Romy

Lol, my friend's FB page was open! I almost released a "CONSPIRACY!!!" shout IRL. Lol.

You'd have to get the event again.

GR

Uhh... Poland? And I gave that example on the basis of a relatively new country, but really, the majority of countries are based on either an ethnic group, an ideology, or both. USA is one of the only countries to be formed only around an ideology. What group of people formed Poland then? Many countries are based on something but were not formed on exactly that. Spain is largely Catholic, but it was not formed as a home for Catholics. An ethnic group isn't necessarily also a religion. Poland, France, Germany, Eygept, Israel, Mexico, all of those revolve around an ethnic group, not an ideology. Although, Israel fits both. Ethnic groups form in areas though... that's why there is no ethnic Asian country in central Europe.. So because these countries are largely an ethnic group they were not made for that ethnic group. Again we REALLY should get back on topic, I'm not going to post anything else unless it has to deal with he incident or if there is an incident with the Irish ship which is approaching the blockade. But Poland forceably got it's land from Germany. Anyway, you're right, we should be getting on topic. It seems the Rachel Corrie safely reached the Ashdod shore. No violence or anything. (Although, there were rumors from inside the ship, disproved minutes later, that soldiers boarded the ship much earlier. In addition, it refused to turn to Ashdod 4 times.)

Uhh... Poland? And I gave that example on the basis of a relatively new country, but really, the majority of countries are based on either an ethnic group, an ideology, or both. USA is one of the only countries to be formed only around an ideology. What group of people formed Poland then? Many countries are based on something but were not formed on exactly that. Spain is largely Catholic, but it was not formed as a home for Catholics. An ethnic group isn't necessarily also a religion. Poland, France, Germany, Eygept, Israel, Mexico, all of those revolve around an ethnic group, not an ideology. Although, Israel fits both.

Uhh... Poland? And I gave that example on the basis of a relatively new country, but really, the majority of countries are based on either an ethnic group, an ideology, or both. USA is one of the only countries to be formed only around an ideology.

If anyone's interested in the recording of the conversation between the Mavi Marmara and the Israeli Navy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ

7/10

You do realize that they are completely made in jest? He's quite obviously my friend if we go FFA bosshunting together, it's just a bit of a running joke, no personal attacks or seriously snide comments have been made to anyone at all :P It's allllll good! I'm afraid that still counts as spam. Whether he is or isn't your friend, it should stop.

Guys, calm down with personal attacks and snide comments. These are not welcome here at all.

Respect is not a right, and it is not freely given -- it must be earned. The thing is, you do not give it to anyone that does not share your opinion, regardless of who they are. Instead of challenging their arguments, you belittle them and their opinions, and then claim they're just plainly wrong -- because you don't believe any opinion other than your own can be valid. You compare a viewpoint that supports extreme violence under any cause, and would hurt it's own people for that cause, to a viewpoint that supports security (of both Israelis and Palestinians) as a first priority? And even if that wasn't true, I do not go around attacking anyone that doesn't share my opinion, even if I disagree with them on the most extreme level. I try my best at ignoring who is saying what, and referring to WHAT they say. But it's hard when the other side doesn't do that. If you pay attention to all that's been written on this thread, you'll notice I cut out of quotes most of the content-less bashing against me when I addressed your points, simply because I don't want to go to personal lines. What if large amounts of weapons were on these ships? Or worse, what if more foltillas will be sent with a "peaceful" title, that actualy WILL contain weapons? These weapons will cost a lot more than 9 lives. And not only lives, but freedom and threat from a terror organization. I do not degrade the importance of 9 lives, or even only 1, but I still maintain security is a priority. I know you disagree, and you're entitled to that, and you also have the right to challenge my points, but to go as far as trying to engage in discounting a person over their views. That's just cheap. That was again done during Olmert's term, and I again do not support any part of that list that isn't justified, and have tried to change it myself, and hoping to eventually achieve that. Again you go claiming false arguments.

