Israeli commandos attacked a group of ships in international waters killing at least 10 civilians. The ships were en route to gaza carrying tons of humanitarian aid.
...but had point-blank refused to either work through existing Egyptian or other nationalities humanitarian aid efforts, which the Israelis have been allowing, or to submit to inspection for secret weaponry, etc...
I would rarely stick up for the Israelis, as there is two sides to this whole sorry mess. Whether the soldiers were attacked first or not, though, the Israelis are going to want to inspect any boat delivering anything to Gaza.
But Im sorta thinking of 3 Israeli warships had been following my convoy- and told us to NOT attempt to break a naval blockade- I'd listen to them.
Theres more to this than the knee jerk reporting we're getting now.
Add into this the Turks are backing alot of this- they've been rather antagonistic in the region lately(look back at the threats they made with Greece not long ago).
From the early reading, it seems a reasonable response by the Israelis. The blockade exists for a reason, and they risked their own people in boarding the ships instead of attempting to disable them from range.
It's awful that people are dead, of course, and that opens up a whole other conversation to be had about Palestine as a slum dependant on international aid and Israeli permission to receive that aid, and the inevitability of a two state solution that lets those people start their lives again… but that’s beyond the scope of what the naval commander could do when faced with a ship trying to move past quarantine.
Also the Guardian is a typical 'evil jew lovely palestinian, carpets on the wall beardy greenpeace' paper, i cant read the link on my phone but i find they spin things a tad too much. You all know my feelings on this matter, i am inherantly biased in favour of Israel to the point where i freely admit it is somewhat illogical. As such my only response is 'good show chaps!' :-)
The blockade may well be illegal, in which case attacking them would be. Boarding those ships, however, is not. Which is what the Israelis did. As someone else pointed out, that is better than using long-range weaponry.
Israel is far from being the good guy in this whole wide-scale situation, but lets not automatically assume everything they do is evil.
The Turkish involvement will certainly complicate things. If the Israelis had just bulldozed some peace activists the U.S. State Department would express regret and it would be back to business as usual.
There's a hidden clause in international law that says if your grandparents were in a concentration camp, you're allowed to kill people who had nothing to do with that and take their land.
mattyrm wrote:You all know my feelings on this matter, i am inherantly biased in favour of Israel to the point where i freely admit it is somewhat illogical.
Well, the idea of being pro-any country is fairly stupid when it's one's own country, and very stupid when it's somebody else's.
As such my only response is 'good show chaps!' :-)
mattyrm wrote:Also the Guardian is a typical 'evil jew lovely palestinian, carpets on the wall beardy greenpeace' paper, i cant read the link on my phone but i find they spin things a tad too much. You all know my feelings on this matter, i am inherantly biased in favour of Israel to the point where i freely admit it is somewhat illogical. As such my only response is 'good show chaps!' :-)
We all know of your irrational hatred of the Arab/Islamic world.
For the record the beardies have reported both sides of the story.
The black and white world view is yours.
Don't project it on to others.
It´s a mess if only because it was in international waters and the excuse used by Israel board the ships is flimsy.
Also according to some news sources the Turkish nationals were soldiers. So a question arises for all of you defending the "peace" fleet and condemning Israel, what where doing members of the army of Turkey on those ships carrying supposed humanitarian aid to Gaza?
lord_blackfang wrote:There's a hidden clause in international law that says if your grandparents were in a concentration camp, you're allowed to kill people who had nothing to do with that and take their land.
The British were forced into Concentration Camps? Great Scott!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:ABC News is reporting that two Australians who were travelling on one of the aid boats have not been heard from since they were boarded.
mattyrm wrote:Also the Guardian is a typical 'evil jew lovely palestinian, carpets on the wall beardy greenpeace' paper, i cant read the link on my phone but i find they spin things a tad too much. You all know my feelings on this matter, i am inherantly biased in favour of Israel to the point where i freely admit it is somewhat illogical. As such my only response is 'good show chaps!' :-)
are we going to get another "jolly good show [insert contry here]" group apperaing on facebook, I hope not
What? A country wants to take steps to prevent a known enemy group from possibly coming into possession of the implements to do harm, whilst simultaneously allowing that same opponent to receive humanitarian aid through other, more neutral channels? Illogical and outrageous!
/sarcasm
Good work Israel.
I will add what I always say about the Israel/Palestine situation, however.
Taking the land from the Palestinians was colossally stupid. We should have given the Jews Wyoming or something to call their own. It;s not like we're using it it for anything.
Unfortunately this is typical of the Isreali response to pretty much anything....
You throw rocks we throw rockets. You use sticks we use guns.
(Reuters) Israeli officials said the marines were met with knives and staves when they boarded the ships, which included a large ferry flying the Turkish flag. In at least one incident, an activist seized a gun from the boarding party, they said. A military spokesman said two pistols were found on the captured vessels.
Independent accounts of the clash were not available since the navy cut ship-to-shore communications and Israel imposed military censorship on reports of the operation.
Two Pistols (taken from IDF members)..... Knives and staves.... and since when did "Riot Dispersal Techniques" include Live Ammo and not dumdums?
Sorry if my attitude is counter to the popular but, it is based on personal experience.
Isreal is just as at fault as the Palestinians for the problems in that region. Neither believes the other has a right to exist. But Isreal has fallen back on the holocaust as a defense for atrocities that would have shamed Hitler. Bulldozing whole neighborhoods, launching rocket into public buildings, shooting people for throwing rocks. Gaza is Palestinian in name only as shown by the way Isreal treats the area. What it really has become is a form of prison camp. All imports are controlled very strictly by Isreal. Who comes and goes is controlled by Isreal. And Isreali soldiers frequently enter the area for no reason other than they felt threatened.
As the song puts it.... "Pharaoh has a new name." Isreal.
No no, i wouldnt go that far with the facebook groups.. Im not a one trick pony :-) . If you want an actual intelligent response instead ill merely say that i think Israel does behave aggressively, but i understand their stance considering the circumstances, they are the only real democracy in the area and since the Palestinians elected Hamas i have lost whatever sympathy i ever had for them. Nothing in life is black and white, there are a thousand shades of grey in between, and both sides are at fault in some way. But the constant bashing of the jews and ignoring overt support for a terrorist group from 'moderate' muslims and leftwing Europeans is ridiculously tiresome. Look how many European Muslims are openly support Hamas. If there was any chance there was weapons and munitions on that ship, and there was, then they had every right to go in. Better that than blowing it out the water. Frankly i think they show remarkable restraint. And yes seb, im aware people died, 4 of my friends from 40 commando have died in the last 6 weeks, but the world keeps turning. I dont expect their deaths to change any minds or make a difference, and i dont mention it to somehow give me a perceived moral high ground in a dakka discussion. Some British Muslims will still support Hamas and the Taliban no matter what happens, and i will still support Israel, through this and the many other violent and terrible events that wil no doubt occur in the future.
And now Isreal is blaming the organisers for the deaths. Yep, its their own fault people are dead, not Isreal. Don't blame the shooter, blame the victims.
Its alright folks, i am now home from work which means i can post more well thought out, easily read and intellectually stimulating responses.
helgrenze wrote:And now Isreal is blaming the organisers for the deaths. Yep, its their own fault people are dead, not Isreal. Don't blame the shooter, blame the victims.
I think Isreal is partly to blame for this but so is the aid convoy, trying to run a blockade is stupid why not go through the offical aid things in egypt, of cource they were going to get boarded.
the IDF is very heavy handed though watever happened to the warning shot across the bow
lord_blackfang wrote:There's a hidden clause in international law that says if your grandparents were in a concentration camp, you're allowed to kill people who had nothing to do with that and take their land.
There is another clause, where you are allowed to protect yourself from people who allied with the Nazi's to kill you. The arabs, under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, worked with Hitler to kill Jews. Just because the Nazis were defeated doesn't mean the Mufti's followers ever stopped.
helgrenze wrote:And now Isreal is blaming the organisers for the deaths. Yep, its their own fault people are dead, not Isreal. Don't blame the shooter, blame the victims.
Just out of curiosity, if a cop shoots a guy running at him with a tacticool knife and the guy dies, who's fault is it?
If they tell you not to go through with your boat, then dont go. Im sick of these self righteous hippy types thinking they can do as they like. And im most amused they are stunned at what occured. Its the Isreali military!
If you ignore the signs on a coffee cup and you burn yourself, then its your own stupid fault. I dont see how its any different here, and the nationality of the people shot makes no difference either, i wouldnt at all be suprised if some Brits/Europeans or Ozzies were on the ship.. more fool them.
Not a fair comparrison Warboss cosidering it was the israeli's leaping onto the boat armed to the nines.
Switch that around to the defenders, add the Israeli forces rep for shooting civilians, and who's fault was it folks died last night?
I think Israel once again went to far, but with the US, UK and other countries turning a blind eye to things they have condemed other countires for in the past, it'll carry on.
There's not point in either side talking about peace when both sides don't take it seriously, but yet again it is the innocent's that usually suffer. As has been proved again and again in that conflict, much as it was in Northern Ireland.
helgrenze wrote:Unfortunately this is typical of the Isreali response to pretty much anything....
You throw rocks we throw rockets. You use sticks we use guns.
Oh please, the Guardian are such hippies (yeah, I read (past tense) it =p)!
And since when is this new? How many Greenpeace boats have the Japanese and Russians sunk on international water? They don't care!
And before people start saying this is different, yes, it is, because Israel actually feels threatened by the thought of uncontrolled shipping into Gaza. You have to remember that Israel is a small jewish nation smack in the middle of a hostile environment. They are literally surrounded by nations who hate their guts. And who the heck cares that civilians were killed, they had nothing to do there in the first place, unless they were having a wonderful cruise of the coast of a fragging WARZONE! I've got relatives living in Israel, I've got half-cousins in the Israeli army. They've got hell down there. They have a constant threat and they have had it for over 50 years.
So when the Mossad fraks up 10 civilians you'd better be glad it isn't another Munich. Now go along with your lives and thank God that your house doesn't have a permanent bullseye for missiles. Unless you are a Coalition-soldier serving abroad in Afghanistan or Iraq, in which case I say, congratz, now imagine that for fifty year.
Vargtass wrote:Oh please, the Guardian are such hippies (yeah, I read (past tense) it =p)!
And since when is this new? How many Greenpeace boats have the Japanese and Russians sunk on international water? They don't care!
And before people start saying this is different, yes, it is, because Israel actually feels threatened by the thought of uncontrolled shipping into Gaza. You have to remember that Israel is a small jewish nation smack in the middle of a hostile environment. They are literally surrounded by nations who hate their guts. And who the heck cares that civilians were killed, they had nothing to do there in the first place, unless they were having a wonderful cruise of the coast of a fragging WARZONE! I've got relatives living in Israel, I've got half-cousins in the Israeli army. They've got hell down there. They have a constant threat and they have had it for over 50 years.
So when the Mossad fraks up 10 civilians you'd better be glad it isn't another Munich. Now go along with your lives and thank God that your house doesn't have a permanent bullseye for missiles. Unless you are a Coalition-soldier serving abroad in Afghanistan or Iraq, in which case I say, congratz, now imagine that for fifty year.
If they were to find anything more than concrete and electric wheelchairs I'd be ok. but the concrete has to be for "Israli approved buildings." I used to be a huge huge supporter. Now I'm really starting to wonder..
mattyrm wrote:If they tell you not to go through with your boat, then dont go. Im sick of these self righteous hippy types thinking they can do as they like. And im most amused they are stunned at what occured. Its the Isreali military!
If you ignore the signs on a coffee cup and you burn yourself, then its your own stupid fault. I dont see how its any different here, and the nationality of the people shot makes no difference either, i wouldnt at all be suprised if some Brits/Europeans or Ozzies were on the ship.. more fool them.
It's her own fault for getting raped, she was wearing sexy clothes!
I think that Israel's Siege on Gaza is illegal and wrong. And even if they were going to stop the convoy there are some points:
1. The convoy was STILL in international waters. So Israel's attack of the convoy was illegal.
2. The activists were unarmed and the reports I heard from Aljazeera English were that Israeli Commandos Opened fire because they saw "Sharp Objects" that the passengers were holding.
Even if they were going to stop the convoy, they had no right to do it in anyplace BUT their own waters. Though yes, The Israeli Gov't did offer to take the supplies and aid to Gaza after a Safety check and inspection, but be honest here, if you were in the Organizations shoe's would you trust them? I wouldn't. I would want to deliver the aid myself (10,000 tons of aid, mind you), and make the the people in Gaza actually got it.
I think it's high time the Israelis were cut loose. They're a fething liability. There is absolutely no way they would act in such an agressive manner if they didn't have the backing of the USA/UK etc.
Albatross wrote:I think it's high time the Israelis were cut loose.
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
If it's okay for the Israelis to take illegal violent action, is it also okay for the palestinians? I mean, next time some military aid is coming into the area, if some palestinians were to go and kill the lads bringing it in, would that be alright? Or is it only alright when you're the one with the biggest guns and the bestest friends?
I agree with ahtman, but I see albatross' point. I've always asked myself, since all this is done in the name of Zionism which many supporters take to a religious level, if the issue was to be settled in a US civil court, with an unbiased jury, Israel wouldn't stand a chance.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza. 2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless. 3. They try and do so. 4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers. 5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers. 6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
You're a class act.
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
It's quite plausible, the Israelis have made no real efforts at peace in the region in decades. They continue to settle their own people into disputed areas and relocate palestinians and their military acts often in civilian areas with little heed for collateral damage or civilian casualties. They flagrantly refuse the sit at the table for any nuclear talks, and they at any given point and time are committing multiple international crimes concerning the gaza strip. The only reason they aren't brought to task for much of it is because the US used to be their handler and because palestine is hardly any better. There's a strong movement to just leave them to their own devices and stop supporting them in much of the west now due to the gak they keep pulling.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
+1 to this train of thought.
