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…4041434546…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1262
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    They haven't forgotten it, they just don't want to know, look or listen.

    Col.Kemp on delivering aid to your enemy.


    Since when did civilians become the enemy?

    Also, by that definition anyone aiding Israel could become a legitimate target for Hamas no?


  • Options
    #1263
    Dar
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    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

    These were not warships, they were merchant ships flying the Turkish flag. A state of war does not exist between Israel and Turkey, therefore they are neutral merchant ships.

    There are a very limited set of circumstances under international law which would allow the Israelis to seize merchant ships in international waters, none of which apply here as the blockade itself is illegal.


  • Options
    #1264
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    karma_ wrote: »
    Since when did civilians become the enemy?

    Also, by that definition anyone aiding Israel could become a legitimate target for Hamas no?

    If Hamas attacks anyone outside of Gaza its not a "legitimate" act.

    Plus civilians should never be considered the enemy, but a civilian government and its armed forces can become the enemy.


  • Options
    #1265
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    karma_ wrote: »
    Also, by that definition anyone aiding Israel could become a legitimate target for Hamas no?
    Well many in the fundie camp would agree with that. Hamas and others have targeted civilians. Many of the Islamic groups have said and done just that. All bets are off folks. If Ireland was seen as a major supporter of Israel we would be targeted sooner or later by them. If we were seen as a threat to Israel they would likely take action too and conveniently forget about any sovereign status we may have. Like I say theyre all as bad as each other and the average man and woman on the street on both sides ends up paying.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #1266
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    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.

    Would you apply that logic to any Israeli casualties sustained over the period of the occupation and settlement of the OT (1967 - present)...?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1267
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    If Hamas attacks anyone outside of Gaza its not a "legitimate" act.

    Plus civilians should never be considered the enemy, but a civilian government and its armed forces can become the enemy.

    I agree Danny Wooden Savannah, I'm just asking the question based on the remarks of the Colonel in the video you posted. He said it was unthinkable to provide aid to your enemy, I assume though that this aid was destined for the ordinary Gazan and not Hamas.


  • Options
    #1268
    Carlos_Ray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 685 ✭✭✭Carlos_Ray


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


    There's no point in trying to raise logical legal points when talking about Israel. It is a state that cherry picks laws to suit its own agenda. It has breached more UN resolutions than all other countries put together.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
    http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm


    Israel, and Israeli supporters, see Israel as being above the law. They refuse to be restrained by "trivial things" such as human rights, international law, or morals. They murdered 10 people in cold blood on that boat. 10 innocent human rights workers.

    To muddy the issue, they say use usual " rockets from gaza" argument. Two issues I have with this. One, the ships were obviously purely humaitarian. And two, "rockets from Gaza" is just a smoke screen used to deflect attention away from Israels immense list of crimes. In 10 years, around 13 civillians have been killed by Rockets from Gaza. Compare this to nearly 4000 Palestinian Civillians killed in that same period.

    Thats just a numbers game. It doesn't take into account the land that Israel continues to grab. The houses it is destroying, the innocent people it arrests, the people it is starving. It doesn't take into account the international crimes and murders it commits.

    Taking all this into consideration, along with Irish passport murder scandal, Ireland should expel the Israeli ambassador. If Iran did 10% of the crimes commited by Israel, the USA would have nuked it 10 times over. The least we should do is take serious diplomatic action.


  • Options
    #1269
    cherryghost
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,133 Mod ✭✭✭✭cherryghost


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10208027.stm
    "Personally I saw two and a half wooden batons that were used... There was really nothing else. We never saw any knives.
    "This was an attack in international waters on a peaceful mission... This was a clear act of piracy," he added.





    .....






    "The captain... told us 'They are firing randomly, they are breaking the windows and entering inside. So you should get out of here as soon as possible'. That was our last conversation with him."
    Diplomatic sources in Ankara have said at least four of those killed were Turkish. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the assault was a "bloody massacre" and must be punished. He said Israel should not test Turkey's patience.


    More speculation to add to the fire


  • Options
    #1270
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Winty wrote: »
    Nodin. never make a mistake?

    Rarely the same one twice. Certainly not over a 43 year period.


  • Options
    #1271
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well many in the fundie camp would agree with that. Hamas and others have targeted civilians. Many of the Islamic groups have said and done just that. All bets are off folks. If Ireland was seen as a major supporter of Israel we would be targeted sooner or later by them. If we were seen as a threat to Israel they would likely take action too and conveniently forget about any sovereign status we may have. Like I say theyre all as bad as each other and the average man and woman on the street on both sides ends up paying.

