Israel vs. Turkish Sea vessel

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_an/ml_israel_fallout_analysis

I kinda raged at this

http://www.facebook.com/israelflotilla

Badly planned/executed operation, so the Israelis are responsible in that sense, but if you knock soldiers unconscious and then remove (and perhaps even fire - still unclear) their weapons, you can expect to get shot at. I think it's now clear that however badly the Israelis planned this operation, there were some highly militant protesters on board, and that they certainly were not engaging in peaceful resistence as was claimed earlier in the day.

Hardly the first time the israeli state has done this.
http://www.gtr5.com/

The israeli government seems to have a policy which deliberately permits certain attacks on visitors to Gaza.  About a year or so ago, former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was jailed by israelis for visiting Gaza.
http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/gaza-strip/1261-former-us-congresswoman-speaks-out-of-her-jail-in-israel

On the good side, there seem to be a growing number of jews in the United States and elsewhere in opposition to israel.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/05/31/2739382/j-street-apn-respond-to-gaza-flotilla-deaths

When Ahmadinejad said he wants israel off the map, he is misinterpreted by western media.  He does not advocate genocide.  He wants the elimination and deconstruction of a tyrannical state in a manner similar to the way the Soviet Union was deconstructed.

While I have no opposition to a home for the Jews and thus no opposition to the country of Israel, their policies over the last few years that I've been watching them has made me cautious of their leadership and general mind-set.

Israel has to realize that one of the main reasons for the increasing anti american sentiment in the area is as a result of our favoritism for that country, which is undeniable.  Their actions do endanger our soldiers, as all of our intelligence reports and even our top generals confirm.  We give them billions in military aid, and military technolody, in addition to unquestioned diplomatic immunity in the UN, including preventing any kind of investigation into their questionable activities, and the ability to have nuclear weapons without any international oversight.  Yet we insist Iran adhere to rules that Isreal does not have to adhere too.

Let me say this, what do you think the U.S. media would be reporting if it was Iran that boarded a civilian vessle in international waters and killed 10 people?

Bunch of bullshit in this thread. Gulf of Tonkin, etc.

Let me say this, what do you think the U.S. media would be reporting if it was Iran that boarded a civilian vessle in international waters and killed 10 people?

"US Congress set to declare war tomorrow on evil Iranian dictatorship"

The one thing we should all remember, no matter how bad it gets, is that a government or even a single leader does not necessarily speak for all people. 

Look at Our past and present presidents.  If you took a poll and asked if Bush was your voice, half (or more) of the nation would say No.  If  you took a poll and asked if Obama was your voice, you'd likely get similar results. (probably not as high on the 'no' but you get my point)


It's a simple matter to say that politics suck.  It's a harder matter to say why no one stops it from sucking.

While I have no opposition to a home for the Jews and thus no opposition to the country of Israel, their policies over the last few years that I've been watching them has made me cautious of their leadership and general mind-set.

Why do the Jews need a 'home'?  Is every religion entitled the God-given right to have a hunk of land carved out and granted to them?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2010, 06:05:06 PM

While I have no opposition to a home for the Jews and thus no opposition to the country of Israel, their policies over the last few years that I've been watching them has made me cautious of their leadership and general mind-set.

Why do the Jews need a 'home'?  Is every religion entitled the God-given right to have a hunk of land carved out and granted to them?

Only after you go through a Holocaust.

Also, "If the Arabs put down their guns, there would be no violence, if the Israelis put down their guns, there would be no Israel."

Let me say this, what do you think the U.S. media would be reporting if it was Iran that boarded a civilian vessle in international waters and killed 10 people?

How about a military vessel?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm


Now I know these situations aren't really comparable, but nonetheless, the Iranians have done this kind of thing before.


On topic, when I first heard about it I thought the Israelis must have been to blame, because I seriously doubted that resistence was as strong as the Israeli PR machine was making out. However, having seen footage of the incident, it's clear that the soldiers were attacked, and that some of their lives genuinely were in danger. For that reason, I find it hard to be sympathetic towards these so-called 'peaceful protesters', given that they were clearly out for blood.


However, serious questions have to be asked about the planning of the operation, because ultimately Israel is responsible for the situation. Those soldiers should never have been in a position where they had to use live ammunition or where things could go so badly wrong.

I think the bigger question is, is the blockade of the Gaza strip allowed?  If the UN has no problem with the blockade...they shouldnt have a problem with Israel defending it however they see fit.  Humanitarian or not.  Which I think we all will agree with, probably not 100%. 

The ship was in international waters, whether the protesters were peaceful or not boarding the ship was tantamount to piracy.

