israeli soldiers kill 9 in international waters

[magekillr]

I'm not sure that's a fair and/or unbiased source.

 

Never question whether something does or does not have a bias. It is his blog, there will be bias; a translation is not bias. I implore you, read the paper and translate it yourself.

 

 

Second, Max's questioning of the IDF is what got them to change their headline regarding the flotilla's alleged al Qaeda ties. They originally had this:

 

 

He put them under scrutiny. This is what they changed it to:

 

 

The worst thing a news source can do is claim that it's "Fair and Balanced." No news source is. All sources have bias. You don't question their bias. You question their facts. Now do tell, what is factually incorrect here? I don't question the IDF because of their bias, I question them because of their history.

[Alg]

I did edit something in, though.

"This is one of those issues where posting only one side of the story is bound to miss many of the most important details."

 

For this whole thing I'm questioning the sources. A choice to only look at some facts can make all the difference. And that's what I'm questioning about the source. In regards to politics, there are always two or more sides, and the bias is just a choice of which side to hail as fact.

 

This is how I'm learning about the issue though :lol:

May or may not respond tomorrow. Will watch this topic so I don't miss anything...

[The_Gabe]

I'm not very good with the multiple quote system, so I'm just going to go the old fashion way

 

1)Lets face the facts here, the ship was sent warnings and was needed to be searched, it ignored them. Soldiers went in with paintball guns to use as weapons as crowd control. They were immediately attacked. 9 people did end up dieing, but it is better than the fact the weapons could have been on the ship and many more than 9 people could have died.

 

2)Look, the ship did not respond to the warnings. The Israeli government offered plenty of times to dock the ship in Ash-dud and delever the supplies to the Gaza strip. Those offers were rejected. What makes you think, after ignoring the messeges, that the ship WOULD dock at Ash-dud?

 

3) I'm not as dumb as you think I am, I am very well aware that a lot of people lack logic, however, most terrorists are extremists, and extremists of this nature seem to lack logic and reasoning, even more so than others.

 

4)Lowering ourselves to the enemy's levels? Are you kidding me? The soldiers were ATTACKED! Do you know the simple fact that Israel has never once declared war against others, but others have been attacking it since the country's independence? Immoral levels of the enemy is to acknowledge that they are not human beings, and they do not deserve to exist. That's not the case.

 

5)Lets get real here. Do you 100% know it was Israel's fault? From the looks of things, that's still debated. You are not the one who determines if it is or is not Israel's fault. The prime minister gave a speech why it was the right thing to do, even if it was handled badly, and I agree with him. Not because he's the prime minister of Israel, but because it made since. The situation was handled in a poor way, but again, there is very little else that could have been done.

[Matok]

As expected:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/under-u-s-pressure-netanyahu-may-ease-gaza-blockade-1.294038

[The_Gabe]

As expected:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/under-u-s-pressure-netanyahu-may-ease-gaza-blockade-1.294038

 

Barack Obama can be cut out of the picture, he has not done anything so far during his presidency and he is not a good leader. There may come good in easing on the blockade, but I don't support it currently.

[magekillr]

As expected:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/under-u-s-pressure-netanyahu-may-ease-gaza-blockade-1.294038

 

Barack Obama can be cut out of the picture, he has not done anything so far during his presidency and he is not a good leader. There may come good in easing on the blockade, but I don't support it currently.

 

Buahaha. Ok, I haven't supported Obama since March in the primaries (although I did vote for him in the general, I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary), but only a blinded partisan could claim that he hasn't done anything during his presidency. He's already done so much that history will easily place him in the top 10 presidencies of all time.

 

Not to get sidetracked, but what a ridiculous statement to make. And what's with this "as expected" nonsense? The US is alone here on this issue, like always. Easing the blockade means nothing, and pressure from the US means nothing without anything substantive to apply the pressure. The US has added pressure on settlements since they have started (well before George Bush the first) and nothing's been done. Get real.

[The_Gabe]

As expected:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/under-u-s-pressure-netanyahu-may-ease-gaza-blockade-1.294038

 

Barack Obama can be cut out of the picture, he has not done anything so far during his presidency and he is not a good leader. There may come good in easing on the blockade, but I don't support it currently.

 

Buahaha. Ok, I haven't supported Obama since March in the primaries (although I did vote for him in the general, I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary), but only a blinded partisan could claim that he hasn't done anything during his presidency. He's already done so much that history will easily place him in the top 10 presidencies of all time.

