Aid ship attacked by Israeli soldiers

[Frosted]

To borrow Eyephantoms post on "you know you're a snus maniac when" -

I can't get out of my fecking office with all these charts and graphs.

[tom502]

Are they really shape shifters?

Curb Your Enthusiasm is my fave TV show, I'm glad it's back on, wed and thurs at 10pm on TVguide channel.

[sgreger1]

All the IDF wanted to do was have a look - obviously - because they knew the ship was trying to run the blockade. This is or should have been a routine inspection.

So if a police officer wants to look in your car because he has reason to suspect you might be carrying something that you shouldn't do you start crying about it when he doesn't find anything? Would you start fighting with an armed police officer, try to take his gun off him or beat him with a baseball bat - try to stab him before he even had a chance to look? Do you abide by the rules of your own country? When you go to someone elses country (If you've ever been out of your own country) do you abide by their rules or do you make your own up as you go along and bleat when they f*** you up the ass?

If you're on a boat and a customs officer wanted to board and you knew you had nothing to hide - would you beat the hell out of him?

The IDF were attacked with baseball bats iron bars knives etc. Don't know about you - but I could easily kill someone with one of those. People are only crying like babies because it was Israel.

THIS is exactly what I am saying. Think real world here people, they were boarded because they had a blockade set up and a boat was trying to make a run on it. They boarded to inspect (after announcing to the ship that they were about to be boarded), and upon boarding for a routine inspection, they found violent protestors assaulting them with deadly weapons, so they capped em. It's just like with a cop, you have to let them search your vehicle, you can't just tryo to steal their gun and then hit them with a baseball bat, because if you do and the cop gets his gun back, you are about to be suckin real bad.

[LaZeR]

The bottom line is every time Israel does something to defend itself, they are questioned to the highest degree and held guilty until proving their innocents.

IED's in the streets. Bombs going off in buses, Radicals chopping off heads of their enemies, ect... <---- These are just another 'day in the news' plight of 'freedom fighters'.... Nothing more to talk bout...

/Thread.

[truthwolf1]

It was a major FUMPA! they just need to admit it and get on with it.

First, they should of waited until the ship was in territorial waters not international waters to take any action.

Second, this ship was already checked for weapons from the Turkey port, a ally! So, there was no need to treat the ship like a group of Hamas fighters.

Agreed, they were angry protestors as also humanitarians trying to get needed aid through but dropping armed guys into a angry mob was a bad tactical decision. What did you think was going to happen?

Just a plain screw up and they have plenty of those on their record so that is why people are calling them on it.

[tom502]

What irks me about Israel, apart from it's mispalced inception, is they seem to get a pass on many things, but especially their secret nukes. They refuse to join the NPT, have recently been shown to have almost sold nukes, they don't allow the IAEA to inspect, the US refuses to push this, yet they howl over Iran and N.Korea. In other words, this special treatment, I think, makes it seem like Israel is a rouge state, and is not addressed by the international powers. If we really wanted a nuclear free middle east, and not an arms race, then Israel needs to come clean, and be removed of their secret nukes.

[sgreger1]

It was a major FUMPA! they just need to admit it and get on with it.

First, they should of waited until the ship was in territorial waters not international waters to take any action.

Second, this ship was already checked for weapons from the Turkey port, a ally! So, there was no need to treat the ship like a group of Hamas fighters.

Agreed, they were angry protestors as also humanitarians trying to get needed aid through but dropping armed guys into a angry mob was a bad tactical decision. What did you think was going to happen?

Just a plain screw up and they have plenty of those on their record so that is why people are calling them on it.

Can't disagree with that. Israel's hyper-vigilant take on things has repeatedly led to them flexing their muscles in situations that do not warrant it. If those were US soldiers, they'd all be court marshalled and given life sentences (which is stupid). What they did here is allow the protestors to win the media war, a bad tactical decision.

[sgreger1]

Among the "humanitarian" aid found on the Gaza flotilla was a cache of therapeutic bullet-proof vests, medicinal gas masks, and prescription night-vision goggles.

Fifty of the 'Mavi Marmara' passengers were tied to a global jihad network.

The group of over 50 passengers refused to identify themselves and were not carrying passports. Many of them were carrying envelopes packed with thousands of dollars in cash.


(Theres always two sides to the story people)

[Judge Faust]

To Frosted:

I note that you have swallowed Israel's official version of events hook, line, and sinker. You'll be interested to know that, in support of your position, Israel has now outright rejected any kind of international investigation into the events. Because hey, when you have absolutely nothing to hide, secrecy is naturally the best course of action...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/mid...t/10226151.stm


To LaZer:

Wow, you set us straight, didn't you? Israel is just retaliating against those head-chopping, bus-bombing.... er, Turks? Wait, that seems wrong, somehow. Maybe you should catch up on some basics before engaging in these discussions?

