Aid Floatillas Attacked

Gigiwagga

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.

Sorry but you are talking through your proverbial here, see that's not at all where the laymans point of view ends, not at all, the IDF were acting illegally firstly in harassing the flotilla in the first place, secondly they illegally boarded the ship and illegally interfered with people over whom they had NO jurisdiction just because a military grunt might perceive himself above the law because he has a big damn gun doesn't justify his actions, not in any way in this instances.
The only obligation the IDF were under was to not be there period. No excuse for cack handed actions.
Personally ~I haven't noticed too many 'lunatics' around this thread, I have noticed many who support humanitarian relief, I have noticed some who insist that might is right no matter what.

What do you mean by 'understanding of conflict' these were aid workers, DON'T YOU SEE , or is it when a big bloke in military gear and a frickin' gun appears it becomes 'conflict'. You should stick to your CoD and your comics mate.

Wibbs

Irish and Jewish. Crappy food, oceans of guilt, overbearing mas. The perfect storm head fcuk.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Wibbs wrote: »

Irish and Jewish. Crappy food, oceans of guilt, overbearing mas. The perfect storm head fcuk.

Yea, but I'm bigger, badder & meaner than the idiots who oppose me

Gotta dash, training in 15 minutes..

arybvtcw0eolkf

Sorry Gigiwaggi but your post is too long and disjointed.

But I 'thanked' you just incase you said something good, or funny.. Just to err on the side of caution like..

Have to dash, regards.

Sod'o swords

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Sorry but you are talking through your proverbial here, see that's not at all where the laymans point of view ends, not at all, the IDF were acting illegally firstly in harassing the flotilla in the first place, secondly they illegally boarded the ship and illegally interfered with people over whom they had NO jurisdiction just because a military grunt might perceive himself above the law because he has a big damn gun doesn't justify his actions, not in any way in this instances.
The only obligation the IDF were under was to not be there period. No excuse for cack handed actions.
Personally ~I haven't noticed too many 'lunatics' around this thread, I have noticed many who support humanitarian relief, I have noticed some who insist that might is right no matter what.

What do you mean by 'understanding of conflict' these were aid workers, DON'T YOU SEE , or is it when a big bloke in military gear and a frickin' gun appears it becomes 'conflict'. You should stick to your CoD and your comics mate.

Must say, this is a very interesting thread, some eye opening facts by both sides of the argument.

Then crap like that.

It seems that both sides see that it wasn't the commando's fault, but the operation shouldn't of happened as it did. The rest of the post's are just silly bickering.

Or so that's what i've taken from people's posts, i could of course be wrong.

Wibbs

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Sorry but you are talking through your proverbial here, see that's not at all where the laymans point of view ends, not at all, the IDF were acting illegally firstly in harassing the flotilla in the first place, secondly they illegally boarded the ship and illegally interfered with people over whom they had NO jurisdiction just because a military grunt might perceive himself above the law because he has a big damn gun doesn't justify his actions, not in any way in this instances.
The only obligation the IDF were under was to not be there period. No excuse for cack handed actions.
Personally ~I haven't noticed too many 'lunatics' around this thread, I have noticed many who support humanitarian relief, I have noticed some who insist that might is right no matter what.

What do you mean by 'understanding of conflict' these were aid workers, DON'T YOU SEE , or is it when a big bloke in military gear and a frickin' gun appears it becomes 'conflict'. You should stick to your CoD and your comics mate.

Sorry but while I think this mess was seriously out of order by the Israelis, jurisdiction and all that has actually little to do with the IDF guys on the ground. People seem to not get what soldiering is about, or seem to think that this stuff usually goes down all peaceable like. When military personnel are engaged this is what tends to happen. Throw in a night assault from a chopper onto a heaving ship into an environment where people will not be best pleased to see you and TBH I'm surprised more werent killed on both sides. Soldiers can be trained in peacekeeping or direct assault, all sorts of things, but in the end of the day they're soldiers. Politics dont come into it on the ground. In the same way the blockade runners saw red, so did the soldiers when they see one of their own go down. They just had superior firepower.

