Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on June 02, 2010, 08:19:55 pm
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships
More than 10 people have been killed after Israeli naval commandos boarded six aid ships in a convoy heading towards the Gaza Strip.
The fleet was carrying aid to the area, which is under a naval blockade. Israeli troops were attacked with guns, knives and clubs when they boarded the ships after having given repeated warnings, the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs said.
"During the interception of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs," the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs said.
"Additionally one of the weapons used was grabbed from an IDF soldier. The demonstrators had clearly prepared their weapons in advance for this specific purpose."
The Free Gaza movement, which is behind the flotilla, is reporting a very different version of events.
"Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck," the movement said on its website.
Well, let's see how this works...Israel boards a Turkish-flagged vessel in international waters...Turkey is a member of NATO...NATO is a military organization which considers an attack on one member an attack against all...
So when is Israel going to get its ass kicked?
-
Never. US conservatives will never side against Israel, no matter what they do, but especially if it's against nonJewish Arabs.
-
That assumes folks are gung ho to eat the losses required to kick Israel's ass.
Maybe Bundeswehr?
That was a joke.
Ha Ha. Fat Chance.
-
That assumes folks are gung ho to eat the losses required to kick Israel's ass.
Maybe Bundeswehr?
That was a joke.
Ha Ha. Fat Chance.
I want to play portal now.
-
As usual, the real rogue nation in the middle east gets a free pass.
-
Well, let's see how this works...Israel boards a Turkish-flagged vessel in international waters...Turkey is a member of NATO...NATO is a military organization which considers an attack on one member an attack against all...
So when is Israel going to get its ass kicked?
But Israel is "special" and so we need to be "understanding" of its actions. :rolleyes:
-
Israel is like our own baby. It's gonna be just like us when it grows up!
-
Have you got to the bit where they claim the IDF were using guns but they were paintball guns yet? :p
-
:wtf: Israel seriously said that?
EDIT: And where's Sandwitch when you need him? :P
-
Have you got to the bit where they claim the IDF were using guns but they were paintball guns yet? :p
Those activists had dangerous weapons! Like crutches! And paper.
-
:wtf: Israel seriously said that?
Captain Arye Shalicar of the Israel Defense Forces, who was part of Monday's operation, says the commandos began the raids armed with paintball guns.
"I was, myself, on one of the boats, the Israeli boats, approaching the flotilla," he told the BBC's World Today programme.
"It is true that the Israeli commander unit... came on board with paintball weapons... in order to disperse [people] if there was violence. They were ready for a violent... demonstration on board the flotilla, especially on the big boat, the Marmara.
"No-one really expected that there would be such a violent outcome of what happened.
"First, you know, the soldiers tried to disperse, but in the end when they were shot at, you know when there was shooting... from the other side, there's no other way than turning from paint ball to live ammunition."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10208027.stm
You know what? Even if they did attack the Israelis, so what? The ship was in international waters. What Israel did is technically piracy and in that case the response from those on the boat was actually a legal response.
-
Er, no, Israel's boarding was perfectly legal, if stupid.
http://www.google.com/search?q=legality+of+israeli+boarding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a (http://www.google.com/search?q=legality+of+israeli+boarding&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/israeli-actions-are-stupid-but-legal.html (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/israeli-actions-are-stupid-but-legal.html)
-
Nope, they weren't. Turkey or the UN has to carry out an investigation before Israel's actions can be declared legal.
So if Israel continues to block attempts to do that, then they will be illegal.
Oh and BTW the first link on the page you linked to.
Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
-
So why do two Israeli soldiers have gunshot wounds? Check out Big D's comments in the second link I posted, especially his link (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk#p/a/u/1/gYjkLUcbJWo). At 0:52 its pretty obvious they're using paintball guns.
-
I love how the Freeptards and Lieberman jump to the aid of poor, defenseless Israel after they boarded a humanitarian relief ship bound for a starving strip of land and murdered ten people.
Israel's a fan of delivering aid to Gaza...except all the times they're not.
-
Looks like Joe Biden agrees Israel needs to defend itself. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-defends-israels-boarding-flotilla)
-
Golly, the Federal government's executive branch defends Israel. What a shock.
-
Oh come on, I thought you liked Obama and his administration.
-
Unfortunately, we can't elect politicians here who would be as tough on Israel as they deserve. Their lobbyists are too powerful.
-
I don't like that for some reason we continue to support those assholes. Israel drops white phosphorous on Palestinian kids, bombs schools, starves the Strip, and bulldozes Arab homes in Jerusalem, and we keep selling them the weapons to do it.
Meanwhile, Saddam kills 138 people and we topple his regime. Why haven't we overthrown Tel Aviv yet?
-
Oh come on, I thought you liked Obama and his administration.
Dude, it's not some kind of binding blanket contract where you like EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING THEY DO ALL THE TIME.
At least not for me.
-
Looks like Joe Biden agrees Israel needs to defend itself. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-defends-israels-boarding-flotilla)
Defend itself from unarmed Turkish cargo ships carrying food and such. I get it, they were really defending Gaza against an attack by Weapons of Mass Indigestion!
Seriously, I think Biden was channeling AIPAC with that one......
-
The basic idea is not false. Israel does need to defend itself.
It just doesn't need to do crap like this. This is bull****.
-
Mmm, Israel's becoming more sloppy lately. The passports issue, and now... This, whatever the bloody hell it's called.
-
The basic idea is not false. Israel does need to defend itself.
I disagree. The world would be a better place if they all just packed up and left for Europe and the US. Nobody's going to **** with the jews again like hitler.
-
It makes it so much more stupid that the Jews were treated so badly by a bunch of arrogant pricks 70 years ago, and yet they've become the arrogant pricks treating everyone else so ****ing badly these days.
Israel does need to defend itself.
And has needed to several times in the past. They're almost justified in being a bunch of wankers over anything that happens close to them.
-
And has needed to several times in the past. They're almost justified in being a bunch of wankers over anything that happens close to them.
No. As their american lobbyists keep reminding us, they need to be defended because they're "the only real democracy in the area". Here's a hint: Don't act like the villains of the piece if you want to convince others that you're the good guys.
-
And has needed to several times in the past. They're almost justified in being a bunch of wankers over anything that happens close to them.
No. As their american lobbyists keep reminding us, they need to be defended because they're "the only real democracy in the area". Here's a hint: Don't act like the villains of the piece if you want to convince others that you're the good guys.
Aren't they the "only real democracy" because we kept on destabilizing/overthrowing the other ones?
-
I thought Palestine elected its leaders, but then we got all bent out of shape about it when they're weren't the leaders we wanted them to elect.
-
Fact one: Organizers are accused of having terrorist ties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IHH_(İnsani_Yardım_Vakfı)#Alleged_terrorist_ties) in multiple instances and by multiple sources.
Fact two: Israel AND Egypt Blockaded the Gaza strip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip) for fear of weapons smuggling.
Fact three: Israel warned the flotilla (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html) both before It arrived and as it was running the blockade that it would not be allowed and they needed to turn around.
Fact four: Israel offered to allow the supplies into Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560) after inspecting them for weapons or materials used to build weapons.
Fact five: the "peace activists" on the Mavi Marma knowingly and deliberately prepared to violently "object" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU) the boarding of their ship. (The other ships did what they were trained to do and linked hands formed a barrier and objected nonviolently.)
Fact six: In order to prevent even the risk of unnecessary damage the commandos boarded brandishing paintball guns (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/01/2915586.htm) with their live ammunition side arms holstered, In preparation for peace activists with a shred of peace still intact.
Fact seven: The "Peace activists" struck first (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2duPV9MQIc) grabbing and throwing the first soldier to land on board down to the decks below
Fact eight: the activists continued the violence including the beating of several soldiers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo) furiously with metal rods others were stabbed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co) and still others threw stun grenades (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=related) (what the hell are peace activists doing with stun grenades?)
Fact nine: only after an immediate lifethreatening situation did the soldiers react as any soldier in the world would, and rightfully so, and defended themselves. The kills were most not even from the soldiers on board but from the shooters in the helicopters. The soldiers on board couldn't even get up off the deck to shoot their weapons if they wanted to.
Fact ten: weapons were found aboard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM&feature=related) including combat knives slingshots random metal rods and smoke flares along with a host of other materials used by Hamas to construct weapons. (Weather you agree or not about the censored items is irrelevant because these "peace activists knew full well and were trying to run a military blockade with forbidden materials and then put up a violent fight, if that is not provocation what is? P.S. don't know why they showed the mechanics tool set I can see why hammers and wrenches would be necessary for the maintenance of the ship but it does not excuse the other materials.)
Fact eleven: The flotilla was carrying 10,000 tons of supplies, most humanitarian. Israel delivers approx 2,000 tons of humanitarian aid DAILY (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Israeli_humanitarian_lifeline_Gaza_25-May-2010.htm). Well over a Million Tons in the last 18 months.
