Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

prinz

IrishTonyO wrote: »

That would be the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_of_the_sea

Which Israel is not a signatory of :rolleyes:

Deep Easterly

dan719 wrote: »

Israel does not "play by the rules", and I don't blame them. No matter what anyone says they are at a constant state of war with their neighbours. More rockets are at aimed at Tel Aviv per square foot then anywhere else in the world.

Even if that were true, why do you think that is?

Villain

prinz wrote: »

Which Israel is not a signatory of :rolleyes:

LOL you don't say, I wonder why?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Which Israel is not a signatory of :rolleyes:

Yeah, they are also not a signatory of the NPT. Because Israel feels that it is above the law.

RonMexico

partyguinness wrote: »

Robert Fisk is on RTE 1 radio now and he has clearly lost the plot.....he wants to debate the massacre of Armenians in WW1 by Turkey.

I heard that...a total WTF moment there from Robert Fisk. Have his books and respect his opinion but he sounded demented there

thusspakeblixa

partyguinness wrote: »

Robert Fisk is on RTE 1 radio now and he has clearly lost the plot.....he wants to debate the massacre of Armenians in WW1 by Turkey.

In fairness, Sean O'Rourke asked Fisk why relations between Israel and Turkey have cooled recently.
Fisk said it was because the Israelis began to recognise the Armenian Genocide as a genocide (where previously they hadn't).
Then SO'R started asking him to get back on topic. The topic which Fisk had begun to address.

dan719

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Even if that were true, why do you think that is?

If that were true? Why not merely ask for a link?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

It's at the bottom of the article. I notice no-one has mentioned this btw.

RasTa

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont understand that sentence can you clarify?

Yeah it's simple, Israel always claim they are acting in self defence.

dlofnep

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

In fairness, Sean O'Rourke asked Fisk why relations between Israel and Turkey have cooled recently.
Fisk said it was because the Israelis began to recognise the Armenian Genocide as a genocide (where previously they hadn't).
Then SO'R started asking him to get back on topic. The topic which Fisk had begun to address.

Correct.

partyguinness

dan719 wrote: »

I feel sorry for people, like yourself, who for so long have justified the murderous campaign in the North waged by Sinn Fein/IRA, that they feel the need to support the actions of terrorists in the Middle East, so as not to look completely idiotic.

Israel does not "play by the rules", and I don't blame them. No matter what anyone says they are at a constant state of war with their neighbours. More rockets are at aimed at Tel Aviv per square foot then anywhere else in the world. Their actions are a result of the siege mentality formed since the creation of the state of Israel and Jewish history more generally. (The holocaust was merely the icing on the cake for two thousand years of anti semitism).

P.S These marches were organised very quickly, no doubt the hand wringers expected something like this to happen, and had them provisionally set.

and of course poor old little Israel is nothing but an innocent victim against nasty Arabs 'mentalists and bleeding heart western liberals....

Mate, your views are just as blinkered and idiotic as the people you castigate in your first paragraph. You are no better.

calex71

dlofnep wrote: »

Ridiculous. They expected Israel to murder 19 people? The consensus was that Israel would force the ships to move to an Israeli port where they may have been held in a detention camp. Nobody expected them to be murdered.



Yeah, I'm sure that they are relishing in the fact that 19 of their friends are now dead.



You're angry that activists who wanted to bring aid to Gaza which was seriously lacking in aid (Confirmed by the UN)? Ridiculous.



No, only one side shares the blame. The one that opened fire and killed 19 innocent civilians.

You're missing my point, I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I am angry at the organizers.

But the dog on the street could have guess this would happen, thinking a country with Israel's track record would not respond aggressively towards them was at best naive at worst down right stupid.

dlofnep

calex71 wrote: »

You're missing my point, I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I am angry at the organizers..

Why are you angry at the organizers? Shouldn't your anger be directed at Israel that upholds an illegal blockade, stopping much needed aid from reaching Gaza? These people were just trying to bring that aid. I can't actually believe I'm debating this. It's not up for debate.

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

Which Israel is not a signatory of :rolleyes:

They may not be a signatory to it, but it confers the right to other nations to take action against them for doing so as it degrades international law

article 87(a) provides for “freedom of navigation.”
article 88, states, “The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.”
arrticle 89 states, “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
article 90 states, “Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”

IrishTonyO

calex71 wrote: »

You're missing my point, I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I am angry at the organizers.

But the dog on the street could have guess this would happen, thinking a country with Israel's track record would not respond aggressively towards them was at best naive at worst down right stupid.

No one would have guessed that Israel who shoot and kill unarmed people on board,

2kool4skool

An embargo on Israeli products (largely electrical machinery, fruit and vegetables and medical and pharmaceutical products) would certainly be likely to put as much pressure on Israel as possible. Don't expect any official support however as Ireland's exports to Israel are worth some €229 million annually compared to some €85 million in imports. Cement Roadstone's 25% share of Nesher cement (with an option to acquire a further 25%) and its connection to the wall is certainly not pretty.

alastair

calex71 wrote: »

You're missing my point, I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I am angry at the organizers.

But the dog on the street could have guess this would happen, thinking a country with Israel's track record would not respond aggressively towards them was at best naive at worst down right stupid.

I believe blaming the victim is also common enough in rape cases too.

I doubt anyone in the flotilla expected no resistance from Istael. I equally doubt that anyone willingly signed up for a lottery as to whether they would be one of 19 dead.

prinz

IrishTonyO wrote: »

They may not be a signatory to it, but it confers the right to other nations to take action against them for doing so as it degrades international law

article 87(a) provides for “freedom of navigation.”
article 88, states, “The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.”
arrticle 89 states, “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.”
article 90 states, “Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”

None of which of course impacts at all on the right to 'protect' yourself by extending jurisdiction. None of the above indicates that action is to be taken against non-signatories?

