may deem they had a case to enter the boat doesn't mean they actually do, or were within their rights to do so where they did it. Had the boat been within the restricted zone, all bets are off, however it clearly was not, and having declared an intent to violate the zone does not actually make it so. I believe thought crimes are not enforceable on the high-seas as well as on the ground. Conspiracy to committ crime is, but thats another story. Recently an 'activist' boarded a japanese whaling vessel - Shonun Maru (on the high seas) in order to serve a summons for the sinking of his ship the Adi Gill. He boarded the vessel with no other pretense than to serve this legal summons. He was arrested, detained, and now facing jail as boarding a vessel on the high seas without permission to come aboard is in fact an act of piracy. Simple fact here is that this happened in international waters. Whether they had intent to cross or not is not the issue, this is an argument they can never win. The law presumes you are innocent, not the other way around. They are within their right in international waters to refuse being boarded. They are also in their right to attack anyone boarding their vessel as they are considered pirates on the high seas. Israel is in the wrong, they handled it badly, and now are hiding behind "terrorism" a dangerous slippery slope of pre-emptive strike goodness that america invented. Article 22:(pp 358) There is no duty under customary international law for enemy merchant vessels to submit to visit and search. In fact an enemy merchant ship may resist the exercise of that right but in doing so exposes itself to the risk of being destroyed. The exercise of the right of visit and search is, however, subject to certain rules. ... all persons on board must be placed in safety, and all ship's papers and other documents which the parties interested consider relevant for the purpose of deciding on the validity of the capture must be taken on board the warship. I also bring your attention to page 360 of the same document regarding the treatment of wounded parties, which Israel did not abide by according to accounts of eye witnesses on board. And before you complain about it pertaining to submarines, it does not, it merely includes submarines as a belligerent merchant vessel.

Well thats not what this article says... Or it could be that the lizard was somehow trapped inside the egg as it formed, who knows. Otherwise how do you explain a lizard being inside an egg when it's cracked? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1966106/What-came-first-the-egg-or-the-gecko-inside.html

A staggering percentage of convictions are made on confession. It's very important that if you are ever arrested (assuming you actually are innocent) that you say absolutely nothing other than what is required of you. In Australia all you are required to give police is Identification (correct) Name & Address and in some cases your Origin & Destination (ie if you're picked up travelling somewhere) Other than this you are required to tell them nothing, and you can easily be trapped by an officer saying something like in this case above which somehow indicates that you admit guilt even though you really didn't. Co-operate 100% but know your rights and requirements under law. Most confessions obtained during interrogation are done by tripping you up or getting you to inadvertantly confess, say nothing until a lawyer is present, problem solved. If you agree to understanding the rights and then continue to talk, you are considered as having waived your right to remain silent.

Please explain how an Australian journalist who is definately a non-combatant is shot and wounded during this raid? It's obvious to anyone that Israel did not use restraint. Reports from other Australians that were detained from the boats is that snipers shot people from the helicopters circling overhead and that this occured before any soldiers had boarded. http://www.news.com.au/world/aussie-photographer-kate-geraghty-tasered-during-flotilla-raid/story-e6frfkyi-1225874808220 "Once the commandos boarded the vessel, one of their first acts was to seize all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards." Whilst I'm sure this is prudent military proceedure to stop locations being transmitted, it also means that all video footage currently released is from Israeli sources and likely to be staged or to only show that which they wish you to see to defend their position, and explains why the Al Jazeera footage is only bits of cut together footage showing that which they were able to send off before being jammed or managed to hide somewhere.

Well you say that palestine should stop being armed to fight israel, but israel has superior weapons technology, foreign government aid to buy said weapons, and a demonstrated gnouse for using the weapons on townships and civilians. With great power comes great responsibility, and I'm not sure israel would treat the palestinian people fairly if ever it were to totally disarm palestine. As with the American gun laws, the idea of an armed population is to stop overthrow from a hostile tyranical government - be it domestic or foreign.

