Aid Floatillas Attacked

karma_

ScumLord wrote: »

Not really, laymen are the average citizen of the world, what makes the military so right? Just because they have guns doesn't mean their automatic right and justified in what they're doing just because it makes sense to them.

Well you find that in most volunteer militaries there is a high proportion soldiers with right wing ideologies, so no surprise that they would see absolutely nothing wrong with what just happened. Nature of the beast.

I'm surprised that Israel turned out to be so right wing in fairness, Jews have always been at the forefront of left wing politics for decades.

JONJO THE MISER

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

Not in the least.

But people are down playing how dangerous the attack on the IDF personnel was.

As for the Israeli's firing on the ships first, big deal. Completely in keeping with S.O.P.'s in any army to fire warning shots after verbal warnings.

The problems with these types of discussions is we get the usual lunatics running screaming in hysterics about the big bad Israeli's, completely blinded by hatred. And with a complete lack of understanding of conflict.

Lets me clear about something, from a laymans POV boarding the ship in international waters may have been an illegal act. But thats where the laymans point of view ends!.

Once onboard and under attack those IDF personnel had an obligation to protect themselves, their comrades from bodily harm and to protect themselves from being forcibly disarmed - it goes the same way for any soldier, regardless what flag he/she serves under.

How are you a Mod here on boards? Unbelievable, defending the undefendable.

eamo12

B0jangles wrote: »

NO THEY COULDN'T

a large proportion of the aid was in the form of concrete, for rebuilding bulldozed houses.

Israel does not allow concrete into the Gaza Strip.

Unbelievable the propaganda some people swallow. Concrete me arse. We all know the purpose of the flotilla was to induce a confrontation. They got it.

Archie D Bunker

Dar wrote: »

Care to respond?

Basically, Israel, as a sovereign state has a right to impose a blockade, but how that blockade is imposed is totally up to Israel (as long as international law/agreements are kept).

karma_

eamo12 wrote: »

Unbelievable the propaganda some people swallow. Concrete me arse. We all know the purpose of the flotilla was to induce a confrontation. They got it.

He's correct eamo, concrete and fresh fruit are 2 of the items that Israel has declared that Gazans shouldn't have.

B0jangles

eamo12 wrote: »

Unbelievable the propaganda some people swallow.

Right back atcha

IrishTonyO

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Basically, Israel, as a sovereign state has a right to impose a blockade, but how that blockade is imposed is totally up to Israel (as long as international law/agreements are kept).

A blockade is an act of war, Israel is not at war. Also 90% of the countries in the world, the UN and the WHO have all called this 'blockade' illegal

karma_

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Basically, Israel, as a sovereign state has a right to impose a blockade, but how that blockade is imposed is totally up to Israel (as long as international law/agreements are kept).

Blockades are only legal if you are at war. The Blockade is itself illegal, but don't let that stop you from spewing nonsense.

deisedevil

karma_ wrote: »

He's correct eamo, concrete and fresh fruit are 2 of the items that Israel has declared that Gazans shouldn't have.

Why did they block fresh fruit ffs? Are they scared of having rotten tomoatoes thrown at them or something?

Dar

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Basically, Israel, as a sovereign state has a right to impose a blockade, but how that blockade is imposed is totally up to Israel (as long as international law/agreements are kept).

The point being that international law/agreements were not kept. Even under the terms of the San Remo Manual, which Israel have been so quick to wave around as justification for their actions, the blockade is illegal.

deisedevil

IrishTonyO wrote: »

A blockade is an act of war, Israel is not at war. Also 90% of the countries in the world, the UN and the WHO have all called this 'blockade' illegal

Bang on! But there's still those who haven't understood any of this.

eamo12

karma_ wrote: »

I'm surprised that Israel turned out to be so right wing in fairness, Jews have always been at the forefront of left wing politics for decades.

Enlightenment and self preservation perhaps and a realisation the no country has ever flourished under a left wing regime (apart from the utopian paradise of Cuba, of course).

Min

People can beat an Israeli soldier over the head as much as they want with their metal bars but it doesn't change the fact that the term 'peace activist' in this case is an oxymoron.

It was not a 100% group of nice people on that ship, not saying it justified anyone getting killed but if you play with fire someone will get burnt.