You see, there you go spinning things around in order to justify a false argument. I repeatedly said, doing that in international waters wasn't a good idea. I repeadtedly said, there were other options (to make it clear, because last time you didn't understand it, other options that STILL involve a search), I repeatedly said, I can still understand why it was done the way it was done. I repeatedly said, a search was obligatory, not an attack (even though you keep spinning it around). I repeatedly said, the blockade is about security, despite some dumb choices that I'm hoping will be re-evaluated. I repeatedly said, security is a priority. I repeatedly said, those weapons that yes, only "might" have been on the ship, would've been used both against Israeli citizens, and guess what? Palestinians too! So you can go ahead and accuse me for commiting a crime only because I don't share your opinions. And you can also go ahead and spin what I say endlessly (although, really, that only hurts your crediblity), and I'll continue to stand for what I believe in, even if you, some guy from the internet, do not believe I'm capable of thinking just because we're not on the same page. You accuse me and Gabe for being immature? As an adult, the first thing I'd expect, is simple respect. You have no respect for anyone who doesn't believe in what you do, and not only that, but you also attack them personally instead of the ideas they present. So I applaud you, for being the first debater ever to do that efficiently, cut parts of what they say, blow them up, add some things that help you support your ideas, throw in some negative adjectives by the kilo, and then spew it all inside a post, because attacking a person is much easier than their ideas.

Turkey permitted the Marmara to fly under its flag. Turkey knew that the IHH (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation) had organized the Flotilla, and supports the genocidal terrorist organization Hamas, several Jihadist organizations in Bosnia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere, and has ties with Al Qaeda.

Same as the post above. The analogy does not work here, because Israel can claim for self defence, for knowing where it was heading, and not knowing what it carries. It's a tricky situation, and I'm not saying it's definitely legal. But neither that it's definitely illegal.

I'm afraid that analogy doesn't work here, because self-defence CAN be claimed, because Israel did not know what was on the ship, and did know where it was heading.

I condmned terms to discussion, not terms within discussion. There's a very big difference here. It's not even very big, it's huge and unbelieveably not the same. The illegality is questioned. No romy we went that road with illegality. I asked people to look it up. 24 miles is the limit and from what I heard it was at least 40. The mere fact that the Marmara clearly ignored Israel's intructions not to enter it's territorial waters, and it's clear intention to do so, is what puts the case to question.

I condmned terms to discussion, not terms within discussion. There's a very big difference here. It's not even very big, it's huge and unbelievably not the same. The illegality is questioned.

Then why are so many things banned from Gaza that have nothing to do with security? With that I agree. Pure stupidity. It's stupidity in that it doesn't work, but it's not by accident. It's being done deliberately. It was done during Olmert's term. If a serious re-evaluation began today, that could change. You "maintain" lots of things. Unfortunately, nearly all of them are self-serving, or factually incorrect parroted propaganda. So what, you now claim the bloackade isn't at all about security? Israel is *about* security? What does that mean? That it's goal is it's security? It means that you put yourselves first and only care about peace if it can be obtained on your own terms -- which means it will never happen at all. It means you consider 9 civilian lives so unimportant that you rationalize attacking ships when it was completely unnecessary. As long as they do it on Israel's terms. And they say Israel can have peace on their terms. And that's why there is no peace -- because both groups are led by selfish, self-destructive, egotistical morons who care only about knocking the other guy down and complaining about how they have been wronged, than they do about moving past the idiocy and working towards peace. Yes, Israel has terms. What do you want, a "let's supply all their wishes so we could get a lousy chance at negotiation" approach? This is laughably silly. Everything Netanyahu has done shows he couldn't care less about peace. And what did Netanyahu do? Disagree to stop building in Jerusalem? That's Israel's capital city, building there is as legitimate as building in Tel-Aviv, if not more. The only thing I disagree with, is his not stopping the illegal settlements. I cannot justify it, and largely disagree with it. But I can understand where he's coming from, many of the people who voted for him don't want to stop the illegal settlements. And [bleep], that annoys the hell out of me. But Netanyahu will make peace with anyone genuinely interested. You can count on that. Oh, I'm tired of this sentence. Too bad. It's the truth. They had other options, they did not have to storm those ships. You can deny this FACT as often as you want, but it will not go away. Stop spinning things around. I didn't say an attack was obligatory, I said a search was obligatory. False, as a simple matter of fact. Other options were available. They attacked the ships not because it was necessary, but because they wanted to. Because that's what Israel has become these days, unfortunately, thanks to its right-wing leaders and credulous supporters who will go along with any idiotic, immoral or even outright evil act if some government hack stands up and screams "Security! Security!" Exactly the same as happens in my country these days. And exactly the same reason why we too are no longer seen as the good guys -- because lately, much of the time, we unfortunately aren't. Neither are you. Same as above. Stop spinning things around. Lol, I'm a very judgemental person, that does not agree to everything presented to me, and can criticize when I feel it's correct.

