Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Aid Floatillas Attacked

Options
1…2223252728…55

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Min wrote: »
    Actually they had in one way, the ship was going directly to Gaza and Gaza is ruled by terrorists - terrorists that led to Israel erecting a wall to keep Hamas suicide bombers out - they didn't care when they blowing themselves up - Israel again got criticised over the security wall, apparently it was ok for Israeli's to blown to bits in restaurants, in the streets, at weddings.

    Of course that wasn't ok. No one suggested it was. What you are arguing there is a strawman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    When you have neighbours like that then you need to defend yourself, Israel may have had no business being in international waters but they need to defend themselves.

    Of course Israel need to defend themselves. I fail to see how stopping food and medicine getting to hungry and sick people is defending themselves.


  • Options
    #723
    Drake66
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Drake66


    Min wrote: »
    Is it worse to be killed by gunfire than to be physically beaten to death?

    So civilians can kill soldiers with metal bars and knives but soldiers cannot use their weapons to defend themselves?

    I think you go beyond being a civilian when you attack a soldier.

    Yes attacking soldiers with slingshots, bits of pipe and chairs warrants the death penalty. What fantastic values.


  • Options
    #724
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Min wrote: »
    Actually they had in one way, the ship was going directly to Gaza and Gaza is ruled by terrorists - terrorists that led to Israel erecting a wall to keep Hamas suicide bombers out - they didn't care when they blowing themselves up - Israel again got criticised over the security wall, apparently it was ok for Israeli's to blown to bits in restaurants, in the streets, at weddings.

    Israels apartheid wall is another land grab, and the wall is still incomplete, and yet no suicide attacks. Also, the West Bank is controlled by Fatah and not Hamas, and flotilla was headed to Gaza and not the West Bank.

    So a pile of complete nonsense to justify Israel murderous terrorism.

    Also, I never made any claims you attribute to me. Perhaps, read my posts next time, as opposed to making up a pile of nonsense and attributing it to me.
    Min wrote: »
    When you have neighbours like that then you need to defend yourself, Israel may have had no business being in international waters but they need to defend themselves.

    When you have neighbors like Israel, you need to defend yourself from there insane and constant land theft. You see that works both ways. IMHO, better that both sides stop the crap.

    Also, Israel has no right to kill innocent people, just like Hamas has no right to do so. Either it is wrong when they both do it, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
    Min wrote: »
    Hamas probably too busy wasting money buying more rockets to launch at Israel than help their own people, then all we hear is how terrible Israel is, they don't have similar problems with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

    Yeah, and in the West Bank, Israel is still stealing land, as the have always done. Looks like working with Israel just gets your land stolen.


  • Options
    #725
    DylanJM
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭DylanJM


    No hideous ape it is most definitely not at part 5, part 1 actually. I find it quite insulting that you would think I would in any way find two men attacking or raping a women ok.


  • Options
    #726
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Pauleta wrote: »
    I would of observed the protocol of laying on the ground with my hands above my head. If people did that instead of attacking them they would still be alive and sitting on a near undisputed moral high ground.


    Yeah, they tried that in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and throughout Europe during World War II. It didn't really work out for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Drake66 wrote: »
    Yes attacking soldiers with slingshots, bits of pipe and chairs warrants the death penalty. What fantastic values.

    You make it sound so mild, if only that was the case you would have a point.
    No one saying it warranted the death penalty but the soldiers lives were in danger and they responded to save lives and stop the violence which the people on the ship started, they did not have to attack the soldiers.
    They chose to attack which was to ask for trouble, then they got more trouble than they bargained for, the people on the ship seemed to be IQ challenged.


  • Options
    #728
    Pauleta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Pauleta


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Yeah, they tried that in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and throughout Europe during World War II. It didn't really work out for them.

    Are you really comparing this to Srebrenica and Rwanda? What a crap argument :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #729
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Yeah, they tried that in Srebrenica, Rwanda, and throughout Europe during World War II. It didn't really work out for them.