If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?
These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.
I have to agree, those people were not very clever trying to run a blockade. I mean, if I was driving, and the police wanted to stop me for some reason, I'm not going to drive away from them, I'll stop.
Also, considering the amount of people who don't particulary like Israel, if I was in some sort of millitary position and I hear someone is going to try and go past your blockade, I am probably going to jump to the concluesion that they may have weapons on board and I want to check it out.
80 miles, now considering how long ranged some of the modern day weaponry is that is understandible even if it is wrong to do.
Edit: I admit I don't know enough about such weaponry so if any of you millitary types say that a ship couldn't carry a weapon big enough to reach 100+ miles in range then I will have to agree, 80 miles is slightly execive.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
+1 to this train of thought.
If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?
These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.
Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza.
2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless.
3. They try and do so.
4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers.
5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers.
6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
+1 to this train of thought.
If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?
These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.
Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.
This may be True Shuma, And after more news comes out from more reliable sources I very well may chance my mind. However, based off what I have been able to find on the net about this, I am going to stick with the above for now.
1. Israeli's are blockading Gaza. 2. Generic humanitarian activists announce they intend to sail into blockaded zone regardless. 3. They try and do so. 4. Israeli's, thinking an adequate show of force will deter activists, board ships with soldiers. 5. Activists produce iron bars and knives and attempt to kill soldiers. 6. Soldiers shoot activists in self defence.
Regardless of who's right or wrong, attacking armed soldiers appears fething stupid to me. You ask me, removing people like that from the gene pool is a good thing.
+1 to this train of thought.
If you are not allowed in an area that is guarded by the military, and you decide to ignore all warnings to stay away and try to run the blockade.... then get stopped by said military and you decide to attack them... how the feth can you not expect anything less then getting your ass kicked?
These people had it comming to them. They should consider themselfs lucky that they didn't decide to sink them after they pulled this stunt.
Most news sources point at the militant nature of the flotilla being an unsupported claim by the Israeli military. It's a bit soon to be condemning the boats carrying aid supplies to a region that Israel is intentionally starving.
This may be True Shuma, And after more news comes out from more reliable sources I very well may chance my mind. However, based off what I have been able to find on the net about this, I am going to stick with the above for now.
An aid ship bringing supplies to a region that Isreal has under an internationally illegal blockade. Ships that were in international waters. Ships that were sending food to an area that is in desperate need. And you're siding with the people that boarded it and shot people. They could have waited until they had legal jurisdiction in their own waters. They could have used those big military ships to tell the flotilla to turn around. They could have guided them into a port.
And yet you defend their choice to jump on those boats and start a fire fight. It doesn't really matter what was in those boats, this was handled totally wrong by Isreal and it resulted in deaths.
Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
And.
It.
Never.
Did.
They.
Were.
In.
International.
Waters.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
And next time some dude with a gun enters your home I hope you don't expect any sympathy from people reading about the incident when you get shot. Cause and effect is a pretty third grade way to look at an issue where Israel is the clear provocateur by initiating the incident in international waters.
But they were still in international waters. Like shuma pointed out, why didn't they just guide them to a different port? why was it necessary to storm the ships when they could have just created a path for a different route using their Navy?
But from what I heard, there was no attempt to have them go to a different port. They could have easily used their navy to block the ships path, which they didn't and either way, they should have waited until they were in their jurisdiction.
Kanluwen wrote:It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".
I would love to see your amazing inside sources that give you even the slightest bit of backing to make a statement like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Um, that's exactly what a "blockade" is.
Controlling traffic by blocking the path.
block·ade [blo-keyd] Show IPA noun, verb,-ad·ed, -ad·ing. –noun 1. the isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit. 2. any obstruction of passage or progress: We had difficulty in getting through the blockade of bodyguards. 3. Pathology. interruption or inhibition of a normal physiological signal, as a nerve impulse or a heart muscle–contraction impulse.
Technically blockades by sea simply include warnings and then firing lines (you don't block ships with ships as that will almost certainly cause the destruction of your own ship as well). That said this was not a blockade as it occurred in international waters. This was an aggressive and illegal act by intention. They weren't at the (illegal) blockade line.
Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
And.
It.
Never.
Did.
They.
Were.
In.
International.
Waters.
Yes they were, not denying that. However it was PLAIN AS DAY what they intended to do. Looking at this from a military perspective, I'm willing to bet they ordered the strike when they did mainly cause they wanted to strike during the night in the hopes that less people would be awake thus makeing the job of the boarding party much easier due to a longer approach before being discovered and more people sleeping and caught unaware.
ShumaGorath wrote:
And next time some dude with a gun enters your home I hope you don't expect any sympathy from people reading about the incident when he gets shot. .
I would also point out that the anti Israel lot are very quick to say 'the US and UK should not support them at all!' but the majority of said nations citizens do not support this view. Id say its a very evenly divided issue, many of us support Israel almost entirely and not Hamas, and dont give me that 'i dont support them either' fence sitting lark, they demanded Hamas themselves. If you support the Palestinians, you support them. Im certainly of the opinion you have to pick a side in a conflict as aggressive and unending as this and thanks to Hamas especially (have you seen their kids TV shows?!) and Israel to an extent also, this will never end. Im aware im a terrible cynic, but i just cant see it. Well, until someone loses or we have all out war. Id also say that many of us are aware of the saying 'my enemies enemies are my friends' :-)
Kanluwen wrote:It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".
And had the Israeli's waited until they attempted to cross the line, then this whole situation changes to a fair enough course of action for them. What they did however is going to bring them bad PR and more condemnation around the globe.
Hell they even had a member of the Israeli Parliment saying she felt it was a bad move earlier on Sky news.
Albatross wrote:I think it's high time the Israelis were cut loose.
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen.
What, because nothing ever changes and people who were our friends yesterday never become our enemies tomorrow? Ok... well that hasn't really been borne out by recent events in the Middle East.
Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for the Israelis, but when you have things like PM Netanyahu attending a celebration of the King David Hotel bombing - well, screw him. I think Zionists reap what they sow.
Kanluwen wrote:It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".
I would love to see your amazing inside sources that give you even the slightest bit of backing to make a statement like that.
Would love to see yours saying they wouldn't.
The fact that they were there in the first place, rather than donating aid to the agencies that the Egyptian government was running that the Israelis approved access to is patently ridiculous.
Yes they were, not denying that. However it was PLAIN AS DAY what they intended to do.
Violate the blockade and bring aid and possibly hidden weapons to gaza. Yes. We know.
Looking at this from a military perspective, I'm willing to bet they ordered the strike when they did mainly cause they wanted to strike during the night in the hopes that less people would be awake thus makeing the job of the boarding party much easier due to a longer approach before being discovered and more people sleeping and caught unaware.
And that turned out very poorly. It's as if this act that has everyone up in a tither was a bad idea. Something that shouldn't be defended.
Fixed your typo!
Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
Danny Danon has said they were terrorists. Bet you Israel haters feel pretty bad now. That's from the deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament himself!
Kanluwen wrote:It's pretty clear that the flotilla wouldn't just "go to a different port".
I would love to see your amazing inside sources that give you even the slightest bit of backing to make a statement like that.
Would love to see yours saying they wouldn't.
The fact that they were there in the first place, rather than donating aid to the agencies that the Egyptian government was running that the Israelis approved access to is patently ridiculous.
The difference between us is that I never made a solid claim as to something I have no fething idea about. Interesting thing, that. Also for reference the UN has stated that Isreal allows about a fourth the aid needed in gaza into gaza, so its quite understandable that people would want to circumnavigate the regulatory body that is intentionally and significantly reducing the aid to the region for security (read: forced flight from the region by natives) reasons.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
What the feth kind of crazy pills are you on Shuma? Oh wait thats right... I almost forgot that you are the King of Strawmans...
Did you know that the Israelis do not allow the importation of cement, chocolate, hair-conditioner, or pencils into Gaza? Their policies are illegitimate and serve only to strengthen support for Hamas.
But, the $64 question is this: why did they board the ship, when there were other, less violent options? And why didn't they wait until they crossed into their waters? Why did they attack why they were in international waters? An Aljazeera news team was on board one of the ships, and from the video clips I have seen, I did not see any metal clubs, pipes, etc.
Soup and a roll wrote:Danny Danon has said they were terrorists. Bet you Israel haters feel pretty bad now. That's from the deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament himself!
A terrorist flotilla that informed Israel of its intentions to not enter Israel beforehand. Brilliant. Yes, I feel terrible after this clearly stunning and revelatory news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:I would also point out that the anti Israel lot are very quick to say 'the US and UK should not support them at all!' but the majority of said nations citizens do not support this view. Id say its a very evenly divided issue, many of us support Israel almost entirely and not Hamas, and dont give me that 'i dont support them either' fence sitting lark, they demanded Hamas themselves. If you support the Palestinians, you support them. Im certainly of the opinion you have to pick a side in a conflict as aggressive and unending as this and thanks to Hamas especially (have you seen their kids TV shows?!) and Israel to an extent also, this will never end. Im aware im a terrible cynic, but i just cant see it. Well, until someone loses or we have all out war. Id also say that many of us are aware of the saying 'my enemies enemies are my friends' :-)
I don't support Israel or palestine. I think both regimes are pretty gakky. I want to stop sending money to one of them. That doesn't mean I support the other. Stop turning the issue into am us vs them issue, it just speaks to a lack of clarity of thought on your part concerning the issue.
Oh look i even disagree with my mate on this one, i told you its evenly divided, whats the consensus so far? 50/50 for each? We should hold a fundraiser each, make a gameshow out of it! :-)
isthatmycow wrote:An Aljazeera news team was on board one of the ships, and from the video clips I have seen, I did not see any metal clubs, pipes, etc.
And you never will with those idiots behind the camera. This alone makes me believe that this whole thing was staged JUST to get a response and generate bad press just based off this STELLER news agency's track record.
isthatmycow wrote:An Aljazeera news team was on board one of the ships, and from the video clips I have seen, I did not see any metal clubs, pipes, etc.
And you never will with those idiots behind the camera. This alone makes me believe that this whole thing was staged JUST to get a response and generate bad press just based off this STELLER news agency's track record.
Al jazeeras a hell of a lot better than fox. What issues do you have with the network aside form the fact that you likely just think its a super biased islamist propaganda network (which it clearly is not)? What terrible and controversial things have they done that you can think of?
Even Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed regret for this horrific situation. I think some people in this thread fail to grasp the seriousness of the situation.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
What the feth kind of crazy pills are you on Shuma? Oh wait thats right... I almost forgot that you are the King of Strawmans...
Yes, but by concentrating on the straw man you conceded your other points! I am the straw king.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
What the feth kind of crazy pills are you on Shuma? Oh wait thats right... I almost forgot that you are the King of Strawmans...
Yes, but by concentrating on the straw man you conceded your other points! I am the straw king.
No, your just a fething troll who can't go a day posting on Dakka without starting a fight with anyone who will listen. For me, im done trying to talk to you. I tried to be civil, but clearly you are not man enough to carry out this discussion without being a tool.
mattyrm wrote:I would also point out that the anti Israel lot are very quick to say 'the US and UK should not support them at all!' but the majority of said nations citizens do not support this view. Id say its a very evenly divided issue, many of us support Israel almost entirely and not Hamas, and dont give me that 'i dont support them either' fence sitting lark, they demanded Hamas themselves. If you support the Palestinians, you support them. Im certainly of the opinion you have to pick a side in a conflict as aggressive and unending as this and thanks to Hamas especially (have you seen their kids TV shows?!) and Israel to an extent also, this will never end. Im aware im a terrible cynic, but i just cant see it. Well, until someone loses or we have all out war. Id also say that many of us are aware of the saying 'my enemies enemies are my friends' :-)
I don't support Israel or palestine. I think both regimes are pretty gakky. I want to stop sending money to one of them. That doesn't mean I support the other. Stop turning the issue into am us vs them issue, it just speaks to a lack of clarity of thought on your part concerning the issue.
I'm roughly in agreement. It doesn't follow that just because you don't support Israel, you automatically MUST support Hamas! I don't support Hamas, but it's no mistery as to why the Palastinians would vote for an violent anti-Israeli nationalist organisation. Just because I understand it, doesn't mean I approve.
NEWSFLASH! Turkeys vote for the Anti-Christmas Party!
ShumaGorath wrote: Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
What the feth kind of crazy pills are you on Shuma? Oh wait thats right... I almost forgot that you are the King of Strawmans...
Yes, but by concentrating on the straw man you conceded your other points! I am the straw king.
No, your just a fething troll who can't go a day posting on Dakka without starting a fight with anyone who will listen. For me, im done trying talking to you. I tried to be civil, but clearly you are not man enough to carry out this discussion without being a tool.
Good day.
Forgive me. When someone defends the killing of aid workers in international waters with bizzare cause and effect analogies that have quite literally nothing to do with the issue at hand and betray a rather powerful lack of insight or measure I tend to try and point out the ways in which they are hypocritical. You believe in self defense except for now. You even supported my strawman by saying as much. Now you are tired of being mocked and quit the conversation, but before doing so you abandoned your points. What was your deal with al jazeera? What happened to your magical cause and effect makes the Israelis right analogy? I guess they weren't important enough for you to continue talking about them beyond the one sentence castle doctrine analogy I made (at which point you stopped responding to any of my points concerning your other opinions). Could it just be that they were indefensible in the first place?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes I'm sure you'll shoot one or two of them. The report did say a few of the soldiers were wounded. Remember though, thats why you hate you. Because you defended yourself in a place where they had no right to attack you.
What the feth kind of crazy pills are you on Shuma? Oh wait thats right... I almost forgot that you are the King of Strawmans...
Yes, but by concentrating on the straw man you conceded your other points! I am the straw king.
