Report: Israel attacks flotilla, 10 die

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

On a wider note its quite amazing how so many have lined up to parrot the Israeli propoganda and attempt justifying the unjustifyable while Israels media is full of articles by Isrealis lambasting their government and military for the sheer stupidity of their actions in relation to the convoy and the blockade.

Well... we are liberal democracy too so there are many different opinions. None of the movies you see on utube are propaganda even the first pictures that came live on Turkish TV showed IDF soldiers clubbed with metal pipes by angry mob.The real peace activist that where on other ships did not use violence.
It is true that same newspapers expressed anger that our government and IDF fell in this premeditated trap but its kind of benign the wisest after the case.I hope the lesson was learned and the next ships will be stooped by other means-no no i dont mean by bombing them to hell.

None of the movies you see on utube are propaganda

Who said anything about movies?

It is true that same newspapers expressed anger that our government and IDF fell in this premeditated trap but its kind of benign the wisest after the case.

Its true that some newspapers have been saying this PR disaster is exactly what was going to happen ever since the journey was announced, so it isn't a case of being wise after the incident at all as they have been saying it for weeks.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Who said anything about movies?


Its true that some newspapers have been saying this PR disaster is exactly what was going to happen ever since the journey was announced, so it isn't a case of being wise after the incident at all as they have been saying it for weeks.

Yes some did some didn't.
Some think that this blockade does more damage to Israel on international arena than its worth but sometimes you have to do what you have to do and not what others would you like to.
When we bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 nobody liked it too then we had SCUD missles falling on TEL AVIV in 1991.
Sometimes there are people who are much too liberal for their own good -that how ww2 came to happen.

[eskachig]

Wow, this thread moves fast.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Repelling boarders does not make them valid targets. Especially in international waters. Also opening fire from the helos means they can claim defense.

There is zero real evidence for anybody opening fire from helos, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by Israelis starting out the operation like that, and indeed the videos show a story incompatible with that claim. As CaptainHaplo pointed out - there would not be a dense armed mob on deck if fire was incoming. Civilians just don't roll like that, we're not talking about a square formation from the Napoleonic times here. NOBODY was taking cover when soldiers started fast-roping.

Originally Posted by heartc

Yes. But this impact is artificially magnified.
In reality, there should be no question on the issue itself. The fronts should be clear: You have a democracy in the midst of totalitarian regimes that are surpressing their own peoples and filling them with hatred nothing short of what Goebbels did, instead of educating them on things that could actually further their lifes. The course as of where the support should go, ought to be clear.

First of all, being a democracy alone shouldn't guarantee support, second - Israel isn't exactly a model democracy, and the Apartheid parallels aren't completely off-base. The occupation is a problem, and people are pissed off for real reasons. Neither side seems to be interested in searching for a lasting solution. I'm for supporting Israel for geo-political reasons - because of its situation it is far and away the most reliable ally in the region. But I don't think anyone should hold any illusions that Israelis are angels or anything - though they are probably the least nasty regime in the region.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

There comes a time in any armed conflict, when people make choices...

They can remain civilians, or participate in the conflict by using violence.

Those that chose violence become - under the rules of war, combatants, and as such are treated like combatants.

Agreed - engaging military in action makes you fair game as far as I'm concerned. Civilians have certain protections, but extending them to people actively participating in combat is just dumb.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey heartc you deleted your comment about people not having their lives impacted all around the world. I take it you realised just about every adult in the western world and just about every industry globally has been massively impacted by events over there.

How??? I suppose maybe you mean emotionally affected.

Originally Posted by msxyz

Over the years I've seeny mobs burning cars along the streets, breaking windows and attacking policemen with molotov cocktails, maces and other improvised weapons.

...

Modern society has its rules. You may argue that we've grown overcomplacent to mass hysteria phenomena like violent protesting but you cannot simply choose to ignore said rules. One of these rules is that "law" is supposed to lead by example, not to trade an eye for an eye.