On topic, when I first heard about it I thought the Israelis must have been to blame, because I seriously doubted that resistence was as strong as the Israeli PR machine was making out. However, having seen footage of the incident, it's clear that the soldiers were attacked, and that some of their lives genuinely were in danger. For that reason, I find it hard to be sympathetic towards these so-called 'peaceful protesters', given that they were clearly out for blood.


However, serious questions have to be asked about the planning of the operation, because ultimately Israel is responsible for the situation. Those soldiers should never have been in a position where they had to use live ammunition or where things could go so badly wrong.

Even if they were attacked, the ship was boarded illegally by armed men.  If the police were to break into somebody's home illegally, then (after being attacked), end up shooting and killing several of the family members, should the police be able to claim self defense?

The ship was in international waters, whether the protesters were peaceful or not boarding the ship was tantamount to piracy.

Yes, but they took it in international waters for a justifiable reason (in security terms at least), and one which would probably hold up in court. The large size of the flotilla meant that had they waited until the ships reached 'Israeli' waters, they might have slipped through if things didn't go according to plan (which they didn't). It is my understanding (and I could ne wrong) that in such situations, action in international waters is legitimate.

Even if they were attacked, the ship was boarded illegally by armed men.

Do you know that it was illegal? Although I have seen lots of reports point out that it took place in international waters, I have yet to see any legitimate sources claim that it was an illegal action. To my knowledge it is more complex than you suggest.

If the police were to break into somebody's home illegally, then (after being attacked), end up shooting and killing several of the family members, should the police be able to claim self defense?

The question of legality looms large in this, and until that is settled I guess this isn't going anywhere. My main point is that the organisations behind this protest action spent much of yesterday claiming their actions were entirely peaceful and that they did not initiate the violence, something which has been shown to be totally untrue.


This was a botched operation, yes, but it was not a peaceful protest, and the instant you use potentially lethal violence against soldiers (as the 'lynch mobs' seen in the footage certainly appear to do), or take and brandish firearms (as per eye-witness accounts), you're asking for trouble.


Israel has to be held responsible, because ultimately if you initiate such an assault, you are responsible for its outcome. Their goal was to pacify the protesters and seize control of the ship quickly and without incident; the loss of life represents a massive failure on the part of the people in command. However, the protesters claimed to be peaceful, and effectively sailed under the white flag. Their actions show that they were at best disingenuous, and at worst reckless and irresponsible. Who's going to believe that the next convoy is filled only with peaceful protesters?

Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for heavily armed pirates killing 10 people armed with whatever they could find aboard their own boat and in (allegedly) international waters.

Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for heavily armed pirates killing 10 people armed with whatever they could find aboard their own boat and in (allegedly) international waters.

I completely agree with this.

My strong suspicion is that I overwhelmingly disagree with Wilmore on this issue, but I will read on it more before making any detailed accusations against the zionist murderers reguarding this issue.  I do know that any blockade of Gaza by the zionist state is completely wrong and deserves any military action against it up to and including annihilation.  They are murderers and thieves who are arrogant enough to attempt to legitimize what they do.  These war criminals are perpetrators of holocausts - not recipients.  

Pongo is right about judaism having no right to a national state, and plenty of jews agree with him.
What essential difference is there between the zionist nationalist state and the old blood dripping papal states?

When it comes down to it, heavily armed commando units came down on a ship carrying humanitarian aid illegally (international waters or not, invading a ship without reason is illegal) and opened fire because protesters attempted to attack them (given the nature of the invasion, the appearance of the commandos and Israels undeniable history in such matters) with "bats, clubs and slingshots filled with marbles", according to an IDF spokesman. These protesters were apparently trying to bring down the helicopters with such weapons, so when the IDF opened fire several were beaten unconscious and had their weapons stolen, otherwise known as incapacitated and disarmed by non-liars.

When it comes down to it, if a large group of infamous murderers charge onto my property and threaten me with guns, I will take any opportunity presented to beat one down, get a gun of my own and start shooting, whether they fired or not.

The real issue is that Israelis are now as nationalistic as ever and it is getting to a point where Israel cannot be trusted whatsoever to look after the Palestinians.

When it comes down to it, heavily armed commando units came down on a ship carrying humanitarian aid illegally (international waters or not, invading a ship without reason is illegal) and opened fire because protesters attempted to attack them (given the nature of the invasion, the appearance of the commandos and Israels undeniable history in such matters) with "bats, clubs and slingshots filled with marbles", according to an IDF spokesman. These protesters were apparently trying to bring down the helicopters with such weapons, so when the IDF opened fire several were beaten unconscious and had their weapons stolen, otherwise known as incapacitated and disarmed by non-liars.