No, your just a fething troll who can't go a day posting on Dakka without starting a fight with anyone who will listen. For me, im done trying talking to you. I tried to be civil, but clearly you are not man enough to carry out this discussion without being a tool.
Good day.
Forgive me. When someone defends the killing of aid workers in international waters with bizzare cause and effect analogies that have quite literally nothing to do with the issue at hand and betray a rather power lack of insight or measure I tend to try and point out the ways in which you are hypocritical. You believe in self defense except for now. You even supported my strawman by saying as much. Now you are tired of being mocked and quit the conversation, but before doing so you abandoned your points. What was your deal with al jazeera? What happened to your magical cause and effect makes the Israelis right analogy? I guess they weren't important enough for you to continue talking about them beyond the one sentence castle doctrine analogy I made (at which point you stopped responding to any of my points concerning your other opinions). Could it just be that they were indefensible in the first place?
Or maybe I just dont like talking to complete utter nutjobs who twist everything I say so completly out of context that even they dont know what the feth they are on about anymore.
You: We are going to argue point A.
ME: Ok, here is how I feel.
You: Nuh Uh! You are wrong!
Me: Ok... if thats how you feel
You: I like ice cream
Me: Wtf does that have to do with anything?
You: AH HAH! When you combine ice cream with point A you conceed!!!
Me: Yeah this is pointless, I'm done.
You: Ok, well now im going to attack you some more!! Cause I'm cool like that!!!
Me: -Sigh *facepalm*
I'm sorry Shuma, that you can't have a logical argument on dakka without resorting to mocking whomever is trying to carry on said discussion with you like a grade school bully. It really speaks volumes for your character.
And based on the pm's im getting, I am not the only one that thinks so. And like I already stated, I'm going to listen to them and ignore you. Not cause I can't argue my point, not cause I don't have anything better to do, but bacuse you just simple are not worth it.
Looking over what I have on had... unfortunately, yes, technically, what Israel did is an act of piracy under international law. Are they going to be called out on it by the IMB, probably not. The odds of Israel handing over it's war criminals are bout as good as the US handing over guys like William Calley (a man that, IMHO needs shooting just as badly as Joachim Peiper did).
Or maybe I just dont like talking to complete utter nutjobs who twist everything I say so completly out of context that even they dont know what the feth they are on about anymore.
Yeah that sounds like something I wouldn't like either. When run into a situation like that you tell me ok?
I'm sorry Shuma, that you can't have a logical argument on dakka without resorting to mocking whomever is trying to carry on said discussion with you like a grade school bully. It really speaks volumes for your character.
I also don't like arguing with children. I generally dislike holding discussions with people who predicate their opinions on what is seemingly nonsense. If you have a better basis for your beliefs I would be happy to get back into that discussion you were apparently trying to have.
And based on the pm's im getting, I am not the only one that thinks so. And like I already stated, I'm going to listen to them and ignore you. Not cause I can't argue my point, not cause I don't have anything better to do, but bacuse you just simple are not worth it.
Yes, rather than argue your point you're just going to listen to the PMs telling you you're correct. PMs from people who apparently don't want to post in the thread in question. I bow to you and your graveyard votes.
ShumaGorath wrote:Al jazeeras a hell of a lot better than fox. What issues do you have with the network aside form the fact that you likely just think its a super biased islamist propaganda network (which it clearly is not)? What terrible and controversial things have they done that you can think of?
I like Al Jazeera, and see absolutely no reason besides their name, as a reason to single them out as pro 'insert something here'. It isn't like there are many valid perspectives on common news subjects... right?
This is not an easily defensible act, and it really does seem like Israel took their domination into international waters. This was not an attack boat, it could easily have been let into Israeli waters, where it would not be quite as atrocious.
Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.
In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.
It looks like they discharge their weapons towards the end of that clip. As a man prepares to attack one of the soldiers the weapon is raised towards his chest and he seems to stumble backwards than falls out of frame. A helicopter insertion into that sort of situation was just painfully stupid, and it's clear that the soldiers were in danger as they started to get thrown around on their lines. The commander in charge of that operation made some horrendous decisions.
Albatross wrote:
What, because nothing ever changes and people who were our friends yesterday never become our enemies tomorrow? Ok... well that hasn't really been borne out by recent events in the Middle East.
Forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for the Israelis, but when you have things like PM Netanyahu attending a celebration of the King David Hotel bombing - well, screw him. I think Zionists reap what they sow.
They do indeed, and they should be reminded that they aren't the 51st state (that's going on as we speak, so bully for the current Pres.), as they have been treated for the last 50 years or so.
However, at the moment, Israel is a strategic asset due to its divisive influence on the Mediterranean seaboard.
I am generally pro-Israel in most situations, but I also recognize that there're really no "good guys" in this situation. I don't think people realize how much this whole conflict is an industry for BOTH sides of the equation. BOTH sides get an influx of money and support every time something like this happens.
I sometimes wonder if it's not all calculated by both sides.
I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.
I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if some sort of damning reaction towards israel followed this situation. You're right in that international crime perpetrated by countries is often times not policed by the regulatory bodies, but those same instances are often times still reacted too in ways that strongly rebuff the countries in question. The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.
Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
Albatross wrote:What, because nothing ever changes and people who were our friends yesterday never become our enemies tomorrow?
Of course things can change, but you aren't talking about real change, you are talking about extreme change that isn't practical.
Albatross wrote:I think Zionists reap what they sow.
Oh, that's nice. And here I thought we were talking about Israel and your talking about Zionists, or do you not understand the difference? Which version of Zionist are you using?
Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.
Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.
We haven't been talking about theoretical, but what is happening. Either one could in theory do something to get cut off, but that isn't what we are dealing with right now. I'm referring to the actual political climate, not what it might be if one were to maybe do something. There are actions the UK could take to get cut off completely, but that isn't how things are at the moment.
Ahtman wrote:
Never gonna happen, just because your view is extreme one way doesn't mean enough other peoples are to actually make it happen. Might want to try and find a way to live with it that is actually plausible.
Give it 15 years. Once the anti-Israeli Jewish lobby outnumbers the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, as it does amongst Jews under 25, the story will be very different.
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
That depends on Israels actions in the future. I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.
We haven't been talking about theoretical, but what is happening. Either one could in theory do something to get cut off, but that isn't what we are dealing with right now. I'm referring to the actual political climate, not what it might be if one were to maybe do something. There are actions the UK could take to get cut off completely, but that isn't how things are at the moment.
The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
You sound like you're talking in absolutes concerning the future, but I'm probably taking your words too literally.
Phryxis wrote:
I do have to take issue with the incessant use of the word "illegal." It's just not an effective rhetorical device. People called the 2003 Iraq war "illegal." They call this "illegal." And yet they both happened, and no legal judgement will follow. I'm sure there are international bodies that categorize these things as illegal. But, eventually, you have to realize what's a losing battle, and that repeating yourself is merely trivializing the international bodies involved, and proving that their judgements are, practically speaking, irrelevant.
This is different, an attack on ships in international waters is a violation of state sovereignty without legitimate cause. The Iraq War wasn't illegal, as legitimate cause was established via the various resolutions against certain activity on the part of that state.
As stated before in the thread, if a guy comes at a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him, who is to blame? Is the blame any different if the guy coming at the cop decides that he doesn't recognize the cops governments legitimacy (and there are tons of these, especially in Texas)?
Israel could have easily just torpedoed the whole lot, instead it asked for them to go through the proper channels.
They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.
Ahtman wrote:
Things may shift to be sure, but that isn't completely dropping one side completely, which is what I was disagreeing with. The US (can't say for the UK) will never just completely abandon Israel.
I'm not sure of that. But then I'm one of the people who consistently makes the point that Israel can be completely abandoned. Combine that sentiment, which isn't unique among young FP professionals, with the isolationist wind blowing through the States and you have a recipe for severing financial aid ties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:
They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.
They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.
Gwar! wrote:Just to put my input on the situation:
Israel told them not do go. They went anyway.
It's the fault of the Blockade runners entirely.
As stated before in the thread, if a guy comes at a cop with a knife and the cop shoots him, who is to blame? Is the blame any different if the guy coming at the cop decides that he doesn't recognize the cops governments legitimacy (and there are tons of these, especially in Texas)?
Israel could have easily just torpedoed the whole lot, instead it asked for them to go through the proper channels.
They didn't, and as such they forced the Israeli hand.
dogma wrote:They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.
No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.
If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?
dogma wrote:They didn't actually run the blockade, or breach the Israeli cordon. That's the issue here.
No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.
If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, would you wait for them to do it, then take action, or take action preemptively?
Well when the police HQ is a country and the parking lot in front of it is an ocean you control you wait until they get into the parking lot ocean before you raid ships full of aidworkers. You don't derail their car in a highspeed chase halfway there.
Thats a really bad analogy Gwar and I think you know that.
The weapon you can see being discharged towards the end of that clip- looks just like a paint ball gun. And it likely is- and probably filled with pepper balls. The IDF commonly uses them during riot control.
If theyre deploying non lethal weapons upon insertion while they entry team is getting beat on with metal pipes- its showing they didnt go into this looking for blood.
They could have easily cleared the deck with some automatic weapons fire or a grenade before fast roping to the deck. Instead they drop in and go non-lethal. Basic military tactics is you hit them hardest upon entry so they dont have time to rally. If they went in planning to kill people they would have done a much better job of that.
Regardless of the politics involved- they didnt drop in and start shooting sleeping aid workers like the initial articles are claiming.
Mistress of minis wrote:The weapon you can see being discharged towards the end of that clip- looks just like a paint ball gun. And it likely is- and probably filled with pepper balls. The IDF commonly uses them during riot control.
If theyre deploying non lethal weapons upon insertion while they entry team is getting beat on with metal pipes- its showing they didnt go into this looking for blood.
They could have easily cleared the deck with some automatic weapons fire or a grenade before fast roping to the deck. Instead they drop in and go non-lethal. Basic military tactics is you hit them hardest upon entry so they dont have time to rally. If they went in planning to kill people they would have done a much better job of that.
Regardless of the politics involved- they didnt drop in and start shooting sleeping aid workers like the initial articles are claiming.
The OPs article was pretty well biased against the Israeli side. I linked to a BBC article a few pages back, they have a pretty even writeup about the situation.
Gwar! wrote:No, but they were en route to, and had stated MULTIPLE times very publicly that they were.
If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?
The police would have jurisdiction in that case. This is a different issue because of the agreed conventions of international law. This was an act of war against Sweden, by strict interpretation.
Did the Israelis identify themselves? Perhaps the aid workers thought they were being attacked by Somali pirates. If I was cruising around on my boat and some piece of @#^& rappelled on to the deck I'd certainly try to defend myself.
The similarities between Israel and the Apartheid regime are striking.
olympia wrote:Did the Israelis identify themselves? Perhaps the aid workers thought they were being attacked by Somali pirates. If I was cruising around on my boat and some piece of @#^& rappelled on to the deck I'd certainly try to defend myself.
The similarities between Israel and the Apartheid regime are striking.
I don't think I've ever heard of somali pirates chopper rappelling onto the deck of a ship.
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.
I am not following the logic of this being a 'preemptive' action. The line was at point B, the boat was at point A...
I have not heard anything about this transport being an attack vessel, with the capability to open fire with anything besides rocks... As in the boat was not a threat, and Israel stepped out of their bounds, and committed what seems to be an act of piracy.
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.
By the tone of your earlier posts you were speaking to a rather certain future of continued support for Israel, and not the immediate fallout of this event. I think that is where people are hung up on this.
olympia wrote:In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.
My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!
I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.
And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.
They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?
Ahtman wrote:
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.
Likelihood is governed by individual, or institutional, belief. If people believe that Israel is indispensable with respect to US security, then it is. Stating that it can be cut loose is simply an acknowledgment of that possibility.
I think we're on the same page here, but for a divergence of perspective.
olympia wrote:In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.
My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!
I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.
And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.
They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?
Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.
If I were you I would wonder what the hell my commander is thinking having us rope down into a hostile civilian environment in international waters when we have ships and control the surrounding ocean areas. The entire operation wasn't necessary and speaks to some incredibly poor decision making on the part of the commander on the ground (who apparently wasn't authorized to act in this fashion). Its not a particular surprise the troops acted in the way that they did given the actions of the civilians, but bear in mind the troops shouldn't have been there at all to begin with. Both sides show certain fault here.
mattyrm wrote:My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!
I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.
And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.
They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?
Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.
Which is likely the worst thing about all of this... the people that put those soldiers there, either had no idea how many people were on deck... OR were trying to drum up positive PR for Israeli forces.
Dropping 2 soldiers at a time, onto a deck filled with dozens of club wielding passengers, absolutely reeks of stupidity, or an attempt to have 'positive' media coverage.
The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.
So, hold on... Is conducting air raids on neighboring countries "legal?" Cause I'm guessing it's not.
Israel does "illegal" stuff all the time. Conversely, rocket attacks are made against Israel. Also "illegal" by some irrelevant standard, and yet still going on.
Yelling that it's "illegal" only serves to demonstrate how ill prepared the "law" is to deal with the actual situations it's supposed to cover. If your code of laws is completely out of sync with the reality on the ground, and has absolutely no capacity to enforce itself, then what good is it, and why are we even talking about it?
Here, watch:
International Internet Regulatory Body Bill 001-01 of 31.5.2010
WHEREAS disagreeing with Phryxis is an invalid and pointless pursuit to be avoided at all costs,
WHEREAS excessively large, picture laden signatures are both wasteful of screen real estate, and not at all funny, and also to be avoided at all costs
NOW, THEREFORE do what I just said.
Let me ask you, World Citizen ShumaGorath, why are you an international criminal? FOR SHAME, sir and/or madam! FOR SHAME!
The much increased hostility and isolation Israel will face here specifically because these acts were illegal isn't so different than an international body somehow censuring Israel for it.
