Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Israeli Navy Raids Gaza Aid Flotilla, 10 Confirmed Dead


Recommended Posts

Strange how there wasn't this much outrage when the North Koreans attack and sink a South Korean ship with more lives lost.Where is the outrage about the Somalian pirate activity which has been going on for years now? <_<

Apparently it's not the action itself,but rather WHO are the people doing it.

Indeed.....no Jews to be had there...maybe Israel can hire the North Koreans to sink the aid ships! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 729
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So if you care about Israel as much as you claim you do, why are you and others on this board completely incapable of admitting that this incident is a scandal? I mean it's hard to figure out a solution to a problem if you can't even admit there is one.

I don't care about Israel any more than I would care about Portugal or Australia in the same situation, facing a horde of crazed religious wack jobs screaming to allah as they frantically try to kill people.

The raid was mishandled. I don't think anyone has denied that. So where is your point? The two ships headed for the blockade will be handled differently. I'd imagine the Israelis will disable them with gunfire and tow them into port.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, you only justify your opinions, you are brainwashed. You have literally justified every action taken by IDF; it shows from your 17,000 posts. You know nothing about international relations/ laws and only spread the Zionist propaganda.

BTW, I found you a job, if you know what I mean...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.html

You still didn’t give me a valid reason for why Israel is rejecting an international probe. According to your previous reply, BP (if you don’t know the current news, go here: http://www.2010gulfoilspill.com/ ) should investigate its action because it doesn’t trust a third party. (You will probably side with BP and say they have done no wrong). UN calls for Inquiry against IDF.

This is the report about the Israeli MP onboard the ships:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/israel-parliament-close-to-blows-over-flotilla.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/interior-minister-seeks-to-revoke-israeli-arab-mk-s-citizenship-1.294091

Some reports say that she has links to Hamas, can you confirm, or maybe because she is Arab?

-you still want to try and give me a correct legal definition of the Geneva Convention?

-coconut

Of course, this means I still own you no matter how many you deny it.

For me to lose, you would need a rebuttal...so far you are batting.000

I dare say I know far more about the subject than you do...I think your posting of sections that do not apply proves this...feel free to do it again.

Edited by BCMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.....no Jews to be had there...maybe Israel can hire the North Koreans to sink the aid ships! ;)

I can't recall either of international pariahs killing a thousand of civilians in one year; destroying homes and forcing people from their land. Wait, they did kill 40 military and now our great defendor of right and human loving justice is calling for Security Council to impose sanctions. They'll sure do it too next time Israel kills a bunch of civilians or bulldozes homes, you can count on that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? The Israelis did it on the other five vessels without incident.

So say the Israelis which doesn't cut it very far.

Multiple reports communicate that several people from the other ships were also wounded.[text 1]
Or are you suggesting that Muslims just tend to lose control any time they see a Jew?

No but it's obvious you do when confronted with dissenting views. Get a grip.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Israelis are really getting unfairly blamed for this one:

They had a right to board those ships. They did everything they could humanly do to avoid violence. The blame for the deaths resets entirely with the protesters who sought a violent confrontation.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, in place of independent international investigation that Israel has rejected out of hand, we'll base our learned opinions on selected utube videos of unknown origin and veracity. In Russian if I'm not mistaken, there's a proverb to that extent, a (some species of an animal) will always find mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the incident happened in the international waters. So, like some other recent international incidents you'd think it could have attacted never resting justice loving attention of our great leaders of international democracy, the US and now, please welcome, Canada. But no, no such luck this time around. Guess it (international justice loving attention) works in a checkboard pattern?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that the incident happened in the international waters. So, like some other recent international incidents you'd think it could have attacted never resting justice loving attention of our great leaders of international democracy, the US and now, please welcome, Canada. But no, no such luck this time around. Guess it (international justice loving attention) works in a checkboard pattern?

"International democracy" is an oxymoron...please seek true love elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"International democracy" is an oxymoron...please seek true love elsewhere.

every time I hear someone mention that it was in International waters, I laugh. Internation waters, domestic waters, have no bearing on a bloickade.

Does anyone remember the Flaklands war when the British liberated the south atalntic Islands from Argentina. They decared an area of exclusion...shipping avoided the area.

Does anyone remember the Second world War? Nazi Germany tried to blockade Britain. If I remember correctly, 99% of the ship sunk by the Germans were in International waters...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that the incident happened in the international waters.
Isreal and Hammas are engaged in a armed conflict. The blockade and Isreal's boarding of the ships is perfectly legimate under the law of the sea. The only parties that did anything wrong are the faux activist thugs on the boat who initiated the violance against the solidiers.

Here is more discussion the law in question.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isreal and Hammas are engaged in a armed conflict. The blockade and Isreal's boarding of the ships is perfectly legimate under the law of the sea. The only parties that did anything wrong are the faux activist thugs on the boat who initiated the violance against the solidiers.

Here is more discussion the law in question.

These ships did not belong to Gaza. the IDF fired upon US, Turkish ships.

Israel is at war with Hamas.

None of these ships belonged to Hamas/Gaza.

The raid took place in international waters.

If the IDF have the right to board, the activists have a right to fight back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These ships did not belong to Gaza. the IDF fired upon US, Turkish ships.

They did? Perhaps you can describe the ordinance and the damage to the ships sustained...