The politics happen before and after point of contact, not at the time. It's the politicians that should bare the entirety of the blame. If polotics worked you wouldnt ever need soldiers and any soldiers Ive known would be far happier being peaekeepers and would be happier if war never happened. They see it up close like civilians never will. Indeed sometimes combatants will have more respect for combatants on the other side than for civilians.

ScumLord

snow ghost wrote: »

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.

I didn't say that so no.

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?

I didn't say anything like that either so wrong again.

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.

It's not surprising no, but sooner or later they have to acknowledge it's futile. Violence didn't win Ireland it's freedom, it was won through political discussion. We had to fight to get the Brits to listen to us back then but once they did the conflict ended pretty quickly. They don't need to fight to get people to listen to the the whole world is waiting for them to say " we want peaceful discussion" rather than "death to the infidel".

They're not helping their cause one bit with any violent acts.

deisedevil

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

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

Lol. Touché salesman, touché.

snow ghost

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't say that so no.

I didn't say anything like that either so wrong again.

It's not surprising no, but sooner or later they have to acknowledge it's futile. Violence didn't win Ireland it's freedom, it was won through political discussion. We had to fight to get the Brits to listen to us back then but once they did the conflict ended pretty quickly. They don't need to fight to get people to listen to the the whole world is waiting for them to say " we want peaceful discussion" rather than "death to the infidel".

They're not helping their cause one bit with any violent acts.

Scumlord, I say this respectfully - regretably your opinion is too weak and insubstantial to merit the effort of correcting you.

TerrorFirmer

Gigiwagga wrote: »

You should stick to your CoD and your comics mate.

He probably doesn't have much time for comics and Call of Duty :rolleyes:

B0jangles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-investigation-attack-gaza-flotilla-us

wrote:

Israel should lead investigation into attack on Gaza flotilla, says US

wrote:

Turkey's demands for international inquiry blocked at meeting of United Nations security council



The United States has blocked demands at the UN security council for an international inquiry into Israel's assault on the Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead.
A compromise statement instead calls for an impartial investigation which Washington indicated could be carried out by Israel.

Well there you go, any chance of finding out what really happened out the window.


The U.S. stands up for freedom, truth and democracy in its usual sterling manner .

ScumLord

snow ghost wrote: »

Scumlord, I say this respectfully - regretably your opinion is too weak and insubstantial to merit the effort of correcting you.

I don't think you can so I'm not surprised you gave up.

snow ghost

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think you can so I'm not surprised you gave up.

I could but i'll give you that one, all the best.

TerrorFirmer

ScumLord wrote: »

Violence didn't win Ireland it's freedom, it was won through political discussion. We had to fight to get the Brits to listen to us back then but once they did the conflict ended pretty quickly. They don't need to fight to get people to listen to the the whole world is waiting for them to say " we want peaceful discussion" rather than "death to the infidel".

They're not helping their cause one bit with any violent acts.

It might have been a different world, but violence very much won Irish Independence. It was the huge cost, inconclusiveness of the campaign and international criticism over said violence and methods of reprisal that pushed Britain in negotiations, without with said negotiations wouldn't have taken place. Had the 1916 rising played out in the way it was actually planned, it might have even happened sooner, but either way, it was as a direct result of violence, as were most of the time.

EuskalHerria

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

Gotta dash, training in 15 minutes..

The Brains a muscle too;)

ScumLord

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It might have been a different world, but violence very much won Irish Independence. It was the huge cost, inconclusiveness of the campaign and international criticism over said violence and methods of reprisal that pushed Britain in negotiations, without with said negotiations wouldn't have taken place. Had the 1916 rising played out in the way it was actually planned, it might have even happened sooner, but either way, it was as a direct result of violence, as were most of the time.

Well I don't know looking back over 800 years of British rule all that violence never worked. It's not like they just started using violence in the 20th century and found it worked, they got into the British parliament and began the political process.