Did I just quote the same thing twice? Yes I did. Why? Because thats how many things are wrong with it.
You're suggesting that Israel will face "much increased hostility." For shooting ten people on a boat. Remember the time they invaded Lebanon? Remember the ten thousand other, bigger things they did in the past?
But THIS one is going to change the situation. This is the BIGGY.
I can see plenty of situations in which it is rebuffed entirely by the US.
I hope you realize how incredibly unlikely that is. As has been said, even considering the possibility is somewhat fantastical.
Right or wrong, Israel is in VERY deep with the US, they have a very powerful, very aggressive lobby, and in general all of this is a-ok with the American populace. It'd take a LONG period of negative interaction before they'd be "rebuffed entirely." It'd certainly take a lot more than the petulant frowny face act the Obama administration is putting on.
The Iraq War wasn't illegal
And yet, I've heard it referred to as an "illegal war" countless times. I agree with you, it wasn't "illegal" in any real way, but people call it that regardless.
Ahtman wrote:
Every moment is filled with unmanifested potential; anything can happen. That doesn't mean it is very likely at the moment. The US could fire nukes into Mexico, we certainly have nuclear weapons with the range so can do it. It just isn't likely at the moment under the current conditions, just as completely abandoning Israel is also unlikely.
Likelihood is governed by individual, or institutional, belief. If people believe that Israel is indispensable with respect to US security, then it is.
So now you know why we won't completely drop Israel. Just look at this thread, generally, there will be enough support that it won't be dropped. The resolution isn't going to be to either side 100% with Israel or 100% with Palestine.
So, hold on... Is conducting air raids on neighboring countries "legal?" Cause I'm guessing it's not.
Israel does "illegal" stuff all the time. Conversely, rocket attacks are made against Israel. Also "illegal" by some irrelevant standard, and yet still going on.
Yelling that it's "illegal" only serves to demonstrate how ill prepared the "law" is to deal with the actual situations it's supposed to cover. If your code of laws is completely out of sync with the reality on the ground, and has absolutely no capacity to enforce itself, then what good is it, and why are we even talking about it?
Interestingly enough the causal relationship of israel committing an illegal act and israel becoming isolated and losing its foreign support is still intact despite the lack of space police in giant robots putting them to task.
Did I just quote the same thing twice? Yes I did. Why? Because thats how many things are wrong with it.
You're suggesting that Israel will face "much increased hostility." For shooting ten people on a boat. Remember the time they invaded Lebanon? Remember the ten thousand other, bigger things they did in the past?
But THIS one is going to change the situation. This is the BIGGY.
Strangely enough, yeah. Remember when you were talking about the real situation on the ground? Well it's important here, ,so try and pay attention to it instead of your own sense of global symmetry.
Right or wrong, Israel is in VERY deep with the US, they have a very powerful, very aggressive lobby, and in general all of this is a-ok with the American populace. It'd take a LONG period of negative interaction before they'd be "rebuffed entirely." It'd certainly take a lot more than the petulant frowny face act the Obama administration is putting on.
Apparently you don't pay as much attention to American politics as you should then, the Israel lobby is far, far weaker than it was a decade ago.
olympia wrote:In this video you can clearly see the Israelis attacking the ship. The civilians defend themselves with plastic deck chairs among other things.
My word, and this was supposed to make me angry with the Israeli soldiers?!
I have fast roped onto a deck before, if i was jumping out the helo into THAT mess, id be very nervous.
And id start blowing peoples faces off as soon as my first buddy got assaulted and thrown overboard.
They outnumbered them on the deck by what? Ten to One?
Id have started shooting. Damn straight i would.
If I were you I would wonder what the hell my commander is thinking having us rope down into a hostile civilian environment in international waters when we have ships and control the surrounding ocean areas. The entire operation wasn't necessary and speaks to some incredibly poor decision making on the part of the commander on the ground (who apparently wasn't authorized to act in this fashion). Its not a particular surprise the troops acted in the way that they did given the actions of the civilians, but bear in mind the troops shouldn't have been there at all to begin with. Both sides show certain fault here.
Indeed Shuma, that was an absolute clusterfeth, trying to fastrope onto a hostile boat like that is ludicrous, the fact that the crew could grab their lines speaks volumes. It was perfect for a MIB or RIB but roping down onto a crowded deck like that was lunacy. I can only assume that they incorrectly thought the crew would be cowed as they were civilians. I wouldnt have made that mistake, i know how much those types of people loathe the jews. The types that say "we miss you Hitler" on the streets of England and are at this very moment spamming my facebook with Adolfs name.
I wouldnt have made any of those mistakes, and id have tear gassed and baton gunned the gak out of the crew from a MIB (hopefully)resulting in no fatalities to the enemy or my own guys, but hey, i retired.
gak storm aside, no wonder the soldiers fired. That was chaos and i have no doubt at all they would have been beaten to death if they didnt start filling the air with some lead.
Its fine saying fire some warning shots first, id remember these poor guys.
Ill never forget that, and i saw way more graphic footage than that. They ripped them apart like dogs. If i roped into that mess, id be blasting when i landed.
Indeed Shuma, that was an absolute clusterfeth, trying to fastrope onto a hostile boat like that is ludicrous, the fact that the crew could grab their lines speaks volumes. It was perfect for a MIB or RIB but roping down onto a crowded deck like that was lunacy. I can only assume that they incorrectly thought the crew would be cowed as they were civilians. I wouldnt have made that mistake, i know how much those types of people loathe the jews. The types that say "we miss you Hitler" on the streets of England and are at this very moment spamming my facebook with Adolfs name.
I think you need to separate a hatred of jews and a hatred of israel. One is a religion, the other is an incredibly militaristic and aggressive regime that is attempting to occupy and take over an islamic country that just happens to also contain the holy land. People all over the world dislike Israel without caring one way or the other for jews.
gak storm aside, no wonder the soldiers fired. That was chaos and i have no doubt at all they would have been beaten to death if they didnt start filling the air with some lead.
They seemed to be throwing them off the ship, rather than just beating them to death but its unknown how they would have acted once the solders were unconscious.
Interestingly enough the causal relationship of israel committing an illegal act and israel becoming isolated and losing its foreign support is still intact despite the lack of space police in giant robots putting them to task.
I love the snark here, but you shouldn't get too wedded to it. You were so in love with your giant space robots, that you didn't delete this paragraph after you realized that I had spoken to the issue in the next quote.
Strangely enough, yeah. Remember when you were talking about the real situation on the ground? Well it's important here, ,so try and pay attention to it instead of your own sense of global symmetry.
NICE! More snark. It's devoid of any real substance as far as the actual discussion goes, but it does have some good snark, and big concepts that make it look smart.
Now, if I can paraphrase between all the snark and sophistry, I think you're trying to say that this event really IS going to lead to "much increased hostility."
Moreso, for example, than was created by invading Lebanon, killing 1500 or so civillians, and causing untold property damage?
Is that your argument? Cause I'd love to make a bet on this.
One is a religion, the other is an incredibly militaristic and aggressive regime that is attempting to occupy and take over an islamic country that just happens to also contain the holy land.
And one is a country of poeple, and the other is Zionists. And whatever, and it's complicated, and actually, people aren't nearly as refined as you think you are, because they're not trying to win an internet pissing match, they're trying to feed their kids, or control their neighborhood, or ascend the ladder of their local political situation, or protect their bloodline from genocide.
If you're going to try to refine somebody's generalization, don't replace it with an equally vague and inaccurate generalization.
I think you need to separate a hatred of jews and a hatred of israel. One is a religion, the other is an incredibly militaristic and aggressive regime that is attempting to occupy and take over an islamic country that just happens to also contain the holy land. People all over the world dislike Israel without caring one way or the other for jews.
Aye true enough that mate, its just me banging away at the keyboard and knowing you guys will get what i mean. But i agree entirely with what you say there, certainly id say most British non Muslims that support Palestine dont hate all jews, just the state of Israel. Muslims however im pretty sure their loathing of the State does extend to all Jews as well although to a lesser extent, but thats not important at the moment. Suffice to say My Dad doesnt support Israel at all, but i dont think he generically hates Jews.
I love the snark here, but you shouldn't get too wedded to it. You were so in love with your giant space robots, that you didn't delete this paragraph after you realized that I had spoken to the issue in the next quote.
And I disagreed with your conclusion. Paragraphs, how the feth do they work?
NICE! More snark. It's devoid of any real substance as far as the actual discussion goes, but it does have some good snark, and big concepts that make it look smart.
I combat snark with snark.
Now, if I can paraphrase between all the snark and sophistry, I think you're trying to say that this event really IS going to lead to "much increased hostility."
Moreso, for example, than was created by invading Lebanon, killing 1500 or so civillians, and causing untold property damage?
Is that your argument? Cause I'd love to make a bet on this.
It already has. Turkey was Israels closest mid-eastern ally and has withdrawn their diplomat already over this. The ship was largely full of turkish nationals and the ones who died were most likely turkish. This is already more severe than what occurred over Israels last war. Again, you're putting what you believe would be logical over what is actually true. Israels situation on the ground is much different now then it was then. Greece has canceled joint military operations over this for instance.
And one is a country of poeple, and the other is Zionists. And whatever, and it's complicated, and actually, people aren't nearly as refined as you think you are, because they're not trying to win an internet pissing match, they're trying to feed their kids, or control their neighborhood, or ascend the ladder of their local political situation, or protect their bloodline from genocide.
If you're going to try to refine somebody's generalization, don't replace it with an equally vague and inaccurate generalization.
I think you might want to try and use a bit of moderation when reading my post there. I was simply pointing out the fact that mideastern anger at isreal stems from more than just the fact that its jewish. It doesn't look like you're particularly good at handling disagreement though so whatever you want to post is cool brosky.
Interestingly enough the causal relationship of israel committing an illegal act and israel becoming isolated and losing its foreign support is still intact despite the lack of space police in giant robots putting them to task.
And, actually, now that I think about it, you're not even right about this.
There's no "causal relationhip." Nobody cares if it was legal or not. What world do you live in?
Hamas Underling: Boss! Did you see that the Israelis boarded an aid ship, and shot 10 of our brothers to death?
Hamas Chief: I did. That's cool, though, whatever. They gotta do what they gotta do.
HU: But, Boss, this was in international waters!
HC: I heard, so what? Israelis be shootin' people, what of it?
HU: Well, boss, according to the ICC's Document on International Codifications and Contrivances, that's illegal!
HC: WHAT! They've violated the DoICaC? ALLAH CURSE THEIR MOUSTACHES! GET ME MY JERRY RIGGED ROCKET TUBE!
No, dude. No. There's no causal relationship between the legalities and any increase in hostility.
I think you need to separate a hatred of jews and a hatred of israel. One is a religion, the other is an incredibly militaristic and aggressive regime that is attempting to occupy and take over an islamic country that just happens to also contain the holy land. People all over the world dislike Israel without caring one way or the other for jews.
Aye true enough that mate, its just me banging away at the keyboard and knowing you guys will get what i mean. But i agree entirely with what you say there, certainly id say most British non Muslims that support Palestine dont hate all jews, just the state of Israel. Muslims however im pretty sure their loathing of the State does extend to all Jews as well although to a lesser extent, but thats not important at the moment. Suffice to say My Dad doesnt support Israel at all, but i dont think he generically hates Jews.
Well, i dont think so anyway.
None of the muslims I've ever met have hated jews, but your mileage may vary.
And, actually, now that I think about it, you're not even right about this.
There's no "causal relationhip." Nobody cares if it was legal or not. What world do you live in?
The real one. Stop posting conversations you're having with yourself.
Interestingly enough the causal relationship of israel committing an illegal act and israel becoming isolated and losing its foreign support is still intact despite the lack of space police in giant robots putting them to task.
And, actually, now that I think about it, you're not even right about this.
There's no "causal relationhip." Nobody cares if it was legal or not. What world do you live in?
Hamas Underling: Boss! Did you see that the Israelis boarded an aid ship, and shot 10 of our brothers to death?
Hamas Chief: I did. That's cool, though, whatever. They gotta do what they gotta do.
HU: But, Boss, this was in international waters!
HC: I heard, so what? Israelis be shootin' people, what of it?
HU: Well, boss, according to the ICC's Document on International Codifications and Contrivances, that's illegal!
HC: WHAT! They've violated the DoICaC? ALLAH CURSE THEIR MOUSTACHES! GET ME MY JERRY RIGGED ROCKET TUBE!
No, dude. No. There's no causal relationship between the legalities and any increase in hostility.
Interestingly enough the causal relationship of israel committing an illegal act and israel becoming isolated and losing its foreign support is still intact despite the lack of space police in giant robots putting them to task.
And, actually, now that I think about it, you're not even right about this.
There's no "causal relationhip." Nobody cares if it was legal or not. What world do you live in?
Hamas Underling: Boss! Did you see that the Israelis boarded an aid ship, and shot 10 of our brothers to death? Hamas Chief: I did. That's cool, though, whatever. They gotta do what they gotta do. HU: But, Boss, this was in international waters! HC: I heard, so what? Israelis be shootin' people, what of it? HU: Well, boss, according to the ICC's Document on International Codifications and Contrivances, that's illegal! HC: WHAT! They've violated the DoICaC? ALLAH CURSE THEIR MOUSTACHES! GET ME MY JERRY RIGGED ROCKET TUBE!
No, dude. No. There's no causal relationship between the legalities and any increase in hostility.
I just laughed Pepsi Max all over my keyboard!
Yes, you also said they were violating the blockade despite every other post in this thread using the words international waters. It's not a surprise that you would find the wacky muslim charactature and totally unrealistic review of international law standards and acts funny.
I'm sorry to hear about the keyboard however. This is just another casualty of this terrible conflict. Damn israel!
Israels situation on the ground is much different now then it was then. Greece has canceled joint military operations over this for instance.