Then why are so many things banned from Gaza that have nothing to do with security? With that I agree. Pure stupidity. As a person who cares about politics, I tried to lead to re-evaluation of the list, and hopefully at some point it will happen. However, I still maintain the blockade is a securiy necessity, and is required. It IS about security. No, Israel *used* to be after peace. Now it is after "security", thanks to people like you. The two are not the same. Israel is *about* security? What does that mean? That it's goal is it's security? Either way, security is a very important field in Israel. Important enough to require searches over any ship that reaches Gaza. And yes, anyone who is genuinely interested in peace with Israel, will definitely get it. Even if some of you don't trust the current government's intentions, heck even if it isn't after peace (which I disagree with, but meh), it couldn't let itself be shown as a government who does not seek peace, and will go as far as making peace, even if it doesn't want to. Blockading weapons, maybe. The rest? Not even close to a necessity. Attacking those ships was likewise not necessary for security reasons. This much has been proven beyond any reasonable counterargument. It contained no weapons of any significance, and was miles off shore. Oh, I'm tired of this sentence. A search was obligatory. Israel cannot afford any risks when it comes to that. No matter what, those ships should've been searched, period.

The problem is that the 15,000 tons, while sounding like a huge amount, is only around a quarter of the pre-2005 levels and this has severely effected the living conditions of the 1.5M inhabitants of Gaza. If Israel insists on keeping the blockade in place then there at least has to be some way found to severely increase the levels of supply to Gaza without putting security at risk. That would increase Israel's standing and would be a big propaganda coup for Israel against Hamas. The problem with the current measures are that while they may reduce the levels of weaponry getting into Gaza, it plays into the hands of Hamas because it helps them recruit from another generation of dissilusioned young Palestinians. By no means would removing (or atleast lessening) the blockade solve all the regions problems but it would be a positive step provided it could be made to work satisfactorily for both sides (Israel and the people of Gaza) That's Netanyahu's speech again, saying Israel agrees to, and agreed to, deliever any humanitarian aid that anyone wants to send: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUG12kU8-jE&feature=player_embedded#! This all flotilla idea wasn't about the aid, it was about provocation. If it really was about aid, they'd have no problem with letting Israel deliever it on it's own, or through Ashdod, etc. [/hide] I know they were offered to go to Ashdod in this case and I know what Israel has said on this matter but I'm talking about the blockade more generally. The problem is that right now there still aren't enough supplies getting through at the moment, hopefully in light of Netanyahu's speach (which I'll take time to listen to later) the numbers will increase significantly enough to improve things for everyone. Hopefully, this will also lead to the end of arbitrary confiscation of aid and supplies that has happened at times as well (again, I'll listen to the speach later to see if this is included). Again, I'm not commenting on the particulars of this specific instance as I haven't had enough time in the last few days to keep up with it and I don't want to debate using old info. Unlike Qeltar's post, this IS about security. Israel is not trying to punish anyone, and despite the probably very disrespecting comments I'll get for saying this: Israel is after peace. Israel tries and tried to negotiate things. Anyone who wanted to make peace with Israel (Eygept, Jordan) achieved it, despite right-wingish governments. Secutiy is a priority for any country. In Israel, it's 10 times as important, if not more. The blockade is a necessity.