Strange viewpoint. Yeah, riot cops will not usually fire on protestors who only have hand weapons. Provided they have their footing, and are lined up in formation with shields and gear. They are in a dominant position and are in no extreme danger in that situation. If they are isolated and overwhelmed, then individual policemen are suddenly in extreme danger, and you bet your ass that service weapons would come out. There is no rule that says that policemen have to allow themselves to be killed, and as soon as there is a real danger to their lives, they are not just mandated, but required to respond with deadly force.

How many cops do you personally know? Have you talked about the situation with them, and asked what their department guidelines say about this situation? The cops I talked to said that the soldiers waited too long to shoot and are lucky none of them died.

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Israel has completely ruined its PR with this move. Today even BBC and other major news outlets are talking about viewpoints from the passengers who say not only were white flags up but commandoes opened fire from the helos themselves. With the military already caught in lies about this it makes their "defense only" talk sound as true as those who say we diddnt land on the moon.

What lies? What do white flags have to do with anything? If anything, white flags are usually a signal for "we're ready to talk peacefully". In warfare, using white flags to create an ambush usually means summary execution. For reasons previously stated, I find the "firing from helicopters" story highly suspect.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

And the issue is that the limits on the amount of trucks it permits and the amount of crossings it will allow to be used means that Israel is not allowing even the stated minimum aid requirements to be shipped through.
Which means what Sky describes as the only alternative is in no way a viable alternative.

This... is not really true. There are indeed a lot of strange procedural weirdnesses with Gaza supplies, but for the most part the important stuff gets through.

From the BBC:

Aid agencies operating in Gaza say they have largely been able to continue to transport basic supplies such as flour and cooking oil into the territory.
...
Israel generally allows medicines into Gaza. The WHO says that shortages of drugs are a problem, with 15-30% of essential drugs out of stock over 2009. But it blames problems in the supply chain, including the rift between Fatah and Hamas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm

Not that living in Gaza is a picnic by any means, but in general Israel lets all food and medicine through.

Oh, and here is the offer Israel's navy made to the activists before boarding:

The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived.

Right of supervision of delivery was explicitly promised.

Yes, chocolate is a very handy weapon for a terrorist
Hamas is the only entity in Gaza that benefits from the blockade and now they have also benefited from the fallout from Israels fiasco of sheer idiocy.

I'm actually with you on this, I don't think this blockade will accomplish Israel's goals. The Palestinians don't seem to respond well to this kind of pressure, and are used to hardship anyhow.

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Apparently a good deal of the Israelis decided they'd celebrate the attack in front of the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv.

I see them protesting Turkish government statements, not celebrating deaths of the activists.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

That's an interesting point. If your ship is attacked in international waters and is boarded by say cops or commandoes, you tater would make an estimation of whether or not you could take them in a battle. You would see the commandoes, they don't look so tough. You would see the're armed but notice that hey, they only have paintball guns. WTF, you'd think, are they kidding? As they'd board your ship you'd take anything you could reach, a piece of wood maybe and start beating on their silly butts.

However, at this point the commandoes would deduce that you're being a lethal threat to them and produce a lethal handgun from the ankle holster you missed on your initial estimation.

Yeah, that's a hell of a miscalculation right there, and you'd earn that bullet. What's your point exactly?

In general, as a civilian interacting with military personnel, one should probably assume that a whole lot of pain can and will be brought on you if you misbehave. Also, soldiers usually have backup.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

And btw, why are you, the freedom-lovin' Ah-mu-ri-cans all of a sudden in favour of commissars coming and taking away your precious freedom? Can I send cops take away your freedom?

You don't have freedom to ignore authorities, so there is no freedom to take away. You have all kinds of rights and options, but when a cop tells you to do something cooperation is probably in your best interest. And if you come at a cop with a club you will probably eat a bullet for your trouble.

You do have the right to defend yourself against police if they are breaking the law, but not unless you are in danger of physical harm - if a cop is illegally searching your car you can sue him for it, but you don't get to throw a punch.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

are you aware that the attack took place in international waters? And that it's legal to defend yourself, especially with non-lethal force?

Pipes and knives are lethal force, I can't believe you keep bringing it up. Being boarded could be an act of war (though blockade runners are explicitly allowed to be captured, or in case of resistance, sunk), but armed resistance means that one loses protection of civilian status. As for international waters - every blockade is international waters, and maritime laws explicitly allow for it.