Fair enough some changes like democracy had to take place first but the major difference I can see that Michael Collins made was targeted attacks with the intention of getting the Brits to the discussion table. Once we had that we never went back. The Palestinians have the option of political discussion there they don't need to fight for it. Fighting an enemy like Israel or the US or the UK is pointless it's a hopeless battle that you cannot possibly win through military action.

IrishTonyO

ScumLord wrote: »

Fighting an enemy like Israel or the US or the UK is pointless it's a hopeless battle that you cannot possibly win through military action.

Yeah cause Vietnam was a real success for the US

ejmaztec

ScumLord wrote: »

Well I don't know looking back over 800 years of British rule all that violence never worked. It's not like they just started using violence in the 20th century and found it worked, they got into the British parliament and began the political process.

Fair enough some changes like democracy had to take place first but the major difference I can see that Michael Collins made was targeted attacks with the intention of getting the Brits to the discussion table. Once we had that we never went back. The Palestinians have the option of political discussion there they don't need to fight for it. Fighting an enemy like Israel or the US or the UK is pointless it's a hopeless battle that you cannot possibly win through military action.

...all those people fighting and dying for independence so that Ireland could be run by another bunch of twats.:(

Noreen1

B0jangles wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-investigation-attack-gaza-flotilla-us





Well there you go, any chance of finding out what really happened out the window.


The U.S. stands up for freedom, truth and democracy in its usual sterling manner .

So much for Obama and his pretty speeches about a new era for peace, and understanding. :rolleyes:

It's pretty much what I expected to happen - but it's still disgusting - because yet another opportunity to call a halt to this conflict has been lost - to the detriment of the people who want peace, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli!:mad:

Just how hard is it to understand that when people perceive their lives as being under threat , they often react violently - no matter which side of the conflict they happen to be on!!

Noreen

ScumLord

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Yeah cause Vietnam was a real success for the US

They weren't next door to each other and the US had little to gain from the conflict in the first place. The Brits never really beat us either if you think about it, the war never ended throughout their occupation, we never accepted British rule.

Mister men

Danny Wooden Savannah wrote: »

Skynews are reporting cannon fodder "militants'' crossing the border of Gaza and attacking targets in Israel - and the cycle continues!.. Sigh.

So a few youths are throwing stones over the wall onto Israeli land. I expect the Israelis to respond by killing at least 100 arabs.

galwayrush

Mister men wrote: »

So a few youths are throwing stones over the wall onto Israeli land. I expect the Israelis to respond by killing at least 100 arabs.

If they could import arms , for example missiles, they would be firing those instead of stones.

Padraig Mor

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not surprising no, but sooner or later they have to acknowledge it's futile. Violence didn't win Ireland it's freedom, it was won through political discussion. We had to fight to get the Brits to listen to us back then but once they did the conflict ended pretty quickly. They don't need to fight to get people to listen to the the whole world is waiting for them to say " we want peaceful discussion" rather than "death to the infidel".
.

The usual blinkered pro-Israel nonsense.

The Palestinians have been saying "we want peaceful discussion" since - IIRC - 1976, when the PLO agreed to recognise Israel in return for a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Naturally, they were ignored by the West and attacked by Israel. This has pretty much been the line of whichever Palestinian group has been in power since. This includes Hamas who have for several years offered through various channels pretty much the same thing, despite the naked hatred shown to the democratically-elected Palestinian government in the West.

An in depth look at contemporary records will show that the closer Palestinians come to a peaceful settlement, the more Israel attacks and provokes them, beacuse they are simply not interested in any peace which involves a Palestinian state. This includes the prelude to the Israeli massacre in Gaza last year, when Hamas implemented a months (year?) long unilateral ceasefire with almost no rockets fired (and the Israelis have acknowledged this), despite continual Israeli attacks and provocation, culminating in the invasion.

After 35 years of pleading for peaceful discussion, you really have to wonder how far it has got the Palestinians....

Mister men

galwayrush wrote: »

If they could import arms , for example missiles, they would be firing those instead of stones.