...not that it matters....one of the rules of a blockade is impartiality, meaning it don't matter squat whose flag the ship flys...it could have been an israeli flagged ship, or Canadian....if a ship tries to run the blockade, it is subject to the rules of the blockade.

...now of course there is another blockade, for a blockade to be legitimate, it must be enforceable. If dozens of ships can break the blockade, the blockade losses its authority and becomes void....thisis to discourage a paper blockade where the blockading nation can only enforce the blockade form time to time..

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IDF have the right to board, the activists have a right to fight back.

If the militants have a right to fight the boarding party then the boarding party has a right to use deadly force.

Okay now that Gost agrees we can end this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
None of these ships belonged to Hamas/Gaza.
Isreal is entitled to blockade ALL ships because of the war. The only thing that it can't do is block the ports of groups not involved in the conflict (read the link i provided).
If the IDF have the right to board, the activists have a right to fight back.
Sure. But then they are armed combatants and are simply casualties of war which deserve no more consideration than a group of Taliban killed by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. But the apologists for Hamas want to pretend that they were 'peaceful protesters' which is clearly nonsense.

Here is another analogy consider: logging protesters. These people will stage protests by blocking roads. They get media attention but eventually the police are entitled to arrest them. Peaceful protesters may force to police to physically carry them from the road but they will not resist the police. Violent protesters resist arrest and attempt to injure police. An anti-logging protestor that hit a police officer with a metal bar would likely be shot and no one would shed a tear. Why is this incident an different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"International democracy" is an oxymoron...

Off reality, yet again. What is then our shining international democracy project in e.g. Afghanistan? Not like, it's national? Anyways, it's off topic.

And so the conclusion here would be that everybody has the right to fight, and nobody should be having any concerns about how the fight is conducted. Would that be a correct summary, more or less?

Edited by myata
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither side?

Neither side.

Israel does not accept that the convention formally applies in the occupied territories, arguing that the conventions refer to occupied state sovereign territories...

...Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should your views matter any more or less and what law are you talking about? Neither side recognizes or has signed the one's in the GC that seem to matter in this case.

Neither side.

Like I said before, when someone trots out the GC ...they inevitably cite the wrong GC.

First off, the articles you cite are about the responsibilities of an occupying power. That has nothing to to with naval power.

Secondly, you omitted the rest of the paragraph that puts the statemnt in context

An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[20] The Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention applies in the territories captured by Israel in 1967, including Gaza. Israel does not accept that the convention formally applies in the occupied territories, arguing that the conventions refer to occupied state sovereign territories. It has said that it will be bound by their "humanitarian provisions".[20] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[65][66]

So you were wrong about Israel not signing th GC and wrong about the law...

Thanks for playing "who wants to make an irrelevant comment" You win the talking taoster...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isreal and Hammas are engaged in a armed conflict. The blockade and Isreal's boarding of the ships is perfectly legimate under the law of the sea. The only parties that did anything wrong are the faux activist thugs on the boat who initiated the violance against the solidiers.

Only after they were attacked however. Up until that point they were peacefully steaming into Gaza.

Isreal is entitled to blockade ALL ships because of the war. The only thing that it can't do is block the ports of groups not involved in the conflict (read the link i provided).

What war? I thought this was just an armed conflict. Wars are usually fought between countries and given there's only one sovereign state in this one...

Here is another analogy consider: logging protesters. These people will stage protests by blocking roads. They get media attention but eventually the police are entitled to arrest them. Peaceful protesters may force to police to physically carry them from the road but they will not resist the police. Violent protesters resist arrest and attempt to injure police. An anti-logging protestor that hit a police officer with a metal bar would likely be shot and no one would shed a tear. Why is this incident an different?

Logging protesters are in conflict with logging companies with an authority in between that both have to answer to.

This incident took place between two antagonists with no intervening authority that either have to answer to.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

eyeball, on 04 June 2010 - 11:14 AM, said:

Neither side.

Yes I said neither side.

I never said any of this however.

Like I said before, when someone trots out the GC ...they inevitably cite the wrong GC.

First off, the articles you cite are about the responsibilities of an occupying power. That has nothing to to with naval power.

Secondly, you omitted the rest of the paragraph that puts the statemnt in context

Quote

An occupying power is obliged to follow the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[20] The Security Council held in 1979 that the Fourth Convention applies in the territories captured by Israel in 1967, including Gaza. Israel does not accept that the convention formally applies in the occupied territories, arguing that the conventions refer to occupied state sovereign territories. It has said that it will be bound by their "humanitarian provisions".[20] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[65][66]

So you were wrong about Israel not signing th GC and wrong about the law...

Thanks for playing "who wants to make an irrelevant comment" You win the talking taoster...

Exactly who are you talking to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only after they were attacked however. Up until that point they were peacefully steaming into Gaza.
They have been in armed conflict since Hammas started shooting rockets into Isreal. That is why the blockade is in place and Isreal is entitled to enforce it.
Wars are usually fought between countries and given there's only one sovereign state in this one.
Call it a civil war. Same rules apply.
This incident took place between two antagonists with no intervening authority that either have to answer to.
So what? The example of loggers illustrates how peaceful protest works and what happens if peaceful protestors resort to violance. 5 ships were boarded with incident. Only one ship had the thugs that decided to start a fight. They are once who are responsible. Edited by Riverwind
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...