Originally Posted by pipin

It still does not seem legitimate to me...
Israel has no rights to extend it's blockade at will to 69 miles into int waters. It was at 48 miles before this event.

What does it matter? 69 miles, 200 miles, it's all the same really. There are specific conditions that make a blockade illegal, and that's not part of it.

the NATO demand for immediate restituition of ships passengers and cargo reported two posts above speaks for itself about the legitimacy of this boarding...

Or it speaks of a desire to placate Turkey. This is a non-binding statement by the NATO Secretary General with no conditions attached - it has no meaning other than a soundbite for the press.

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

I think your question is a bit incomplete. The said police is following what rules of engagement? local laws or international laws? Shall we consider the said police as United Nations?

International laws are fairly vague on what happens in neutral waters, as this debate should show. But Israeli military forces have their own laws which they are obliged to follow, just as US military has the UCMJ. Among other things, they spell out requirements that soldiers have to follow in treatment of civilians, and they ostensibly reflect any international agreements that a nation may be part of.

Of course I have to know. I am in neutral territory, and then only police can stop me is UN with a defined set of laws. I won't stop if Naval Police of Antarctica is trying to stop me near North Pole. They simply have no jurisdiction there.

Well, not really. You can be detained in international waters for a lot of reasons, some of which have been rehashed in this very thread. UN doesn't have a law enforcement arm - it's a forum for sovereign nations, not a super-government.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Oh I know how to use a puukko in a way it won't kill you. And by hiring 'Johnny Cochrane' I'd get my view heard in the court.

It really doesn't matter what you know, or whether you meant to kill someone or merely wound. Attacking someone with a knife is assault with a deadly weapon (btw, merely threatening someone with a knife is assault), and in general not just cops, but civilians, would usually have a legal right to apply lethal force in self defense.

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I hate to tell you this, but just because someone might only be wounded in an attack doesn't make it NOT deadly force. If you're using a weapon that can kill someone... whether it's a gun, knife, even a bludgeon, it's deadly force even if the effect or intent was only to wound.

Indeed. This is silly to even talk about. When someone is beating you with a baseball bat, you should assume they are trying to kill you and act accordingly, it's just common sense.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

You mean illegal like having building material etc.? Err...duh.

I'm not really sure I buy Israel's line for preventing bunker-building either. Though... there were bunkers built.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Are you saying that Israelis have knowledge of all cargo that is approaching their harbors? Well why didn't they ask the Turkish to inspect the ships then, shouldn't have been too difficult. I mean, if they managed to sabotage some ships, a simple phone call shouldn't be too difficult.

Huh? What would asking Turkey to inspect ships accomplish? And besides, whether ships were inspected or not, Isreal would still be enforcing the blockade. Because otherwise it's not a blockade!

If the commandoes didn't want to put themselves on harms way they should've stayed out of a ship sailing in international waters. They were lucky they were only attacked with non-lethal force and not lethal which would have been ok too.

They were indeed attacked with lethal force, you just seem to refuse to understand the concept of lethal force. And I think that's ok, they are soldiers after all. But it's ok that they killed some of their attackers as well.

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

Medicine,Cement blocks,and wheelchairs should be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who manufactures them, carries them, transports them and uses them should be considered as a terrorist from now on. Israeli government has to defend itself from wheelchair-bound Palestinians who would wield cement blocks while high on medicine!

Do you believe that Israel has no right to enforce a blockade at all, or are you taking issues with some aspects of its implementation?

Originally Posted by Merchant Raider

AH !, the big soldiers got hit with sticks !!

What is your point? Clubs are deadly weapons you know. In the course of human history, millions have been clubbed to death. A human skull is sort of a fragile thing.

[Zachstar]

They said the raid was botched. That military has a habit of doing that for starters. I choose to believe the victims over the military who has already lied about this incident. Of course it has nothing to do with me. but other countries views are very important in this case.

If they opened fire it explains the insane behavior. For all they knew the commandos were there to kill (which they of course eventually did) Multiple witnesses say they opened from the helo first. White flags were raised in the chaos got ignored and people died. Israel ends up being the bully yet again. And now the Gaza operation is a failure. Defend Israel all you want. Wont close the egypt border again.