    How many people killed on the other 5 ships?

    They didn't attack the soldiers.


  • Options
    #730
    DylanJM
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭DylanJM


    So Kivaro you think the soldiers would have killed the people on the boat if they had surrendered peacefully? Get a grip.


  • Options
    #731
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Min wrote: »
    You make it sound so mild, if only that was the case you would have a point.
    No one saying it warranted the death penalty but the soldiers lives were in danger and they responded to save lives and stop the violence which the people on the ship started, they did not have to attack the soldiers.
    They chose to attack which was to ask for trouble, then they got more trouble than they bargained for, the people on the ship seemed to be IQ challenged.

    If I burst into your home tonight with an axe in my hand and you smash me in the face with a frying pan did you start the violence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    So it changed from:
    The army says its troops were attacked by the activists with axes, knives and firearms.

    to:

    Andy David from the Israeli foreign ministry tells the BBC in Ashdod, Israel:
    They were there not to deliver peacefully humanitarian aid. They were there waiting with knives, with metal bars. They were there to attack.

    The Israeli Army ****ed up.

    1. They had no right to attack and board the ship
    2. They should have waited for the activists to enter Israeli waters
    3. The activists were acting in self defense
    End of story.


  • Options
    #733
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Min wrote: »
    You make it sound so mild, if only that was the case you would have a point.
    No one saying it warranted the death penalty but the soldiers lives were in danger and they responded to save lives and stop the violence which the people on the ship started, they did not have to attack the soldiers.
    They chose to attack which was to ask for trouble, then they got more trouble than they bargained for, the people on the ship seemed to be IQ challenged.

    Have you any evidence of these claims? Other than Israeli propaganda - according to most of the World's media, there has been a media blackout since the illegal invasion of a humanitarian ship in international waters by Israel.

    Communications from the ships were blocked, Israel's versions of events are unlikely to be credible - they have a track record of lies and deceit.


  • Options
    #734
    Drake66
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Drake66


    Min wrote: »
    You make it sound so mild, if only that was the case you would have a point.
    No one saying it warranted the death penalty but the soldiers lives were in danger and they responded to save lives and stop the violence which the people on the ship started, they did not have to attack the soldiers.
    They chose to attack which was to ask for trouble, then they got more trouble than they bargained for, the people on the ship seemed to be IQ challenged.

    The only option available to them to stop the violence of people with bits of pipe, catapults, chairs etc was to shoot them dead; or impose the death penalty. It is a wonder how scores of people are not being shot to death every time there is a civil disturbance.


  • Options
    #735
    DylanJM
    Registered Users Posts: 1,468 ✭✭✭DylanJM


    If I burst into your home tonight with an axe in my hand and you smash me in the face with a frying pan did you start the violence?

    That is a completly ridiculous point. Completly different situation tbh.


  • Options
    #736
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    strobe wrote: »
    If I burst into your home tonight with an axe in my hand and you smash me in the face with a frying pan did you start the violence?

    If I was going to supply your neighbour who wanted you dead and with aid that was not verified to be safe then it would be my own fault for interfering.
    You might have come to my house in the interests of your security.

    Your post ignores why you might drop in.....


  • Options
    #737
    hideous ape
    Registered Users Posts: 339 ✭✭hideous ape


    DylanJM wrote: »
    No hideous ape it is most definitely not at part 5, part 1 actually. I find it quite insulting that you would think I would in any way find two men attacking or raping a women ok.

    Yet you cannot understand the logic that the events that unfolded on that ship were triggered by IDF soldiers boarding the ship in international waters???

    The point I'm making is that some people want to remove layers of this story to fit there previously held believes. Israel miscalculated that these people would bow down and accept been taken HOSTAGE! In international waters they were taken hostage...if I was there I would have fought back too.

    How would I know if I was ever going to see daylight again or even make it to land?