Archie D Bunker

karma_ wrote: »

Blockades are only legal if you are at war. The Blockade is itself illegal, but don't let that stop you from spewing nonsense.

Can't really be at war with a none-state...

TerrorFirmer

I simply don't see the point in commenting until the facts, if they ever do, before more conclusive.

It's entirely speculation, yet everyone seems to be taking this speculation as hard fact, regardless of the side they're taking. How can you condemn either side for its actions, not knowing the facts? That said, sailing towards a blockade is willingly accepting a potential for harm or danger. It doesn't matter about the legality - why are people so hung up on that? They can't seem to accept that regardless of whether it's illegal or not, those people knew, and chose to ignore, a blockade and thus must accept responsibility to a certain extent for the consequences. Just because it's illegal, doesn't mean the fault lies entirely with the IDF over the fatalities. The flotilla chose to sail towards danger. On a basic human level, forgetting laws and codes (notwithstanding, in no major conflict, ever, has a victor emerged having waged war completely 'legally'), they went into harms way, an action they most certainly were not forced into. Also, with regards to the rather puzzling argument over 'sticks versus guns' - soldiers are trained to eliminate threats. Someone coming at a soldier brandishing a weapon, no matter how crude or technologically elemental, is still brandishing a weapon capable of harm. What would you expect a soldier to do in such a situation?

I'm not justifying anything, but people need to relax and let the facts come out before they too keenly condemn either side. The problem is, I find that the alleged 'IDF defenders' are merely pointing out the validity of certain actions in certain scenarios. Whereas those condemning the IDF are making conclusive statements on completely inconclusively evidence - utter speculation, basically.

Winty

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

How are you a Mod here on boards? Unbelievable, defending the undefendable.

What gives you the right to complain when a person gives a reply you dont like. If you do not agree fine, dont get ratty when you see something you dont like

And people say Israel is undemocratic.

hypocrite

Mike 1972

Min wrote: »

People can beat an Israeli soldier over the head as much as they want with their metal bars but it doesn't change the fact that the term 'peace activist' in this case is an oxymoron.

Most peace activists recognise the right of an individual to defend themselves.

International maritime law gives the occupants of a boat or ship in international waters the right to use any necessary means to repel illegal boarders including lethal force.

karma_

eamo12 wrote: »

Enlightenment and self preservation perhaps and a realisation the no country has ever flourished under a left wing regime (apart from the utopian paradise of Cuba, of course).

If right wing equates to enlightenment then the Nazi state must have been one of the most enlightened states ever.

And we all know they were detestable scumbags.

B0jangles

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

The flotilla chose to sail towards danger. On a basic human level, forgetting laws and codes (notwithstanding, in no major conflict, ever, has a victor emerged having waged war completely 'legally'), they went into harms way, an action they most certainly were not forced into. .

In the same way that a women walking down a street at night needs to take some responsibility if she is attacked and raped eh?

arybvtcw0eolkf

IrishTonyO wrote: »

when soldiers act illegally they have no rights

See there's where your not seeing the forest for the tree's.

The Israeli government or whoever ordered the boarding in international water's may have acted illegally, but the soldiers onboard acted completely in keeping with standard operating procedures for soldiers anywhere in the world - they tried to protect themselves & their comrades from harm and to prevent themselves from being disarmed.

Manic Moran & myself have both said it, regardless what nationality the soldier has the presumption that they're following lawful order's.

How people can see that as me making excuse's for the actions of the Israeli government is beyond me.

Personally I believe the boarding in international water's was illegal, its regretable that there was a huge loss of life but thats what can happen when you attack soldiers - not just Israeli soldiers!.

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

How are you a Mod here on boards? Unbelievable, defending the undefendable.

Oh take the knot out of your knickers and stop your ol' whinging.

strobe

Min wrote: »

People can beat an Israeli soldier over the head as much as they want with their metal bars but it doesn't change the fact that the term 'peace activist' in this case is an oxymoron.

It was not a 100% group of nice people on that ship, not saying it justified anyone getting killed but if you play with fire someone will get burnt.

First of all, you don't seem to know what the word "oxymoron" means. Check it out in a dictionary there. Probably best not to use words you don't know the meaning of to try and sound clever, never goes well.

Secondly, I don't buy this you play with fire.... crap. In other words, cross someone dangerous you get everything you deserve. That's how animals live, not civilised humans.