[eskachig]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

They said the raid was botched.

Clearly.

That military has a habit of doing that for starters.

The IDF is among the most professional military forces on the planet. They don't have a habit of botching raids. They do, however, conduct a lot of them which raises chances of occasional failure. Which this technically wasn't as the mission was successful - but the IDF did take unnecessary casualties.

I choose to believe the victims over the military who has already lied about this incident. Of course it has nothing to do with me. but other countries views are very important in this case.

I still haven't seen any good evidence of any lies.

If they opened fire it explains the insane behavior. For all they knew the commandos were there to kill (which they of course eventually did) Multiple witnesses say they opened from the helo first. White flags were raised in the chaos got ignored and people died. Israel ends up being the bully yet again. And now the Gaza operation is a failure. Defend Israel all you want. Wont close the egypt border again.

IDF opening fire from helicopters doesn't explain anything at all. Look, civilians, even an enraged mob, have a hard time dealing with gunfire and taking casualties. You can even see this on the videos - within seconds of opening fire the military has full control of the situation. If the ship was under fire before the boarding started we never would have seen a brawl - the deck would be as empty as possible, with anyone who didn't make it off taking cover. People don't mill about in huge groups when bullets are flying.

As for white flags, what are they supposed to represent or signal? I keep hearing about them here, but I don't understand what everyone means. White flag usually means "come talk to me without fear", or "I surrender". Neither of them seemed to be the intention of those on that ship.

[Skybird]

All those wellmeaning, better-knowing philantropic Hamas-sympathesizers I would like to see answreing one question, after all this talking of how illegal it is that Israel tries to contain an enemy who has sworn to kill it.

If they are expected not launch wars and devastate Gaza in an (probably fruitless) attempt to kill Hamas at least dig them out and chase them away, and if Israel also shall not be allowed to isolate Hamas and to reduce or prevent Hamas being resupplied with goods it could make military or propagandistic use of, and if Israel shall not run a blockade, and shall not return fire when being attacked with rockets aimed at it's people -

what the hell are they allowed to do then to defend themselves from Hamas...??? Disappearing from the face of the planet? Die in silence when Palestine terror rockets hit them?

Many Westerners are so outraged over Israeli media manipulation. But Palestinian propaganda for some strange reason almost never gets critically questioned.

I think, in the end many Europeans hate Israel as much as many Arabs, for being Jewish, and for being there, just that the first hate it passively, and the latter actively. Arabs and Persians want to overthrow Israel by their own deed. Europeans are willing to let it happen. Both are partners in crime founded on antisemitism.

As far as Israel is concerned, some years ago I wrote in an essay that the historic circumstances of it'S foundation were choosen stupid, and that the position of Israel is so very exposed and hard to defend that in the long run it's strategic chnaces for survival tend to point towards nill. I was laughed about. Some time later I pointed out that military historian van Crefeld thinks similiar (no wonder he is so much hated in Israel), and again I came under fire. But you see, until Israel falls, I see no alternative to Israel trying to survive - what else could be expected of it? That it just raises its hands and says "shoot me"?

Also, people thinking that if the Palestinians would get their own state or if Israel would simply disappear, the great love epidemic wouold break out in the ME and there would be peace all of a sudden, only illustrate that they do not know that in that region a militant conflict is burning since centuries that goes far beyond the Israeli state, that is a thing between Sunni and Shia, and in which Israel and the Palestinians' fate play a remarkably small role only. Currently, Iran and Saudi Arabia fight a proxy war over Palestine. with Israel and the Palestinians gone, that easily could become a hot war again.

There is a reason why several arab states have arranged themselves with the existence of Israel. they have learned that they could live with it without being put into danger by it.

With Iran, that is something completely different.

Skybird,

how come you never discuss matters with others? You just spew your page-long texts as if expecting people to go "Yea this dude rocks, I agree with him!". Are you afraid that by debating you would have to find factual base for your racist views and you know how that is impossible so you just debate with yourself?