Fact Twelve: the Hamas confiscates much of the aid for themselves (http://www.haaretz.com/news/hamas-confiscates-humanitarian-aid-trucks-sent-to-gaza-from-jordan-1.238927) and sell it at a steep price to the poor while building olympic size swimming pools and first class restaurants for themselves. (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/fancy-restaurants-and-olympic-size-pools-what-the-media-won’t-report-about-gaza/)
Fact Thirteen: After inspecting the cargo from the Mavi Marma and the other ships in the convoy Israel tried to deliver the aid to Gaza but HAMAS refused (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/), claiming it would only accept the aid if delivered by organizers of the flotilla.
What else what else... the legality can be debated until we are blue in the face but the fact is that there are two quite legitimate argument to support either side however the outcome of that ship being boarded and the actions taken by it's crew would not have changed had it been 10,000 or 10 miles from the Gaza coast.
As for the Israeli MP claiming Israel fired first (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu7-JVbclR8), this is what they get for letting people who would call themselves Palestinians before Israelis into the Government (God only knows why) but it's obvious that Israel fired warning shots first before trying to board otherwise someone on the entire ship or surrounding ships would have taken a video of the shooting of their ship before the soldiers boarded. And believe me if they had shot anyone they would not be stupid enough to think no one would respond violently and have send commandos into a situation like that with paint ball guns. As much as you all like to think they are retarded no one is THAT dumb.
As for why there is no video footage of the shootings well probably because There was only one camera on board that Israel had access to which is the camera that took the pictures in fact five and it is clearly seen that the main violence does not take place on the bow of the ship but on the top deck. and the only other shots of the conflict are from helicopter and boats other then the shots taken by whoever had a camera or portable video recording device on board like the ones taking the pictures here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nRbcwnp-l8)
on the one hand you have enormous physical video evidence along with personal accounts of the people involved and on the other side you have just personal accounts of the people involved many of them conflicting I might add. I guess since only my friend was there and I wasn't I have to draw conclusions like the rest of you. But hey, It's all right wing media bias Zionist plot etc. right? :yes:
-
Nice first post.
Only one, little tiny flaw: In a propaganda war (and this is one, make no mistake), it's not a good idea to give the other side easily exploited propaganda material. And that is assuming that everything you said here is the factual truth.
Let me point to your closing statement here: on the one hand you have enormous physical video evidence along with personal accounts of the people involved and on the other side you have just personal accounts of the people involved many of them conflicting I might add. I guess since only my friend was there and I wasn't I have to draw conclusions like the rest of you. But hey, It's all right wing media bias Zionist plot etc. right?
Unless there are accounts of these events from neutral sources, I am skeptical. The problem is that neither the Israeli military nor the people aboard these ships are trustworthy.
Other notes: As for the Israeli MP claiming Israel fired first, this is what they get for letting people who would call themselves Palestinians before Israelis into the Government (God only knows why)
Is he, or is he not, an elected member of parliament? If yes, then the reason why he's in parliament is not a great mystery. It's called democracy. Also known as the will of the people.
In fact, let me quote that entire paragraph:
As for the Israeli MP claiming Israel fired first, this is what they get for letting people who would call themselves Palestinians before Israelis into the Government (God only knows why) but it's obvious that Israel fired warning shots first before trying to board otherwise someone on the entire ship or surrounding ships would have taken a video of the shooting of their ship before the soldiers boarded. And believe me if they had shot anyone they would not be stupid enough to think no one would respond violently and have send commandos into a situation like that with paint ball guns. As much as you all like to think they are retarded no one is THAT dumb.
You know what I see there? I see phrases like "It's obvious" and "they would not be stupid enough". The only thing that is obvious to me is that that is speculation being dressed up as fact.
-
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
-
Nice first post.
First post? do you mean in this thread? You know the counter doesn't count anything in the General Discussion area right? I used to have a few hundred. :'(
Only one, little tiny flaw: In a propaganda war (and this is one, make no mistake), it's not a good idea to give the other side easily exploited propaganda material. And that is assuming that everything you said here is the factual truth.
I agree whole heartedly. However hindsight is 20/20 and this was not a likley outcome.
Let me point to your closing statement here: on the one hand you have enormous physical video evidence along with personal accounts of the people involved and on the other side you have just personal accounts of the people involved many of them conflicting I might add. I guess since only my friend was there and I wasn't I have to draw conclusions like the rest of you. But hey, It's all right wing media bias Zionist plot etc. right?
Unless there are accounts of these events from neutral sources, I am skeptical. The problem is that neither the Israeli military nor the people aboard these ships are trustworthy.
Trustworthy is fuzzy. In my eyes one side is and one side is not the same is true on the other side. However mine is based on a history of media deceptions and outings of those deceptions by one side not to mention more to gain and in this specific situation one account is supported over the other to some significant degree by video evidence. If I were on the outside looking in this would at least cause me some pause before demonizing one side or another.
Other notes: As for the Israeli MP claiming Israel fired first, this is what they get for letting people who would call themselves Palestinians before Israelis into the Government (God only knows why)
Is he, or is he not, an elected member of parliament? If yes, then the reason why he's in parliament is not a great mystery. It's called democracy. Also known as the will of the people.
You are correct sir however in this specific scenario, which is unique, it baffles the mind that a member of the geovernment of a nation will outright work to undermine and even try and run a blockade with supplies that her government voted to ban as it is considered smuggling weapons. Is that not treason?
In fact, let me quote that entire paragraph:
As for the Israeli MP claiming Israel fired first, this is what they get for letting people who would call themselves Palestinians before Israelis into the Government (God only knows why) but it's obvious that Israel fired warning shots first before trying to board otherwise someone on the entire ship or surrounding ships would have taken a video of the shooting of their ship before the soldiers boarded. And believe me if they had shot anyone they would not be stupid enough to think no one would respond violently and have send commandos into a situation like that with paint ball guns. As much as you all like to think they are retarded no one is THAT dumb.
You know what I see there? I see phrases like "It's obvious" and "they would not be stupid enough". The only thing that is obvious to me is that that is speculation being dressed up as fact.
The comment on the video tapes is speculation or a safe assumption. I should have said "but most likley that it was Israel firing warning shots to stop the boats before trying to board otherwise I find it unlikley that not one of the people or news crews on the entire ship or surrounding ships would not have taken a video of the shooting of their ship before the soldiers boarded." (the sattelite transmission capability of the press may or may not have been blocked however they would still have been able to record.) However, when I say "belive me they would not be stupid enough" I happen to know for a fact that thier procedures and the actuallity is that they would not have allowed that kind of F*up.
-
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Honestly? I have completly defeated any argument you may have on the subject so you try to deflect already? Seriously? At least give it a shot for pete sake. Apples and oranges man. I mean if it was the gaza strip or something but east jerusalem? what the fudge does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
-
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Honestly? I have completly defeated any argument you may have on the subject so you try to deflect already? Seriously? At least give it a shot for pete sake. Apples and oranges man. I mean if it was the gaza strip or something but east jerusalem? what the fudge does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Hardly a distraction since Israel's occupation is at the root of this whole mess to begin with.
-
I'm inclined to disregard the opinion of anyone close to the issue on either side.
Too many affect heuristics in the way.
-
That's fair enough, but I wouldn't disregard their opinion completely. After all, it's those people who end up calling the shots. I find it interesting to see what people on both sides think, and where they pull their arguments out of, but that's probably because I'm relatively uninformed about the issue. :P
-
Isn't most of the information about the attack produced by Israel itself? Hardly a trustworthy source.
-
Yeah, and I'm likely to trust the flotilla evidence just as much.
In a case where evidence is equally suspect, I'd say the edge goes to the side with the preponderance of evidence. That's Israel in this case.
That said, this is still bull****, no matter which party's fault it is.
-
Hey Splinter, could you provide sources on your 'facts'? Knowing that the only two factions present at the conflict were the activists and the IDF, it's likely that what you listed as facts are actually a twisted version of events intended for propaganda purposes. Which side twisted them is a matter for further investigation, but without a proper citation of sources, all your facts are unreliable.
-
Mmm. Does someone who knows something about cameras agree with this stuff? (http://solstudio.web.id/blog/2010/06/idf-video-footage-of-flotilla-attack-is-fake/)
-
Mmm. Does someone who knows something about cameras agree with this stuff? (http://solstudio.web.id/blog/2010/06/idf-video-footage-of-flotilla-attack-is-fake/)
Oh wow. I'm really making my surprised face here. It just happens to look exactly like my "i saw that one coming" face.
-
When the opening introduction paragraph refers to the subject as "ziofascist murder," I'm severely strained in my ability to believe that this is anything close to objective.
EDIT: Even moreso when the article author goes on to say "Being fanatic is good" down in the comments.
-
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Honestly? I have completly defeated any argument you may have on the subject so you try to deflect already? Seriously? At least give it a shot for pete sake. Apples and oranges man. I mean if it was the gaza strip or something but east jerusalem? what the fudge does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Honestly? I was in a hurry and I wanted to see if you'd come up with a justification for that one. I don't have enough time to waste any arguing with fanatics who think there is one.
