Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Irlandese

wes wrote: »

Wait, so there going to sail to land locked Kurdistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg

Well there more than welcome to try and sail over land...... Reminds of the suggestions of floatillas to Chechenya, earlier in this thread or the other one in After Hours. Seriously do people not check maps, when suggesting this stuff....

Go on, give yourself a treat and read the whole article:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177789

They are sailing to Turkey, friend.
Should we try to get an Irish contingent involved?

wes

I taught the following video from Al Jazeera, which details Israel's siege effect on children, shows why so many people are willing to risks there lives to break Israels disgusting act of collective punishment:

Siege takes toll on Gaza children

deravarra

Irlandese wrote: »

Go on, give yourself a treat and read the whole article:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177789

They are sailing to Turkey, friend.
Should we try to get an Irish contingent involved?

Sure - go ahead ... and while you're at it, ask your hosts what they think of christianity Ask them about the Talmud.

deravarra

Irlandese wrote: »

And all this written from one of the craftiest theocracies on the planet.............
Are you not a member of Opus dei then?
My God, they will let anyone post here nowadays !

I'm not a catholic, nor a christian - so that would exclude me from being a member of opus dei.

Yes, they do allow anyone post here nowadays - after all, YOU are here

Scofflaw

Irlandese wrote: »

I think we all know the rule Scofflaw, which is why we stringently avoid suggesting in any way, at all, at all, at all, that you might be more than a little out of order, if you were ever thought, even for a millisecond, no matter how outragoeus such a thought would be, to all of us rule respecters, to be allegedly using your functional advantages as a mod, on thread, to advance one side of the debate. Phew.
Of course you would never do that. It would not be right. And we would be wrong to say so, whether it happened or not, am I not right?
In fact, I am on record here somewhere as commenting that you were a very moderate moderator. Now when was that comment?? I forget.....
Anyway, we were saying ? ............

I wind up banning people because they break the forum rules, as you've done here. 48 hour ban - and I'm not sure how collecting a ban was supposed to advance your side of the discussion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

You know like..they could have communicated with the IDF and arranged transport to Israel.
We'll agree to disagree on the aggitator definition but thats exactly what you are if you decide that you are going up against a countries navy regardless of it's reputation.

They "could have communicated with the IDF and arranged transport to Israel" - if and only if they agree that the Israeli blockade is legitimate, and believe that aid filtered through the blockade is adequate. Clearly, neither of those things is the case, and the whole point of the flotillas is to highlight that that's not the case.

Deciding to defend yourself when you believe you have the right to doesn't make you an agitator in any reasonable dictionary.

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering my rather strong condemnation of Israel throughout this thread does not equate to agreement with their actions,I'm baffled at your conclusion.
You can of course laugh at me if you disagree,thats your prerogative.
I'm not laughing.

It's also a little amusing that you believe you're strongly condemning Israel here!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

deravarra wrote: »

Well tickle me pink ... here we go with the nimbyism Israeli style.

The Israelis WERE the minority until Jews were jetted in from all corners of the globe, with the promise of a home and money. Not even in Iran would you find this sort of theocracy!

Maybe we could provide some aid to the christian people of bethlehem ...

I warned against this sort of post before - by you, I think. It's inflammatory and off-topic rehashing of old arguments. You join Irlandese in the sin-bin for 48 hours.

moderately,
Scofflaw

halkar

I have not seen any info on western media but almost all of Turkish media are reporting that Iran have sent one ship on Sunday and nother one to go Friday.

iranian-aid-ships-head-for-gaza

If true, interesting times ahead.

Run_to_da_hills

halkar wrote: »

I have not seen any info on western media but almost all of Turkish media are reporting that Iran have sent one ship on Sunday and nother one to go Friday.

iranian-aid-ships-head-for-gaza

If true, interesting times ahead.

Its in the Guardian.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

They "could have communicated with the IDF and arranged transport to Israel" - if and only if they agree that the Israeli blockade is legitimate, and believe that aid filtered through the blockade is adequate. Clearly, neither of those things is the case, and the whole point of the flotillas is to highlight that that's not the case.

Deciding to defend yourself when you believe you have the right to doesn't make you an agitator in any reasonable dictionary.

With respect,thats nonsense in my view.
Going up against a powerfull navy regardless of what you think of said navy/country is folly.
It doesn't matter what they believe about the blockade.When Israel were on the radio to them saying no,then that was that.Nothing could be done.Thinking otherwise is just plain nonsensical [unless of course they were depending on keith barry to mass hypnotize the israeli's or something..]
But I guess we're so far away from each other on different pages in that view it seems...that the best thing to do is agree to disagree on that point too.