Originally Posted by eskachig

First of all, being a democracy alone shouldn't guarantee support, second - Israel isn't exactly a model democracy, and the Apartheid parallels aren't completely off-base. The occupation is a problem, and people are pissed off for real reasons. Neither side seems to be interested in searching for a lasting solution. I'm for supporting Israel for geo-political reasons - because of its situation it is far and away the most reliable ally in the region. But I don't think anyone should hold any illusions that Israelis are angels or anything - though they are probably the least nasty regime in the region.

It's not a question of whether Israel is an apartheid state, which it is btw, but that people have been murdered and so far nobody has been prosecuted for it. Pretty simple, eh?

Agreed - engaging military in action makes you fair game as far as I'm concerned. Civilians have certain protections, but extending them to people actively participating in combat is just dumb.

Just remember that when the North Korean commandos storm the US.

Strange viewpoint. Yeah, riot cops will not usually fire on protestors who only have hand weapons. Provided they have their footing, and are lined up in formation with shields and gear. They are in a dominant position and are in no extreme danger in that situation. If they are isolated and overwhelmed, then individual policemen are suddenly in extreme danger, and you bet your ass that service weapons would come out. There is no rule that says that policemen have to allow themselves to be killed, and as soon as there is a real danger to their lives, they are not just mandated, but required to respond with deadly force.

Did the people who fast roped into the boat identify themselves as policemen? ARE they policemen? Let me answer that, no and no.

How many cops do you personally know? Have you talked about the situation with them, and asked what their department guidelines say about this situation? The cops I talked to said that the soldiers waited too long to shoot and are lucky none of them died.

The commandos aren't cops.

What lies? What do white flags have to do with anything? If anything, white flags are usually a signal for "we're ready to talk peacefully". In warfare, using white flags to create an ambush usually means summary execution. For reasons previously stated, I find the "firing from helicopters" story highly suspect.

Yes I understand, you only want to murder all non-Jewish Israelis and take no blame for any of it. Well congratulations you managed to murder 10 + of them, must be your lucky day.

I see them protesting Turkish government statements, not celebrating deaths of the activists.

Have you read the Internet lately? Plenty of anti-Palestine vitriol there. Not that you'd notice that since you've already chosen your side.

Yeah, that's a hell of a miscalculation right there, and you'd earn that bullet. What's your point exactly?

My point is if you fight some invaders but not all then how are you supposed to tell the difference between the ones you are supposed to fight and the ones you are not supposed to fight?

In general, as a civilian interacting with military personnel, one should probably assume that a whole lot of pain can and will be brought on you if you misbehave. Also, soldiers usually have backup.

Remember that when police/military of country x mistreat you in some part of the world.

You don't have freedom to ignore authorities, so there is no freedom to take away. You have all kinds of rights and options, but when a cop tells you to do something cooperation is probably in your best interest. And if you come at a cop with a club you will probably eat a bullet for your trouble.

What cop?

You do have the right to defend yourself against police if they are breaking the law, but not unless you are in danger of physical harm - if a cop is illegally searching your car you can sue him for it, but you don't get to throw a punch.

What cop?

Pipes and knives are lethal force, I can't believe you keep bringing it up. Being boarded could be an act of war (though blockade runners are explicitly allowed to be captured, or in case of resistance, sunk), but armed resistance means that one loses protection of civilian status. As for international waters - every blockade is international waters, and maritime laws explicitly allow for it.

So if I break into your home and you defend yourself with non-lethal force it's ok for me to use lethal force against you? Ok I get it now.

What does it matter? 69 miles, 200 miles, it's all the same really.

Yea it's pretty clear that you're willing to bend things to allow Israel murder people.

There are specific conditions that make a blockade illegal, and that's not part of it.

Making murdering civilians ok?

International laws are fairly vague on what happens in neutral waters, as this debate should show. But Israeli military forces have their own laws which they are obliged to follow, just as US military has the UCMJ. Among other things, they spell out requirements that soldiers have to follow in treatment of civilians, and they ostensibly reflect any international agreements that a nation may be part of.

Good thing they have their own set of laws, it's very handy when murdering civilians in international waters.