If you proved stupidly unreasonable on a clear cut topic it wouldn't be worth wasting time on one that is much more shades of grey.
So... Demolishing houses in East Jerusalem, ****ing stupid, right?
-
When the opening introduction paragraph refers to the subject as "ziofascist murder," I'm severely strained in my ability to believe that this is anything close to objective.
EDIT: Even moreso when the article author goes on to say "Being fanatic is good" down in the comments.
Well, I was linked to the article by my socialist mate, so... :P
-
i have to agree, i personally give that article a zero for credibility.
-
Hmmm.... To quote the middle eastern guy from Office Space
This is a ****!
-
Putting aside the problem of boarding in international waters for a second, the activists clearly wanted a reaction, ignored Israeli attempts to compromise(passing the shipments through the land crossings into Gaza) and staged this whole thing for propaganda purposes. I can't take it seriously when they claim victimhood after attacking and trying to abduct soldiers. The Israelis claim they fired in self-defence after activists had grabbed weapon and equipment from one or more of the soldiers they'd managed to ferry away away from the group.
Also, speaking of the starving people of Gaza, I'll just post some Ziofascist(They moved away from "ZioNazi", how classy of them) lies on that subject if that's alright: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Israeli_humanitarian_lifeline_Gaza_25-May-2010.htm
All of that aside, I don't understand why Israel didn't just block the ship - These guys may be ideologically motivated, but after a week at sea, they're probably not gonna be that enthusiastic about sparring with the Israeli navy for much longer.
The way I see it: Israel warned them, tried to reach a compromise, was ignored, and then ****ed up royally by trying to board a ship with that many armed activists on it.
-
Afraid I'm not seeing why Israel holds all the rights to Palestine's waters. Maybe Palestinians should blockade Israel's waters. For fairness!
-
It happens to be perfectly legal to blockade hostile territory. Since Gaza is renowned for firing rockets into Israel, it definitely falls under the definition of hostile territory.
-
Israel fires rockets into Palestine too.
Who is really the hostile territory here?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_%28Settlements%29.png/482px-West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_%28Settlements%29.png)
-
[snip]
All of that aside, I don't understand why Israel didn't just block the ship - These guys may be ideologically motivated, but after a week at sea, they're probably not gonna be that enthusiastic about sparring with the Israeli navy for much longer.
[snip]
You know that the normal way of enforcing a naval blockade is to just sink the ships that run past the line?
-
Zack, hostile territory is anyone attacking you. So it goes both ways. :P If the Palestinians want to try and blockade Israel they're certainly welcome to try, its just that Israel might take offense at the temerity of a bunch of armed rabble (they aren't anything but rabble armed with AK's and RPG's) who think they can enforce a naval blockade with nothing but wooden boats and shoulder-launched rockets. That would also be seen as a direct attack on Israel by the international community, rather than their "defensive tactics" of lobbing rockets at anything Israeli in range. If Hamas does anything like that, then Israel can go ahead and claim casus belli (since declaring a blockade is practically declaring war) to go in and steamroll Gaza and the West Bank.
Anyways, that armistice line is from what, 1949? I believe Israel took all that territory as just spoils from Jordan and Egypt, after they attacked first. I don't see anything wrong with that since if aggressors can take territory as part of war, its only fair for the defenders to be able to as well. Israel actually owned the entire Sinai Peninsula for a time until they gave it back to Egypt.
Iss Mneur, Israel is catching a ton of **** for simply boarding these vessels. How bad do you think things would be if they had sunk them? Keep in mind there were children on these vessels, and if you think this is bad for Israel now, things would be a lot worse if the Palestinians were able to go out and talk about Israel callously sinking ships with children on them.
-
(they aren't anything but rabble armed with AK's and RPG's)
Ah, the casual arrogance of those who disregard history.
I'll take it way back and envision
LORD SPARDASON OF BULKWISTERSHIRE
He RECLINETH in his PALATIAL ESTATE, reading REPORTS from the COLONIES.
"Bah!" sayeth SPARDASON, adjusting his POWDERED WIG. "They are nothing but rabble armed with HUNTING RIFLES and STOLEN CANNON."
-
I think Israels kinda jerk-ish for going along with the 'kick Palestines out and place the Jews there in the middle of a bunch of people they're gonna piss off' thing.
I think we're jerks for supporting them. I actually was reading my history textbook today and saw a little side-bar paragraph that couldn't have been written better by an Israeli propagandist. Here, I'll copy it:
The State of Israel
On May 14, 1948, Jews and many non-Jews around the world celebrated the birth of the modern state of Israel. Israel owes its existence in part to the idea of the Promised Land. Jewish tradition kept that idea alive for almost 19 centuries after Jewish rule had ended in Palestine. By the 1800s, persecution of Jews in Europe led many to believe that Jews should returnto them to the land given to them by God - to Palestine.
In the late 1800s, a movement called Zionism called for "a (Jewish) home in Palestine secured by law." In 1947, after the horrors of Nazism, the United Nations answered that call. It established Israel as a Jewish Homeland. Jews had regained their Promised Land.
-
Mmm. Does someone who knows something about cameras agree with this stuff? (http://solstudio.web.id/blog/2010/06/idf-video-footage-of-flotilla-attack-is-fake/)
The guy seems off his rocker with bias. Also, he doesn't know much about IR cameras. I've had opportunity to play around with the infrared cameras the IDF uses a couple of years back, during reserve duty. They definitely do have shades of gray; IR merely detects the various levels of heat radiating from objects in view. Obviously, some objects are warm or hot (human bodies - heads in particular - or smokestacks, vehicle wheels, engines, and exhaust if the vehicle has been driving for a bit, etc), while other objects are cold (mainly the ground and vegetation). Since cold is merely relative, a lack of heat relative to the observer (ice cubes, after all, are pretty darn hot relative to the cold of space), the IR sensitivity is typically set with the top of the scale being the hottest object on-screen. Obviously, some parts of a picture will be warmer than others, thus some parts of the IR image will be darker/lighter (it's a toggle) than others: grayscale.
On the question of the legality of the Israeli actions:
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
PART III, SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
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.
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Israel tends to demolish lots of illegal housing (http://jta.org/news/article/2010/05/06/2394700/israeli-forces-demolish-settlement-homes). Sometimes it's even Palestinian housing.
Why do cops arrest drug dealers who are black, or hispanic, or whatever the minority of the day is these days - isn't that racist? Shouldn't they only arrest drug dealing white men from middle-income households? It's not the who, it's the what. It's not Palestinian houses being demolished, but illegal houses.
Finally, the only reason I'm in this thread to begin with is because a friend sent me a video. I watched it and thought to myself, "If there's a thread on HLP with a bunch of mindless sheep kvetching about Israel's actions against the flotilla, I'll post this video." So, since you guys are so lovingly predictable, here, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXhcmQmOuds
-
Yeah that site Dilmah linked is pretty much a textbook example of bias. If anyone here is honestly prepared to trust a site using that kind of rhetoric, I weep for us all.
Anyway, personally, I've no doubt that Israel were legally allowed to stop the ships from breaking their blockade. However, the way they went about it was utterly stupid. I mean, seriously, what kind of incompetents are running the show in the IDF these days? Israel needs to be very careful of public opinion in those countries it can call allies (which isn't too many by now), and angering them by running an operation like this is not a smart move. And coming on top of several other not-smart-moves in recent times, Israelis really ought to take notice and maybe use their votes to put someone in charge who isn't hell bent on self destruction.
Basically I guess that what I'm saying is that Israel needs to grow up and start acting responsibly. The policy lately seems to be little more than eye-for-an-eye spiced up with random snafus on an international scale, legal or not. Where's another Rabin when you need him?
-
The State of Israel
On May 14, 1948, Jews and many non-Jews around the world celebrated the birth of the modern state of Israel. Israel owes its existence in part to the idea of the Promised Land. Jewish tradition kept that idea alive for almost 19 centuries after Jewish rule had ended in Palestine. By the 1800s, persecution of Jews in Europe led many to believe that Jews should returnto them to the land given to them by God - to Palestine.
In the late 1800s, a movement called Zionism called for "a (Jewish) home in Palestine secured by law." In 1947, after the horrors of Nazism, the United Nations answered that call. It established Israel as a Jewish Homeland. Jews had regained their Promised Land.
That was in our textbooks too. Cemented the idea in my head that Israel has no right to exist. Gays were killed in the Holocaust too, but you don't see us demanding our very own country.
-
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Honestly? I have completely defeated any argument you may have on the subject so you try to deflect already? Seriously? At least give it a shot for Pete sake. Apples and oranges man. I mean if it was the Gaza strip or something but east Jerusalem? what the fudge does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Hardly a distraction since Israel's occupation is at the root of this whole mess to begin with.
