Israel Attacks Civilian Aid Ships

[Fury]

Did anyone see the footage of these peaceful people attacking the Israeli soldiers, including throwing one over board?  

Selective memory.

Kind of like how some people forget that it was the Palestinians who were dancing in the streets and handing out candy when 3,000 American citizens were murdered on 9/11. But we should remember that they're allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. 

[drkaje]

I'm trying to follow your reasoning here Kaje, so help me out.  They are our allies.  Why shouldn't we help them and help them against their enemies?

If the argument truly is we should not be supporting either side, then why should there be any outrage or condemnation at the Israeli's attacking their enemies?

I really don't believe they are allies.

[Skip8282]

I really don't believe they are allies.

So the US should be neutral?

[OzmO]

Did anyone see the footage of these peaceful people attacking the Israeli soldiers, including throwing one over board? 

i saw a video of that as well as a ship getting boarded by armed commandos in international waters.

[drkaje]

So the US should be neutral?

Our political system being hijacked and oil dependency make neutrality impossible. What we should do is send them all the finger and a note saying "Handle crap on your own dime. That way you won't have to worry about what anyone thinks.... And by the way, how about giving us some of that money back?!"

We should not be sending US taxpayer dollars overseas when there are so many people suffering here. I'd much rather see that money given to people to keep homes, afford college for kids, pay off credit cards or even given to crackheads than sent offshore.

[24KT]

I'm trying to follow your reasoning here Kaje, so help me out.  They are our allies.  Why shouldn't we help them and help them against their enemies?

you mean like how the Israeli's helped the USA by sending cameramen to document 911 and dance on rooftops afterwards

If the argument truly is we should not be supporting either side, then why should there be any outrage or condemnation at the Israeli's attacking their enemies?

I guess the words "International Waters" means nothing to you.

I wonder how you'd feel if Canada & Mexico were to set up a naval around the USA after destroying your ability to grow food or produce fuel, and not allowing any food, fuel, etc to enter the US. Would we be justified in blasting a British ship out of international waters?

[jtsunami]

warning someone off of international waters is like me warning you not to walk on the side walk (public property) and then attacking you....and then screaming terrorist if you tried to defend yourself...israel in this case got " too big for its boots"

international waters....INTERNATIONAL WATERS....say it 3 times...

NOT israeli waters ron...

anyhow...ya still haven't answered my pm dood

x100000

[Dos Equis]

Selective memory.

Kind of like how some people forget that it was the Palestinians who were dancing in the streets and handing out candy when 3,000 American citizens were murdered on 9/11. But we should remember that they're allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. 

Yep.

[Dos Equis]

i saw a video of that as well as a ship getting boarded by armed commandos in international waters.

It puts the confrontation in a different light.  They were being beaten with sticks or bars (or whatever).  Depending on which news outlet was reporting, it sounded like the soldiers just fired on peaceful noncombatants.   

[Fury]

It puts the confrontation in a different light.  They were being beaten with sticks or bars (or whatever).  Depending on which news outlet was reporting, it sounded like the soldiers just fired on peaceful noncombatants.    

Good video showing the "activists" using stun grenades, fire bombs and other assorted weaponry. Not surprising that the IHH, the group that organized this flotilla, has been exposed multiple times for financing various jihadi groups across the globe. 

[OzmO]

It puts the confrontation in a different light.  They were being beaten with sticks or bars (or whatever).  Depending on which news outlet was reporting, it sounded like the soldiers just fired on peaceful noncombatants.   

I am aware of that.  They were even fired upon (the IDF) from what i understand (cnn news).  But from the point of view of the other side, they were attacked and boarded in international waters why wouldn't they have every right to defend and repel boarders?

Israel is using the fact the ship defended itself as justification for the killing. 

Its a mess.  Poorly handled by Israel, and does nothing to solve the problems, but instead creates new ones. 

[Dos Equis]

Good video showing the "activists" using stun grenades, fire bombs and other assorted weaponry. Not surprising that the IHH, the group that organized this flotilla, has been exposed multiple times for financing various jihadi groups across the globe. 

If I was one of those IDF soldiers I would have busted a cap . . . .

[Dos Equis]

I am aware of that.  They were even fired upon (the IDF) from what i understand (cnn news).  But from the point of view of the other side, they were attacked and boarded in international waters why wouldn't they have every right to defend and repel boarders?

Israel is using the fact the ship defended itself as justification for the killing. 

Its a mess.  Poorly handled by Israel, and does nothing to solve the problems, but instead creates new ones. 

How were those people attacked? 

[Skip8282]

I guess the words "International Waters" means nothing to you.

I wonder how you'd feel if Canada & Mexico were to set up a naval around the USA after destroying your ability to grow food or produce fuel, and not allowing any food, fuel, etc to enter the US. Would we be justified in blasting a British ship out of international waters?