It's also a little amusing that you believe you're strongly condemning Israel here!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh on the contrary I don't think I'll be invited to tea anytime soon...

Offy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its in the Guardian.

I wonder if this will get America involved? After America stated that they would use nuclear weapons on Iran it makes me wonder if Iran havent developed their own nuclear weapons. The sad part is America started the nuclear program in Iran and America gave nuclear weapons to Israel. Israel have already said Iran have the bomb, is the killing of the aid workers going to be viewed like the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in years to come and will Einstein predictions about ww4 turn out to be true?

Run_to_da_hills

Offy wrote: »

I wonder if this will get America involved? After America stated that they would use nuclear weapons on Iran it makes me wonder if Iran havent developed their own nuclear weapons. The sad part is America started the nuclear program in Iran and America gave nuclear weapons to Israel. Israel have already said Iran have the bomb, is the killing of the aid workers going to be viewed like the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in years to come and will Einstein predictions about ww4 turn out to be true?

Iran raises Gaza threat by vowing to challenge Israel's blockade.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7809224/Iran-raises-Gaza-threat-by-vowing-to-challenge-Israels-blockade.html

If Israel wasn't so stubborn we wouldn't need any basic aid shipments. It looks like this ship will also have some assistance from Turkey. The showdown should be interesting.

Offy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Iran raises Gaza threat by vowing to challenge Israel's blockade.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7809224/Iran-raises-Gaza-threat-by-vowing-to-challenge-Israels-blockade.html

If Israel wasn't so stubborn we wouldn't need any basic aid shipments. It looks like this ship will also have some assistance from Turkey. The showdown should be interesting.

Interesting and scary. Both Israel and America have been looking to have a good old fight with Iran but who else is likely to join in? More importantly America is willing to drop the bomb on Iran and Israel will use any weapon they want. What will Iran bring to the table and who will Iran bring to the table? Time will tell.

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

Interesting and scary. Both Israel and America have been looking to have a good old fight with Iran but who else is likely to join in? More importantly America is willing to drop the bomb on Iran and Israel will use any weapon they want. What will Iran bring to the table and who will Iran bring to the table? Time will tell.

What indication has the US given that they want to drop the bomb on Iran? Let alone Israel (Israel?! The US?!)

The US wont even drop a bomb to fix an oil leak. What makes you think the US is ready to use one aggressively?

Run_to_da_hills

Offy wrote: »

Interesting and scary. Both Israel and America have been looking to have a good old fight with Iran but who else is likely to join in? More importantly America is willing to drop the bomb on Iran and Israel will use any weapon they want. What will Iran bring to the table and who will Iran bring to the table? Time will tell.

With Turkish assistance on this humanitarian mission it should make things quite interesting and embarrising if this ship gets "blown out of the water".

Turkey is NATO member along with the US of which Israel is not. America and other NATO members are obliged to support a NATO member in trouble. This will really show whose side of the fence America is really on.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

What indication has the US given that they want to drop the bomb on Iran? Let alone Israel (Israel?! The US?!)

The US wont even drop a bomb to fix an oil leak. What makes you think the US is ready to use one aggressively?

"Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States." taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear

Offy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With Turkish assistance on this humanitarian mission it should make things quite interesting and embarrising if this ship gets "blown out of the water".

Turkey is NATO member along with the US of which Israel is not. America and other NATO members are obliged to support a NATO member in trouble. This will really show whose side of the fence America is really on.

Can America veto Nato actions?

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

"Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States." taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states[156]. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[157] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[158]




In fairness the only thing we dont have "On the Table" are plans to survive a Zombie Apocalypse. I really can't read this as an imminent threat or intention to nuke Iran. Much less because they send 2 ships loaded with food and toys to gaza.

And again, on what planet does it make sense that the US would nuke Israel? Im not saying we dont probably have it "on the table" but humour me, why would the US think of nuking Israel? Because we decided we didnt like them after all? You're making dilute arguments.


Also, we have plans "On the table" to nuke russia. Have done for 40+ years. Should it be viewed as an imminent threat? :rolleyes:

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

Can America veto Nato actions?

http://www.google.com/search?q=nato+veto+power&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with a nuclear first strike by the United States. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review made public in 2002 specifically envisioned the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis, even against non-nuclear armed states[156]. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran[157] When specifically questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, President Bush claimed that "All options were on the table". According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "the president of the United States directly threatened Iran with a preemptive nuclear strike. It is hard to read his reply in any other way."[158]



In fairness the only thing we dont have "On the Table" are plans to survive a Zombie Apocalypse. I really can't read this as an imminent threat or intention to nuke Iran. Much less because they send 2 ships loaded with food and toys to gaza.