TerrorFirmer

B0jangles wrote: »

In the same way that a women walking down a street at night needs to take some responsibility if she is attacked and raped eh?

I don't know how to even address that. You're comparing a nightly walk with approaching a military blockade?

Let's see, statistically I wonder...

Odds of being raped when walking at night?

Odds of danger when approaching a military imposed blockade despite multiple warnings?

Dar

Archie D Bunker wrote: »

Can't really be at war with a none-state...

If Israel are not at war how can they use San Remo as a justification for assaulting a merchant fleet in international waters?

Nodin

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

Don't forget a couple of knives & box cutters enabled the hijackers of the 9/11 planes to murder over 3000 innocent people.

So they were going to do a McGyver on the boat and fly it into Tel Aviv....?

Winty wrote:

Israel has made some mistakes .

..."some"?

Winty

B0jangles wrote: »

In the same way that a women walking down a street at night needs to take some responsibility if she is attacked and raped eh?

B0jangles wrote: »

Watch out, Min is trying to divert discussion of Israel's current crimes down a sidepath about Hamas.

Don't get sucked in. (like I did, briefly)

Remember this Post Bojangles, looks like your on a spin

Winty

Nodin wrote: »

..."some"?

Nodin. never make a mistake?

Dont let this post end up about Northern Ireland please.

Manic Moran

After reading this how can any Israel sympathizers defend their actions. It was illegal in every sense of the word and yet they will still go unpunished.

Although I am in agreement with the genetleman quoted in the Guardian as to his analysis of the situation as being an act of war, there is an argument that he's missing the very obvious situation that the war had already started. As the international courts have pointed out, but on this one occasion everyone seems to have forgotten, Israel is already in a state of war with Palestine, and aiding the enemy is a hostile act in itself.

So yes, boarding the Turkish ship was an act of war. But so was getting involved on one side in an already-extant war.

NTM

B0jangles

Winty wrote: »

Remember this Post Bojangles, looks like your on a spin

How so? I was making an analogy refuting the claim that by approaching the vicinity of the "blockade" (while still in international waters) that the people on the ships were somehow making themselves responsible for the Israeli attack?

The analogy being that a person who is illegally attacked cannot have blame apportioned to them because they went into a place where attacks were more likely to occur.

Fairly simple I would have thought.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although I am in agreement with the genetleman quoted in the Guardian as to his analysis of the situation as being an act of war, there is an argument that he's missing the very obvious situation that the war had already started. As the international courts have pointed out, but on this one occasion everyone seems to have forgotten, Israel is already in a state of war with Palestine, and aiding the enemy is a hostile act in itself.

So yes, boarding the Turkish ship was an act of war. But so was getting involved on one side in an already-extant war.

NTM

They haven't forgotten it, they just don't want to know, look or listen.

Col.Kemp on delivering aid to your enemy.

Wibbs

strobe wrote: »

Secondly, I don't buy this you play with fire.... crap. In other words, cross someone dangerous you get everything you deserve. That's how animals live, not civilised humans.

Great in theory, but only if you're living a comfortable existence where you can step back and have a think about a situation. The veneer of civilisation is very thin.

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

See there's where your not seeing the forest for the tree's.

The Israeli government or whoever ordered the boarding in international water's may have acted illegally, but the soldiers onboard acted completely in keeping with standard operating procedures for soldiers anywhere in the world - they tried to protect themselves & their comrades from harm and to prevent themselves from being disarmed.

Manic Moran & myself have both said it, regardless what nationality the soldier has the presumption that they're following lawful order's.

How people can see that as me making excuse's for the actions of the Israeli government is beyond me.

Personally I believe the boarding in international water's was illegal, its regretable that there was a huge loss of life but thats what can happen when you attack soldiers - not just Israeli soldiers!.

Agreed 100%. I do NOT blame the IDF soldiers. It's their job. Its what they do. You dont hire a plumber to put up shelves. I blame the situation and the ones making policy.

Oh take the knot out of your knickers and stop your ol' whinging.

Plus Danny Wooden Savannah is a mod of another forum, not this one. Like me or any other non AH mod, he's a user like anyone else. Indeed AH mods are users first. They may moderate, but there's no requirement to be moderates.