Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

That used to be true, not anymore since most have recognized the existence of Israel.

 

In a similar vein to my response to Ragusa, that recognition isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

I'd be curious to know exactly why you feel that that recognition isn't worth the paper it is written on, or why, for that matter, that you believe Israel is any better than the rest of the Middle East when it comes to keeping its promises. From where I'm sitting, it doesn't appear that either Israel or Palestine does particularly well in that regard. That said, Israel is a nation of laws, and the IDF acts under the the imprimatur of Israel's elected Government. As such, its actions are a direct extension of the people's will. To contrast, Palestinian terrorists operate independently of the PNA, often at odds with what the PNA is trying to accomplish. Their actions are therefore not representative of the PNA or for that matter the Palestinian people at large. This is not a subtle difference, and this difference is also why relativistic arguments tend to fall flat when looking at Israel and Palestine, but I digress...

You stated that you believe "the majority of the arab/islamic nations in the area have only one policy" -- "the eradication of the Nation of Israel," that "any and all attempts at apeasement are futile and destined to fail." What you haven't done is explain why you hold those positions. Ragusa has spent several pages explaining his position and why he holds it, and he doesn't just place all blame at the feet of Israel, either, conceding that Palestine has plenty to answer for, too. You are under no obligation to back up your arguments in the same manner, of course, but your opinion isn't really going to carry a lot of weight unless you do. Like verbal contracts, unsubstantiated arguments aren't even worth the paper they aren't written on.

 

The only thing keeping Israel from wiping the floor with the middle east is the leash which is being held by the US and the UK, their last conflict Lebannon ended because of pressure from the US and the UK, if there were no pressure, Isralie warplanes would pound these places day and night.

lets add "he is right and everyone else is wrong" to this as well

what a naive comment, this isnt speaking to Hamas, its funding to Hamas, and you know, for an organisation to enjoy the rights of being a charitable organisation it has to actually participate in humanitarian aid. how much money do you suppose this organisation raises from its "humanitarian mission"? they did after all just invest £2million just at an attempt to discredit Israel with a flotilla of ships.

Im going to bet that Rags has never been in a fight, metal poles crush skulls, crack ribs and break bones - if you want to test that theory, ask a fully grown man to hit you with a scaffhold pole, and we'll see how coherent your future posts are.

total lack of knowledge of millitary operations and training. The S13 are trained to board ships, your average soldier is not, they operate in that area because that is what they are trained to do - that is their job. The SBS do the same, the Royal Welch are not trained to board ships, the SBS or marines go in regardless of a possible hostile situation or not, because that is their job.
If you seem to think that the worlds best are trained simply to kill you are very badly mistaken, they are trained to be versatile.
as for "When faced with resistance they overcome it with lethal force" - every millitary force is trained to overcome resistance with lethal force. I also put it to you that if it wasnt a crack team which boarded and a group of 'average' soldiers there would have been more deaths, as when attacked their guns would have been their best friend.

you act like the Isralies sent in a crack squad to kill everyone - so I want an answer from you to a question which you have done nothing but ignore in this debate - why were there no deaths on the other ships?

yes, but then, any caustic weapons made from the cement could easily maim an unsuspecting Isralie checkpoint guard.

 

I believe you raise valid, very good points. However:

Not everyone in Israel is in agreement. There are those hardliners who want to drive the Pals into the ocean and basically take all the land. Politics are a large part of any national policy, just like here. It's not quite as simple as "Israel just wants to protect itself." That's certainly a large piece of it, but certainly not the whole picture. Least I remind you that we invaded Iraq "just to keep ourselves safe as well." And did we "nitpick" about agreements? Did we bring up every little "mis-step" by Saddam? National Security is one of those issues that could be brought up any time, for any reason the government wants to do something that would otherwise be "difficult," or it needs a handy excuse for something it has already done - like shooting up a bunch of civilians.

 

To borrow a tired old line, where's the beef? Saying something doesn't make it so, and if you want to argue that the IHH, an organization that has been providing humanitarian relief to areas of war, earthquake, hunger, and conflict throughout the world since 1994 funds Hamas, you've got one hell of a tall order in front of you. You're gonna have to prove it.

...not exactly. They really did want to give that aid to Gaza. That they stood to "win" whether Israel let them through the blockade or not, either by getting humanitarian aid to Gaza or by calling attention to the humanitarian situation there, was just a bonus -- like it or not, what they did in no way resembles terrorism or the support of terrorism on the part of the IHH.

I'll let Joey O'Brien from Cadillac Man take this one.

If you think metal poles are dangerous, try an assault rifle. You'll be impressed.

 

Kitchen knives are not generally "weapons." If I gave you a choice of weapons to defend yourself from attack, how close to the top of the list would you put an old kitchen knife you have in your drawer?