 

Not to get sidetracked, but what a ridiculous statement to make. And what's with this "as expected" nonsense? The US is alone here on this issue, like always. Easing the blockade means nothing, and pressure from the US means nothing without anything substantive to apply the pressure. The US has added pressure on settlements since they have started (well before George Bush the first) and nothing's been done. Get real.

 

I know I am going off topic, but please tell me what Obama has done.

[ikraz66]

I think that I don't really have a right to form an opinion about who is right and who is wrong in this subject, and pretty much neither does anyone else here. The information is just too sparse and one sided, and I haven't read much of it yet. I will say that it seems that the responsibility for these 9 deaths should lie in those directly responsible and not in Israel as a whole or in the government.

 

I'm not very good with the multiple quote system, so I'm just going to go the old fashion way

 

1)Lets face the facts here, the ship was sent warnings and was needed to be searched, it ignored them. Soldiers went in with paintball guns to use as weapons as crowd control. They were immediately attacked. 9 people did end up dieing, but it is better than the fact the weapons could have been on the ship and many more than 9 people could have died.

 

The IDF may have had a right to search the ship, but not in INTERNATIONAL waters. They had no jurisdiction there and therefore it broke international law. This wouldn't be so controversial if it happened in Israeli territory.

 

 

3) I'm not as dumb as you think I am, I am very well aware that a lot of people lack logic, however, most terrorists are extremists, and extremists of this nature seem to lack logic and reasoning, even more so than others.

 

He said young and naive, not dumb. I don't think extremists lack logic any more than anyone else. However, all logic is based on beliefs, which cannot be proven logically. This is why logic can be used to prove basically anything.

 

4)Lowering ourselves to the enemy's levels? Are you kidding me? The soldiers were ATTACKED! Do you know the simple fact that Israel has never once declared war against others, but others have been attacking it since the country's independence? Immoral levels of the enemy is to acknowledge that they are not human beings, and they do not deserve to exist. That's not the case.

 

like it's been said before, it's not entirely clear who provoked who first. Israeli soldiers approached the flotilla in international waters, and the "humanitarians" ignored them. They may have attacked first because they felt backed against a corner.

 

5)Lets get real here. Do you 100% know it was Israel's fault? From the looks of things, that's still debated. You are not the one who determines if it is or is not Israel's fault. The prime minister gave a speech why it was the right thing to do, even if it was handled badly, and I agree with him. Not because he's the prime minister of Israel, but because it made since. The situation was handled in a poor way, but again, there is very little else that could have been done.

 

I don't think anyone is 100% sure whose fault it was, but I think both sides deserve some of the blame.

 

I didn't read the Prime Minister's speach, but if it was handled badly, then it probably WASN'T the right thing to do. As far as I'm concerned, if they didn't do everything in their power to prevent violence and death, it goes against Jewish values. Not to mention, government enforced poverty, which the blockade basically is, DEFINITELY goes against Jewish values.

 

 

I know I am going off topic, but please tell me what Obama has done.

How about healthcare reform, and preventing another great depression.

 

Argue all you want, the old healthcare system isn't sustainable in the long run, and doesn't work for people who can't afford insurance at all. And we WOULD be in a massive depression if banks hadn't been bailed out. Obama took a massive risk by doing that, and we will be paying the price for years to come thanks to the debt, but it beats the alternative.

[Romy]

Yes, but it doesn't matter. Because she actually believes the spoon-fed tripe from her government that Israel's security is so important that international law doesn't matter. Even to the point of killing people when it wasn't necessary -- the mere "possibility" that there "might" have been "something" bad on the ships justifies 9 people dying and dozens being wounded, to these right-wing types.

 

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.

[Matok]

..There may come good in easing on the blockade, but I don't support it currently.

First we'll have to see exactly which steps ,if any, will be made

Second, in the current political global atmosphere- after Dubai & Marmara, some steps must be made to receover at least some of the world sympathy for us (not that we build on it).

Third, i do support easing the blockade. after 3 years we can say for sure that beside turning the all world against us nothing came out of it.

I am not saying the blockade should be removed completly, the Hamas is a terror organization and continues to pose big threat to any future agreement. We should continue our political and militaristic struggle against them if we dont want missiles start flying again onto our cities and more buses explosions in the center of TLV.

But keeping the 1.5 milions there in continuous poverty, people who will have to be included in any agreement that will hopefully be made one day...i think they got the message ..

I am a total supporter of the saying that the worst enemy is the one that got nothing to loose...