You can pick any random date or event in the last 63 years and call that the root of all this. How about the creation of the State itself? How about the 1956 war? or the 67? or the one in the 70's? or the Lebanon war in the 80's? maybe the first intifada? or the second? The election of the Hamas? The 2nd Lebanon war?
Hey Splinter, could you provide sources on your 'facts'? Knowing that the only two factions present at the conflict were the activists and the IDF, it's likely that what you listed as facts are actually a twisted version of events intended for propaganda purposes. Which side twisted them is a matter for further investigation, but without a proper citation of sources, all your facts are unreliable.
the sources for my "facts" are all linked to in the post. Video evidence or news articles which is the source of the "evidence" everyone in here is using to incriminate the actions so it's as viable as their "facts". You want %100? You would have had to have been there. I can't say that I was neither can anyone else here. And the people who claim they were are kinda disagreeing on the events. Sooooooo it's kinda F*ed. We have to make do with what we can and try and sift through.
But you know everyone has posted plenty of evidence negating the points I made so there are viable arguments on both sides going on, so far it's pretty even... :lol:
Mmm. Does someone who knows something about cameras agree with this stuff? (http://solstudio.web.id/blog/2010/06/idf-video-footage-of-flotilla-attack-is-fake/)
as for some of the points made there here are my thoughts.
1. dozens of videos on every news source has shown violence even from the cameras of the passengers aboard... utter BS
2. I have no idea
3. The cameras on the ship could have been mounted on (not sure how to say this) something like a level used in construction where the camera automatically balances to show a straight horizontal picture.
4. Had some advanced IR on our tank that showed imaged like that but I guess my input right here would be worthless since I, admittedly, am very close to the situation.
5. for exactly the purpose which it has gone to serve... worldwide condemnation.
Glad you're here Splinter. Now explain why demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem is also a good idea while you're at it.
Honestly? I have completely defeated any argument you may have on the subject so you try to deflect already? Seriously? At least give it a shot for Pete sake. Apples and oranges man. I mean if it was the Gaza strip or something but east Jerusalem? what the fudge does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Honestly? I was in a hurry and I wanted to see if you'd come up with a justification for that one. I don't have enough time to waste any arguing with fanatics who think there is one.
If you proved stupidly unreasonable on a clear cut topic it wouldn't be worth wasting time on one that is much more shades of grey.
So... Demolishing houses in East Jerusalem, ****ing stupid, right?
So if I agree that it's stupid you will make time to argue because I am not a fanatic but if I disagree I am a raving fanatic and not worth your time. And again I have produced great amounts of sources and some evidence to support my argument so stupidly unreasonable? I would call that uncalled for and close minded if not completely blinded by bias and outright hatred.
Yeah that site Dilmah linked is pretty much a textbook example of bias. If anyone here is honestly prepared to trust a site using that kind of rhetoric, I weep for us all.
Anyway, personally, I've no doubt that Israel were legally allowed to stop the ships from breaking their blockade. However, the way they went about it was utterly stupid. I mean, seriously, what kind of incompetents are running the show in the IDF these days? Israel needs to be very careful of public opinion in those countries it can call allies (which isn't too many by now), and angering them by running an operation like this is not a smart move. And coming on top of several other not-smart-moves in recent times, Israelis really ought to take notice and maybe use their votes to put someone in charge who isn't hell bent on self destruction.
Careful about public opinion? I suppose boarding a ship with painball guns and after a major violent encounter still offering to send the relief aid is just them sticking it to the man right? Big middle finger to everyone and their opinions we are going in with paintball guns blazing HOOORAH! :rolleyes:
Because the whole stupid encounter wouldn't have been avoided had Israel not been bending over backwards to appease the "world opinion". They wouldn't have done anything similar to the operational procedures of any other military around the world. Nope lalala oh look! a unicorn! It's ****ting daisies and spitting chocolate!
Basically I guess that what I'm saying is that Israel needs to grow up and start acting responsibly. The policy lately seems to be little more than eye-for-an-eye spiced up with random snafus on an international scale, legal or not. Where's another Rabin when you need him?
Responsibly?! Like how about boarding with real guns. THAT would have been responsible.
If Israel tried to appease the world any more and prevent harm to people they would have boarded ass first with their pants down. They start violence and no matter what the response it's never enough. This has moved from ridiculous to outright insanity. What's next? Navy seals with wiffle bats? maybe some border police with potato guns? I know the next patrol I go on I will take a twig. I'll try and use it like a whip and say "this is for Shade" now you can't condemn me for being evil murderer... unless of course the twig happens to enter his mouth and choke him then I'm sure someone would find reason to condemn me to death. It doesn't take a fortune teller to see you have a rude awakening in your future.
-
Wow. Troll much? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're as biased at that ridiculous site that claimed the IDF video was false, only in the other direction. Apparently, you also can't read, or at least choose not to. You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Try again, and this time think before you post.
-
Wow. Troll much? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're as biased at that ridiculous site that claimed the IDF video was false, only in the other direction. Apparently, you also can't read, or at least choose not to. You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Try again, and this time think before you post.
Indeed, clearly, because neither he nor I have spent 3+ years in the IDF, seeing things firsthand, right? But of course, instead of that making people like us witnesses, it makes us biased. Well, both are true simultaneously. I've been a witness to quite a lot, as has Splinter. We've seen things first-hand, and you know what? We're biased in favor of what our eyes - not a TV screen or reporter's words - have seen.
Now, I can't claim firsthand knowledge of anything to do with the current SNAFU. What I do claim knowledge of is the moral restrictions placed on the soldiers of the IDF. I know the kinds of priorities the IDF places on life - and if anyone cares to think about it, they would too (what's the going Palestinian prisoner exchange rate these days? 1000+ to 1?). So when video footage shows one thing, IDF reports state the same that thing, but the people the IDF was operating against claim something else, I kinda tend to side with the guys with the video footage.
Tell me, what would you have seen Israel do once that flotilla set sail? What human sacrifice could Israel have offered up on the alter of world opinion that would have kept the wolves at bay? It was a lose-lose situation for Israel, no matter what we would have done - the media loves depicting us as the bad guys, and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdogs. Well, guess what - they are oppressed: by Hamas, and every other organization that puts pro-suicide bombing education in schools, steals their resources, and uses their homes as launching pads for their weapons of terror so that when Israel returns fire at the launch site, we end up killing innocent civilians and the media gets their frenzy.
Israel is a nuclear power. Nobody admits it (except for me - hey, I just said it!), but everybody knows it's true. If we wanted the Palestinians dead, they would be dead. If we wanted them kicked-out from where they are, they would be gone (we kicked our own people out of Gaza for a slim chance at "peace", and got a major increase in rocket barrages in return). If we wanted a full-blown war, it would have happened years ago. We don't mind having the Palestinians as neighbors, having Arab-Israelis living among the Jewish-Israelis - as long as they're willing to live in peace with us in return. But until they stop educating their children - children, for God's sake! - that dying as suicide bombers is a good thing, I don't see that happening.
I've become a father of 2 daughters in the past 2 years, one 2 years old, one 4 months. Children are so malleable and eager to copy the grown-ups, it's amazing. My wife was used to calling me by my first name around the house, but she finally switched to calling me "Abba" (Dad in Hebrew) when my 2-year old called out for me one day, "Michael?" Craziest thing... :) Anyway, my point is that being a parent teaches you so much about the trusting nature of children, that seeing people abuse that trust intentionally boils the blood.
Anyway, I've said enough, probably most of it rambling, but it's 4am and I gotta go feed the 4-month old. She tends to give these ear-piercing, "Mariah Carey" screams (as my wife calls them) instead of merely crying when she's unhappy, but her smiles make up for it a thousand times. :)
-
the media loves depicting us as the bad guys, and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdogs.
Uhh... What media? Certainly not US media, lol.
Anyway, to be honest, the more research I do, the more I'm convinced Israel shouldn't even be there. All this talk about rockets, but Palestinian casualties are several times that of Israeli casualties to date. The IDF repeatedly kills nonviolent protesters. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes.
Meanwhile Israeli settlers continue to build illegal outposts all over the place, and then destroy Palestinian homes, crops, et cetera.
All over a claim that a god gave them the land?
Maybe the American Indians should rise up and take the land a god gave them. After all, they have ancestral rights to it!
-
Wow. Troll much? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're as biased at that ridiculous site that claimed the IDF video was false, only in the other direction. Apparently, you also can't read, or at least choose not to. You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Try again, and this time think before you post.
Indeed, clearly, because neither he nor I have spent 3+ years in the IDF, seeing things firsthand, right? But of course, instead of that making people like us witnesses, it makes us biased. Well, both are true simultaneously. I've been a witness to quite a lot, as has Splinter. We've seen things first-hand, and you know what? We're biased in favor of what our eyes - not a TV screen or reporter's words - have seen.