Well, not really. You can be detained in international waters for a lot of reasons, some of which have been rehashed in this very thread. UN doesn't have a law enforcement arm - it's a forum for sovereign nations, not a super-government.

What exactly are these reasons? Good to know them, I wouldn't want to be murdered by vague Israeli military forces when going fishing in Finnish coastal waters.

It really doesn't matter what you know, or whether you meant to kill someone or merely wound. Attacking someone with a knife is assault with a deadly weapon (btw, merely threatening someone with a knife is assault), and in general not just cops, but civilians, would usually have a legal right to apply lethal force in self defense.

It really doesn't matter what you know, or whether you meant to kill someone or merely wound. Invading someone's home and shooting them with live ammunition is assault with a deadly weapon (btw, merely threatening someone with a gun is assault), and in general not just cops, but civilians, would usually have a legal right to apply lethal force in self defense.

Indeed. This is silly to even talk about. When someone is beating you with a baseball bat, you should assume they are trying to kill you and act accordingly, it's just common sense.

Indeed. This is silly to even talk about. When someone is invading your home and shooting at you with live ammunition, you should assume they are trying to kill you and act accordingly, it's just common sense.

Huh? What would asking Turkey to inspect ships accomplish? And besides, whether ships were inspected or not, Isreal would still be enforcing the blockade. Because otherwise it's not a blockade!

Duuuh! To find out what is being transported!

What is your point? Clubs are deadly weapons you know. In the course of human history, millions have been clubbed to death. A human skull is sort of a fragile thing.

So when your home is invaded you will not use blunt instruments to defend it, I get it now.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

It's not a question of whether Israel is an apartheid state, which it is btw, but that people have been murdered and so far nobody has been prosecuted for it. Pretty simple, eh?

We are a long way from clearing this who was right and who was wrong mess up, for the time being i think we all should try to refrain from playing Monday morning quarterback and let the officials within the international community handle this.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Just remember that when the North Korean commandos storm the US.

You are delusional beyond clinical measure.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Did the people who fast roped into the boat identify themselves as policemen? ARE they policemen? Let me answer that, no and no.

they identified themselves and gave orders to divert from a dangerous blockade area

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

The commandos aren't cops.

no, they are however authority figures.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Yes I understand, you only want to murder all non-Jewish Israelis and take no blame for any of it. Well congratulations you managed to murder 10 + of them, must be your lucky day.

I dont think anyone except for you in this entire thread has called for anyone to be murdered

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Have you read the Internet lately? Plenty of anti-Palestine vitriol there. Not that you'd notice that since you've already chosen your side.

Have you? the internet is filled with anti-_______ vitriol everywhere (fill in the blank with any racial, ethnic, religious, political etc group you want).

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

My point is if you fight some invaders but not all then how are you supposed to tell the difference between the ones you are supposed to fight and the ones you are not supposed to fight?

Lets illustrate it for you to make it easier

A Legitimate authority figure >>> CLICK <<<

NOT a legitimate authority figure >>> CLICK <<<

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Remember that when police/military of country x mistreat you in some part of the world.

We usually have the intelligence capacity to avoid those parts of the world, unlike the individuals attempting to run the blockade.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

What cop?

the cop thing is an analogy. see here and here its a frequently used form of communication which generally simplifies an idea or concept so that it is more easily understood by others who may be detached from the original idea or concept.

keep in mind, analogy use rarely works with people like yourself.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

So if I break into your home and you defend yourself with non-lethal force it's ok for me to use lethal force against you? Ok I get it now.

if you are just plane old OTH... no

If you are an authority figure attempting to ascertain whether or not a law has been violated.. yes

rule number one when you are attacked by another human being is to assume that this person's intention is to cause death or serious - possibly fatal- injury

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Yea it's pretty clear that you're willing to bend things to allow Israel murder people.

as it has become abundantly clear that you are willing to do the same to allow everyone else to murder those who dont agree with you (namely, Americans)

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Making murdering civilians ok?

the term civilian indicates civility, these individuals displayed no civility that i could recognize. If they had played it smart and spent a whole 15 minutes playing nice im sure this entire situation would be completely different.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Good thing they have their own set of laws, it's very handy when murdering civilians in international waters.