[Frosted]

To Frosted:

I note that you have swallowed Israel's official version of events hook, line, and sinker. You'll be interested to know that, in support of your position, Israel has now outright rejected any kind of international investigation into the events. Because hey, when you have absolutely nothing to hide, secrecy is naturally the best course of action...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/mid...t/10226151.stm


To LaZer:

Wow, you set us straight, didn't you? Israel is just retaliating against those head-chopping, bus-bombing.... er, Turks? Wait, that seems wrong, somehow. Maybe you should catch up on some basics before engaging in these discussions?

I posted the facts - I posted the maritime laws for blockades and the actual videos. I even posted a counter argument for you to pick up on which as far as I'm concerned is THE most important point of all and you've completely refused to see it, acknowledge it - or other.

[Judge Faust]

Here is the International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082...25641f002d49ce

This is what's wrong with non-legal professionals trying to figure out the law... Sigh.

My friend, the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea is not a treaty. It is an advisory opinion issued by a group of individuals, and has absolutely zero actual legal force. It's applicability in a court of law is about the same as my personal opinions would be in a US court.

I repeat: international law is nearly nonexistent. This is especially true for maritime law. Israel's actions did, however, break established human rights laws. Thus, you will want to focus on the Geneva Conventions rather than on advisory opinions in approaching this issue from a legal standpoint.

[sgreger1]

To Frosted:

I note that you have swallowed Israel's official version of events hook, line, and sinker. You'll be interested to know that, in support of your position, Israel has now outright rejected any kind of international investigation into the events. Because hey, when you have absolutely nothing to hide, secrecy is naturally the best course of action...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/mid...t/10226151.stm

To LaZer:

Wow, you set us straight, didn't you? Israel is just retaliating against those head-chopping, bus-bombing.... er, Turks? Wait, that seems wrong, somehow. Maybe you should catch up on some basics before engaging in these discussions?

And I see you have bought the protesters version of the story, hook, line, and sinker Faust. Is that any better? There is always two sides to the story, and both sides have a motive to be biased in their telling of the story. This ship knew there was a blockade there, but they still packed it with violent protestors looking for trouble. Is Israel a bunch of idiots for letting it play out the way it did? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that there are two versions to this story, and the liveleak video seems to support Israel's side; the protestors were attacking the soldiers and trying to steal their firearms and use deadly weapons against the soldiers (pipes, bats etc). And now they are sending round two, this time with naval vessels to accompany it? It just sounds like trouble, we all know how stubborn the Israeli's are, they ain't letting those ships through.

[danielan]

Israel's actions did, however, break established human rights laws.

Isn't running a blockade considered an act of war?

By this I mean "blockade-running". Obviously establishing a blockade is.

[LaZeR]

To LaZer:

Wow, you set us straight, didn't you? Israel is just retaliating against those head-chopping, bus-bombing.... er, Turks? Wait, that seems wrong, somehow. Maybe you should catch up on some basics before engaging in these discussions?

No, I just tend to counter stupidity with MoAr stupidity and simplicity. We can bitch, argue, moAn politics & the middle-east until are dicks turn purple. In the end, it isn't going to mean shit. Both sides exaggerate to make their points, as I admittedly do quite often. I'm not running for f...ing office, I'm kicking it in a "tobacco" forum.

Judge my post's how you wish. Pardon the pun...

Oh, and...

[Judge Faust]

And I see you have bought the protesters version of the story, hook, line, and sinker Faust. Is that any better? There is always two sides to the story, and both sides have a motive to be biased in their telling of the story. This ship knew there was a blockade there, but they still packed it with violent protestors looking for trouble. Is Israel a bunch of idiots for letting it play out the way it did? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that there are two versions to this story, and the liveleak video seems to support Israel's side; the protestors were attacking the soldiers and trying to steal their firearms and use deadly weapons against the soldiers (pipes, bats etc). And now they are sending round two, this time with naval vessels to accompany it? It just sounds like trouble, we all know how stubborn the Israeli's are, they ain't letting those ships through.

While most stories will have multiple versions, there is no rational reason to see them as being equally credible. Example: Holocaust-denial is one "telling" of WWII. It is not credible, and need not be given much consideration in the course of intellectual debate.

In support of my position, I point to Israel's 60-year history of excessive violence, unrestrained willingness to massacre civilians, and complete and utter disregard for human rights norms. I point at Turkey's opposite stances in these regards, as well as its incessant efforts to resolve the Zionist issue through non-violent means. I point to the fact that heavily-armed Israeli troops boarded civilian ships in international waters. I could point to a lot of mutually-accepted facts; the point being that history supports my position, rather than the fairy-tale world of the Zionist regime.

Also, I note that, even as you admonish me for taking sides, you too have clearly taken a side - the Zionist one. Look back at the post I quoted - like Frosted, you advance Israel's version of events as truth. As such, you are no more unbiased then I am; your biased position simply lacks any grounding in our apparent reality.