  • Options
    #738
    deisedevil
    Registered Users Posts: 3,252 ✭✭✭deisedevil


    http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/irish-boat-the-mv-rachel-corrie-proceeding-to


  • Options
    #739
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    DylanJM wrote: »
    That is a completly ridiculous point. Completly different situation tbh.

    How exactly. Someone comes unauthorised onto your property with no jurisdiction or legal right brandishing a lethal weapon and you respond by assaulting them. Seems a pretty apt analogy to me. Care to point out your specific problem with it?


  • Options
    #740
    Pauleta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Pauleta


    TheZohan wrote: »
    So it changed from:



    to:

    Andy David from the Israeli foreign ministry tells the BBC in Ashdod, Israel:

    The Israeli Army ****ed up.

    1. They had no right to attack and board the ship
    2. They should have waited for the activists to enter Israeli waters
    3. The activists were acting in self defense
    End of story.

    The ship wasnt being attacked. They were just boarding the ship and they were gonna bring it to an Israeli port to inspect it or get them to turn around. If a Garda or even armed Garda entered your home and you started hitting them and beating them with metal bars, i dont think "self defence" is gonna hold up in court. And i agree they should of waited until they got into Israeli waters, it was idiotic of them to do it but once you attack a soldier you are an enemy combatant and a critical thread to the soldiers life and the operation.


  • Options
    #741
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    deisedevil wrote: »
    http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/irish-boat-the-mv-rachel-corrie-proceeding-to

    wow i have great respect for bravery

    that however is just stupidity


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Drake66 wrote: »
    The only option available to them to stop the violence of people with bits of pipe, catapults, chairs etc was to shoot them dead; or impose the death penalty. It is a wonder how scores of people are not being shot to death every time there is a civil disturbance.


    I don't believe they intentionally killed as there were hundreds on the ship but they had to use their weapons to get control or else they would be dead.
    Would you attack and try to kill an armed soldier and then expect sympathy if you got shot?


  • Options
    #743
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Pauleta wrote: »
    Are you really comparing this to Srebrenica and Rwanda? What a crap argument :rolleyes:

    A massacre is a massacre .................... irrespective of your absurd justifications for this one.


  • Options
    #744
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    Pauleta wrote: »
    If a Garda or even armed Garda entered your home and you started hitting them and beating them with metal bars, i dont think "self defence" is gonna hold up in court.

    There is one major flaw with that analogy... If your home was outside of the jurisdiction of an Garda Siochana, what right would they have to enter it in the first place?


  • Options
    #745
    deisedevil
    Registered Users Posts: 3,252 ✭✭✭deisedevil


    Pauleta wrote: »
    The ship wasnt being attacked. They were just boarding the ship and they were gonna bring it to an Israeli port to inspect it or get them to turn around. If a Garda or even armed Garda entered your home and you started hitting them and beating them with metal bars, i dont think "self defence" is gonna hold up in court. And i agree they should of waited until they got into Israeli waters, it was idiotic of them to do it but once you attack a soldier you are an enemy combatant and a critical thread to the soldiers life and the operation.

    They weren't bloody Gardai, they were armed to the teeth highly trained soldiers. And they were illegally boarding a ship, they had no right to be there, therefore they had no right to be shooting anyone no matter what. Of course the soldiers would have defended themselves in that situation but the main point of the whole thing is that Israel had no right to send their soldiers on to the ship and because of that the blame is ultimately theirs.

    Robin Churchill is a professor of international law at the University of Dundee. He has looked at the laws surrounding the whole situation and said: "As far as I can see, there is no legal basis for boarding these ships"


  • Options
    #746
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Kivaro wrote: »
    A massacre is a massacre .................... irrespective of your absurd justifications for this one.

    Only idiots attack armed soldiers.


  • Options
    #747
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Min wrote: »
    If I was going to supply your neighbour who wanted you dead and with aid that was not verified to be safe then it would be my own fault for interfering.
    You might have come to my house in the interests of your security.

    Your post ignores why you might drop in.....

    First. Do you believe there were weapons on the ship?