The laws of international waters are gray and fuzzy at best... they need revamping IMHO

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I wouldn't want to be murdered by vague Israeli military forces when going fishing in Finnish coastal waters.

in the highly - and i do mean highly improbable event that such a thing does occur... we promise we will hold a brief moment of silence for you.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Invading someone's home and shooting them with live ammunition is assault with a deadly weapon

Who's home was invaded? i must have missed that in the articles.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

So when your home is invaded you will not use blunt instruments to defend it, I get it now.

No, i will use an M1911 Colt .45

Unless of course it is a uniformed authority figure who has no less than half a dozen times identified himself as such and requested my cooperation.

If one has an ounce of civility in them... it should never even get to the point that an authority figure barges into your home by force.

GR, let eskachig answer, you're just being way too silly for me to answer.

How??? I suppose maybe you mean emotionally affected.

How on earth could industry be emotionally affected?
Note that I was talking about events in the middle east over the years and the way they have impacted globally. These events in the middle east impact globally because they hit people and business all round the world right where they notice it hurts.

This... is not really true. There are indeed a lot of strange procedural weirdnesses with Gaza supplies, but for the most part the important stuff gets through.

"for the most part" isn't good enough, the legal obligations are very clear which is why I asked Golden Rivet earlier about the legal status of the territory in question.

From the BBC:

Look at the words, " largely been able to continue to transport basic supplies such as flour and cooking oil", "Israel generally allows medicines into Gaza.", " 15-30% of essential drugs out of stock over 2009"
Any single one of those shows that Israel is failing in its legal obligations, though you could go further and do the UN complaining that their essential humanitarian goods are being stopped, you can go to the ICRC where they complain about essential medicines and spare parts for hospital equipment being blocked, you can go to the WHO and see them complain about malnutrition and vitamin deficiency caused by the blocking of essential humanitarian aid, youcan go to the Israeli courts and see the repeated complaint that despite a ruling that Israel is obliged to supply 60% of the required fuel for electricity generation it consistantly fails to deliver even that.

but in general Israel lets all food and medicine through.

Which is it? in general or all.
If you look around on the link you provided you will see that "in general" doesn't make the grade and "all" isn't even on the bill.

Oh, and here is the offer Israel's navy made to the activists before boarding:

So what? Firstly they were still in international waters, secondly the whole rationale behind the protest(apart from the crazy nuts) is that Israels standing offer to ship goods falls very short of what is required.

I'm actually with you on this, I don't think this blockade will accomplish Israel's goals.

Oh dear, you have just weakened Israels case if it by some chance had waited until the ships were within its jurisdiction.

Embargo and blockade are not the same thing,

I know, but many have been playing mix and match to try and justify the actions.
Bibi did it just yesterday with an entirely different embargo, blockade, two resolutions and three bi-laterals which he portrayed as not only one single thing but also portrayed as the same as this current episode.

and the mechanism you outline makes the tactic of a naval blockade completely pointless.

It all depends on the legal status of any actions, which comes back again and again to the limits of jurisdiction which may possibly be applied in this case which are the territorial waters and contiguous zone, plus of course the legal status of the both Israel and the territory in question, not forgetting the legal obligations Israel carries which affect the legality of its customs actions(which in effect is what this "blockade" really is).
To which you must add the practicalities and effeciveness(which also affect the legal issues).

As I have said, the middle east is a very complex mess, this incident alone is chock full of little pitfalls which completely change the game, anyone taking the ridiculous interchangable Israel/arab good/bad approach is in effect just showing their blind hatred for one side or the other and lack of rational thought.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

no, they are however authority figures.

Define authority figure. Does that cover like for example in your case, catholic priests, and stuff? WTH exactly is an authority figure?

I dont think anyone except for you in this entire thread has called for anyone to be murdered

Besides you, Skybird, eskachig, etc.

Have you? the internet is filled with anti-_______ vitriol everywhere (fill in the blank with any racial, ethnic, religious, political etc group you want).

How about right here in Subsim? Check out the "a story about patriotism". Btw, how about I start supporting Stormfront nazis in Texas? You ok with that?