 

 

I will say that it seems that the responsibility for these 9 deaths should lie in those directly responsible and not in Israel as a whole or in the government.

Are you talking about the soldiers? you cant be serious here..those kids were there following our goverment orders, if you realy want to blame someone blame it on our goverment.

[magekillr]

I know I am going off topic, but please tell me what Obama has done.

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/in-the-works/

 

Health care, Lily Ledbetter (more equal rights for women), DADT is on its way out, prevented another great Depression with his handling of the crisis through the stimulus and bailout, Iraq has its lowest troop levels since ever and they're phasing out more, nuclear arms deal with Russia, he's about to pass financial reform, eased the embargo on Cuba for Cuban families, been the most transparent president in history (not saying much, though), passed student loan reform, hate crimes legislation, passed the largest tax breaks for the middle class in history (yes, really), removed the stem cell research ban. Not to mention that he's got immigration reform and climate change legislation just waiting to push through, and since the House has already passed its climate bill, the Senate just has to pass theirs. He'd have Gitmo closed already if Congress authorized the funding.

 

Oh, and all of this without any Republican support despite incorporating many of their ideas (the health care bill was a Republican bill).

 

His Congress has accomplished more substantive things than anyone since LBJ, and he'll probably surpass that. The only people who haven't been paying attention are the ones tearing him down.

 

nd we will be paying the price for years to come thanks to the debt, but it beats the alternative.

 

Actually the bailout will barely be a blip as it will be paid back; the stimulus will pay for itself through the spurs its created on the economy. What's caused this debt and deficit were the wars, the tax cuts for the rich, and the economic downturn.

 

Sorry for the offtopic.

 

But to keep it on topic, Foreign Policy.com (a site not that great for its analysis unless we're talking about Marc Lynch) has provided a useful list of what the blockade means for Gaza:

 

Electricity: The siege has led to a significant lack of power in the Gaza Strip. In 2006, Israel carried out an attack on Gaza's only power plant and never permitted the rebuilding to its pre-attack capacity (down to producing 80 megawatts maximum from 140 megawatts). According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA), the daily electricity deficit has increased since January of 2010 with the plant only able to operate one turbine producing only 30 megawatts compared to its previous average of 60-65 megawatts in 2009. The majority of houses have power cuts at least eight hours per day. Some have no electricity for long as 12 hours a day. The lack of electricity has led to reliance on generators, many of which have exploded from overwork, killing and maiming civilians. Oxfam reported that "[in 2009], a total of 75 Palestinians died from carbon monoxide gas poisoning or fires from generators, and 15 died and 27 people were injured in the first two months of this year."

 

Water: Israel has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system. Amnesty International reports that 90-95 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated and unfit for consumption. The United Nations even found that bottled water in Gaza contained contaminants, likely due to the plastic bottles recycled in dysfunctional factories. The lack of sufficient power for desalination and sewage facilities results in significant amounts of sewage seeping into Gaza's costal aquifer--the main source of water for the people of Gaza.

 

Industry: Prior to the siege, the industrial sector employed 20 percent of Gaza's labor force. One year after the siege began, the Palestinian Federation of Industries reported that "61% of the factories have completely closed down. 1% was forced to change their scope of work in order to meet their living expenses, 38% were partially closed (sometimes means they operate with less than 15% capacity)". A World Health Organization report from this year states: "In the Gaza Strip, private enterprise is practically at a standstill as a consequence of the blockade. Almost all (98%) industrial operations have been shut down. The construction sector, which before September 2000 provided 15% of all jobs, has effectively halted. Only 258 industrial establishments in Gaza were operational in 2009 compared with over 2400 in 2006. As a result, unemployment rates have soared to 42% (up from 32% before the blockade)."

 

Health: Gaza's health sector, dramatically overworked, was also significantly damaged by Operation Cast Lead. According to UN OCHA, infrastructure for 15 of 27 of Gaza's hospitals, 43 of 110 of its primary care facilities, and 29 of its 148 ambulances were damaged or destroyed during the war. Without rebuilding materials like cement and glass due to Israeli restrictions, the vast majority of the destroyed health infrastructure has not been rebuilt. Many medical procedures for advanced illnesses are not available in Gaza. 1103 individuals applied for permits to exit the Israeli-controlled Erez crossing for medical treatment in 2009. 21 percent of these permits were denied or delayed resulting in missed hospital appointments, and several have died waiting to leave Gaza for treatment.

