Romy

That's if you ignore the fact that Israel also requests the ships not to enter it's territorial waters. And the reponse was that this request will be ignored.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village. There we go over simplifying things again. You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday. I said most Arabs. Why, are you a bigot and think 51% of Arabs are terrorists? You seem to be the bigot. Rony in no where said 51% of Arabs are terrorists, and the argument isn't aimed at that. Yet, many Arabs are not peaceful. Israel had no choice, again, to invade. It was either that or just sit there and let them shoot at us. Well she did say saying most Arabs was over simplifying. Please inform how I'm being a bigot by saying Arabs are peaceful? That's horrible right? And the Arabs that do attack they shoot missiles from the backs of camels[/comedy], quite threatening seeing as how they never hit their target. You can report that Joe fires a gun 200 times a day in New Jersey, making for a total of 40000 shots a year. What I didn't tell you is Joe has never shot someone. I meant that saying most Arabs want peace in this context is over simplifying because it points at some evil sub-conspiracy of once side being innocent, and the other a pure aggressor.

This is completely illogical. Actually *entering* Israel's territorial waters *might* have made this legal. Attacking the ship because you think they *might* enter your waters is not. I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this. They never attacked anyone that did not attack them. You're the one who keeps judging over simplistic comments, you should point your judgement at yourself. Israel attacked a ship that did not attack them, and they did it in international waters, so the ships refusal to give in to Israel's requests does not make Israel's actions legal. It possibly is when the requests are not to enter Israel's territorial waters, and claiming to ignore it. You didn't understand it properly. I understood it perfectly. You're backpedalling. I never, ever thought a search was not necessary. That would make no sense. You did not understand it properly. This comment is not only factually wrong, it is insulting to people who really have been lynched. Very offensive, and shows just how completely lacking you are in even a shred of objectivity. Other than calling it wrong, do you have anything to support that claim? Because I have what supports the opposite. If you actually knew what lynching meant, you wouldn't be making such embarrassing comments. Hint: It involves rope and premeditated murder of complete innocents. Nothing to do with this situation. Over the years lynch has gotten sub definitions in the form of slang. Today, lynching does not always mean murder, etc.

See except most Arabs, believe it or not, are peaceful and decide to starve and die instead, or like my friends flee the country while the Isareli Military forcefully acquired their village. There we go over simplifying things again. You're right, no rockets were ever launched at Israeli citizens. No innocent lives were taken on Israel's side. Israel did not discharge a rocket launcher just yesterday.

Explain? I could best explain by giving you instructions. Go find three to four men to hit you with iron rods and clubs or chairs, etc. Now have your friends get the same treatment, and make sure most of you have a gun. Now act.

This is completely illogical. Actually *entering* Israel's territorial waters *might* have made this legal. Attacking the ship because you think they *might* enter your waters is not. I don't understand why you are incapable of understanding this. They never attacked anyone that did not attack them. You're the one who keeps judging over simplistic comments, you should point your judgement at yourself. You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight. I did not. Post #110 of this very thread: "I can again point out what I pointed out up this post, and in the past, just so you could again say they had other choices. Technically speaking, they did." You didn't understand it properly. I was pointing out they had options other than doing it on international waters, not other than searching the ships at all. This comment is not only factually wrong, it is insulting to people who really have been lynched. Very offensive, and shows just how completely lacking you are in even a shred of objectivity. Other than calling it wrong, do you have anything to support that claim? Because I have what supports the opposite.

Oh, trust me, this whole flotilla idea's main purpose was to create awareness. And a fine job they did. If it really was about the humanitarian aid, I assure you the Israeli government would've had no problem taking it there in person, or letting a third party take it there, through organized communication and transportation.

No, these people were killed after lynching the soldiers. So... two Israeli soldiers were wounded (from what I have read)... Israeli forces responded by killing as many as 20 people... because they were afraid that ships that were proven to have been delivering humanitarian supplies... etc. So really it's a [bleep]ed up situation but the ultimate problem is that Israel is blockading the Gaza Strip and starving innocent people. There were about 3-4 men over each soldier. Did you watch the videos I posted? When you get two clubs in the head and have a gun, you don't think twice.

No it doesn't, please don't think that. Furthermore, if the crew of the Marmara believed that force was being used against them without legal justification (and in this case force could be defined as armed soldiers descending via helicopter) then legally they're entitled to defend themselves. What do you base that on?

No, these people were killed after lynching the soldiers.

It wasn't. Not only was it illegal, it was immoral. And they knew it, and they did it anyway. Why? Because they wanted to stop the ship, and so they stopped the ship, and they really don't care about what anyone thinks or if anyone gets hurt. That's what Israel is turning into. Again, the illegality of the issue is being questioned, since the Marmara clearly decided to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters. You admitted that they had other options aside from boarding the ship. Would be nice if you could keep your own position straight. I did not.

They were, I already told you...

I'm better than you because that takes special skills. ;) (and no, I don't generally get upset over /fg/, lol)

I'm better than you because you think being a chauvinist makes you better.

I'm better than you because you're a chauvinist.

I'm better than you because females rule this world. ;)

Agreed. i recall arguing with romy once before and she claimed they don't get much from us. If that is so then they should do fine without us. I remember that covnversation. I didn't say Israel didn't get much from the US, I said the US never physically helped through wars. The USA's support for Israel IS important.

Ahh, there we go again. ;) How exactly do you come around to distorting this so that the *Israelis* are the victims? LOL. The first act of aggression was taken by the Israeli soldiers. They do not get to claim self-defence. You're the one who judged magekillr for being one sided. It wasn't cut and dry. As I had mentioned, the illegality of Israel's actions is questioned because of the Marmara clearly saying it will ignore the IDF's instructions not to enter Israel's territorial waters. That means Israel could legally use proportional force. If the force used is justified, then yes, the soldiers are very much victims. Not the only victims, but victims nonetheless. You mean like claiming that Israel can do whatever it wants if it gets skeered, or repeating "searching the ships was obligatory" a dozen times even after you've admitted that it wasn't? I never admitted a search wasn't obligatory, I admitted it could, and possibly should've been done later, not that it shouldn't have at all. @321Ownage- Yes, warnings were sent multiple times. The message the IDF rceived back is that these warnings are to be ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ThnBlBxxA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 Not that cut and dry.

I'm better than you because your real name is actually TBZ.

That's over simplistic. What about using a weapon for self defence after you were attacked with a knife? Is that illegal? It's not that cut and dry. Over simplifying things isn't usually a good thing when it comes to legality.

I don't quite recall, lol. I watched it on the news a few hours ago, but the weather is frying my head. Anyway, it had something to do with article 51 of the UNC. Either way, the Marmara's clear inacceptance of the Israeli requests not to enter it's territorial waters puts doubt to the illegality of Israel's actions.

Since a thread for this already exists here, I'm going to lock this one for being posted one minute later. :P

The illegality of Israel's actions is now questioned. After the Marmara clearly showed that it's going to ignore Israel's requests not to enter it's territorial waters, Israel had the right to begin proportional use of force. The only problem with that definition, is "proportional", some take it this way, some that way.

I'm better than you because I ate an orange.