Now, I can't claim firsthand knowledge of anything to do with the current SNAFU. What I do claim knowledge of is the moral restrictions placed on the soldiers of the IDF. I know the kinds of priorities the IDF places on life - and if anyone cares to think about it, they would too (what's the going Palestinian prisoner exchange rate these days? 1000+ to 1?). So when video footage shows one thing, IDF reports state the same that thing, but the people the IDF was operating against claim something else, I kinda tend to side with the guys with the video footage.
Tell me, what would you have seen Israel do once that flotilla set sail? What human sacrifice could Israel have offered up on the alter of world opinion that would have kept the wolves at bay? It was a lose-lose situation for Israel, no matter what we would have done - the media loves depicting us as the bad guys, and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdogs. Well, guess what - they are oppressed: by Hamas, and every other organization that puts pro-suicide bombing education in schools, steals their resources, and uses their homes as launching pads for their weapons of terror so that when Israel returns fire at the launch site, we end up killing innocent civilians and the media gets their frenzy.
Israel is a nuclear power. Nobody admits it (except for me - hey, I just said it!), but everybody knows it's true. If we wanted the Palestinians dead, they would be dead. If we wanted them kicked-out from where they are, they would be gone (we kicked our own people out of Gaza for a slim chance at "peace", and got a major increase in rocket barrages in return). If we wanted a full-blown war, it would have happened years ago. We don't mind having the Palestinians as neighbors, having Arab-Israelis living among the Jewish-Israelis - as long as they're willing to live in peace with us in return. But until they stop educating their children - children, for God's sake! - that dying as suicide bombers is a good thing, I don't see that happening.
I've become a father of 2 daughters in the past 2 years, one 2 years old, one 4 months. Children are so malleable and eager to copy the grown-ups, it's amazing. My wife was used to calling me by my first name around the house, but she finally switched to calling me "Abba" (Dad in Hebrew) when my 2-year old called out for me one day, "Michael?" Craziest thing... :) Anyway, my point is that being a parent teaches you so much about the trusting nature of children, that seeing people abuse that trust intentionally boils the blood.
Anyway, I've said enough, probably most of it rambling, but it's 4am and I gotta go feed the 4-month old. She tends to give these ear-piercing, "Mariah Carey" screams (as my wife calls them) instead of merely crying when she's unhappy, but her smiles make up for it a thousand times. :)
While this is a compelling post, I can't help but feel that someone in the same position on the other side could produce something similar and equally deserving of consideration.
It's a messy situation. :(
-
Israel is a nuclear power. Nobody admits it (except for me - hey, I just said it!), but everybody knows it's true. If we wanted the Palestinians dead, they would be dead.
Along with your only bargaining chip, the collective guilt the Western world feels over WWII.
Hey, I said it too.
-
Indeed, clearly, because neither he nor I have spent 3+ years in the IDF, seeing things firsthand, right? But of course, instead of that making people like us witnesses, it makes us biased. Well, both are true simultaneously. I've been a witness to quite a lot, as has Splinter. We've seen things first-hand, and you know what? We're biased in favor of what our eyes - not a TV screen or reporter's words - have seen.
He may well have. But he's still acting very much the troll, deliberately misinterpreting what I posted and putting a spin on it that has nothing to do with what was actually said. This is what I'm referring to. He could be a general for all I care, he's still making an ass of himself in that post. I suppose that there may be some major feelings involved on his part, but if so then it's time to cool down rather than post as he did.
You, on the other hand, are not making an ass of yourself. So you'll get the reply he could have recieve if he'd cared to actually discuss rather than mock :)
Tell me, what would you have seen Israel do once that flotilla set sail?
The thing is, I think the mistake here wasn't using too much force. The mistake was in using far too little. When you drop a relatively small group onto a ship of potential hostiles, you are pretty much asking them to attack you. Feelings take over, they sense that they can win, and mob mentality kicks in. It's the same situation you'd get if you sent a single police car into a riot-prone area of town to arrest a local - People don't give themselves up, rather, they start throwing rocks.
What you need in a situation like this is a show of force. You need to make it clear from the beginning that you're in control and that you're prepared for whatever is going to happen. You need enough people involved that you can be confident of not getting overrun. Feelings will be hurt, people will be bruised, but chances are good that noone will be killed. Waiting until the ship was not deep in international waters would have been a good move too - Even if it isn't legally required in the case of a blockade, I don't see how hitting it that far out could've been operationally necessary, and doing so is just giving the media an excuse to villify Israel. Again.
they are oppressed: by Hamas, and every other organization that puts pro-suicide bombing education in schools, steals their resources, and uses their homes as launching pads for their weapons of terror so that when Israel returns fire at the launch site, we end up killing innocent civilians and the media gets their frenzy.
Agreed. The general palestinian populace are far more a victim of their own fundamentalist minority than they are of Israel. And you do have a right to defend yourself.
However, some things you do not have a right to do. This includes the continued settlement activity which is illegal by international law (and if I'm not mistaken by Israeli law as well), and is one of the things that is severely hurting you in international relations. And there's no way this can be contrived as being self defense.
The removal of settlements from the Gaza strip was a good move and gained Israel a fair bit of respect here (and I would assume elsewhere as well), but sadly this has been squandered completely by the continued expension of the settlements in the west bank. It would be one thing if it could just be written off as fundamentalists doing their thing, reclaiming the holy land and all, but given your government's inaction in the face of the continued expansions, it is obvious that they are at least unofficially sanctioned by the state. And besides being illegal, that's another major international snafu that loses you major goodwill around the world.
Basically, it tells the world that Israel is not prepared to compromise, is not prepared to hold themselves to the same standards the want to hold others. Are palestinians allowed to build armed and walled enclaves in Israel? I thought not. And that's why your government needs to grow up and start showing that they're responsible people. They need to realize that when your claim to fame is being the only democracy in the area, the only place where rule of law is universally applied, you damn well have to actually live up to that. You can't ignore major transgressions to please the religious fanatics. If you expect the palestinians to police their own, then apply the same to yourself. Do that, and I expect Israel will find the international community far more accomodating - Well, within limits anyway, I wouldn't hold out for Iran :p
-
I've become a father of 2 daughters in the past 2 years, one 2 years old, one 4 months. Children are so malleable and eager to copy the grown-ups, it's amazing. My wife was used to calling me by my first name around the house, but she finally switched to calling me "Abba" (Dad in Hebrew) when my 2-year old called out for me one day, "Michael?" Craziest thing... :) Anyway, my point is that being a parent teaches you so much about the trusting nature of children, that seeing people abuse that trust intentionally boils the blood.
Anyway, I've said enough, probably most of it rambling, but it's 4am and I gotta go feed the 4-month old. She tends to give these ear-piercing, "Mariah Carey" screams (as my wife calls them) instead of merely crying when she's unhappy, but her smiles make up for it a thousand times. :)
Awww...
-
Personally, I'm getting sick to death of Israel being a mob of pricks and getting away with it. Just in the last few years they've invaded Lebanon, attacked in Gaza with illegal weapons, blockaded Gaza causing massive poverty and economic hardship, used Australian and other international passports to commit international murder and now killed 10 people in international waters. North Korea han't killed anywhere near as many people as the Israelis in the last decade, and yet they have huge sanctions while Israel gets treated as a civilized, responsible member of the international community. And they're not, not by a long shot.
-
Out of curiosity, have any of you actually seen the film "Occupation 101"? Definately worth watching.
-
Huh... looked at the linked documents, and a lot if it is straight from the horse's mouth--The IDF. Other linked sources appear to be fallacious extrapolations intended for political purposes. In short, this evidence is (to me) unacceptable.
Personally, it looks like some of those videos are staged--the 'preparing for attack' video shows waves at the point where hostilities begin, when in all other footage of the skirmish show the surrounds of the ship to be pitch black. I also question the 'stun grenade' that was thrown at the IDF soldiers. If I recall correctly, the stun grenade (aka flashbang) is supposed to be insanely loud and insanely bright. The camera had a direct view of the device, but was not blinded. I'm not an expert, but let me just say, I'm not convinced.
Can someone shed light on what kind of firefighting equipment civilian ships are equipped with? It doesn't make sense to see activists using what look like garden hoses when they might have something much more powerful at their disposal.
I'm willing to accept new evidence and am not in particular favor of any one side, but currently I am more suspicious of Israel due to it's refusal to allow an international investigation, it's seizure of all communications and media equipment during the raid, and reported abuse of prisoners after the raid. It seems as if it has something to hide, and/or something it's trying to find.
-
If I recall correctly, the stun grenade (aka flashbang) is supposed to be insanely loud and insanely bright. The camera had a direct view of the device, but was not blinded.
That's because the blinding effect is from the rods and cones in your eyes burning out. A camera has neither, so is not blinded.
-
Indeed, and the camera will only pick up so much light.
-
The whole thing is fubar.
Israel does have a right to defend herself, but not to murder innocent people trying to prevent an illegal blockade.
Today they captured ANOTHER ship. The Irish-owned MV Rachel Corrie. At least this was peaceful and nobody (from what i know so far) was hurt.