Lets illustrate it for you to make it easier

A Legitimate authority figure >>> CLICK <<<

NOT a legitimate authority figure >>> CLICK <<<

Oh that's just too funny. How about this guy?

We usually have the intelligence capacity to avoid those parts of the world, unlike the individuals attempting to run the blockade.

How about the English that the Americans fought to gain their independence? And the indians? Eh, how about the whole cowboy vs. indian - thing? I mean, they were ruthless savages and they just had to be exterminated for freedom to flourish, right?

keep in mind, analogy use rarely works with people like yourself.

Dude, I know what analogy is. You were saying that these commandos have the same rights as say cops in US. They don't. End of story.

if you are just plane old OTH... no

If you are an authority figure attempting to ascertain whether or not a law has been violated.. yes

rule number one when you are attacked by another human being is to assume that this person's intention is to cause death or serious - possibly fatal- injury

What the hell is an "authority figure"?! Do North Korean commissars qualify as "authority figures" who can bust into your house on a hunch and shoot you to death?

as it has become abundantly clear that you are willing to do the same to allow everyone else to murder those who dont agree with you (namely, Americans)

Where are Americans being murdered? Or Israelis for that matter? All I see are aggressive wars and murderous acts committed by these two nations.

the term civilian indicates civility, these individuals displayed no civility that i could recognize. If they had played it smart and spent a whole 15 minutes playing nice im sure this entire situation would be completely different.

They were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

The laws of international waters are gray and fuzzy at best... they need revamping IMHO

It's clear enough for people who are against murdering civilians.

in the highly - and i do mean highly improbable event that such a thing does occur... we promise we will hold a brief moment of silence for you.

You and the rest of your split personality?

Unless of course it is a uniformed authority figure

Ok I get it, you're into big dudes in leather, you've made it very clear.

[eskachig]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Define authority figure. Does that cover like for example in your case, catholic priests, and stuff? WTH exactly is an authority figure?

Military personnel represent the ultimate authority of a sovereign nation. There is no further expression of temporal authority in the world. They persecute war on behalf of their government, and within their AO they are indeed an authority.

Besides you, Skybird, eskachig, etc.

I'm not calling for anyone to be killed whatsoever.

How about the English that the Americans fought to gain their independence? And the indians? Eh, how about the whole cowboy vs. indian - thing? I mean, they were ruthless savages and they just had to be exterminated for freedom to flourish, right?

How is that related to what he said? What do the revolutionary war and genocide of native americans have to do with anything in this thread?

What the hell is an "authority figure"?! Do North Korean commissars qualify as "authority figures" who can bust into your house on a hunch and shoot you to death?

Military personnel are authority figures of a certain sort, being empowered to represent the interests of their state and persecute violence on its behalf. They are also usually the monopoly on force in their immediate area, which makes them an authority of the timeless sort.

Where are Americans being murdered? Or Israelis for that matter? All I see are aggressive wars and murderous acts committed by these two nations.

Dramatic oversimplification, even if I think American foreign policy in the last two decades has been... shall we say histrionic?

Israel actually suffered quite a lot, especially for its population size. Of course, they also killed more Palestinians than the other way around as well.

They were in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

They were running a blockade, and even declared so. This isn't even a disputed issue, there are clear laws that allow them to be captured or even sunk, international waters or not.

It's clear enough for people who are against murdering civilians.

Blockade runners are not civilians by definition.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Do North Korean commissars qualify as "authority figures" who can bust into your house on a hunch and shoot you to death?

Yes... If you are off the coast of North Korea (in either domestic or international waters) and a North Korean Commissar boards you, whether you like it or not he DOES qualify as an authority figure... though i think one would have a hard time busting into my house as you keep insisting... then again i dont live on a boat 15 miles off the coast of NK.

I have to say though... if im in international waters conducting a geological survey - they wouldn't have the right to board me anyway...

BUT

if i am in international waters with the clearly stated intention of sailing into one of their port cities for the purpose of - say - exploding a bomb, or smuggling contraband or some other illegal purpose... then hell yes, in that case they have the right and the authority to try and stop me.