I was trying to follow his reasoning, I did not offer an opinion either way.  As usual, your epic stupidity and lack of reading comprehension preclude you from having any intelligent thought.

But, your example demonstrates a classic bias of looking at it from a Palestinian point of view.  How about we consider that Americans are trying to kill Canadians on a regular basis and England sends a "humanitarian" ship to help out America.  Would Canadians be justified in intercepting that ship in international waters?

And really, what's with all the "international waters" shit on here anyway.  I doubt if 99.9999% of the GB posters throwing this shit out, including your dumb ass, has any clue about what international maritime law entails.  I know I sure as shit don't.

[OzmO]

How were those people attacked? 

I view the act of flying a helicopter over a ship and boarding it with armed commandos as an attack.

If it happened to a US ship you can bet it would be viewed that way too.  

[Fury]

I was trying to follow his reasoning, I did not offer an opinion either way.  As usual, your epic stupidity and lack of reading comprehension preclude you from having any intelligent thought.

But, your example demonstrates a classic bias of looking at it from a Palestinian point of view.  How about we consider that Americans are trying to kill Canadians on a regular basis and England sends a "humanitarian" ship to help out America.  Would Canadians be justified in intercepting that ship in international waters?

And really, what's with all the "international waters" shit on here anyway.  I doubt if 99.9999% of the GB posters throwing this shit out, including your dumb ass, has any clue about what international maritime law entails.  I know I sure as shit don't.

Stop bringing reason and logic into this argument. It's much better to parrot what Hamas and the MSM feeds us.  

I view the act of flying a helicopter over a ship and boarding it with armed commandos as an attack.

If it happened to a US ship you can bet it would be viewed that way too.  

Even if that ship was sailing towards Iran after they set up a naval blockade? I doubt it.

[Dos Equis]

I view the act of flying a helicopter over a ship and boarding it with armed commandos as an attack.

If it happened to a US ship you can bet it would be viewed that way too.  

If they were boarding a military ship I would agree. 

I think those people knew exactly what they were doing and wanted a confrontation. 

[OzmO]

I was trying to follow his reasoning, I did not offer an opinion either way.  As usual, your epic stupidity and lack of reading comprehension preclude you from having any intelligent thought.

But, your example demonstrates a classic bias of looking at it from a Palestinian point of view.  How about we consider that Americans are trying to kill Canadians on a regular basis and England sends a "humanitarian" ship to help out America.  Would Canadians be justified in intercepting that ship in international waters?

And really, what's with all the "international waters" shit on here anyway.  I doubt if 99.9999% of the GB posters throwing this shit out, including your dumb ass, has any clue about what international maritime law entails.  I know I sure as shit don't.

Just for the purpose of discussion, the analogy you provided seems a little off.   Gaza isn't a nation like America is.  Also, I understand the reasoning and position Israel is in.  But there had to be a better way to go about this.  They could have waited until it was with in the 12 miles zone considered territorial waters.  To attack it outside of the 12 mile territorial water zone.  Which brings in fault on their part.  

[Fury]

I don't know shit about international maritime law but this little bit seems to legalize Israel's actions.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea–an international treaty in effect since June 12, 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.


Those flotillas ticked off quite a few of those justifications.  

[ToxicAvenger]

The Sunni and Shia don't consider Ahmadi to be Muslims and have been persecuting them since their movement came about.

sinnis and shiias dont consider eachother muslim...you point?

[OzmO]

If they were boarding a military ship I would agree. 

I think those people knew exactly what they were doing and wanted a confrontation. 

Of course they did.  And Israel fell right into the trap.  


But, think about, Iran boards a US civilian ship in the Persian Gulf with armed commandos and we wouldn't look at that as an attack?  

[drkaje]

Just for the purpose of discussion, the analogy you provided seems a little off.   Gaza isn't a nation like America is.  Also, I understand the reasoning and position Israel is in.  But there had to be a better way to go about this.  They could have waited until it was with in the 12 miles zone considered territorial waters.  To attack it outside of the 12 mile territorial water zone.  Which brings in fault on their part.  

12, 20, 100 miles, or Boston harbor doesn't matter because there won't be any consequences.

Let them do whatever... on their own dime.

[OzmO]

I don't know shit about international maritime law but this little bit seems to legalize Israel's actions.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea–an international treaty in effect since June 12, 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.


Those flotillas ticked off quite a few of those justifications.  

I'm not a maritime lawyer but, this looks like they may have a "legal" out here.   

[Dos Equis]

Of course they did.  And Israel fell right into the trap.  


But, think about, Iran boards a US civilian ship in the Persian Gulf with armed commandos and we wouldn't look at that as an attack?  

I don't know if I'd call it an attack, but it would be pretty hostile.  The difference I see is we don't go around trying to murder people. 

[drkaje]

I don't know if I'd call it an attack, but it would be pretty hostile.  The difference I see is we don't go around trying to murder people. 

Isn't dead, dead?