And again, on what planet does it make sense that the US would nuke Israel? Im not saying we dont probably have it "on the table" but humour me, why would the US think of nuking Israel? Because we decided we didnt like them after all? You're making dilute arguments.


Also, we have plans "On the table" to nuke russia. Have done for 40+ years. Should it be viewed as an imminent threat? :rolleyes:

"Through 2008, the United States repeatedly refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran." taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_program

Im speculating on the outcome of Israel killing 9 aid workers from Iran. As America can veto any action against Israel then I guess Israel might remain safe. When you say "Also, we have plans "On the table" to nuke russia. Have done for 40+ years. " can you specify who the we is because Im Irish and 'we' dont have any nuclear weapons so how can 'we' have plans to nuke anyone? If you want to discuss America making sense then Im out of the conversation simply because I wouldnt even try and make sense of a country that supported and supplied Bin Laden. I was talking about America nukein Iran and Israel nuking Iran NOT America nuking Israel. My apologies if it sounded like I meant America nuking Israel.

K-9

Offy wrote: »

"Through 2008, the United States repeatedly refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran." taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_program

Im speculating on the outcome of Israel killing 9 aid workers from Iran. As America can veto any action against Israel then I guess Israel might remain safe. When you say "Also, we have plans "On the table" to nuke russia. Have done for 40+ years. " can you specify who the we is because Im Irish and 'we' dont have any nuclear weapons so how can 'we' have plans to nuke anyone? If you want to discuss America making sense then Im out of the conversation simply because I wouldnt even try and make sense of a country that supported and supplied Bin Laden. I was talking about America nukein Iran and Israel nuking Iran NOT America nuking Israel. My apologies if it sounded like I meant America nuking Israel.

Have we not had a change of Presidency since then?

Sorry for the flippant post, but it isn't as simple as that.

Offy

K-9 wrote: »

Have we not had a change of Presidency since then?

Sorry for the flippant post, but it isn't as simple as that.

"On July 26, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explicitly ruled out the possibility that the Obama administration would allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel, even under intense international inspection"

"On September 21, 2009, Iran informed the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility. The following day (September 22) IAEA Director General ElBaradei informed the United States, and two days later (September 24) the United States, United Kingdom and France briefed the IAEA on an enrichment facility under construction at an underground location at Fordo, twenty miles north of Qom. On September 25, at the G-20 Summit, the three countries criticized Iran for once again concealing a nuclear facility from the IAEA. The United States argued that the facility, which was still months from completion, was too small to be useful for a civil program but could produce enough high-enriched uranium for one or more bombs per year."
Taken from the same site as before.
A change of president does not mean Iran are not developing the bomb. I assume you are talking about America?

K-9

Offy wrote: »

"On July 26, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explicitly ruled out the possibility that the Obama administration would allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel, even under intense international inspection"

"On September 21, 2009, Iran informed the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility. The following day (September 22) IAEA Director General ElBaradei informed the United States, and two days later (September 24) the United States, United Kingdom and France briefed the IAEA on an enrichment facility under construction at an underground location at Fordo, twenty miles north of Qom. On September 25, at the G-20 Summit, the three countries criticized Iran for once again concealing a nuclear facility from the IAEA. The United States argued that the facility, which was still months from completion, was too small to be useful for a civil program but could produce enough high-enriched uranium for one or more bombs per year."
Taken from the same site as before.
A change of president does not mean Iran are not developing the bomb. I assume you are talking about America?

Slightly different from 08, No?

Flippant response again, Obama has a slightly different tact to Bush? Yes?

/Flippant response!

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

"On July 26, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explicitly ruled out the possibility that the Obama administration would allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel, even under intense international inspection"

"On September 21, 2009, Iran informed the IAEA that it was constructing a second enrichment facility. The following day (September 22) IAEA Director General ElBaradei informed the United States, and two days later (September 24) the United States, United Kingdom and France briefed the IAEA on an enrichment facility under construction at an underground location at Fordo, twenty miles north of Qom. On September 25, at the G-20 Summit, the three countries criticized Iran for once again concealing a nuclear facility from the IAEA. The United States argued that the facility, which was still months from completion, was too small to be useful for a civil program but could produce enough high-enriched uranium for one or more bombs per year."
Taken from the same site as before.
A change of president does not mean Iran are not developing the bomb. I assume you are talking about America?