 

To address the narrative being put forth that since the activists used improvised weapons to defend themselves during the boarding they were looking for a fight from the get-go.

 

Does that make it any less lethal if you stab someone in the neck with it?

 

No, but the presence of kitchen knives on a ship, especially when that ship has a kitchen, is in no way, shape or form an indicator of hostile intent on the part of the activists. That is the point that is being addressed. No one is disputing that some activists acted rashly, but it is quite another matter to say that the activists were planning for a fight. There is no indication of that. There is, however, ample if arguable evidence that Israel's boarding violated national law and that the Israelis used excessive force.

 

Did anyone get stabbed in the neck?

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 18 seconds later... ----------

I usually don't consider my hands to be weapons.

My point? What weaponry?

 

No, Islamic radicals are.

After three warnings to stop for inspection and trying to run? Yes.

Caradhras, any resistance isn't being seen as a perfect excuse. Quite to the contrary, there are people arguing that beating and stabbing didn't justify a response with pistols. I agree, it's not a valid argument, but it's being used nonetheless.

Because the political demonstrators were running a military blockade? I'm not sure, but I'm betting they didn't have any riot police on hand. Guess what, if a band of afghanis with knives stormed an army camp in Afghanistan, they would be stopped by a military force as well.

And the next time? If they set a precedent of letting any random ship through? How long do you really think that'd go on before missiles and AK-47s were on board? And anyway, contraband is contraband. I see no evidence of an over-reaction. Tear gas, even if it was used (and I've only seen Al Jazeera claiming it was) is a crowd-control method employed by riot police everywhere, not a massive military offensive. Same with stun grenades and paint-ball guns. Hell, the Germans use Stingballs for crowd control, and that's worse than anything Israel has even been accused of using prior to the shootings.

Actually, they are. That's what some of the 'international law' argument was about. People were arguing the blockade was illegal.

Because Israel doesn't trust the UN. And they have reason not to. Specifically:

Spoiler

Under international law, all but rogue countries are generally trusted to do their own internal investigations of war crimes. Only rogue regimes, such as Nazi Germany, former Yugoslavia or Sudan are generally subject to external investigations and war crimes trials. Therefore, the calls for war crimes investigations of Israel are just another gimmick used in the war to delegitimize Israel.

Except that, of course, they didn't. There's a difference between doctoring and clipping. This is doctoring. This is clipping. Clipping may or may not be legitimate, and only a release of the original can really tell the difference. Doctoring, however, is never legitimate.

You're right. The global warming analogy is apt. Except that all the experts agree with us this time. Again, I've only found one 'expert' that claims it was illegal, and that one invoked the Geneva Convention (which covers land-based war, not naval war) to do so. One difference between this case and global warming, though, is that there aren't hundreds of experts signing open letters protesting the 'consensus'.

Want beef? Here's some more. They openly admit they support Hamas. It's the accused ties to Al Qaeda they object to.

You're missing the point. People are criticizing Israel for using lethal force. They used lethal force in response to lethal force. Let me ask you something. If a police officer serves a search warrant, and someone in the house stabs him with a knife, does the officer have justification to pull his gun and shoot the man to prevent a second (more effective) stabbing, or should he try to find the kitchen to grab a kitchen knife just so it's fair? All in all, this argument is .

These aren't kitchen knives. They're combat knives.

 

Is that supposed to pass as an argument? How is that relevant to the topic at hand? Are you trying to imply that the protesters are suicide bombers? If not then it is irrelevant.

You deliberately misinterpreted what I've posted. What I meant is that to the Israeli military any form of resistance would have been a justification to use deadly force. Now, there are certainly ways to prevent bloodshed but the military relied on deadly force purposefully.

FYI I certainly do NOT agree with you on any count.

Neither do you apparently.

But there is no reason for that mistrust, as any resolutions made regarding Israel has been consistently vetoed throughout the years to insure that the UN wouldn't get in the way. [/irony]

The distinction you make is at best disingenuous at worst dishonest. The result is pretty much the same. It is manipulation pure and simple but unsurprisingly you won't admit it.

Your comparison is (I'll borrow this smiley if you don't mind).

You would have to replace the "police officer with a search warrant" with a foreign soldier stopping you hundreds of miles before the border and putting a gun to your head.

This was a military operation in international waters, not a search by the police.

You can't have soldiers with guns blazing storm on civilians, and then claim self defence. That is preposterous.

 

NOG, neither of those links provide any evidence that the IHH funds Hamas. More telling is the fact that the only nation officially classifying them as a terrorist organization happens to be Israel. To whit, the IHH has enjoyed a Special Consultative status as an NGO in the United Nations Economic and Social Council since 2004. Not to shabby for a terrorist organization, huh?