There as considerable fallout after the most recent war in Lebanon. Some felt that Israel's nose was so bloodied that they'd lost the intimidation they needed to survive.
And then, over time, back we go to the usual patter of rockets one day, airstrike the next, border tussle a month later, bulldozers the next, more settlements, etc. etc. No significant change.
I don't doubt that you can point to specific fallout. What I'm saying is that in three months this incident will be forgotten, if not completely, then far more than the war in Lebanon was.
I was simply pointing out the fact that mideastern anger at isreal stems from more than just the fact that its jewish.
Well, if that's all, then I totally disagree.
There are lots of aggressive, militaristic nations in the middle east. Iraq decided to invade Iran, millions died, and you don't see some huge, region wide backlash against Iraq.
It's also not solely an issue of arbitrary borders drawn by Westerners. Many nations in that area were defined as a result of external meddling.
The simple fact is that the Arab states don't like Israel because they're Jewish. That's the base motivation at work. With that as a foundation, both sides have managed to build up a rich history of antagonism, violence and death, and it's grown to be more that simple racism, but that's really the core of it.
It's not like the surrounding Arab states are bending over backwards to help out the Palestinians. The Egyptians and Jordanians have refused them land, sovereignty, and gone so far as to attack them militarily.
The fact is, the Palestinians are just a pawn of the Arab states, being driven to create strife by proxy. Note the fundamental racism there. These Arab states have no respect at all for the Palestinians, an no intention of giving them anything they demand Israel give them. But, when it comes to conflict with Jews, suddenly they're huge supporters of Palestine.
Territorial waters are 12 nautical Miles from land, the Contiguous Zone is another 12, giving a 24 mile "buffer" for coastal regions. Beyond this is an "Exclusive Economical Zone" of usually 200 miles. This zone is where commercial intrests such as drilling for oil and fishing are governed by a soveign nation.
However, the 24 mile zone is what is in question here. Approaching any vessel outside of that zone is in effect acting in international waters.
Now consider that the fastest speed any of the flotilla boats could achieve was probably less than 20 knots. They were probably travelling at a bit more than half that. That gives the the Isreali Naval forces about two hours to intercept and divert the incoming boats.
This incedent was at least 8 hours from the coast.
How about.. for discussion sake.. we move this incedent, hypothetically, to Korea.
Say North Korea attacks a boat in international waters, the same 80 miles out, resulting in multiple deaths. Then claims that the boat was planning on sailing closer to North Korea for reasons of spying.
Would N.Korea be in the right or would there be sanctions and such?
Just so you all know it, Israel is sick... sick with Ruski-disease, which primary symptom is that they don't care what the heck the rest of the world says. And the blast in this is... that the UN is a lame horse that won't even say anything.
I hope you all enjoy tearing at each other. Because it makes Israel the greatest troll in the world. Give yourselves an applaud, you all deserve it for proving that Israel is THE troll!
Vargtass wrote:Just so you all know it, Israel is sick... sick with Ruski-disease, which primary symptom is that they don't care what the heck the rest of the world says.
You maybe right
And the blast in this is... that the UN is a lame horse that won't even say anything.
As long as america VETO's all calls for sanctions against Isreal, they can do as they like.
To be fair America has tried to solve the Problem, and has had some good idea's.
But not the political will to see it through
mattyrm wrote:If they tell you not to go through with your boat, then dont go. Im sick of these self righteous hippy types thinking they can do as they like. And im most amused they are stunned at what occured. Its the Isreali military!
The Israelis are doing what they like, and while they are certainly self righteous, they are hardly hippies.
Foreign boat in international waters heading to a foreign port under illegal blockade. Israel can protest, but what they did is criminal.
Besides Gaza is suffering and suffering because of the Israelis. The only work many can get is over the border where they queue for two hours to get in work for under the pay a Jew would be paid have no employment rights and no other options to feed their families. Were it not illegal under EU law I would be looking at comparisons between Gaza and various forced ghettos in Europe some sixty off years ago. As it happens the berst I can say is that Israel is running an 'apartheid' regime. Their policies are evil.
I think it's worth pointing out that I don't believe that Israel being 'cut off' is LIKELY, just that I personally believe it would be worthwhile. Desirable, even.
Neither do I think that all Israelis=Zionist, just that Zionist actions and beliefs cause a lot of Israel's problems, whether directly or indirectly.
I think it's worth pointing out that I don't believe that Israel being 'cut off' is LIKELY, just that I personally believe it would be worthwhile. Desirable, even.
Desirable?
They've got nukes. If they're backed into a corner, I think they're one of the most likely nations in the world to use them. Do we really want that?
I know, I know... We can't be held hostage by their bad behavior or whatever. But the fact is, I don't think they'll ever allow us to live in a world where them "losing" is desirable for anyone.
helgrenze wrote:Territorial waters are 12 nautical Miles from land, the Contiguous Zone is another 12, giving a 24 mile "buffer" for coastal regions. Beyond this is an "Exclusive Economical Zone" of usually 200 miles. This zone is where commercial intrests such as drilling for oil and fishing are governed by a soveign nation.
However, the 24 mile zone is what is in question here. Approaching any vessel outside of that zone is in effect acting in international waters.
Now consider that the fastest speed any of the flotilla boats could achieve was probably less than 20 knots. They were probably travelling at a bit more than half that. That gives the the Isreali Naval forces about two hours to intercept and divert the incoming boats.
This incedent was at least 8 hours from the coast.
How about.. for discussion sake.. we move this incedent, hypothetically, to Korea.
Say North Korea attacks a boat in international waters, the same 80 miles out, resulting in multiple deaths. Then claims that the boat was planning on sailing closer to North Korea for reasons of spying.
Would N.Korea be in the right or would there be sanctions and such?
Considering that NK torpedoed that SK warship, that's entirely an amusing comparison.
And actually, I have seen pirates board by helo, but that was in Asia.
Actually, in the event that you do not have fire hoses/water cannons handy, throwing the pirates overboard is an acceptable anti-piracy tactic. You're just discouraged from shooting them.
For people who laugh at piracy on the high seas these days, an except from IMB live piracy feed this month:
31.05.2010: 0330 LT: Posn: 06:45S – 039:20E: Dar es Salaam anchorage, Tanzania.
Robbers boarded an anchored container ship. They assaulted the forward deck watch keeper, threatened him at knife point and tied him to a pole. When there was no communication with the forward crew, other crew members were sent forward. Alarm raised and port control contacted. One unarmed security guard was sent onboard the vessel. Investigation showed containers were broke into.
29.05.2010: 05:51 UTC: Posn: 18:34N – 072:23W, Port au Prince Anchorage, Haiti.
Six robbers armed with knives attempted to board a container ship at anchor. Alert crew raised alarm and mustered the crew. Robbers aborted the attempt and escaped. Master informed port authority and ships in the vicinity. No casualties and no damage to ship.
About 10 robbers in a long wooden boat boarded a container ship at anchor. Duty crew sighted the robbers and raised alarm. The robbers escaped with stolen stores upon seeing the crew alertness.
25.05.2010: 1407 UTC: Posn: 14:25.6N – 054:22.3E, Gulf of Aden.
Pirates armed with guns in a skiff chased and attempted to board a tanker underway. Master increased speed, carried out evasive manoeuvres and raised alarm. Pirates aborted the attempted attack after 30 minutes and moved away.
25.05.2010: 0229 UTC: Posn: 05:39S – 039:29E north of Zanzibar island, off Somalia.
Two skiffs with five pirates in each, armed with guns fired upon a product tanker underway with intent to hijack. Master increased speed, took evasive manoeuvres, and enforced anti piracy measures resulting in the pirates aborting attack.
This gak goes on 24/7. 80 miles off shore, under international maritime law, Israel has no authority to do this: for the same reason that US Navy Seals do not raid humanitarian supplies heading to Cuba. Assuming that the ships were sailing under Turkish registry, Turkey could construe this as an act of war under the guidelines set by the UN.
Phryxis wrote:
They've got nukes. If they've painted themselves into a corner, I think they're one of the most likely nations in the world to use them. Do we really want that?
I think it's worth pointing out that I don't believe that Israel being 'cut off' is LIKELY, just that I personally believe it would be worthwhile. Desirable, even.
Desirable?
They've got nukes. If they're backed into a corner, I think they're one of the most likely nations in the world to use them. Do we really want that?
I know, I know... We can't be held hostage by their bad behavior or whatever. But the fact is, I don't think they'll ever allow us to live in a world where them "losing" is desirable for anyone.
Israel never confirmed or denied having nukes,
So should be MAYBE HAS NUKES
Considering that Hamas supporters were seen using an Israeli soldiers severed head as a football in past times, I don't blame the soldiers for lighting the decks up when things looked nasty.
It's easy to judge from a position of living in a fairly safe country. If we, in the United States were in Israel's position, I think we wouldn't act much different.
Remember that feeling watching the towers go down and our fellow country men plunging to their deaths? Imagine that kind of thing hanging over your head on a daily basis.
Phryxis wrote:And yet, I've heard it referred to as an "illegal war" countless times. I agree with you, it wasn't "illegal" in any real way, but people call it that regardless.
My dad is evidently a blasphemer per the same standard. I don't listen to 'people'. You shouldn't either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
So now you know why we won't completely drop Israel. Just look at this thread, generally, there will be enough support that it won't be dropped. The resolution isn't going to be to either side 100% with Israel or 100% with Palestine.
I think this is going to be an 'agree to disagree' moment, because I see sufficient popular sentiment (not in this thread) to drop Israel.
After seeing the video showing the commando being thrown over the railing, the commandos being stabbed and beated with iron bars, I have no hesitation in backing the commandos.
Did Israel go in too early, yes.
Did they act the only way they could have once there, yes.
This was never a peaceful flotilla, if it was they would't have had firebombs, knives and batons/bars.
Kanluwen wrote:A clip from a Turkish news service showed that some of the protesters on board the ship in question had gas masks, tear gas, and pistols.
Peaceful my ass.
Don't be silly, everyone knows those lovely not at all terrorists in Gaza are frightfully low on Tear gas and pistols.
jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?
jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?
Wanna show proof that the US Boarded those ships back in the 60's? What was the body count?
Sorry, but the Isrealis did wrong here. Its the same as what has happened in Darfur. Aid is being intercepted and then distributed as those taking it see fit. Isreal is blockading Gaza on land and sea to "hurt" Hamas, but they are only making them look better in the eyes of those that Isreal is really hurting... the People in Gaza.
Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?
Yeah no boardings took place, no shots were fired. The reason the Cuban Missile Crisis was so tense was because boarding a foreign ship in international waters is generally AN ACT OF WAR.
jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect. In a way this much is true, state criminality breeds state crime. The main problem is a national attitude by which Arabs are dehumaised to the extent no rights are seen to apply to them.
1: They were warned. They were warned illegally. The word you are looking for it threatened.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be. 'Everyone' knows this Israel has a track record of killing protestors and Arab sympathisers.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade. They ran an illegal blokade aka they sailed in international waters, as per their right.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers. They resisted armed intruders who were engaged in an act of priacy. This is legal.
5: Soldiers react to threat. Odd place to start to use the word threat. Points 1 and 4 are far more reasonable. Israeli commandos decided to baord they were resisted LEGALLY they reacted by shooting people. It's simply piracy.
Also note the aftermath of this. The boats were seized and the occupants are to be taken to Israel, this is false imprisonment.
The soldiers did nothing wrong. However, their commander did. I hope there are no repercussions for the soldiers involved who ended up having to defend themselves due to the idiocy of their commander. Truth be told, I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's d*ck. The world is gonna keep right on spinning tomorrow and within a month all of this will be old news and we will have more gak to be mad about.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF action in international waters legal
Int’l Law Expert Dr. Robbie Sabel: IDF action in international waters legal
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 31 May 2010
IMRA asked Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel about
the legality of the IDF action in international waters.
Dr. Sabel explained that a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an
embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial
waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in
international waters.
Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to
break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used
against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every
right to act in self defense.
Dr. Sabel noted that there is a long history of embargo activities in
international waters.
This is true. But they do have nukes. It's more or less accepted fact.
I don't blame the soldiers for lighting the decks up when things looked nasty.
To be fair to the bleeding hearts, I don't think anybody blames the individual soldier for stuff like this. Soldiers are essentially machines in these situations. Their command apparatus has to know what the possible outcomes are, and plan accordingly.
By the time they're fast roping onto the deck, the real decisions are already made.
I don't listen to 'people'. You shouldn't either.
Both a valid point, but also impossible. People say things, I hear it, I absorb it as being part of their reality.
It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
No, it's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in international waters.
Texas is sovereign US soil. International waters belong to no nation.
but they are only making them look better in the eyes of those that Isreal is really hurting... the People in Gaza.
There's zero chance at all of the people of Gaza having a favorable view of Israel at any point in the near future. Israel isn't trying to make friends, they're trying to cripple the Palestinians' ability to attack them to the fullest extent that external (and internal) pressure allows.
boarding a foreign ship in international waters is generally AN ACT OF WAR.
As opposed to a full scale land invasion, as happend with Lebanon in 2006?
Guys, you need to STOP obsessing over the legalities and strict definitions here. None of this is new. Both sides of this conflict have been acting "illegally" since 1948 and beyond. It's like you guys are standing on the sidelines at the Battle of Kursk, saying "oh, that gentleman just offended that tank full of gentlemen! OH DEAR! Sir! You in the Stuka! You were TERRIBLY rude to that artillery crew!" You're correct, and your correctness is totally irrelevant.
olympia wrote:1. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal.
2. Attacking civilian ships in international waters (80 miles west of Gaza) is illegal.
1. Blockading a militant country that is sporadically attacking them is illegal? Cool. Who is enforcing this law? The UN? HAH! Geneva conventions, what? The UN, while great for providing Humanitarian Aid, is useless for just about anything else. The Militant arm of the UN has been siting in Korea for how long doing what again?