Well they took one of our ships, maybe I should take their embassy in Dublin. :D
I have also just heard according to couple of news channels (still to be confirmed) that the Turkish PM is to travel on the next aid convoy WITH a Turkish military escort. Interesting.....
-
He may well have. But he's still acting very much the troll, deliberately misinterpreting what I posted and putting a spin on it that has nothing to do with what was actually said. This is what I'm referring to. He could be a general for all I care, he's still making an ass of himself in that post. I suppose that there may be some major feelings involved on his part, but if so then it's time to cool down rather than post as he did.
I don't see where he misinterpreted your post (and there's no way to tell if it was deliberate or not, even if he did, so don't go there). Could you point out exactly what you're referring to? Here's what I see in your latest post exchange with him:
Shade: Israel should have been more careful with what they did, esp. considering the hot water of world opinion they're in.
Splinter: We weren't careful? Boarding a ship attempting to run our blockade with soldiers armed with paintball guns isn't careful enough? And why the double-standards, anyway?
Shade: Israel should grow-up and be responsible.
Splinter: What more could we have done in boarding a ship with hostile "peace activists" that would have been more "responsible"? Ask them nicely to stop, with a side of ice-cream?
See, I don't understand how he twisted your words... unless you were referring to something entirely else earlier on in the thread? You say he was putting words in your mouth, yet he quoted you word-for-word, and responded - albeit with a heavy dose of sarcasm - to your statements.
Am I missing something?
Tell me, what would you have seen Israel do once that flotilla set sail?
The thing is, I think the mistake here wasn't using too much force. The mistake was in using far too little. When you drop a relatively small group onto a ship of potential hostiles, you are pretty much asking them to attack you. Feelings take over, they sense that they can win, and mob mentality kicks in. It's the same situation you'd get if you sent a single police car into a riot-prone area of town to arrest a local - People don't give themselves up, rather, they start throwing rocks.
What you need in a situation like this is a show of force. You need to make it clear from the beginning that you're in control and that you're prepared for whatever is going to happen. You need enough people involved that you can be confident of not getting overrun. Feelings will be hurt, people will be bruised, but chances are good that noone will be killed. Waiting until the ship was not deep in international waters would have been a good move too - Even if it isn't legally required in the case of a blockade, I don't see how hitting it that far out could've been operationally necessary, and doing so is just giving the media an excuse to villify Israel. Again.
You know, I personally actually agree with you there. I whole-heartedly embrace all those platitudes (I don't mean that negatively) of "Never pick a fight you can't win", "Hit back first", etc. The problem is, when faced with a boat-full of "peace activists", the world tends to frown on going in swinging. In retrospect, that would have been justified in this case since those "peace activists" weren't exactly practicing what they preached. But who knew? :rolleyes:
So overwhelming force of arms wouldn't have worked. But it seems that you were talking more about overwhelming force of personnel. You're right that that probably would have improved the situation - again, had we expected the "peace activists" to be violent. But we were hoping they weren't going to be violent... crazy to expect "peace activists" to behave peacefully, I know, I know... sorry, the irony of the situation just demands some sarcasm.
So, a multitude of personnel. Logistically, I don't see how that would have been possible (though I'm not an expert). Think about it. You want to get as many people onto a moving boat as rapidly as possible. The boat obviously isn't docked in a harbor, with nice convenient gangways to aid in boarding. So "land" is out - what are the alternatives? Sea and air.
Boarding by sea is quite possible, by loading men onto rubber dinghies, approaching the sides of the ship, tossing up grappling hooks that then get tossed back down, climbing up the rope ladders that aren't there... you see the problem.
So, air. You can't very well parachute loads of people onto a boat with any sort of safety - too many poles, antennae, and other pokey stuff sticking up. Helicopters it is, then. The boat doesn't have a helipad (I presume), so you have to hover over the deck, drop ropes, and let your men rappel down the ropes onto the deck. Now, the Mavi Marmara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mavi_Marmara) is apparently 93m / 305ft long. A Black Hawk helicopter (http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/109343/uh-60a-blackhawk.html), the most likely helicopter used for this sort of thing, has a rotor span of 16.36m / 53.6ft. Now, according to photos (http://media.shipspotting.com/uploads/thumbs/rw/118060_800/Ship+Photo+MAVI+MARMARA.jpg), the Mavi Marmara looks to have about 20 meters of deck area appropriate for a helicopter to hover over (http://staff.hard-light.net/sandwich/images/mavi-marmara.jpg); the rear deck is covered by that framework of metal poles pointed out in point 2 of that questionable site (http://solstudio.web.id/blog/2010/06/idf-video-footage-of-flotilla-attack-is-fake/) posted earlier, making it unsuitable for lowering people by rope, and the front has antennae, a sloped area, and the too-narrow prow. Only one helicopter with a rotor span or 16 meters can fit above a clear space of 20 meters.
Thus, the boarding was going to be slow no matter what, one soldier at a time. I guess they could have used more ropes, like you see in the movies... 4 or something, but it's probably an issue of keeping all 4 ropes over areas that are clear enough for the people to land in... not likely to be possible in real life.
Anyway, all that to say that while I agree that an overwhelming amount of personnel all at once would have been much better, I don't see how they could have done it any other way.
However, some things you do not have a right to do. This includes the continued settlement activity which is illegal by international law (and if I'm not mistaken by Israeli law as well), and is one of the things that is severely hurting you in international relations. And there's no way this can be contrived as being self defense.
The removal of settlements from the Gaza strip was a good move and gained Israel a fair bit of respect here (and I would assume elsewhere as well), but sadly this has been squandered completely by the continued expension of the settlements in the west bank. It would be one thing if it could just be written off as fundamentalists doing their thing, reclaiming the holy land and all, but given your government's inaction in the face of the continued expansions, it is obvious that they are at least unofficially sanctioned by the state. And besides being illegal, that's another major international snafu that loses you major goodwill around the world.
Did you miss my link earlier in the thread, about Israel demolishing Jewish houses that were built illegally, during the 10-month settlement freeze? The "government inaction" you claim exists does not.
In any case, what our leaving the Gaza Strip did was show anyone who cared to look what exactly the Palestinians do when they have their freedom: democratically elect an internationally-recognized terrorist organization to government, and commence an unheard-of barrage of rockets on Israeli towns and cities. So until they can get their act together, renounce terrorism, and prove that when they're allowed to govern themselves they don't resort to violence, I don't see how anyone with half a brain could expect Israel to give them the time of day, let alone a more strategically-located position from whence to launch attacks against us.
What's hurting us in international relations is the hypocritical double-standard being applied. Yes, Israel is a democratic, moral, civil country and should be held to the standards of any other such country. If the Palestinians want their own similar country, they need to prove that state terrorism will not be their elected way forward.
Basically, it tells the world that Israel is not prepared to compromise, is not prepared to hold themselves to the same standards the want to hold others. Are palestinians allowed to build armed and walled enclaves in Israel? I thought not. And that's why your government needs to grow up and start showing that they're responsible people. They need to realize that when your claim to fame is being the only democracy in the area, the only place where rule of law is universally applied, you damn well have to actually live up to that. You can't ignore major transgressions to please the religious fanatics. If you expect the palestinians to police their own, then apply the same to yourself. Do that, and I expect Israel will find the international community far more accomodating - Well, within limits anyway, I wouldn't hold out for Iran :p
Uprooting Jewish families from Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip didn't tell the world that we were prepared to compromise? :wtf:
Israel polices it's own far better than the Palestinians do, I don't even understand how you can begin to think that we don't... where do all the suicide bombings, all the indiscriminate rockets come from? More importantly, what are their targets? I've said in years past that although abhorrent in general, if their targets were military, I'd understand it. But their targets are civilians who happen to be eating at the wrong cafe, riding the wrong public bus, or sitting in the wrong classroom at the wrong time. When Israel retaliates against rocket fire, it targets those responsible for said rocket fire, and does everything possible to minimize or eliminate innocent civilian deaths - drops leaflets warning civvies away, for example (not that that ever made sense to me - can't terrorists read just as well as civvies?).
Anyway, I'll close with this - perhaps it will get through people's skulls better than video footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg
-
Aww Sandwich don't hate us we love you :(
-
Anyway, I'll close with this - perhaps it will get through people's skulls better than video footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg
How is that any less questionable than the site that was linked to before? The implications (that everything's peachy in Gaza) are just as dishonest as the previous link.
-
See, I don't understand how he twisted your words... unless you were referring to something entirely else earlier on in the thread? You say he was putting words in your mouth, yet he quoted you word-for-word, and responded - albeit with a heavy dose of sarcasm - to your statements.
Oh, the quotes were just that, quotes. It's how he interprets them that's the problem. For example:
Careful about public opinion? I suppose boarding a ship with painball guns and after a major violent encounter still offering to send the relief aid is just them sticking it to the man right? Big middle finger to everyone and their opinions we are going in with paintball guns blazing HOOORAH!
...