Or perhaps you're missing mine. Most everyone here is laying blame on both sides here, laying harsher blame to Israel mainly bacause they attacked a ship full of peace activists well outside of their blockade zone, under cover of darkness. It's no surprise that in the confusion caused by getting gassed and boarded in the middle of the night, some of the peace activists concluded they were under attack and overreacted. Sadly, it spiraled out of control. Many of the activists acted rashly, and there were Israeli injuries, but how many Israelis were injured? How many died? How many activists were injured? How many died? I concede that the Israeli commandos probably just got caught up in the heat of the moment when the mission turned sour and understandably over-reacted, but the injury and death totals speak for themselves. Whether they meant to or not (and I believe they didn't) the Israeli commandos used excessive force.

You're fond of allegories -- a SWAT team acts on a bad tip and storms the wrong house. In the confusion, the occupant believes his life to be in danger, not yet realizing that the people that broke down his door were "the good guys", and reaches for his gun. In self defense, the SWAT team guns down the innocent occupant, accidentally shooting his child in the crossfire, and they kill the family dog. Is the SWAT team at fault? Maybe a little. Is the homeowner at fault? Possibly, but probably not. The majority of the blame lies not with the SWAT team that was just following orders and doing what it was trained to do or the homeowner who was just defending his family, but with the moron that took the bad tip and issued the crummy order. That's why I argue that Israel's share of the blame is the greater in this incident. They're the ones that issued the crummy order.

Dude, that was a pocket knife. I've seen combat knives, and I assure you a combat knife is a lot bigger. For that matter, a kitchen knife would have been bigger than that. The blade was what? three inches? I keep a bigger knife in my glove compartment along with my flashlight and my tiny little foil blankie.

I'm not the one putting forth the narrative that the activists were looking for a fight from the get-go. I personally agree with T2's assessment of what happened. The Israelis overreacted, the activists overreacted, the situation spiraled out of control, and the result was tragic.

 

Especially if the US is involved, since they rarely if not never speak against Isreael (and they hold a lot of power at the UN). But even still, my point was if the international community participate in an investigation with Israel (not *do*, but *participate with*), why would they be afraid of getting framed or something? They are conducting the investigation. The international community probably doesn't want this to be swept under the carpet but the israelli.

 

Actually, it's even worse than that. I've already posted a video showing the people calmly passing out weapons and looking out to sea, with no one rushing around or anything. That shows they were planning resistance, improvised or not. It's now just a question of how long had they been planning it, and the pressence of gas masks indicates it may have been at least conceptual for a while.

No, it would seem that you deliberatley misinterpreted what I posted. I was talking about the world's response to the event. If the activists had come out with AK-47s, the world would have seen the activists as violent radical fanatics. Instead, by only using knives and poles, many see them as 'peaceful protesters'.

I take everything they do with a grain or two of salt. They're people, supporting their own national and personal interests. And yes, that includes our representatives, too. In the Middle East, though, their whole history is one big, messy, bloody nose in what is arguably none of their business (especially at the time that they started messing with the region). At this point, I don't blame either group for not trusting the UN.

Oh yes, because the UN as never passed any resolutions against Israel.

Oh, it's manipulation, but the distinction is huge. It's the difference between me airing a few sensational clips of my interview with you and me cutting your reponses and clipping it to questions I didn't ask you, or even faking your voice to make you 'say' things you never said. Clipping is commonly done in every media in the world. It's not always done well, and can certainly be done dishonestly, but it's a far cry from faking things.

We've been through that already, with the international law arguement. You can. People have. It's a standard operation of war. These activists knew they were heading into a blockade. They intentionally provoked a response from the Israeli military. I guess you're right about the comparison not being strong, though. You don't usually expect a search warrant, and it's usually not 'provoked' per se.

Then why didn't anything similar happen on the other five ships? They boarded the same or similar ways, yet there was no resistance on the other ships.

If the Israelis had come out of it without a scratch, I may be able to agree with you, but they didn't. None of them did die, but several of them could have. Despite the degrading comments, knives are deadly weapons.

This one is so full of holes it's not even funny. Try one where they got the right 'house', they did identify themselves, three times before boarding, he knew they were coming, and he didn't just reach fo a gun, but shot one of the officers in the shoulder.

Combat knives. Pocket knives. And yes, many kitchen knives are longer than both. I've got a foot long knife in my kitchen.

Two inches makes it a lethal weapon. If you take out your glove compartment knife and start threatening people, you can go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. If you charge an officer with it, he can shoot you.

Then how do you explain the activists passing out poles before anyone boarded?

 

Because they knew they were going to be boarded? You cannot exactly sneak up on someone with a helicopter.