2. Again, who is enforcing this? The UN?
I think what happened could have been avoided, both from the IDF side and the Civilian side, but saying something is Illegal in International waters is slowed. The UN in its current state has no meaning. International laws are a joke. The UN needs to reform how it works. If it is going to say something is illegal, it needs to have ACTUAL support from the countries it represents. Interpol needs a huge over haul while they are @ it.
The commandos primary armament was paintball guns.
They had pistols as a last resort.
A kick ass commado doesn't board a ship armed with recreational sporting equipment and aim to slash and burn.... just subdue/ pin down non lethally anyone trying to block access.
jp400 wrote:Maybe we are seeing different videos on the net of it, but I have seen video and read that the flotilla was told and warned on a couple of different occasions not to attempt to run the blockade.
It is a simple cause of Cause and Effect.
1: They were warned.
2: They knew of the blockade and what the outcome might Be.
3: They decide to attempt to run the blockade.
4: They get boarded (Shocker) and decide to attack armed soldiers.
5: Soldiers react to threat.
Except for the bit where they're in international waters. The soldiers had no right to stop or board the ships. It's like Mexican cops trying to stop you in Texas.
What about the Cuban missle crisis? The U.S. was stopping and turning around ships bound for Cuba with nukes on the high seas in order to protect itself. Do you think that wrong also?
Wanna show proof that the US Boarded those ships back in the 60's? What was the body count?
Sorry, but the Isrealis did wrong here. Its the same as what has happened in Darfur. Aid is being intercepted and then distributed as those taking it see fit. Isreal is blockading Gaza on land and sea to "hurt" Hamas, but they are only making them look better in the eyes of those that Isreal is really hurting... the People in Gaza.
The U.S. didn't need to board the ships because the ships turned back. If they hadn't, they would have been boarded.
A fair few people in this thread have repeated the old, old story about Israel simply attempting to defend itself, while it’s beset on all sides by hostile nations. We’re frankly at the point where that belief is unacceptably stupid. Even with the most superficial following of Israeli’s actions over the last couple of decades, it is obvious that Israel is not simply looking to defend itself, it continues to expand into land it recognised as Palestinian, land that wasn’t given to Israel as part of the 1948 deal, land that Israel itself recognised as Palestinian in 1972 deal. But it expands into anyway, because Israel seeks to expand and grow, and is happy to take land off of Arab countries to do so.
If you look at the other nations in the region, you will not find a country with the economic, political and military capability to attack Israel. You need all three, there isn’t a nation with one. Further, other than Iran there isn’t a decent sized country in the region without extremely close ties to the US. There is simply no overt military threat to Palestine.
It’s a very complex issue, there’s no shortage of mistakes or immorality on either side. A conclusion will be hard to find. It will be impossible as long as people in the rest of the world continue to follow the stupid, stupid idea that Israel is acting as it because of some ever present threat of invasion.
mattyrm wrote:and dont give me that 'i dont support them either' fence sitting lark, they demanded Hamas themselves. If you support the Palestinians, you support them.
I support a move to Palestine become it’s own nation, not kept under constant quarantine by Israel. I do not believe Hamas can be a part of that solution, and think the two key steps to be taken forward involve recognition of the two state solution as the only possible solution, and the de-legitimisation of Hamas and the return to a less extreme government, in part through the steady removal of oppressive controls on the Palestinians.
Where does that put me in pro-Israel/pro-Hamas grand world view?
Im certainly of the opinion you have to pick a side in a conflict as aggressive and unending as this and thanks to Hamas especially (have you seen their kids TV shows?!) and Israel to an extent also, this will never end. Im aware im a terrible cynic, but i just cant see it. Well, until someone loses or we have all out war.
I support any course of action that lets people lead decent lives, that doesn’t get people killed. To the extent that Israel and Hamas act against that, is the extent to which they are both bad. And they both do those very things.
So again, what said do you declare I must be on?
Gwar! wrote:If someone announced on the news they were going to shoot up a Police HQ, or a Mall, or a School, or anything in face, would the Police wait for them to do it, then take action after they shoot people, or take action preemptively?
If the police wait until they are under fire, the threat to their lives is greatly increased. So pre-emption is sensible. If the naval blockades waits until the flotilla has crossed the line, the nothing has changed. As such the argument for pre-emption is simply not there.
loki old fart wrote:Israel never confirmed or denied having nukes,
So should be MAYBE HAS NUKES
I confirm I have a nuclear weapon. Therefore I have nuke according to your logic above.
I neither confirm nor deny that I have an account on dakkadakka under the user name sebster. Therefore we don’t know if I have a user account called sebster or not.
A thing isn’t true or false dependant on the claims of the owner. It’s true or false dependant on the evidence for its existence. The evidence for Israeli nuclear weapons is overwhelming. It doesn’t matter that Israel chooses to confirm their existence or not, it is a given.
Just to throw this in about the "you can't do that in international waters!" bit.
Provided one accepts that Israel is in a time of conflict, has been since it’s inception and will be for the rest of history, then one can extend to Israel all manner of powers. This is problematic, at best.
dogma wrote:What nuclear missiles based in Turkey?
People are talking like Israel is under constant threat on invasion, and now we’re talking about US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. I think through some kind of weird sunspot activity people in this thread are posting from the 60s. It’s the only logical answer.
The U.S. didn't need to board the ships because the ships turned back. If they hadn't, they would have been boarded.
Possibly...
But there are also other things going on during this crisis. For example, American photo recon planes are flying numerous missions, at low altitude and high speed, through Cuban airspace, and being fired on by Cuban (or possibly Russian) anti-aircraft crews.
It’s a very complex issue, there’s no shortage of mistakes or immorality on either side. A conclusion will be hard to find. It will be impossible as long as people in the rest of the world continue to follow the stupid, stupid idea that Israel is acting as it because of some ever present threat of invasion.
You're right, up to the last sentence.
I think everyone involved with this situation in any meaningful way is fully aware of Israel's real status. The semantic games played by Israel (and their enemies) aren't real, and getting rid of them won't make the situation especially different.
So, to be clear, nobody that actually matters is viewing the situation so casually that "defense" is the beginning and end of their awareness. Israel, Hamas, Fatah, Hillary Clinton, the UN, all these entities are well beyond the simple rhetoric.
So the rhetoric isn't any real barrier to change... Even if it was, and I would hate to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you're suggesting that progress can't be made until Israel is denied the rhetorical shield of claiming they're defending themselves. The answer is not that Israel needs to back down, or needs to have its arguments denied it...
The problem here isn't Israel.
You yourself said it, before unsaying it. It's a complex issue.
If Israel made concessions, pulled out of all new settlements, met Palestinian demands, I firmly believe that new problems would be manufactured, new demands made, and Israel would be in the same exact fight, but in a weakened position.
Neither side of this thing is trustworthy, and honestly, I don't think a conclusion IS possible. It's been the same story since 1948. What's going to change 60 years later? 70? 80? If something doesn't change in three lifetimes, what's going to be different with the fourth?
The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.
sebster wrote:
People are talking like Israel is under constant threat on invasion, and now we’re talking about US nuclear missiles stationed in Turkey. I think through some kind of weird sunspot activity people in this thread are posting from the 60s. It’s the only logical answer.
Yep. Also, Americans love to be authoritative with respect to things they know nothing of. After all, politics is just like business, right?
Phryxis wrote:The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.
Except conflicts do end. Populations do move past the need to do each other harm.
And genocide, total war, is an extremely rare situation.
The troubles in Northern Ireland are all but over, without anyone committing genocide on the other.
Oh, and how is the Israeli positioned weakened when they don't have to commit additional forces to protecting settlements outside of their national border?
Phryxis wrote:
So the rhetoric isn't any real barrier to change... Even if it was, and I would hate to put words in your mouth, but it appears that you're suggesting that progress can't be made until Israel is denied the rhetorical shield of claiming they're defending themselves. The answer is not that Israel needs to back down, or needs to have its arguments denied it...
Rhetoric isn't the problem, but there is some sort of rhetorical shield?
Phryxis wrote:
If Israel made concessions, pulled out of all new settlements, met Palestinian demands, I firmly believe that new problems would be manufactured, new demands made, and Israel would be in the same exact fight, but in a weakened position.
Ah, there's that rhetorical shield. Aren't you a US citizen? Why do you care about Israeli supremacy?
Phryxis wrote:
The simple fact is that you have two sides that WANT to fight. You can't end that sort of fight. For the vast majority of human history, the way it was solved was when one side won and one side died. Now, in a UN-managed world, we all just lose forever.
Only if you think in terms of non-violence, which isn't what the UN does.
dogma wrote:Yep. Also, Americans love to be authoritative with respect to things they know nothing of. After all, politics is just like business, right?
I'm certain that's a purely American thing. You should have heard the nonsense in the coffee room this morning.
I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.
Also, you don't hit an israeli commando with a stick, that just won't turn out well.
I would sympathise with them more had they not struck back at the commandos, I saw a video on CNN in which a guy clearly assaulted a commando with a stick-like looking object(maybe the pipe the israelis were mentioning, I don't know). That just makes me think they're radical morons like the "Sea Shephard" people who harass Japanese whaling boats.
sebster wrote:The troubles in Northern Ireland are all but over, without anyone committing genocide on the other.
Ha... HAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This made me laugh. Every other week they find a bomb outside a PSNI police station mate. The "Troubles" have lessened, but they are far from "all but over".
And speaking as an Englishman living in Ireland (not willingly, but do not have the funds to escape ) I can tell you the anti English sentiment is still high.
Except conflicts do end. Populations do move past the need to do each other harm.
Sure, and the possibility of the conflict ending does exist. I just don't think it's very likely, and I don't think there's any one thing to be "done" about it. I don't think there's even a collection of things. I think it's beyond the deliberate control of human beings.
I don't mean to imply that fights can't ever end. Clearly they end all the time. I just mean to suggest that fights don't end if both sides don't want them to, and I don't forsee either side of this particular conflict wanting it to end.
Oh, and how is the Israeli positioned weakened when they don't have to commit additional forces to protecting settlements outside of their national border?
I was speaking of a whole spectrum of concessions, not just surrendering new settlements. Even so, the most obvious weakening is one of perception. Currently Israel is known for being relentless, aggressive and uncompromising, and they still have people testing them. Imagine what would happen if they were seen as being weak?
Additionally, while it's a cruel form of pragmatism, the Israelis attitude is that anything that empowers and liberates the Palestinians makes them more able to attack Israel. As things stand, rocket attacks are relatively common, even though Palestinians are broken up into numerous tiny neighborhoods, with checkpoints and other barricades to assembling such weapons. Were they given a reasonable state to live in, they'd be infinitely more capable of assembling and firing rockets. This would put Israel in a weaker position.
Rhetoric isn't the problem, but there is some sort of rhetorical shield?
I made two arguments. First I said I don't think that the rhetoric is really material to the problem. Second, I said that even if it was a genuine shield, the solution isn't to take away Israel's defenses.
Ah, there's that rhetorical shield. Aren't you a US citizen? Why do you care about Israeli supremacy?
Meh, this is beneath you. I said none of this.
I never said Israel needs to have supremacy. I never said "they're just defending themselves."
What I'm saying is that Israel making concessions won't benefit them, and it won't end the conflict, at least not until they concede themselves into non-existance.
This is not an appeal to defense, though. I'm not saying that the Israeli's must retain their current aggressive, expansionist stance to maintain their defense... What I'm saying is that the opposite, giving up land and making concessions, will not contribute to their defense either.
Phryxis wrote:
Meh, this is beneath you. I said none of this.
I never said Israel needs to have supremacy. I never said "they're just defending themselves."
I think this whole conversation is beneath all of us. Also, HAWKS WON.
Phryxis wrote:
What I'm saying is that Israel making concessions won't benefit them, and it won't end the conflict, at least not until they concede themselves into non-existance.
This is not an appeal to defense, though. I'm not saying that the Israeli's must retain their current aggressive, expansionist stance to maintain their defense... What I'm saying is that the opposite, giving up land and making concessions, will not contribute to their defense either.
Then you're saying that Israel will cease to exist? I mean, I agree with that sentiment, but I'm not sure what you mean to describe with your 'middle-ground' approach. If the land to be given up isn't necessarily Israeli, then where are we left in terms of security?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:No, but they were going to.
If I announce I am going to run a blockade, why would I be surprised if they came to stop me?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF action in international waters legal
Int’l Law Expert Dr. Robbie Sabel: IDF action in international waters legal
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 31 May 2010
IMRA asked Hebrew University international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel about
the legality of the IDF action in international waters.
Dr. Sabel explained that a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an
embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial
waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in
international waters.
Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to
break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used
against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every
right to act in self defense.
Dr. Sabel noted that there is a long history of embargo activities in
international waters.
Just to throw this in about the "you can't do that in international waters!" bit.
Dr Sabel is correct in his points, However, He used the wrong term in just what is in place around Gaza.
It is not an Embargo
An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. Embargoes are considered strong diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the embargo-imposing-country, to elicit a given national-interest result from the country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.[
Even the isreali Government calls it something else....
A Blockade
A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or communications from a particular area by force, either in part or totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions, which are legal barriers to trade
There is a difference as one is a legal barrier and the other is considered an act of war.
Isreal is seriously lucky that the Turks did not consider this an open act of war on one of their civilain vessels. They could have used this to declare war on Isreal and would have had the backing of EVERY country around that area backing them.
As it is, by almost any definition this was an act of war and shoulld be judged as such.
I say let the U.N. investigate the incedent with full access to all materials and not just the ones that the Isrealis haven't already destroyed.
halonachos wrote:Dogma, you stereotype too much you know.
Irony my friend, irony.
halonachos wrote: I don't know where to stand on this one. While they were carrying humanitarian aid, they were breaking a law.