The problem is that the 15,000 tons, while sounding like a huge amount, is only around a quarter of the pre-2005 levels and this has severely effected the living conditions of the 1.5M inhabitants of Gaza. If Israel insists on keeping the blockade in place then there at least has to be some way found to severely increase the levels of supply to Gaza without putting security at risk. That would increase Israel's standing and would be a big propaganda coup for Israel against Hamas. The problem with the current measures are that while they may reduce the levels of weaponry getting into Gaza, it plays into the hands of Hamas because it helps them recruit from another generation of dissilusioned young Palestinians. By no means would removing (or atleast lessening) the blockade solve all the regions problems but it would be a positive step provided it could be made to work satisfactorily for both sides (Israel and the people of Gaza) That's Netanyahu's speech again, saying Israel agrees to, and agreed to, deliever any humanitarian aid that anyone wants to send: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUG12kU8-jE&feature=player_embedded#! This all flotilla idea wasn't about the aid, it was about provocation. If it really was about aid, they'd have no problem with letting Israel deliever it on it's own, or through Ashdod, etc.

I'm better than you because my post has more lines in it. ^ I wasn't upset over OT. You're entitled to have whatever opinion that you do. ;)

If anyone's interested: http://www.flotillafacts.com/ Some relevant facts (relevant to the discussion going here, that is) from there: * Israel transfers about 15,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid every week to the people of Gaza. * Israel offered the ship to dock in Ashdod port and they would transfer the aid to Gaza. This offer was made again and again - they refused. * Israel has said that it will deliver any humanitarian aid that was in the boats to Gaza, as it does daily. * Israel maintains a maritime blockade to ensure that weapons are not brought in by Hamas to use in attacks against Israel. * "We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us, they are going to have to forcefully stop us," said one of the flotilla’s organizers. * In the past, terrorist sympathizers have used aid deliveries to smuggle items like potassium nitrate in sugar sacks and used it to make bombs. Israel cannot afford to let goods get to Hamas unchecked. * This was meant to provoke – it was funded and organized by a Turkish Islamist organization (IHH) that has links to fundamentalist jihadi groups. The ship was flying under the Turkish flag. * The Israeli government maintains that allowing the illegal flotilla to reach Hamas would have opened a corridor of smuggling of weapons to Gaza and resulting in civilian deaths. * Turkey permitted the Marmara to fly under its flag. Turkey knew that the IHH (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation) had organized the Flotilla, and supports the genocidal terrorist organization Hamas, several Jihadist organizations in Bosina, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere, and has ties with Al Qaeda. But Turkey did not prevent the Flotilla from disembarking and attacking Israel’s sovereign right to protect itself from terrorists attempting to enter Gaza. Now Turkey is condemning Israel for the unfortunate casualties, and is leading the charge to condemn Israel at the U.N. It is Turkey that should be condemned by the United Nations for its role in this brutal trap set for Israelis. * Hamas is responsible for the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis. Their racist charter calls for Islamic domination; their stance is unchanged and they repress any Palestinians that try and counter their regime. * Any police force in the world would respond to aggression; the provocation is the reason for this regrettable outcome. No country would allow illegal entry of any vessel into their waters without a security check. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's Netanyahu's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUG12kU8-jE&feature=player_embedded#!

Congratulations you guys. ;)! Welcome to the team! :thumbsup:

Agreed. It clearly isn't their jurisdiction. This goes for any country, but seeing as how Israel is the country in question they are at fault. The people on boat were acting in rightful defense as Israel was acting illegally. The illegality is not certain though.