 

Food: A 2010 World Health Organization report stated that "chronic malnutrition in the Gaza Strip has risen over the past few years and has now reached 10.2%. Micronutrient deficiencies among children and women have reached levels that are of concern." According to UN OCHA: "Over 60 percent of households are now food insecure, threatening the health and wellbeing of children, women and men. In this context, agriculture offers some practical solutions to a humanitarian problem. However, Israel's import and access restrictions continue to suffocate the agriculture sector and directly contribute to rising food insecurity. Of particular concern, farmers and fishers' lives are regularly put at risk, due to Israel's enforcement of its access restrictions. The fact that this coastal population now imports fish from Israel and through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border speaks to the absurdity of the situation." 72 percent of Gaza's fish profit comes from beyond the three nautical mile mark, but further restrictions by Israel's naval blockade prevents Gazans from fishing beyond that mark. Between 2008 and 2009 the fishing catch was down 47 percent.

 

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/03/what_exactly_is_the_blockade_of_gaza

 

Any civilians still supporting this blockade and I would question their sanity, or even their humanity.

[qeltar]

1)Lets face the facts here, the ship was sent warnings and was needed to be searched, it ignored them. Soldiers went in with paintball guns to use as weapons as crowd control. They were immediately attacked. 9 people did end up dieing, but it is better than the fact the weapons could have been on the ship and many more than 9 people could have died.

And here are the facts that you conveniently omitted:

 

- The ship was in international waters flying the flag of a NATO ally, so the Israelis had no right to send warnings or insist on searching it.

- They attacked the ship anyway, and as soon as they did, that made them the aggressors and responsible for what transpired as a result.

- They had OTHER OPTIONS that did not include the use of violence, but chose violence anyway.

 

2)Look, the ship did not respond to the warnings.

Yes, they did. They said "no". And so the Israelis attacked them.

 

3) I'm not as dumb as you think I am, I am very well aware that a lot of people lack logic, however, most terrorists are extremists, and extremists of this nature seem to lack logic and reasoning, even more so than others.

You're not dumb, but you don't appear to be very well-versed on this issue aside from repeating your side's position. I don't blame you, because you are very young, and to be honest I would probably have said pretty much the same things when I was your age. But you need to understand that in saying that it was okay for Israel to kill 9 activists on a ship because they wanted to search it, you come across as being as extremist and illogical as the bad elements on the other side.

 

4)Lowering ourselves to the enemy's levels? Are you kidding me? The soldiers were ATTACKED!

The soldiers were attacked because *they* attacked the ship.

 

Sending commandos to board a ship in international waters without authorization is an act of violence. It is intellectually dishonest to ignore the first violent act taken and focus only on the response.

 

Or, look at it another way. Suppose it were an Israeli ship that were 40 miles off the coast of an Arab state, and that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway -- would you say that the Arab commandos "were ATTACKED!"? Or would you say that the Israelis on the ship were defending themselves from an unauthorized boarding?

 

Be honest.

 

Do you know the simple fact that Israel has never once declared war against others, but others have been attacking it since the country's independence? Immoral levels of the enemy is to acknowledge that they are not human beings, and they do not deserve to exist. That's not the case.

I know the history of Israel very well -- probably better than you do, even though you live there.

 

And that's exactly WHY I am so damned pissed off. Because Israel's moral high ground is *essential* to its power, and to its support by Western powers and Jews in the diaspora. But now I see the government basically saying "We'll do what we want and to hell with everyone else", and I see people like romy and yourself justifying unnecessary deaths, and it really sets me off.

 

Acts like this flotilla attack are not worthy of Israel. They are the sorts of things that they complain about their enemies doing, and rightly so. Attacking a ship and killing people because you want to send a message is no better than firing rockets at cities or blowing up car bombs.

 

5)Lets get real here. Do you 100% know it was Israel's fault?

It is not entirely Israel's fault. First, the flotilla itself was a provocation. Second, as I've already said, once the commandos did board the ship, the activists should not have beaten them.

 

But Israel is responsible for the encounter becoming violent when it didn't need to be.

 

You are not the one who determines if it is or is not Israel's fault. The prime minister gave a speech why it was the right thing to do, even if it was handled badly, and I agree with him. Not because he's the prime minister of Israel, but because it made since. The situation was handled in a poor way, but again, there is very little else that could have been done.

Actually, I *am* the one who determines that it was Israel's fault, at least as far as I am concerned. Everyone gets to make their own judgments about what happened, based on the evidence.