When it comes down to it, if a large group of infamous murderers charge onto my property and threaten me with guns, I will take any opportunity presented to beat one down, get a gun of my own and start shooting, whether they fired or not.

Really, you would? You would probably die then...

I'd be among the ten who did.

Yea, kinda dumb to start shooting at heavily armed men at anything, if you look at history, confrontations between the armed and the unarmed don't end well, even if you just start throwing rocks.

If you really would do what you said, you're kind of an idiot, don't you think?...

So we should just surrender to the better armed? Palestine, or any other underdog, should just submit? Fuck you with a rake, son.

So we should just surrender to the better armed? Palestine, or any other underdog, should just submit? Fuck you with a rake, son.

In general, if its you vs an heavily armed person, you don't fight back, it's just stupid. If by "we" you mean a whole country, or people, well that's not at all what I'm talking about.

Protip: The ships were probably carrying rockets to Israel's enemies.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 01, 2010, 05:39:44 PM

So we should just surrender to the better armed? Palestine, or any other underdog, should just submit? Fuck you with a rake, son.

In general, if its you vs an heavily armed person, you don't fight back, it's just stupid. If by "we" you mean a whole country, or people, well that's not at all what I'm talking about.

Maybe that's the problem. I'm only treating this as an analogy for what happened.

Protip: The ships were probably carrying rockets to Israel's enemies.

The "weapons" were laid out. They found kitchen knives, hammers and spanners, as if there could be no other explanation for their presence.

Without Israel, who is going to blow up Iran's nuclear reactor this time?...

The "weapons" were laid out. They found kitchen knives, hammers and spanners, as if there could be no other explanation for their presence.

Damn them. They were going to destroy Israel!

Seriously though, I'm tired of American money going to Israel when they constantly do shit like this.

Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for heavily armed pirates killing 10 people armed with whatever they could find aboard their own boat and in (allegedly) international waters.

It's very easy to go around using emotive but inaccurate language, but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. The fact is that although boardings on the high seas are legally dubious, they are still justifiable under certain circumstances, if controversial. The fact is that the vessel in question indicated it was going to enter the exclusion zone and run the blockade. At that point, the Israelis do have a right under international law to intercept.

When it comes down to it, if a large group of infamous murderers charge onto my property and threaten me with guns, I will take any opportunity presented to beat one down, get a gun of my own and start shooting, whether they fired or not.

Well and good, but are you really going to argue that Israeli commandos should not have the right to return fire under such circumstances? It's also worth pointing out that the Israelis boarded armed primarily with tasers, paint guns and other non-lethal weapons - their side-arms were holstered, and they were under instruction not to draw or use them unless their lives were threatened. When the protesters began to brandish (and possibly fire) the guns they had taken from the soldiers, they changed the nature of the situation.


Again, characterisations such as "infamous murderers" are also absurd. I have no problem criticising the Israelis or laying the blame at their door, but the absurd arguments used by the anti-Israeli movement are wholly emotive, often contradictory and generally absurd.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 01, 2010, 06:07:01 AM

Excuse me if I don't have much sympathy for heavily armed pirates killing 10 people armed with whatever they could find aboard their own boat and in (allegedly) international waters.

It's very easy to go around using emotive but inaccurate language, but it doesn't get anyone anywhere. The fact is that although boardings on the high seas are legally dubious, they are still justifiable under certain circumstances, if controversial. The fact is that the vessel in question indicated it was going to enter the exclusion zone and run the blockade. At that point, the Israelis do have a right under international law to intercept.

Quote from: General Douchebag on June 01, 2010, 03:08:15 PM

When it comes down to it, if a large group of infamous murderers charge onto my property and threaten me with guns, I will take any opportunity presented to beat one down, get a gun of my own and start shooting, whether they fired or not.

Well and good, but are you really going to argue that Israeli commandos should not have the right to return fire under such circumstances? It's also worth pointing out that the Israelis boarded armed primarily with tasers, paint guns and other non-lethal weapons - their side-arms were holstered, and they were under instruction not to draw or use them unless their lives were threatened. When the protesters began to brandish (and possibly fire) the guns they had taken from the soldiers, they changed the nature of the situation.


Again, characterisations such as "infamous murderers" are also absurd. I have no problem criticising the Israelis or laying the blame at their door, but the absurd arguments used by the anti-Israeli movement are wholly emotive, often contradictory and generally absurd.

they should have waited until they were in Israeli waters, as it happens the description of 'heavily armed pirate' is fairly accurate. Are you honestly saying that the might of the IDF could find no way around an obviously tense and angry situation without sending in commando troops?