    Agreed, Hamas are a vile terrorist group no arguments there, I'm just wondering about the relevance of the video posted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1272
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Nodin wrote: »
    Rarely the same one twice. Certainly not over a 43 year period.

    Is that because you are in fact one seven? .... :p


  • Options
    #1273
    Dar
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    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.

    I don't really blame the soldiers themselves, if you look at the videos you can see that this was a situation which very quickly escalated out of control. My view is that they should not have been there in the first place. What genius decided it would be a good idea to send a handful of commandos to assault a merchant ship carrying 700 people in the middle of the night?


  • Options
    #1274
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    So were led to believe. :rolleyes:
    LOL, classic Run_to_da_hills :D


  • Options
    #1275
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Dar wrote: »
    I don't really blame the soldiers themselves, if you look at the videos you can see that this was a situation which very quickly escalated out of control. My view is that they should not have been there in the first place. What genius decided it would be a good idea to send a handful of commandos to assault a merchant ship carrying 700 people in the middle of the night?


    You know what, if I was a Mod here I'd end the thread on this note.

    Only a fool could argue your point Dar.


  • Options
    #1276
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    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

    The only problem with this is Israel is not at war, according to themselves. Unless this act was their declaring war and if so on who, The Irish, The Turks, the British, The Americans or any of the other nationalities on board the vessels


  • Options
    #1277
    Adamisconfused
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭Adamisconfused


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    If Hamas attacks anyone outside of Gaza its not a "legitimate" act.

    Plus civilians should never be considered the enemy, but a civilian government and its armed forces can become the enemy.

    Why?
    Using the definition provided by you or Manic Moran, the Israelis were within their rights to attack a convoy providing provisions to their enemy. They did this in international waters and not on Israeli territory.
    Surely, that would give justification for the enemies of Israel to do the exact same thing. To kill merchant seaman aboard ships supplying anything, not just military equipment, to the ports of Israel. If Manic is trying to say that there is a true state of war here, then the actions of their enemies would be equally legitimate in the same circumstances.
    Why is Israel being specific in banning certain items such as chocolate? Also, if they are at war, why are they allowing even 25% of the supplies required by those in the Gaza strip? The U-boats didn't exactly decide to let a certain amount through to the British.
    With the newly opened Egyption border, are Israel within their rights to blow up the border posts? So far, I fail to see how Israel could be seen to be involved in a war. I'm not even sure if they accept that they are.


  • Options
    #1278
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    Adamisconfused wrote: »
    Why?
    Using the definition provided by you or Manic Moran, the Israelis were within their rights to attack a convoy providing provisions to their enemy. They did this in international waters and not on Israeli territory.
    Surely, that would give justification for the enemies of Israel to do the exact same thing. To kill merchant seaman aboard ships supplying anything, not just military equipment, to the ports of Israel. If Manic is trying to say that there is a true state of war here, then the actions of their enemies would be equally legitimate in the same circumstances.
    Why is Israel being specific in banning certain items such as chocolate? Also, if they are at war, why are they allowing even 25% of the supplies required by those in the Gaza strip? The U-boats didn't exactly decide to let a certain amount through to the British.

    Your still confused.


  • Options
    #1279
    snow ghost
    Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭snow ghost


    ScumLord wrote: »
    That's a very black and white viewpoint, the Palestinians are by no means innocent, if they where indiscriminately firing rockets at Ireland you can be sure we'd attack back any way we could.

    The IRA as bad and all as they where attacked the British state more so than civilians at the very least they weren't as indiscriminate as Hamas. Suicide bombers and random rockets destroy their argument completely in my eyes and I'd like to side with the underdog and even think that Israel are completely in the wrong too.

    My point is, they're both to blame, Israel is as bad as the Palestinians and visa versa.

    "the Palestinians are by no means innocent"???

    Are you implicating Palestinians in Israel unlawfully attacking a ship in international waters, murdering humanitarian citizens and kidnapping others? That is what this discussion is about.

    If you are referring to the Israel-Palestinian conflict in general then I'd guess from such a unqualified-viewpoint you'd also think that the Jewish people were as bad as the Nazi regime? Or black South African's as bad as the racist apartheid regime that oppressed them and treated them as less human? Because your point above has as little validity as those claims.

    An objective analysis of the Israel-Palestinian conlfict would undoubtedly conclude that the Palestinian people had been subjected to a deliberate act of genocide and oppression by Israel. Whilst, violence in retaliation and self-defence has occurred - sometimes in a henious manner - it is not suprising that oppressed people, subject to such subjugation resist the oppression and genocide by any means.