 

Again, facts are not opinions are not facts. If it is your opinion that this was the best way for them to handle this, then fine, I disagree but that is your right to feel that way. However, claiming "there is very little else that could have been done" is a factual claim, and is WRONG. There were many, MANY other options, and denying that they exist is not reasonable.

 

 

You accuse me and Gabe for being immature? As an adult, the first thing I'd expect, is simple respect.

Respect is not a right, and it is not freely given -- it must be earned.

 

Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I'm sure you don't respect the viewpoint of Hamas extremists that Israel as a nation should cease to exist. Neither do I.

 

I similarly do not respect viewpoints that put human life below the political need to send a message to political activists. Because that's all this situation boils down to: Israel wanted to send a message to the "Freedom Flotilla", and engaged in unnecessary violence to do so, costing human lives for no valid reason. And you and gabe defend it.

 

I do not respect people who support unjust causes, like keeping 1,500,000 people living in squalor in a pointless attempt to get them to change their government.

 

In addition, I cannot respect people who do not argue rationally and honestly, who keep repeating points that have been refuted, who parrot government propaganda as if it were fact, and who think that their own needs and wants trump everyone else's.

[Romy]

You accuse me and Gabe for being immature? As an adult, the first thing I'd expect, is simple respect.

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.

 

Not all viewpoints are worthy of respect. I'm sure you don't respect the viewpoint of Hamas extremists that Israel as a nation should cease to exist. Neither do I.

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.

 

I similarly do not respect viewpoints that put human life below the political need to send a message to political activists. Because that's all this situation boils down to: Israel wanted to send a message to the "Freedom Flotilla", and engaged in unnecessary violence to do so, costing human lives for no valid reason. And you and gabe defend it.

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.

 

I do not respect people who support unjust causes, like keeping 1,500,000 people living in squalor in a pointless attempt to get them to change their government.

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.

[Romy]

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

[The_Gabe]

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

 

Thanks for that Rony. Now it justifies another part of the puzzle.

 

Qeltar, answer this question for me. There were 6 ships coming, 5 of them were searched with no problems, why was the 6th so differently?

[assassin_696]

Qeltar, answer this question for me. There were 6 ships coming, 5 of them were searched with no problems, why was the 6th so differently?

 

You tend not to have too many problems when you use tear gas, tasers and rubber bullets against humanitarian activists.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes

 

At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offer any resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.

 

And unfortunately anti-semitism still doesn't justify breaking the law.

[The_Gabe]

Qeltar, answer this question for me. There were 6 ships coming, 5 of them were searched with no problems, why was the 6th so differently?

 

You tend not to have too many problems when you use tear gas, tasers and rubber bullets against humanitarian activists.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes

 

At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offer any resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.

 

And unfortunately anti-semitism still doesn't justify breaking the law.

 

By the sound of the radio transmission, do you have any idea how dangerous it could have been to let the ship go freely?

[qeltar]

Thanks for that Rony. Now it justifies another part of the puzzle.

If being insulting and crude is now considered justification for slaughter in the eyes of Israelis, then you're becoming even more like the worst elements of your enemies than I thought.

 

Qeltar, answer this question for me. There were 6 ships coming, 5 of them were searched with no problems, why was the 6th so differently?

A combination of it being the main ship, them knowing what happened to the other 5, an attempt to provoke the IDF, and other factors.

 

Now why don't you try to answer some of my questions?

 

Start with this one:

Suppose it were an Israeli ship that were 40 miles off the coast of an Arab state, and that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway -- would you say that the Arab commandos "were ATTACKED!"? Or would you say that the Israelis on the ship were defending themselves from an unauthorized boarding?

 

Be honest.

 

ETA: We'll have to wait a few days to see if that "radio transmission" turns out to be bullspit, since the IDF has a pretty bad track record for honesty (like the "Al Qaeda link" BS they are running away from now.) Apparently they also confiscated every electronic device on the ship to prevent anything but their version of events getting out. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

[The_Gabe]

 

Start with this one:

Suppose it were an Israeli ship that were 40 miles off the coast of an Arab state, and that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway -- would you say that the Arab commandos "were ATTACKED!"? Or would you say that the Israelis on the ship were defending themselves from an unauthorized boarding?

 

Be honest.

 

This isn't what you want to hear, but the situation would be completely different. No blockade, no weapons to supply anyone, not anything. The situation would be completely different.