Im sorry, nowhere in those quotes did I read Hilldog intends to bomb the infidels, bla bla bla. What I did hear was that the Administration would not allow them to produce WMDs. Im sorry you immediately jump to the conclusion that the only way they would attempt to prevent them from doing so is with a First Strike Nuclear assault. I mean, Im no big wig military general, but Im pretty darn sure theres a little more to it than that. Or else Korea really would be the blank space on the map that google maps gives it credit for.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

Im sorry, nowhere in those quotes did I read Hilldog intends to bomb the infidels, bla bla bla.

Im sorry but could you point out where I said that?

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

Im sorry but could you point out where I said that?

Im sorry but your whole tangent for several posts now is that the United States is imminently poised and willing to launch a Nuclear Strike against Iran.

Im still waiting for a basis to that argument.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

Im sorry but your whole tangent for several posts now is that the United States is imminently poised and willing to launch a Nuclear Strike against Iran.

Im still waiting for a basis to that argument.

Perhaps you should have read the post where I said "Im speculating". Your putting words into my mouth.

Overheal

Offy wrote: »

I wonder if this will get America involved? After America stated that they would use nuclear weapons on Iran it makes me wonder if Iran havent developed their own nuclear weapons. The sad part is America started the nuclear program in Iran and America gave nuclear weapons to Israel. Israel have already said Iran have the bomb, is the killing of the aid workers going to be viewed like the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in years to come and will Einstein predictions about ww4 turn out to be true?

Offy wrote: »

Interesting and scary. Both Israel and America have been looking to have a good old fight with Iran but who else is likely to join in? More importantly America is willing to drop the bomb on Iran and Israel will use any weapon they want. What will Iran bring to the table and who will Iran bring to the table? Time will tell.

Offy wrote: »

Perhaps you should have read the post where I said "Im speculating". Your putting words into my mouth.

You seem to be putting words in your own mouth; because I dont see any speculative language here: only absolutes, where you appear to be dealing in "Fact". But I accept your apology. I will in turn view these two posts as merely speculative, and not grounded in hard fact.

Im speculating on the outcome of Israel killing 9 aid workers from Iran.

Very, very hard to say. Like everything involving these countries. It may even come down to legalities. I for one amen't read up on Israeli-US treaties but theres a fair shilling that says theres probably some terms and conditions that could be severed as a result of any such engagement with the Iranian Flotilla.

Offy

Overheal wrote: »

You seem to be putting words in your own mouth; because I dont see any speculative language here: only absolutes, where you appear to be dealing in "Fact". But I accept your apology. I will in turn view these two posts as merely speculative, and not grounded in hard fact.

Now your twisting what I said. I stand by all three quotes and I have provided proof for the first two where I wasnt speculating. Perhaps of you read the posts you will see that. Also keep in mind that Im Irish not American so when you talk about 'we' perhaps you should say 'we Americans'? If you dont like what your elected representatives say then take it up with them. Twisting my words to suit your agenda doesnt contribute to this conversation.

Originally Posted by Offy
I wonder if this will get America involved? After America stated that they would use nuclear weapons on Iran it makes me wonder if Iran havent developed their own nuclear weapons. The sad part is America started the nuclear program in Iran and America gave nuclear weapons to Israel. Israel have already said Iran have the bomb, is the killing of the aid workers going to be viewed like the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in years to come and will Einstein predictions about ww4 turn out to be true?
Not speculation!

Interesting and scary. Both Israel and America have been looking to have a good old fight with Iran but who else is likely to join in? More importantly America is willing to drop the bomb on Iran and Israel will use any weapon they want. What will Iran bring to the table and who will Iran bring to the table? Time will tell.
Not speculation!

Im speculating on the outcome of Israel killing 9 aid workers from Iran. As America can veto any action against Israel then I guess Israel might remain safe. When you say "Also, we have plans "On the table" to nuke russia. Have done for 40+ years. " can you specify who the we is because Im Irish and 'we' dont have any nuclear weapons so how can 'we' have plans to nuke anyone? If you want to discuss America making sense then Im out of the conversation simply because I wouldnt even try and make sense of a country that supported and supplied Bin Laden.
Speculation

I hope that clears things up for you.

K-9

Offy, times have changed. There is a new administration, Thank God!

Posting links to 2008, shows such a complete unawareness of the USA, it is unbelievable.