The harsh reality is that both the people of Israel (not the government - the people) and the people of palestine are both pawns in a sad game. I have no doubt that the people of both palestine and israel want peace, and to live without fear of being shot by a sniper, or bombed on a bus while minding their own business. Sadly the governments and leaders of extremist groups further their own agendas at the cost of civilian and innocent life. There is no way forward while either side perpetrates violence. Sadly a turn the other cheek option doesnt work either. I see no sollution to this problem, the only possible sollution is that one nationality leaves the area completely, but even this is ridiculous as it's a non-realistic approach also. And in all fairness I just grabbed the first 3 items that googled, and if u agree more worse things and more recent exist then u see my point.

Australia's relations with Israel have hit a new low, with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith expelling an Israeli diplomat over the faking of four Australian passports used in the killing of a senior Hamas official in January. http://www.theage.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-passports-20100524-w59w.html Israel has been caught spying in Washington again http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006006.html USS Liberty http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html Theres just a couple to get you warmed up

Actually I saw a doco on this at one point. The salmonella can get in there from lizards. Lizards somehow lay an egg in the air sack end of the egg and this then contaminates the egg. "Also, he thinks that this first of its kind discovery may also lead to some clue that may aid in explaining that occasional food poisoning in humans. He said that the eggs sometimes contained salmonella, which is a potentially fatal food poisoning and is usually carried by other lizards. “Maybe this happens all the time. Maybe geckos regularly crawl inside chickens for a feed. And this one was unlucky enough to get stuck in an egg,” he said. (ANI)" http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/lizard-found-inside-chicken-egg_10049925.html

You would be better off eating insects, they contain more protein weight for weight than a steak.

I wouldnt be surprised if Israel staged those videos after they had control of the vessels and had all the men in their bunks. It's certainly not outside the realms of possibility. I would like to support Israel on some of their choices, but they just continually make it so hard. I can not see any instance where, if properly managed, live arms should need to be fired on anyone armed with a stick. They have a mentality of shoot first, cover it up, and then ask questions later. This has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, and when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, as was the case with a passport forging debacle during an assassination, they wont admit to doing the wrong thing and take their punishment. It seems they feel they are above reproach and above playing by the rules that the rest of the world must adhere to.

Simple fact is that the best thing America is good at, is exporting inflation to the rest of the world. All that is happenning continually is the printing of more money and the dilution of the money supply which everyone else is vested into. America is in dire straights with it's national debt, 13 trillion is unserviceable. Well, not entirely, if America stopped it's warmongering it could save a significant amount just on military budget, however thats a catch 22 as their warmongering has also earned them money through arms sales, and the cleanup contracts for Iraq which went to vested american interests also. Honestly I don't see americans getting out of this debt as it's gone so far now it's a vicious cycle. The sub prime mortgage crisis is a perfect example of how the American economy globally affects other economies.

Countless UN violations over many years, billions in aid from the US, countless violations of peace and cease fire agreements - It just seems that if any other than this country did these things, different actions would be taken. And now attacking (an unarmed?) peace convoy...

I've only ever seen expanding earth theory... (thats only part 1 of a 14 part series) Even if it's not true, it's still interesting!

well the problem with that is, concrete is porous...so that was never going to work. Also with so much pressure behind the leak, it would just blast thru anything not already solid. Seems the answer lies somewhere with trying to provide equilibrium with the pressures.

So then the sollution would be, what becomes solid at that pressure and temperature at that depth?

I'm sure this is more complicated than I am about to make it sound, however wouldn't the real problem be pressure difference? The reason it's bleeding out at an unstoppable rate is it's basically a high pressure leaking to a lower pressure zone. If they can find some way to make an equilibrium between the two pressures the flow would stop, or at least slow it down... Currently all they seem to be trying is to block it off, or siphon neither of which seem incredibly intelligent.

I would hardly call them free, they have strict dogmas and in some ways could be seen as extremely repressive given that true Buddhism requires that you forgo all material possessions, and attachments. Some might argue that this in fact is a form of freedom, but certainly the practices of buddhism and taoism are not without their dogma, and rules.