No, they weren't. That's the whole issue here.
Sorry, but if someone declares embargo and blockades, I would call that a law. Also, I don't stereotype I just enjoy stereotypes.
The issue being they were quite a distance away from the blockade; thus they were not running it. Also technically the embargo is not recognized internationally. You're going to pains to defend a situation that I'm not entirely sure you read up on sufficiently.
Then you're saying that Israel will cease to exist? I mean, I agree with that sentiment, but I'm not sure what you mean to describe with your 'middle-ground' approach. If the land to be given up isn't necessarily Israeli, then where are we left in terms of security?
You're very confusing in your drunkenness.
No, I'm not saying they'll cease to exist. I don't think they would allow that. What I am saying is that there are forces that exist that will not stop until Israel ceases to exist. These forces aren't an especially profound threat to Israel's existance, it's not like they can do much more but lob rockets and run their mouthes, but no amount of concession will cause them to stop.
Basically it comes down to the fact that both sides are full of gak.
The Arab side says "just give us this, and then we can all live in peace." And they're lying, they'll just try to take more.
Similarly, the Israelis say "we're just defending ourselves" even as they try to build new settlements, and are sledgehammer aggressive.
You're going to pains to defend a situation that I'm not entirely sure you read up on sufficiently.
When the ships saw helicopters, who did they think it was? And why did the Israeli marines have crowd control gear?
It's clear that the entire GOAL here was to create an incident and leverage public opinion against Israel. I don't think the activists meant to get killed, but it sure does make a good story for them.
It's also clear that the Israeli goal was NOT to kill anybody. That's what paintball guns and pistols tells you.
No question, the Israelis miscalculated on this, and are suffering backlash as a result, but I think it's fairly bogus to make this a story of Israeli piracy and lawbreaking.
It's the STANDARD dance that goes on in that region, day after day, year after year. Anti-Israeli forces try to toe the line as closely as possible, and provoke Israel to step over. Sometimes the anti-Israeli forces cross the line, get killed, and no special objections are made. Other times, the Israelis miscalculate, and shoot the wrong guy, and then they get the backlash.
When the ships saw helicopters, who did they think it was? And why did the Israeli marines have crowd control gear?
It's clear that the entire GOAL here was to create an incident and leverage public opinion against Israel. I don't think the activists meant to get killed, but it sure does make a good story for them.
It's also clear that the Israeli goal was NOT to kill anybody. That's what paintball guns and pistols tells you.
No question, the Israelis miscalculated on this, and are suffering backlash as a result, but I think it's fairly bogus to make this a story of Israeli piracy and lawbreaking.
It's the STANDARD dance that goes on in that region, day after day, year after year. Anti-Israeli forces try to toe the line as closely as possible, and provoke Israel to step over. Sometimes the anti-Israeli forces cross the line, get killed, and no special objections are made. Other times, the Israelis miscalculate, and shoot the wrong guy, and then they get the backlash.
You don't have to page break twice after every thought.
Also yes, an aid mission with the announced intention of violating an illegal blockade into a disputed territory policed militarily by a highly aggressive regime seems outright intended to cause an international incident.
Magical. Congratulations, welcome to yesterday.
You take your page broken lengthy repositories of text a bit far though when you implicate turkey as an anti israeli force attempting to toe the line.
You should probably more carefully inject lines of explanation or reasoning into your posts when you want to place suppositions that are either not supported at all or are so obvious as to not even be worth stating.
It's quite clear that this group wanted to either implicate israel and cause a loss of international trust or wanted to highlight the severe conditions within gaza.
However given that turkey was previously a fairly close ally of Israel the concept you put forth of this being an anti israeli force winning the game is a bit strained. The ship was largely composed of turkish nationals after all.
Thus in your post you probably should have more carefully stated what groups or what perhaps you believed their intentions were.
It's not that you are necessarily wrong. It's just that you are expressing yourself in a very poor manner.
The Turkish government is not composed of militaristic anti israeli ultra-nationals and it's populace is largely stable and well policed.
It's important to identify your pieces.
Before you place them onto your fictional chessboard.
sebster wrote:The troubles in Northern Ireland are all but over, without anyone committing genocide on the other.
Ha... HAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This made me laugh. Every other week they find a bomb outside a PSNI police station mate. The "Troubles" have lessened, but they are far from "all but over".
No, it’s over as a serious political movement. There have been a couple of thousand people killed by Maoist rebels in India in the last couple of years, but Maoism as a political movement is over, because it has no meaningful political following, it has no say and no influence in the political dialogue of India.
A collection of hardliners pretending otherwise doesn’t change that.
Phryxis wrote:Sure, and the possibility of the conflict ending does exist. I just don't think it's very likely, and I don't think there's any one thing to be "done" about it. I don't think there's even a collection of things. I think it's beyond the deliberate control of human beings.
I don't mean to imply that fights can't ever end. Clearly they end all the time. I just mean to suggest that fights don't end if both sides don't want them to, and I don't forsee either side of this particular conflict wanting it to end.
Fair enough. I disagree, mind you, in Israel itself there’s plenty of support for ending their more aggressive foreign policies. So at least some people are of a mind to end the conflict.
I was speaking of a whole spectrum of concessions, not just surrendering new settlements. Even so, the most obvious weakening is one of perception. Currently Israel is known for being relentless, aggressive and uncompromising, and they still have people testing them. Imagine what would happen if they were seen as being weak?
I think a country can make it clear attacks on its sovereign territory will see incredible retribution without continuing other policies. Note that, for instance, I agree with maintaining the quarantine of Palestine, as long as sufficient supplies are provided through other means, and a long term strategy is in place to eventually reach a conclusion.
There is an increasing perception of Israeli weakness coming from their poor military performance in the last few years. The bungled attack on Lebanon. A series of poorly operated raids into Palestine.
I read a piece a while back from a retired IDF officer, who said that their capabilities were quickly diminishing. His argument wasn’t for more money, his argument was that decades of occupation will cripple the fighting capabilities of any army. It demoralises troops, and it shifts training priorities towards patrolling and not conventional warfare. He didn’t outright say Israel needed to leave for their own sake, mind you, but it seemed a pretty safe conclusion for outside parties.
Additionally, while it's a cruel form of pragmatism, the Israelis attitude is that anything that empowers and liberates the Palestinians makes them more able to attack Israel. As things stand, rocket attacks are relatively common, even though Palestinians are broken up into numerous tiny neighborhoods, with checkpoints and other barricades to assembling such weapons. Were they given a reasonable state to live in, they'd be infinitely more capable of assembling and firing rockets. This would put Israel in a weaker position.
Sure, and this is the crux of the whole problem. Israel will never be rid of the Palestinian desire to fire rockets until Israel allows the Palestinians to have normal lives, but in opening up Palestine so they might start normal lives makes it easier for Palestinians to fire rockets into Israel. It’s a really tough problem, that will need a lot of goodwill on both sides to solve. To even begin to reach a point where it can be solved we first need to move past all the rubbish about Israel fighting for it’s survival day by day. It’s a serious problem that people can’t even do that.
halonachos wrote:
Sorry, but if someone declares embargo and blockades, I would call that a law.
You would be wrong to do so.
halonachos wrote:
Also, I don't stereotype I just enjoy stereotypes.
You just did.
If a nation declares that they are going to embargo a country that they have been at odds with for the past decades then that is a legal embargo. Seeing as though there has never been any true peace between Israel and Palestine, its mostly been a series of ceasefires, then I would assume that it alsmost a warlike state of relations. In this case embargo is legal and allowed. Stopping the flotilla was allowed seeing as though they were intentionally trying to break through the blockade which reminds me of this:
merriem websters wrote:1 : to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law
2 : to convey or introduce surreptitiously
intransitive verb
: to import or export something in violation of the customs laws
— smug·gler \ˈsmə-glər\ noun
So in fact they were not bringing humanitarian aid, they were smuggling humanitarian aid. It was an illegal act committed in good nature, unfortunately it was an ILLEGAL act.
Secondly, the fact that they were some distance away from the blockade is trivial. If you know that someone is going to attempt to break through your door are you going to wait till they do in order to do something or are you going to do something about it before it happens? These people made it well clear that their mission was to break through the blockade, the fact that they weren't stopped earlier is a true puzzle. The turkish government dropped the ball on this one by allowing it to go through. The Israelis simply responded to the threat and were attacked, when this happened they opened fire. Another thing is the fact that Israel has a history of pre-emptive strikes which is one of the reasons people hate them even though its their #1 defense policy. If they know that someone is going to try to attack or try to run their blockade, they're going to act upon it.
To simplify this, its almost as good as to say that 1) Israel had an embargo policy against a country that is basically still at war with them, 2)This is legal seeing as it was done in international waters, 3) The flotilla announced the fact that their goal was to run through the blockade, 4) The Israelis knew this and decided to pre-emptively end this attempt, 5) When the commandos landed on board the activists attacked them, 6) The Israeli commandos shot back, they did not fire first.
Thirdly, I did not "just stereotype" seeing as though I did not lay down a blanket statement about you. I did not say "Dogma always stereotypes" I said "you stereotype too much". There is in fact a difference. One being the blanketed statement and the other pointing out a single part of the vast character that is Dogma.
If a person told me that I eat too much then they would be pointing out a single part of me, now if they said that "halonachos is always awesome" then that would be a stereotype because they did not specifically say why I am so awesome all of the time.
While you in fact gave proof by saying that:
dogma wrote:Yep. Also, Americans love to be authoritative with respect to things they know nothing of. After all, politics is just like business, right?
I said that you do stereotype quite often, not always, but often. That in itself is not a stereotype, although your whole irony thing could be stereotyping as you infer that I always stereotype.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I know that there are a lot of people who side with Palestine on this, and I do at some point as well. Israel is really treating Palestine badly, but then again they've known almost constant warfare between the two a little after the FRENCH founded Israel for the jews after WW2. So all of the walls and such really are defensive measures.
Imagine this please: America is Israel and Mexico is Palestine. America expanded and took Mexico's land through war. After the war, the Mexicans wanted their land back so they tried to fight back. Mexico sets up rockets in populated neighborhoods and launches them into texas where they indiscriminantly kill numbers of civilians, america retaliates by attempting to destroy those rockets. This kills mexican civilians as the rockets were set up in neighborhoods. America also puts up a divider along the border to prevent any crossing(we're talking berlin wall style here). Mexican insurgents continue their activities and america embargos mexico. A flotilla from cuba announces that they are going to break through the embargo.
US Navy ships attempt to stop the flotilla and civilians are killed. America is now the evil one behind this whole issue.
Do the same with Northern Ireland, any larger nation that tries to place an embargo on a place that is smaller will most likely be seen as evil in this circumstance.
The fact is, the gaza strip has been highly militant against Israel and the Israelis want to stop them. A group of people try to break through a means of stopping the militants and Israel will not respond kindly.
halonachos wrote:
If a nation declares that they are going to embargo a country that they have been at odds with for the past decades then that is a legal embargo.
A country? Israel does not recognize the OT as a country.
halonachos wrote:
Seeing as though there has never been any true peace between Israel and Palestine, its mostly been a series of ceasefires, then I would assume that it alsmost a warlike state of relations. In this case embargo is legal and allowed.
Nope, revisit the Geneva Conventions.
halonachos wrote:
Stopping the flotilla was allowed seeing as though they were intentionally trying to break through the blockade which reminds me of this:
Nope. Intention cannot be enumerated in a case which lacks physical sustenance.
halonachos wrote:-
merriem websters wrote:1 : to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law
2 : to convey or introduce surreptitiously
intransitive verb
: to import or export something in violation of the customs laws
— smug·gler \ˈsmə-glər\ noun
So in fact they were not bringing humanitarian aid, they were smuggling humanitarian aid. It was an illegal act committed in good nature, unfortunately it was an ILLEGAL act.
Awwwww, little baby looked up the definition of smuggle. So cute.
halonachos wrote:
Secondly, the fact that they were some distance away from the blockade is trivial. If you know that someone is going to attempt to break through your door are you going to wait till they do in order to do something or are you going to do something about it before it happens?
I'm waiting to break down your door. Will you shoot me in Illinois?
halonachos wrote:
These people made it well clear that their mission was to break through the blockade, the fact that they weren't stopped earlier is a true puzzle. The turkish government dropped the ball on this one by allowing it to go through.
Yes, because Turks must behave in concurrence with Israelis
halonachos wrote:
To simplify this, its almost as good as to say that 1) Israel had an embargo policy against a country that is basically still at war with them,
Sweden?
halonachos wrote:
2)This is legal seeing as it was done in international waters,
No.
halonachos wrote:
Thirdly, I did not "just stereotype" seeing as though I did not lay down a blanket statement about you. I did not say "Dogma always stereotypes" I said "you stereotype too much". There is in fact a difference. One being the blanketed statement and the other pointing out a single part of the vast character that is Dogma.
You laid down at least 6 stereotypes in this post.
halonachos wrote:
If a person told me that I eat too much then they would be pointing out a single part of me, now if they said that "halonachos is always awesome" then that would be a stereotype because they did not specifically say why I am so awesome all of the time.
No. They would only be stereotyping if they alliterated your tendency to fear some form of violence which you could not fear otherwise.
halonachos wrote:
I said that you do stereotype quite often, not always, but often. That in itself is not a stereotype, although your whole irony thing could be stereotyping as you infer that I always stereotype.
Stereotype? I made a comment about thing which Americans do, I never said that all Americans do them.
halonachos wrote:Imagine this please: America is Israel and Mexico is Palestine. America expanded and took Mexico's land through war. After the war, the Mexicans wanted their land back so they tried to fight back. Mexico sets up rockets in populated neighborhoods and launches them into texas where they indiscriminantly kill numbers of civilians, america retaliates by attempting to destroy those rockets. This kills mexican civilians as the rockets were set up in neighborhoods. America also puts up a divider along the border to prevent any crossing(we're talking berlin wall style here). Mexican insurgents continue their activities and america embargos mexico. A flotilla from cuba announces that they are going to break through the embargo.