What's next? Navy seals with wiffle bats? maybe some border police with potato guns? I know the next patrol I go on I will take a twig. I'll try and use it like a whip and say "this is for Shade" now you can't condemn me for being evil murderer... unless of course the twig happens to enter his mouth and choke him then I'm sure someone would find reason to condemn me to death
As far as I can tell, I didn't post anything to that effect. What I said was that the people who planned the boarding operation must have been retarded to **** it up as they did, and then that Israel's policy lately is little more than retaliation and diplomatic mistakes and that as such they needed to act more responsibly, but Splinter went and put a completely different meaning into that.
[Edit] Actually, on re-re-reading my first post, I can see how he might have understood one of the sentences differently than I intended. I was a bit ambiguous in the phrasing. So I guess it may be an honest misunderstanding. At any rate, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
crazy to expect "peace activists" to behave peacefully
I'd expect a bit more paranoia honestly :p Activists of any kind tend to be borderline fanatic. And chances were good that at least some of those on board were there for the express purpose of making Israel's life a bit harder. I can appreciate that it might be difficult to put people onboard quickly though, but if that were the case, you could find a way of keeping the activists off the deck while you were boarding. Or if no options seemed viable, one could even blockade the port itself so the ships had no choice but to turn around, as seagoing vessels can't just pull up on a beach to unload. Either way, what was eventually done was pretty much the worst option available, and that speaks poorly indeed for the people who planned it.
Did you miss my link earlier in the thread, about Israel demolishing Jewish houses that were built illegally, during the 10-month settlement freeze? The "government inaction" you claim exists does not.
Didn't miss it, but it doesn't really change the fact that expansion of settlements continues to this day, with unspoken government assent. And '10-month settlement freeze' really says it all. What about the rest of the time? It should be a permanent and thoroughly enforced settlement freeze, with a gradual winding-down of those settlements already built, and then Israel will be a much better position to call Hamas out for the hypocrites that they are.
What's hurting us in international relations is the hypocritical double-standard being applied. Yes, Israel is a democratic, moral, civil country and should be held to the standards of any other such country. If the Palestinians want their own similar country, they need to prove that state terrorism will not be their elected way forward.
That's certainly true. They do need to clean up their game. But Israel is not exactly making it easy for them. They're being kept in a state of perpetual poverty and starvation as the blockade allows far less supplies to pass than is actually needed for any kind of decent life. And under those circumstances, expecting them to clean up their game is rather optimistic. Israel is making much the same mistake that the US did with post-war Iraq and in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller scale - You're making people's life miserable instead of improving it, and at the same time expecting them to stand up to the only group that seems to be trying to help them... in this case, Hamas.
Uprooting Jewish families from Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip didn't tell the world that we were prepared to compromise?
This:The removal of settlements from the Gaza strip was a good move and gained Israel a fair bit of respect here (and I would assume elsewhere as well), but sadly this has been squandered completely by the continued expension of the settlements in the west bank.
Demolishing the Gaza settlements was probably the biggest diplomatic score Israel has made in recent times. You got respect for that. Our politicians were all swooning and ready to support you (only morally, of course. They're politicians) against Hamas. But then comes a series of Big Mistakes that basically nullifies everything you gained from it, culminating in the recent events where Netanyahu basically gave the world the finger in regards to the West Bank settlements, not to mention the idiocy of that Dubai assasination that, while not conclusively proven as a Mossad operation, sure as hell stinks of it.
-
:(
-
Sandwich makes it sound liek most of the violence is directed at Israelis, but it probably isn't. Wikipedia has casualty numbers all the way back to 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
These include civilian-on-civilian violence (like, for example, when Israeli settlers react to IDF removal of their illegal settlements by destroying nearby Palestinian towns).
I do have to wonder if those numbers include when the IDF reacts to nonviolent protests by shooting tear gas canisters directly into people's faces/chests at close range. I doubt it, since some of the victims of that nonsense were Americans or otherwise foreign.
Also, Sandiwch said something about IDF bulldozing illegal housing, and some of it happens to be Palestinian? As far as I'm aware, there's really aren't Palestinians building houses in Israeli-controlled areas, just Israelis building homes in Palestine in order to steal the land. But then again, all of Palestine apparently belongs to Israel. If I was Palestinian, I'd be launching rockets too. Israel has them all caged up like pet dogs and then goes on about how it's soooo good to them by feeding them, when the reason they need feeding in the first place is that Israel is keeping them from fishing, growing crops, etc.
-
That was in our textbooks too. Cemented the idea in my head that Israel has no right to exist. Gays were killed in the Holocaust too, but you don't see us demanding our very own country.
... so many questions...
-
That's because the blinding effect is from the rods and cones in your eyes burning out. A camera has neither, so is not blinded.
Yet the color capture devices inside cameras are still sensitive to visible light and from my own experience can be overloaded by intense bursts if the exposure has not been set to deal with it. Perhaps the exposure was already set low to compensate for the deck lights, and such the grenade was not able to blind the camera.
I still however do not trust the video as it was released from the IDF and not an independent source.
-
How is that any less questionable than the site that was linked to before? The implications (that everything's peachy in Gaza) are just as dishonest as the previous link.
Oh, definitely... but it's not purporting to be anything but satire. That site seemed to be somewhat serious (as opposed to, say, The Onion, which is obvious satire).
crazy to expect "peace activists" to behave peacefully
I'd expect a bit more paranoia honestly :p Activists of any kind tend to be borderline fanatic. And chances were good that at least some of those on board were there for the express purpose of making Israel's life a bit harder. I can appreciate that it might be difficult to put people onboard quickly though, but if that were the case, you could find a way of keeping the activists off the deck while you were boarding. Or if no options seemed viable, one could even blockade the port itself so the ships had no choice but to turn around, as seagoing vessels can't just pull up on a beach to unload. Either way, what was eventually done was pretty much the worst option available, and that speaks poorly indeed for the people who planned it.
Obviously Israel was ready for the hypocritical "peace activists" to put up a fight. Hence the soldiers armed with paintball guns and sidearms with live ammunition. Look at the other ships' boardings - if you can find any information about it at all in the media, considering how they were "boring" and went over without incident - to contrast how a boarding "should" go over.
I doubt that blockading the port itself would have worked, since that would have put the Israeli vessels in easy range of the Palestinian government (read: Hamas) kassams rockets, and perhaps even machine gun fire from shore.
You talk about poor planning on the part of the Israelis... where's the criticism against the "peace activists" who decided to (attempt to) run a legal blockade, instead of docking at the alternate, Israeli port, allowing their cargo to go through a security inspection, and then on via land into Gaza?
Didn't miss it, but it doesn't really change the fact that expansion of settlements continues to this day, with unspoken government assent. And '10-month settlement freeze' really says it all. What about the rest of the time? It should be a permanent and thoroughly enforced settlement freeze, with a gradual winding-down of those settlements already built, and then Israel will be a much better position to call Hamas out for the hypocrites that they are.
I don't even know how to respond to such tunnel-vision anymore. Israel builds buildings on territory she won in a defensive war*, and the world goes bonkers. Palestinians bombard Israeli towns - on undisputed Israeli soil!! - for months, and the world tells Israel to stop building homes.
* Yes, Israel fired the first actual shots in the war of '67, but if a peace activist thug stood in your front door and pointed a gun at your head, you'd be justified in doing what needed to be done to prevent that gun from firing, including shooting first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first).
What's hurting us in international relations is the hypocritical double-standard being applied. Yes, Israel is a democratic, moral, civil country and should be held to the standards of any other such country. If the Palestinians want their own similar country, they need to prove that state terrorism will not be their elected way forward.
That's certainly true. They do need to clean up their game. But Israel is not exactly making it easy for them. They're being kept in a state of perpetual poverty and starvation as the blockade allows far less supplies to pass than is actually needed for any kind of decent life. And under those circumstances, expecting them to clean up their game is rather optimistic. Israel is making much the same mistake that the US did with post-war Iraq and in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller scale - You're making people's life miserable instead of improving it, and at the same time expecting them to stand up to the only group that seems to be trying to help them... in this case, Hamas.
Israel allows more than enough supplies through - what do you think we are, barbarians?? Do some investigation on the subject, and you'll find that the Hamas is hording a large portion of the supplies. The Hamas is most definitely not "helping" the Palestinians - they're terrorizing them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLjwe2b40YA
Uprooting Jewish families from Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip didn't tell the world that we were prepared to compromise?
This:The removal of settlements from the Gaza strip was a good move and gained Israel a fair bit of respect here (and I would assume elsewhere as well), but sadly this has been squandered completely by the continued expension of the settlements in the west bank.
Demolishing the Gaza settlements was probably the biggest diplomatic score Israel has made in recent times. You got respect for that. Our politicians were all swooning and ready to support you (only morally, of course. They're politicians) against Hamas. But then comes a series of Big Mistakes that basically nullifies everything you gained from it, culminating in the recent events where Netanyahu basically gave the world the finger in regards to the West Bank settlements, not to mention the idiocy of that Dubai assasination that, while not conclusively proven as a Mossad operation, sure as hell stinks of it.