The swimsuits that the Australian swim team have been using are nicknamed "sharkskin" suits.. "Previous work confirmed the formation of the embedded vortices, and the new grants will focus on mechanisms within the bristled shark skin geometry that lead to separation control, decreased drag and increased maneuverability for the shark." http://blog.al.com/live/2009/11/alabama_studies_shark_skin_tec.html

Interesting series of talks about "Chimerica" simbiotic relationship between china and america...

"Jamal Al-Khudari, head of Gaza's Popular Committee Against the Siege, said the threat against the convoy embodies "state terrorism" against peaceful individuals. " Whilst I don't agree with Israel's stance on this at all, this statement is a bit sensationalist. In Israel's eyes they are enforcing a blockade, and the peaceful individuals are the terrorists. Why can't we all just get along?

It's too time consuming to read all this and try to show anything. The purpose of the post was more to talk about it, I brought up things I had read about which I found out were not accurate but there are still aspects of this that I have suspicions about. I'll do more reading in my own time about it all, but to me some of it seems odd. Thanks for your responses they led me to read more cheers

The smoking laws (aside from being draconian - I'm not a smoker for the record, but I think they are a little draconian) I think were really introduced to try and take some pressure off the health care system which is already struglling. We now (at least in Australia) have an aging population which means the health care system is going to struggle even more. So perhaps when you take into consideration flow on effects of some of these laws (gun law for example) you can see there's no real impact on other governmental systems and so it's been allowed to continue as is. The same for the racial discrimination acts, there's no system that relies on it changing to keep pace with modern society, and so it's never evolved past a certain point.

So why is it called Blue-green algae if its not an algae? Bit of a misnomer really eh?