Deep Easterly

dan719 wrote: »

If that were true? Why not merely ask for a link?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7140282.ece

It's at the bottom of the article. I notice no-one has mentioned this btw.

Well, if ONE "expert" says so, then it must be true.

"Tel Aviv, Israel’s business and defence centre, remains the most threatened city in the world, said one expert. “There are more missiles per square foot targeting Tel Aviv than any other city,” he said."

Now, if that were true, why do you think that is?

PeakOutput

apparently there is now video on news stations of at least one protester attacking at least one soldier with a wooden or metal bar as he boards the boat

i am NOT saying this justifies the killing of 19 people

i am saying that it does not correlate with most peoples view here of poor cowering innocent protesters being attacked

if you run up to a soldier that is fully armed and start attacking him in anyway you should expect to be shot

these are not police here who are trained to control a population and serve it with its best interests at heart

these are soldiers trained to go into a situation and win with overwhelming force

from what i have read about that video i have no sympathy for that particular protester i wont say for sure that there were more acting like him but id be very suprised if there wasnt

calex71

dlofnep wrote: »

Why are you angry at the organizers? Shouldn't your anger be directed at Israel that upholds an illegal blockade, stopping much needed aid from reaching Gaza? These people were just trying to bring that aid. I can't actually believe I'm debating this. It's not up for debate.

I did say was angry at Israel, and I am believe !!!!!!!

Those people where just trying to bring much needed aid , again we agree.

But my whole point is that the organizers who I firmly think do have their own agenda, at least should have been aware of the danger that was 99% certain to happen here. That aid was NEVER getting to Gaza, maybe they where foolish enough to think that it would server as some kind of peaceful protest either

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

None of which of course impacts at all on the right to 'protect' yourself by extending jurisdiction. None of the above indicates that action is to be taken against non-signatories?

How does murdering innocent humanitarian activists who were bringing aid to Gaza constitute as protecting yourself?

wes

PeakOutput wrote: »

apparently there is now video on news stations of at least one protester attacking at least one soldier with a wooden or metal bar as he boards the boat

i am NOT saying this justifies the killing of 19 people

i am saying that it does not correlate with most peoples view here of poor cowering innocent protesters being attacked

if you run up to a soldier that is fully armed and start attacking him in anyway you should expect to be shot

these are not police here who are trained to control a population and serve it with its best interests at heart

these are soldiers trained to go into a situation and win with overwhelming force

from what i have read about that video i have no sympathy for that particular protester i wont say for sure that there were more acting like him but id be very suprised if there wasnt

The soldier had no business on the boat in the first place. The soldier is no different than a Somali pirate, and should be treated no different.

calex71

alastair wrote: »

I believe blaming the victim is also common enough in rape cases too.

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

I can't actually believe I'm debating this. It's not up for debate.

Contrary to the belief of some people who see the world in black and white it is actually possible that both parties were in the wrong.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

No one would have guessed that Israel who shoot and kill unarmed people on board,

I would have guessed it. Not that far fetched an idea in all fairness.

PeakOutput

wes wrote: »

The soldier had no business on the boat in the first place.

in your opinion

in my opinion i have no problem with israel inspecting aid that is going into a country that repeatedly attacks them

prinz

dlofnep wrote: »

How does murdering innocent humanitarian activists who were bringing aid to Gaza constitute as protecting yourself?

The Israelis wanted to verify what was on board. The 'innocent humanitarian activists'* wouldn't agree to this.



*activists by the way who don't give a toss in the world about human dignity.

Deep Easterly

prinz wrote: »

Contrary to the belief of some people who see the world in black and white it is actually possible that both parties were in the wrong.

IDF kills innocent aid workers.

How does this make both parties involved wrong?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

Contrary to the belief of some people who see the world in black and white it is actually possible that both parties were in the wrong.

No, you only see the world in blue and white. Why can't you just admit that it was wrong to shoot dead humanitarian activists in international waters?

IrishTonyO

PeakOutput wrote: »

apparently there is now video on news stations of at least one protester attacking at least one soldier with a wooden or metal bar as he boards the boat

i am NOT saying this justifies the killing of 19 people

i am saying that it does not correlate with most peoples view here of poor cowering innocent protesters being attacked

if you run up to a soldier that is fully armed and start attacking him in anyway you should expect to be shot

these are not police here who are trained to control a population and serve it with its best interests at heart

these are soldiers trained to go into a situation and win with overwhelming force

from what i have read about that video i have no sympathy for that particular protester i wont say for sure that there were more acting like him but id be very suprised if there wasnt

If you would care to go back a few pages you will see a link to live coverage of the event from the boat. Where shots were fired, at least one was killed and others wounded before the Israelis boarded the boat.

Ben Hadad

It's common knowledge that forum boards are used by media groups and in this case probably intelligence related agencys to conduct propaganda in order to weaken or disprove any negative related discussion against that body, or nationality of that body.

It is no coincidence that many people who are vehemently defending this Israeli action were up at the crack of dawn to post very positive posts on this subject.

Irish people have historically sided with Palistine mainly due to empathy as we to, although to a far less extent, were subjugated by a larger neighbour, and also because of our morality, to be easily able to decipher between right and wrong.

What Israel have done today is obviously wrong to anyone with a sense of morality and I would go as far to say that anyone who defends this Israeli action is ammoral.