US Navy ships attempt to stop the flotilla and civilians are killed. America is now the evil one behind this whole issue.
Remember that the US agreed to national borders in the 70s but continues to settle lands beyond those borders. Remember that every border into Mexico is tightly controlled, and the US will frequently cut the supply of goods into Mexico to punish the civilian population for the actions of Mexican militants. Remember that within the US a significant portion of the population doesn't want to keep taking Mexican land, but are still drafted and forced to patrol the border and even enter Mexico, and be exposed to danger.
Then consider the idea that there isn't a good guy or a bad guy, but there are a lot of dead people and millions of refugees. Then consider that maybe all that really matters is moving towards a solution where people won't be dying and the refugees can be allowed normal lives.
halonachos ... Yeah those poor repressed isrealis.... it does not matter where you move this incedent to.
Fact: Isreal NEVER declared an Embargo. They Declared a Blockade. Big difference. Even their Government called it a Blockade in official statements before and after.
Fact: The Blockade was protested in the U.N. multiple times.
Fact: The ship they attacked was of Turkish registry. Not one of the smaller vessels from another country.
Fact: There was no evidence of fire arms on board UNTIL the commandos arrived and were confronted.
We can argue attitudes and opinions until the world ends. Can you counter any of these facts?
Gwar! wrote:And speaking as an Englishman living in Ireland (not willingly, but do not have the funds to escape ) I can tell you the anti English sentiment is still high.
As down the glen one Easter morn to a city fair rode I
There Armed lines of marching men in squadrons passed me by
No pipe did hum, no battle drum did sound its loud tattoo
But the Angelus Bell o'er the Liffey's swell rang out through the foggy dew
Right proudly high over Dublin Town they hung out the flag of war
'Twas better to die 'neath an Irish sky than at Suvla or Sud-El-Bar
And from the plains of Royal Meath strong men came hurrying through
While Britannia's Huns, with their long range guns sailed in through the foggy dew
well, I suppose anywhere England practiced genocide and slavery, there might be some lingering resentment. Sort of like being a Nazi in Jerusalem.
Speaking of Nazis, I might point out with amusement that the esteemed professor is leaving out the, achem, nation that was the source of most of the 'legal' blockades of trade.
Germany, mien Fuhrer.
And I seem to vaguely recall public outcry against it when it made the next logical progression, which was that England started arming her merchantmen, at which point Germany escalated to 'unrestricted submarine warfare'.
So, when do we sink a tour ship full of Americans and Arabs?
By the way, my comparison, above, despite being legal in both the Seneca Nation of Indians and the United States, is considered an international crime and an act of Terror in Europe. Those of you with children may wish to cover your eyes and not read those last few sentences.
helgrenze wrote:halonachos ... Yeah those poor repressed isrealis.... it does not matter where you move this incedent to.
Fact: Isreal NEVER declared an Embargo. They Declared a Blockade. Big difference. Even their Government called it a Blockade in official statements before and after.
Fact: The Blockade was protested in the U.N. multiple times.
Fact: The ship they attacked was of Turkish registry. Not one of the smaller vessels from another country.
Fact: There was no evidence of fire arms on board UNTIL the commandos arrived and were confronted.
We can argue attitudes and opinions until the world ends. Can you counter any of these facts?
1)Pope Benedict XVI - The Pope Benedict during his visit to Bethlehem in May 2009 specifically mentioned the plight of Gazans, saying: "Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted." [67]
On December 15, 2008, following a statement in which he described the embargo on Gaza a crime against humanity, United Nations Special Rapporteur Richard A. Falk was prevented from entering the Palestinian territories by Israeli authorities and expelled from the region.[55] The Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Itzhak Levanon[56] said that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was "hopelessly unbalanced," "redundant at best and malicious at worst."
2) Although it was protested by the UN, so was the US invasion of Iraq. Seriously, just because the UN protests it doesn't mean the act is illegitimate. This is a fact, but does NOT truly affect this discussion.
3)The ship was of turkish registry, again this fact does NOTHING for the argument. It could've been of australian registry and it STILL would be a ship in international waters that was trying to run through a blockade. Changing where it came from does nothing to alter the discussion.
You did list some facts, but they don't really change anything because they are trivial. You are wrong as Israel did have an embargo and also, the commandos were beaten.
Automatically Appended Next Post: December 24, 2008: After a six-month negotiated lull in rocket attacks, Hamas resumed its campaign of terror by launching dozens of rockets and mortar shells on Israeli civilians. On December 24 alone, more than 60 rockets and mortar shells rained down on major civilian population centers in the southern Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Netivot. Hamas has also threatened to resume its campaign of suicide bombings inside of Israel. These latest statements and actions by Hamas only serve as further proof that the terrorist organization is committed to Israel's destruction
That may not be opressed, but it is attacked. I don't care who you are, if the little guy attacks the big guy and the big guy kicks his ass its kind of expected.
I've been comparing the strengths of the Turkish and Israeli navies and the Turkish navy is much stronger. It's a NATO country after all. I hope that the Turks send another aid convoy but escort it this time with 8 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs and the truly impressive Milgem class corvette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Navy#2000s
olympia wrote:I've been comparing the strengths of the Turkish and Israeli navies and the Turkish navy is much stronger. It's a NATO country after all. I hope that the Turks send another aid convoy but escort it this time with 8 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs and the truly impressive Milgem class corvette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Navy#2000s
I too hope that a Turkish policy of brinkmanship increases the chances of more people getting killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ergotoxin wrote:How ironic is it that the children of holocaust victims are getting step by step closer and closer to the practices of their murderers.
Fair go, mate. I don't agree with Israeli policy but comparisons to the Nazis are ludicrous.
lol. That video of the boarding makes me smile because i can imagine it myself, and i can imagine the gak the officer in charge is now getting off his lads! I did a 60 foot fastrope onto a deck in Sierra Leone once, i remember looking down quickly before i jumped out the helo and i thought 'hmm, id better watch my speed and my footing, thats a bloody long drop, and there seems to be alot of swell... The deck will be slippery as well..' if my boss said 'go Matty your up!' and i had a quick look down and saw 40 irate Turks with Iron bars and chairs id probably laugh out loud and say something along the lines of 'boss, are you taking the fething piss!?! Im sure the soldiers are laughing their asses off talking about this between themselves at the moment though, the funniest part of operations is laughing about the things that went wrong with your mates and taking the mick out of the guys in charge who thought it was a good idea at the time. Im pretty sure the officers are in a bit of bother though! :-)
olympia wrote:I've been comparing the strengths of the Turkish and Israeli navies and the Turkish navy is much stronger. It's a NATO country after all. I hope that the Turks send another aid convoy but escort it this time with 8 Oliver Hazard Perry class FFGs and the truly impressive Milgem class corvette.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Navy#2000s
I too hope that a Turkish policy of brinkmanship increases the chances of more people getting killed.
Clearly the Israelis only understand and respect force. It's important to speak to them in a language they understand.
Oh and Olympia finally we agree on something regards this issue mate, i hope thats what happens too! Firstly because im not a very nice person and i think war between two nations i dont really care about is kinda cool. Also i dont like the Turkish soldiers as they pulled numerous hijinx when i worked with them in Kabul, and thirdly cos i love seeing the Israeli military get underestimated. They dont have a really sizeable navy as its not that sensible tactically, but id love to see them sink all of the Turks ships with some of their truly awesome arsenal, aircraft and long range missles. And im so confident that would be the outcome that ill give you ten to one odds thats what would happen. Big ships dont like getting things fired at them from range, even if they do have a goalkeeper or equivalent. Shall i stick ten euros on for you? :-)
olympia wrote:Clearly the Israelis only understand and respect force. It's important to speak to them in a language they understand.
Nah, Israel is very aware of it's international reputation. It's incredibly aware of it's reputation in Washington. It's why they spend so much money on PR.
Any threat that they'd lose US support would send them scuttling home. Not that the US will ever try to restrain Israel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:lol. That video of the boarding makes me smile because i can imagine it myself, and i can imagine the gak the officer in charge is now getting off his lads! I did a 60 foot fastrope onto a deck in Sierra Leone once, i remember looking down quickly before i jumped out the helo and i thought 'hmm, id better watch my speed and my footing, thats a bloody long drop, and there seems to be alot of swell... The deck will be slippery as well..' if my boss said 'go Matty your up!' and i had a quick look down and saw 40 irate Turks with Iron bars and chairs id probably laugh out loud and say something along the lines of 'boss, are you taking the fething piss!?! Im sure the soldiers are laughing their asses off talking about this between themselves at the moment though, the funniest part of operations is laughing about the things that went wrong with your mates and taking the mick out of the guys in charge who thought it was a good idea at the time. Im pretty sure the officers are in a bit of bother though! :-)
On average, how long did you spend laughing about a screw up that got people killed? Ten minutes?
I have... and several others.. I never said no weapons.. I said no FIRE ARMS. The pistols used were taken from the Israeli commandos and thus were not on the ship until said commandos arrived bearing them.
halonachos wrote:
December 24, 2008: After a six-month negotiated lull in rocket attacks, Hamas resumed its campaign of terror by launching dozens of rockets and mortar shells on Israeli civilians. On December 24 alone, more than 60 rockets and mortar shells rained down on major civilian population centers in the southern Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Netivot. Hamas has also threatened to resume its campaign of suicide bombings inside of Israel. These latest statements and actions by Hamas only serve as further proof that the terrorist organization is committed to Israel's destruction
That may not be opressed, but it is attacked. I don't care who you are, if the little guy attacks the big guy and the big guy kicks his ass its kind of expected.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that at least 1,440 Palestinians were killed during the Israel’s assault on the Gaza strip, between December 27, 2008 and February 5, 2009. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports that 5 Israeli soldiers and 4 civilians were killed by Palestinians between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009, and 1 soldier was killed on January 27, 2009.
In just over 2 months Israel killed 1440 Palestinians many nonviolent civilians. In the same time period Palestine killed 10, less than half civilians.
But Palestine is the terrorist country.
Since 2000 Palestinian "terror attacks" have killed fewer than 1200 people total.
Israeli attacks have killed 6300+.
But Palistinians are the terrorists.
Hamas rocket attacks and other violence have killed 123 Israeli children.
Israeli rocket attacks and other violence have killed 1500 Palestinian children.
But Hamas is the terrorist group.
6217 Palestinians were killed on their own land.
584 Israelis were killed on their own land.
But Palistinians are the ones practicing genocide.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Still think the attack on the flotilla was anything but an act of war?
As for the listing of the Turkish ship being attacked... it was the only one registered from an Arab nation.
In an earlier post i stated nuclear missiles in turkey, sorry my mistake.
I meant nuclear bombs,
Turkey hosts an estimated 90 B61 gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base.
As part of NATO
In the video i saw pickaxe handles, proberly from the cargo of building supplies the ship was carrying
halonachos wrote:Actually I wonder where Baron's entire post fit into this.
Baron was romanticising the 'plight' of the IRA during the struggle for Irish independence in response to a comment Gwar! made. But that's an entirely different argument (which I'm not trying to start). The rest of his post is entirely relevant and shows the nationally subjective views of legality and so on.
That puts things in perspective, funnily enough Reds8n.
I don't necessarily agree with the tactics of either side but I do give consideration to the fact that Israel (the state of) has existed for ~50 years or so, surrounded by nations, people and cultures who would do anything in their power to wipe them from the face of the world. I think if I were an Israeli bobbing around in that sea of hatred, I might get a wee bit defensive too.
I would laugh at people getting killed for a good ten minutes as long as they were not my comrades at arms seb. I laughed my ass off when a taliban fighter blew his own hand off with a grenade when he jumped out of his car in front of my vehicle as well. And i laughed my ass off when a suicide bomber blew himself up, only managed to kill a donkey, and we found his head in a tyre 200 yards down the road. And i tell my mates in the pub those stories and they all laugh too. Ive got plenty of stories if you want to hear more, but ive repeated myself ten times to you now. I happily admit all of my failings because i dont buy your incessant mentioning of your moral superiority, or anybody else who mentions it too much for that matter. The more people tend to crow on about how good they are, the worse a person i tend to think they are. Its how ive found people to be during my 30 years of life. I admit i have a bias, and i care little for the lives of palestinans. The difference is, most the pro-palestinian people wont concede they care little for the lives of the Israeli defence force, but we know it is so, human beings do this, and it doesnt make you evil, you pick a group you empathire with and you distance yourself from others. Im aware im getting into another topic here, like some sort of amateur psychology 101, but all i will say is, im aware i say things that you can cut and paste and then say 'look im a nicer man than you', im aware before i click submit. I fail to see the point in it, if you want to rebut a specific point i make, then crack on, but your collection of 'matt being immoral' quotes are pointless, because everyone knows how i feel before you post them. Oh and Olympia, i cant get into 2006 on my puny phone, but i do of course disagree with you regarding the capabilities of the IDF, time will tell of course, as more scrapping is inevitable out there! Ill simply say this to you. Who do you think gets the most practice? :-)
I'll say it again. When you have the knife to your throat, like Israel has had since it was formed, you're going to have to act differently then when you're sitting well protected thoudands of miles from the situation.
The land Israel has occupied was previously used as an area to fire missles and launch attacks into Israel from.
The Arabs say the reason Israel gets attacked is because of the occupation, yet Israel was routinely attacked before any of the contested territories were occupied.
This thread is closed. Many of the statements are borderline racist and the level of vitriol is not acceptable on a board that is fundamentally about toy soldiers (or historical miniature gaming if its ever brought up in court-just fyi).
If you find this decision unacceptable, you have the option to find other websites to post on.