  • Options
    #1280
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    IrishTonyO wrote: »
    The only problem with this is Israel is not at war, according to themselves. Unless this act was their declaring war and if so on who, The Irish, The Turks, the British, The Americans or any of the other nationalities on board the vessels

    Since 2001, there is a precedent for declaring war against the intangible. Therefore, surely Israel could declare War against Humanitarianism.


  • Options
    #1281
    Adamisconfused
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭Adamisconfused


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    Your still confused.

    Yeah; great explanation. Thanks for clearing up your points.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1282
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Adamisconfused wrote: »
    Why is Israel being specific in banning certain items such as chocolate? Also, if they are at war, why are they allowing even 25% of the supplies required by those in the Gaza strip? The U-boats didn't exactly decide to let a certain amount through to the British.

    So you intend to legitimize the Israeli blockade of Gaza by referring to a precedent set by the Nazis during World War II?

    Well Done, I'm sure Israel will thank you for that brilliant piece of reasoning!

    (Unless I completely misunderstood the point of your argument, but in my defence, it was Very Confusing.)

    VVV at the start it seemed to be in favour of Israel's attack, then it sort of changed direction and I got thrown off on one of the bends :D


  • Options
    #1283
    Adamisconfused
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭Adamisconfused


    B0jangles wrote: »
    So you intend to legitimize the Israeli blockade of Gaza by referring to a precedent set by the Nazis during World War II?

    Well Done, I'm sure Israel will thank you for that brilliant piece of reasoning!

    :rolleyes:
    There aren't enough of these emoticons to respond to your post. Seriously, how did you work that one out? Israel is not at war and the blocade is illegal. I'm arguing against it.

    EDIT: Fair enough B0jangles....my original post may have been confusing.


  • Options
    #1284
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    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.

    It seems to me that it was almost inevitable that once soldiers droppped onto the ship, it was likely to end in bloodshed. One could hardly blame the individual soldiers for this, but the Israeli commanders must have forseen the risk.
    So they're either not very good commanders (unlikely) or else the preservation of life wasn't far up their agenda.


  • Options
    #1285
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    dvpower wrote: »
    It seems to me that it was almost inevitable that once soldiers droppped onto the ship, it was likely to end in bloodshed. One could hardly blame the individual soldiers for this, but the Israeli commanders must have forseen the risk.
    So they're either not very good commanders (unlikely) or else the preservation of life wasn't far up their agenda.

    Look at the penny....




















    dropping!.


  • Options
    #1286
    deisedevil
    Registered Users Posts: 3,252 ✭✭✭deisedevil


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    Look at the penny....




















    dropping!.


    How many bloody times have posters said on here that it was not the soldiers fault and of course they would use lethal force in this situation. They should never have been there to begin with.

    Pity your penny wouldn't drop.


  • Options
    #1287
    Peanut
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭Peanut


    Was on the Mavi Marmara last summer. They did a decent tea but not a great selection of hot snacks or nibbles.

    Jacks wasn't the best either, has to be said.

    pic


  • Options
    #1288
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    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

    You say 'Getting involved' is an act of war but the involvement boils down to attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to a sieged civilian population.

    If I am reading you correctly on that I can't say I agree with you there.


  • Options
    #1289
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »
    Look at the penny....




















    dropping!.

    That was my first post in this thread. No penny dropping; just my analysis.

    Still, it raises questions for me about who is in charge in Israel. Are military commanders so gung ho that they feel free to commit actions that are only going to damage Israel politically, or are Israeli political leaders so short sighted or deluded that they see some percentage in this kind of outcome.


  • Options
    #1290
    Paddy Samurai
    Registered Users Posts: 3,014 ✭✭✭Paddy Samurai


    Just found this interesting...........make of it what you will.
    Meanwhile Egypt has temporarily opened its border with the Gaza Strip to allow aid, a government official said.
    The move has prompted thousands of Gazans to rush to leave the normally closed territory, flocking to the Rafah crossing point in cars laden with luggage.
    Rafah is the only border post from Gaza not fully controlled by Israel and has been opened only sparingly by Cairo since Hamas seized control in Gaza three years ago.

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israel-Commando-Raid-42-Britons-Have-Been-Detained-Says-Hague/Article/201006115641326?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15641326_Israel_Commando_Raid%3A_42_Britons_Have_Been_Detained%2C_Says_Hague


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1291
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,878 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    deisedevil wrote: »
    Pity your penny wouldn't drop.

    Hey you forget, I'm Jewish - I ain't letting any penny's drop!.


Advertisement