Indeed.

bambooze

Well this is interesting if not at all surprising..

Probe reveals flotilla lynchers have ties to Global Jihad

Some choice quotes..

The suspects are not cooperating with investigators. Most of them have no identification papers, and Israeli authorities are still trying to ascertain their identity.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority were recruited by the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.

Some of the suspects were found to be carrying large sums of money. Others had Kevlar vests and gas masks; and all were found to be carrying weapons such as knives, metal clubs and slingshots.

Investigators have already concluded that this was the group that planned the violent resistance, which centered on the Marmara's top deck.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html

---

Of course this comes from israeli sources so make of it what you will..

TerrorFirmer

ScumLord wrote: »

Well I don't know looking back over 800 years of British rule all that violence never worked. It's not like they just started using violence in the 20th century and found it worked, they got into the British parliament and began the political process.

Fair enough some changes like democracy had to take place first but the major difference I can see that Michael Collins made was targeted attacks with the intention of getting the Brits to the discussion table. Once we had that we never went back. The Palestinians have the option of political discussion there they don't need to fight for it. Fighting an enemy like Israel or the US or the UK is pointless it's a hopeless battle that you cannot possibly win through military action.

But that's because Ireland never had a successful guerrilla campaign in the past, though they did have several open wars which almost toppled Britain's rule - the problem was in their aftermath, British authority was only concreted. The War of Independence was different, at no stage was Britain going to suffer a literal defeat, but they were becoming tired of the constant violence, loss of control over the countryside, spiraling costs of the campaign, and the fact that the rest of the world was watching with interest - it was a particularly strong era of nationalism and patriotism. It took a long time to get to the discussion table, and that was simply because Britain, after several years, felt that the situation was becoming untenable long term, and the reason for that was military action. Had Britain managed to fight a successful war, they wouldn't have been overly interested in negotiations in the aftermath.

bambooze

Noreen1 wrote: »

So much for Obama and his pretty speeches about a new era for peace, and understanding. :rolleyes:

It's pretty much what I expected to happen - but it's still disgusting - because yet another opportunity to call a halt to this conflict has been lost - to the detriment of the people who want peace, whether they be Palestinian or Israeli!:mad:

Just how hard is it to understand that when people perceive their lives as being under threat , they often react violently - no matter which side of the conflict they happen to be on!!

Noreen

"The Obama Administration may be willing to involve international bodies in the Israeli inquest of the Gaza flotilla raid, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Gibbs' statement contradicts the US stance at the UN Security Council, where it said it believed Israel was capable of conducting its own investigation."

Manic Moran

Morlar wrote: »

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.

Before the US entered WWII, and at the height of the 'Happy Times' for the U-Boat fleet which was effectively trying to blockade the British Isles, the US was sending convoys of anything from food to war materiel to the UK. A number of the vessels were sunk, to include the occasional escorting US warship. Although the incidents certainly made the news, they were not viewed as 'Dasterdly underhanded German attacks on neutral vessels,' just the risks of doing business when trying to break through a blockade in a conflict. It took what was viewed as an unprovoked attack on the US military to bring them into the war. The Germans did not ask to stop to inspect the ships, they just sank them outright.

The blockade is in place in Gaza. You can argue over the legitimacy of the war to begin with, but it's there. Until the Israelis are satisfied that they should have no grounds for denying arrival in the place (i.e. inspect it themselves), there is inherent risk in trying to break the blockade.

NTM

B0jangles

bambooze wrote: »

Well this is interesting if not at all surprising..

Probe reveals flotilla lynchers have ties to Global Jihad

Some choice quotes..

The suspects are not cooperating with investigators. Most of them have no identification papers, and Israeli authorities are still trying to ascertain their identity.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the majority were recruited by the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.

and you don't see the contradiction here?

wes

B0jangles wrote: »

and you don't see the contradiction here?

Israel has no proof for any of there absurd claims? I am shocked.

Honestly, the attempted smearing is pretty damn pathetic. Thanks for pulling a part the sheer nonsense being spouted.