Firstly, I'm not accusing anything. All the things said are true, I'm not forcing you to accept them, I will provide info where I can, but to demand info that I don't have access to is going to impede things, and I can't just wade thru entire legal documents in a day to find the one phrase you're looking for. I'm sorry but by setting limits on nutrients in foods, putting flouride in water supplies, or even a nationalised immunisation protocol (which by the way has never been implemented for this very reason regarding human rights) in fact inadvertantly you are dicatating levels of "medication" this is a human right. If you forcibly put anything in food set out in a directive without labelling it accordingly (such as GM food, milk with rBGH (which thankfully is banned in some countries, but not in America) rBGH milk does not require labelling to inform the consumer it is present. I'm sorry but if you don't think this is forced medication then there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/features/codex_wto.html "The legal basis for enforcement of the various different Guidelines and Standards created by Codex comes from the ‘Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ (SPS Agreement) and the ‘Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade’ (TBT Agreement). Both the SPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement were included among the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods, which was annexed to the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO. (11). Although Codex standards and guidelines are theoretically voluntary, a new status has in effect been conferred on them by the SPS Agreement, in that any WTO Member adopting them is presumed to be in full compliance with the SPS Agreement. (12). The net result of this is that even when a country decides not to use a Codex standard the measure that it operates in place of that Codex standard remains subject to a range of conditions set out in detail in Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. (13). The most important of these conditions is a requirement to take into account risk assessment techniques developed by “the relevant international organizations”. (14). As it turns out however these “relevant international organizations” actually include Codex itself, and in this respect it is notable that the CCNFSDU is already considering a document entitled ‘Discussion Paper on the Application of Risk Analysis Applied to the Work of the CCNFSDU’. (15). In other words, in the event of a country choosing not to implement a Codex standard the measure that it operates in place of that standard still remains subject to Codex guidelines." Actually DSHEA and GATT have somewhat slowed their progress, but these are being circumvented slowly. Well whipping out the ol' "conspiracy theory" label will sure shut down any kind of critical thinking on the topic, well done. Simple fact is that WTO, WHO, FAO, are all members of the UN assembly, which is a NGO, which - dictates directives to the international community. Members of the UN are well known and documented I dont think I need to list this, you can easily find this for yourself. http://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Dir2009_39.pdf (pp 22) (16) This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex II, Part B, (pp23) 1. The specific provisions applicable to the groups of foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses appearing in Annex I shall be laid down by means of specific Directives. (pp24) 1. Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 1 ) shall apply to the products referred to in Article 1 of this Directive, under the conditions set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article. Annex II part B. ( 1 ) In accordance with Article 15 of Directive 89/398/EEC: ‘1. Member States shall amend their laws, regulations and administrative provisions in such a way as: — to permit trade in products complying with this Directive not later than 16 May 1990, — to prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive with effect from 16 May 1991. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. 2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect those national provisions which in the absence of the Directives referred to in Article 4 apply to certain groups of foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses.’. ( 2 ) In accordance with Article 2 of Directive 1999/41/EC: ‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for them to comply with this Directive not later than 8 July 2000. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. These measures shall be applied in such a way as to: — permit trade in products complying with this Directive by 8 July 2000, — prohibit trade in products not complying with this Directive by 8 January 2001. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by the Member States.’. Way too much to bother pasting it all. This is DIRECTIVE 2009/39/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedRight, finally I found something that seems quite objective. I have to say it's not easy trying to work out which of this information is true or not, but for clarification (and to rebutt some of my own points unfortunately) I have found this which seems quite on the money. This still doesn't cancel the fact that multinational corporations get to have a say in the guidelines, that is actually my main concern, not most of these points, however in the spirit of balance I present these. http://www.anh-europe.org/campaigns/codex#Misinformation Misinformation about Codex Some of the misinformation on Codex appears to be deliberately disseminated, while other parts are unwitting reproductions of the misinformation by concerned yet naive individuals. Among the common erroneous facts are: •All nutrients (eg. vitamins and minerals) are to be considered toxins/poisons and are to be removed from all food because Codex prohibits the use of nutrients to ‘prevent, treat or cure any condition or disease’. • All food (including organic) is to be irradiated, thus removing all ‘toxic’ nutrients from food (unless consumers can source their food locally). •Nutrients allowed will be limited to a Positive List developed by Codex; it will include such ‘beneficial’ nutrients as fluoride (3.8 mg daily), sourced from industrial waste. •All nutrients (eg. vitamins A, B, C, D, zinc and magnesium) that have any positive health impact on the body will be deemed illegal in therapeutic doses under Codex and are to be reduced to amounts negligible to health, with maximum limits set at 15% of the current Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). You will not be able to obtain these nutrients in therapeutic doses anywhere in the world, even with a prescription. •It will most likely be illegal to give any advice on nutrition (including in written articles posted online and in journals as well as oral advice to a friend, a family member or anyone). •All dairy cows on the planet are to be treated with Monsanto's genetically engineered, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). •All animals used for food are to be treated with potent antibiotics and exogenous growth hormones. •Use of growth hormones and antibiotics will be mandatory on all livestock, birds and aquacultured species meant for human consumption. •The worldwide introduction of unlabelled and deadly GMOs into crops, animals, fish and plants will be mandated. The problem is that these claims are not all true. Some are actually quite far off the mark, yet most contain elements of truth. All Codex country members are permitted to attend each annual meeting or ‘session’ and the meeting is facilitated and closely managed by the Committee’s chair and secretariat that sits at the top table facing the delegates. Behind the country delegates, which typically comprise between three and five members, are the international, non-governmental organisations (INGOs). Depending on the meeting, these might include large consumer groups such as Consumers International, but they tend to be dominated by industry interests. That tends to mean the various international associations representing the food, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Decision-making in committee meetings is by so-called consensus among governments. INGOs are not allowed to vote, but they can certainly interject during meetings and therefore have the potential to influence decisions. While INGO’s purportedly reflect all interest relevant to a given committees activities (e.g. GMO’s, food additives, pesticide residues, food hygiene, etc.), the reality is that INGO influence is disproportionately in favour of trade associations representing the largest trans-national cooperations in the food sector. While excited debates during the course of Codex meetings may often occur between various INGO’s, governments and the Secretariat, it seems much of this is for show as a demonstration of Codex’s consensus process. The reality is somewhat more stark; in most situations, the primary decisions have already been made prior to the meeting and INGO’s voicing a contrary opinion will effectively find that its views have little or no traction.