    Second. I'll run with the analogy like a dog with a bone if that is what you really want:

    If you were keeping your next door neighbours hostage in thier home without adequate food or medicine or basic human neccesities claiming you had to because their kids were throwing rocks through your windows. I reported you to the police and they said it was illegal but refused to act on it. So then I said publicly that I was going to deliver food and medicine to your sick hungry neighbours. So I load up my van with supplies and those supplies are confirmed as being food and medicine and basic neccesities by my Turkish and Cypriot neighbours. Then as I am driving down a public road towards your home you and some of your mates ambush me at a set of traffic lights, pull open the doors, break out the windows and climb in brandishing knives screaming "We fukking warned you!" and I started bashing a few of you about the head with a tire iron so you stab me to death. Who is at fault?


  • Options
    #748
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,582 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Pauleta wrote: »
    The ship wasnt being attacked. They were just boarding the ship and they were gonna bring it to an Israeli port to inspect it or get them to turn around. If a Garda or even armed Garda entered your home and you started hitting them and beating them with metal bars, i dont think "self defence" is gonna hold up in court. And i agree they should of waited until they got into Israeli waters, it was idiotic of them to do it but once you attack a soldier you are an enemy combatant and a critical thread to the soldiers life and the operation.

    Ok you say the ship wasn't being attacked, I say it was. They were shooting at the activists prior to boarding.

    If a Garda entered my home I wouldn't stop them as they have jurisdiction.

    But if a member of oh lets say the Jamacian Police force tried to enter my home I'd tell him to GTFO and if he persisted I'd use whatever force necessary to stop him as he wouldn't have jurisdiction and would have zero right to enter my home.
    Self defence in that case would hold up, and you can bet your ass any court in the country would find that I am perfectly entitled to protect myself and my property and use any proportionate force that I deem necessary at the time.

    Do you see how that works?


  • Options
    #749
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    Pauleta wrote: »
    The ship wasnt being attacked. They were just boarding the ship and they were gonna bring it to an Israeli port to inspect it or get them to turn around. If a Garda or even armed Garda entered your home and you started hitting them and beating them with metal bars, i dont think "self defence" is gonna hold up in court. And i agree they should of waited until they got into Israeli waters, it was idiotic of them to do it but once you attack a soldier you are an enemy combatant and a critical thread to the soldiers life and the operation.

    The ship was most certainly attacked and illegally boarded by a very heavily armed force that had no legitimate right to do so.

    The civilians on board had every right to defend themselves from this.

    I guess the people here trying to excuse the inexcusable would also claim those shot on Bloody Sunday deserved it for protesting? Or that the widely acknowledged cover-up of Bloody Sunday was an accurate account of the events of that day?

    Get real people - we are dealing with an attrocity against humanity here perpetrated by a regime that opperates beyond the normal conventions of human morality or international law.


  • Options
    #750
    Pauleta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Pauleta


    RayM wrote: »
    There is one major flaw with that analogy... If your home was outside of the jurisdiction of an Garda Siochana, what right would they have to enter it in the first place?

    Would you attack them with metal bars? And as posted earlier, nothing happened to the people on the other ships and they are all still alive. Work that one out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #751
    Pauleta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,778 ✭✭✭Pauleta


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Ok you say the ship wasn't being attacked, I say it was. They were shooting at the activists prior to boarding.

    Do you have evidence of this?
    snow ghost wrote: »
    The ship was most certainly attacked and illegally boarded by a very heavily armed force that had no legitimate right to do so.

    The civilians on board had every right to defend themselves from this.

    I guess the people here trying to excuse the inexcusable would also claim those shot on Bloody Sunday deserved it for protesting? Or that the widely acknowledged cover-up of Bloody Sunday was an accurate account of the events of that day?

    Get real people - we are dealing with an attrocity against humanity here perpetrated by a regime that opperates beyond the normal conventions of human morality or international law.

    What does bloody sunday have to do with this?


Advertisement