[qeltar]

 

Start with this one:

Suppose it were an Israeli ship that were 40 miles off the coast of an Arab state, and that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway -- would you say that the Arab commandos "were ATTACKED!"? Or would you say that the Israelis on the ship were defending themselves from an unauthorized boarding?

 

Be honest.

 

This isn't what you want to hear, but the situation would be completely different. No blockade, no weapons to supply anyone, not anything. The situation would be completely different.

Sorry, but that's a copout.

 

The situations under which the request to board is made do not have to be identical. Remember that just as paranoid as you are about ships carrying Palestinian activists, Arabs feel the same way about you.

 

The pertinent issue is a ship in international waters being asked for permission to be boarded by a country it considers an enemy or opponent, denying such permission, and then being boarded against their will. So I ask again: if Israel had a ship in international waters near an Arab country, that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway, would you expect the Israelis to not respond, and then claim they were at fault if they did?

[SeanyTheSailor]

The boat was approaching territorial waters... not in them. Thats like someone walking towards your house and you run up and clock them before they even get on the sidewalk.

 

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 suggest a test. You sit in front of your house. As soon as you see someone walking in the direction of your home, make sure they are far enough away they can't really do anything, then you run out to them, rough them up a bit. Tell me what the courts decide, if you get off because it was self defense I will send you a cookie.

 

better yet. Kidnap someone. Hold them in your house and feed them one piece of bread per day. When the police are on their way make sure you are waiting for them up the street to hit them. Again tell me if you get off on self defense.

 

I'm sorry if I sound like a jerk here but really....

[The_Gabe]

 

Start with this one:

Suppose it were an Israeli ship that were 40 miles off the coast of an Arab state, and that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway -- would you say that the Arab commandos "were ATTACKED!"? Or would you say that the Israelis on the ship were defending themselves from an unauthorized boarding?

 

Be honest.

 

This isn't what you want to hear, but the situation would be completely different. No blockade, no weapons to supply anyone, not anything. The situation would be completely different.

Sorry, but that's a copout.

 

The situations under which the request to board is made do not have to be identical. Remember that just as paranoid as you are about ships carrying Palestinian activists, Arabs feel the same way about you.

 

The pertinent issue is a ship in international waters being asked for permission to be boarded by a country it considers an enemy or opponent, denying such permission, and then being boarded against their will. So I ask again: if Israel had a ship in international waters near an Arab country, that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway, would you expect the Israelis to not respond, and then claim they were at fault if they did?

 

What would Israeli ships be carrying there exactly?

[lordkafei]

A great opinion piece on the recent events off the Gaza Coast:

 

http://www.examiner....tilla-justified

 

It is a common tactic for Hamas to hide behind "peaceful" citizens, mosques, and buildings, using them as human shields. The benefit is that either Israel will be afraid to strike for fear of collateral damage or they will attack and Hamas will use that collateral damage to gain public sympathy for their cause. The IHH did the same thing with the flotilla. Unfortunately, it's working yet again.

[qeltar]

The pertinent issue is a ship in international waters being asked for permission to be boarded by a country it considers an enemy or opponent, denying such permission, and then being boarded against their will. So I ask again: if Israel had a ship in international waters near an Arab country, that country's navy demanded the right to board, was told no and tried to board anyway, would you expect the Israelis to not respond, and then claim they were at fault if they did?

 

What would Israeli ships be carrying there exactly?

Doesn't matter what they would be carrying.

 

Your reluctance to answer the question is answer in and of itself.

 

 

A great opinion piece on the recent events off the Gaza Coast:

I didn't see any compelling arguments in that article. It's the same "they were bad guys!" whining we've heard a million times.

 

The people being bad guys didn't give the Israelis any more right to commandeer their ship in international waters and kill 9 of them, than it gives the cops the right to do shoot people because *they* are bad guys.

 

(Psst: Terrorist groups use the *exact* same justifications. You're in poor company.)

[SeanyTheSailor]

A great opinion piece on the recent events off the Gaza Coast:

 

http://www.examiner....tilla-justified

 

It is a common tactic for Hamas to hide behind "peaceful" citizens, mosques, and buildings, using them as human shields. The benefit is that either Israel will be afraid to strike for fear of collateral damage or they will attack and Hamas will use that collateral damage to gain public sympathy for their cause. The IHH did the same thing with the flotilla. Unfortunately, it's working yet again.

Look I'm all for tough action against terrorists and I believe collateral damage is a cost we need to come to terms with. But that flotilla wasn't attacking anyone, and when they did search it their excuses for "weaopns" was pitiful at best.