What the Gaza uprooting showed most accurately is what happens when you allow the Hamas free reign. I hope the results speak for themselves.
Sandwich makes it sound liek most of the violence is directed at Israelis, but it probably isn't. Wikipedia has casualty numbers all the way back to 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
My favorite part of those statistics is the part where they totally break down how many of the deaths on each side were unarmed civilians as opposed to soldiers/terrorists. Nice.
-
AFAIK jury was still out on the legality of the siege (at UN level or something). Not the least due the fact that Geneva Conventions prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.. Of course Israel never signed them but then they really should stop acting like 'innocent victims'.. Hell, if you oppress some one long enough they will start fighting back. If people feel the terrorists died while fighting for a justified cause they instantly revert from terrorists into freedom fighters and killing them will only create martyrs and instigate even more people to take up arms.
Last i heard of the blockade that IDF refused to release the list of banned items or at least give any reasons why certain - arbitrary - items were banned while some others were not. Like first shooting the hell out of Gaza and then banning the construction materials required to fix the houses. And then you wonder why does Hamas remains popular with Gazans... Jeez.. As long Israel avenges Hamas attacks via such methods it will only bolster the numbers of Hamas and other such groups. Banning freaking coriander for what? Out of spite?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm
Firing white phosphorous rounds into populated urban ares is probably the only thing people remember from the Gaza thing.
I'm not saying Hamas would be any better.. Its just that Israel actions currently (most likely) justify at least for locals any kind of action they can take against Israel. An nope no real solutions either.
-
The IDF has released some of the radio exchanges they had with the various ships, and some more videos of the boardings of the other ships(where the passengers were NOT psychos).
Their channel is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk#p/a (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk#p/a)
-
That answers the question "why didnt they just go into the Israeli port to have the ships inspected"
I read somewhere paper is also banned, is that true? It was a comment about how the ships had ****tons of paper because Israel blocks it from going into Gaza.
The BBC has received information from reliable sources that there are currently 81 items that are approved for import - from kidney beans to tinned meat - and as of March, shoes.
Shoes have only been allowed in since March?
Can someone please tell me if Israelis really believe that Palestinians should be grateful to Israel for giving them the aid that they do?
-
the media loves depicting us as the bad guys, and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdogs.
Uhh... What media? Certainly not US media, lol.
Anyway, to be honest, the more research I do, the more I'm convinced Israel shouldn't even be there. All this talk about rockets, but Palestinian casualties are several times that of Israeli casualties to date. The IDF repeatedly kills nonviolent protesters. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes.
I love when people quote the ratios. It's like the world forgot what war was. Yes don't kid yourself this is a war. A very long and drawn out war with fuzzy lines and shady players. So if the kill death ratio was closer together you would feel much better right? Next time I am being shot at by 20 terrorists and I happen to have 1st class military training and 1st class support at my disposal I will be sure to try and miss them all and let them hit my compatriots first before I actually try and hit them. Wouldn't want to tip the scales there would we. Very nice how they conveniently don't point out how many of those deaths were armed terrorists/militants/peace activists gone berserk.
What are the Iraqi or Afghani to Coalition forces kill/death ratio? Next time I see them I will ask them to die cause you are getting a bit worried about the ratio and they seem to be surviving better than the terrorists they are hunting.
They have a K/D ratio of (this is figuring the LOWER estimates of Iraqi casualties) 4,500 – 90,000. That's a very nice 20 to 1 ratio. The Israeli Palestinian ratio is 6 to 1. I suppose in WWII the Allies won by keeping the K/D ration closer to an acceptable 2 to 1 right?
Funny how people just like to take war out of their vocabulary when it comes to Israel. They are after all just monsters so who cares right? They bath nightly in the blood of the innocent and invoke the name of Lucifer to keep them safe right? (Every jew has 666 tattooed on their left butt cheek but shhh don't tell anyone.)
Meanwhile Israeli settlers continue to build illegal outposts all over the place, and then destroy Palestinian homes, crops, et cetera.
All over a claim that a god gave them the land?
Maybe the American Indians should rise up and take the land a god gave them. After all, they have ancestral rights to it!
Now we are getting somewhere. The legality of the settlements is messed up since all that land was gained in a defensive war (something that hasn't really happened much) The rules for land gained in an offensive war should have applied. But nevertheless, me and Sandwich will disagree (I think), It was ruled illegal. Fine I think all the settlements should be pulled back as much as possible (I'm sorry but huge cities like Gilo and Ma'le Adumim aren't going to dissapear... ever.) and the Palestinians should be given a state where they can control their own people their own water their own electricity their own food their own fanatics and when they show their true colors it will be an act of war by one sovereign nation on another... You can imagine the rest.
Personally, I'm getting sick to death of Israel being a mob of pricks and getting away with it. Just in the last few years they've invaded Lebanon,
Ooooh nice context. Invaded Lebanon after Hizbullah attacked and killed several soldiers and kidnapped the other who were returned in pieces. But you go right ahead to their families and tell them they had no right to react and they should have just accepted it.
attacked in Gaza with illegal weapons,
Attacked Gaza after how many rockets over how many years? Oh I'm sorry I didn't see you there with fingers in ears screaming LALALALALALALA. White phosphorus rounds are not illegible and are used by every western army in the world. If Israel wanted casualties with those phosphorus rounds you would have had hundreds of burn victims instead of a couple unfortunate souls caught in the crossfire. But then that begs the question what were those people doing in those areas? It had nothing to do with the fact the the leaflets and phone calls and sms text warnings were used by Hamas to assemble the residents in those areas so that the attack would cause civilian casualties. Nope it also had nothing to do with the fact that many of those people were held at gun point. Had nothing to do with the fact that if they didn't help Hamas would slaughter their family and if they did help and were killed their family would receive money from Iran (just like Saddam was doing back when he was still kicking).
blockaded Gaza causing massive poverty and economic hardship,
Blockaded Gaza causing Olympic sized swimming pools and 5 star restaurant/clubs to open. And it had nothing to do with the prevention of weapons and materials to a group that is accepted the world over as a terrorist organization. And they cut off all supplies right? No medical, food, water, electricity, gas supplies allowed in right? There are reports of thousands of people dying of starvation and diseases caused by poverty and lack of any civilized treatment right?
used Australian and other international passports to commit international murder
Oh I didn't realize they had found out that it was the Mossad. Funny.
and now killed 10 people in international waters.
10 “peace activists” who didn't try and beat and stab to death commandos. You expected the reaction to be... the soldier down on the ground getting beat senseless one metal rod after another finally finds the strength to pull out his... sternly written letter telling them how angry he is with them.
North Korea han't killed anywhere near as many people as the Israelis in the last decade, and yet they have huge sanctions while Israel gets treated as a civilized, responsible member of the international community. And they're not, not by a long shot.
good luck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c).
Huh... looked at the linked documents, and a lot if it is straight from the horse's mouth--The IDF. Other linked sources appear to be fallacious extrapolations intended for political purposes. In short, this evidence is (to me) unacceptable.
Well what sources provided the evidence that caused you to reach your own conclusions? Please share them. I want to know where the line of legitimate and not legitimate news reporting is with you. (by the way I noticed throughout your post that you are careful to say “to me” and “personally” I think that is important and I appreciate how you have presented your views not many people care enough to make that distinction anymore.)
Personally, it looks like some of those videos are staged--the 'preparing for attack' video shows waves at the point where hostilities begin, when in all other footage of the skirmish show the surrounds of the ship to be pitch black. I also question the 'stun grenade' that was thrown at the IDF soldiers. If I recall correctly, the stun grenade (aka flashbang) is supposed to be insanely loud and insanely bright. The camera had a direct view of the device, but was not blinded. I'm not an expert, but let me just say, I'm not convinced.
I'm not sure which videos you are referencing could you link to the different ones?
Can someone shed light on what kind of firefighting equipment civilian ships are equipped with? It doesn't make sense to see activists using what look like garden hoses when they might have something much more powerful at their disposal.
Where do you see garden hoses? I see metal rods.
I'm willing to accept new evidence and am not in particular favor of any one side, but currently I am more suspicious of Israel due to it's refusal to allow an international investigation, it's seizure of all communications and media equipment during the raid, and reported abuse of prisoners after the raid. It seems as if it has something to hide, and/or something it's trying to find.
Ah the media, the greatest weapon at their disposal. Win the media and you win world opinion no matter what the facts are. We may never know if they did or did not confiscate those tapes. It could very well be that they did or just as likely/unlikely it could be that the news crews won't release it because it corroborates the Israeli account. These are news crews most of whom got this gig because they take an interest in the topic and are usually quite decided on their views consequently most of the news crews at this level, including the ones representing big news, are generally locals from whatever country that news is from. So it's not CNN but the Turkish reporter of CNN in Turkey. And as much as we would like to think they always put their nationality and views aside to get the facts and show the truth we all know that is not true all the time for any side. There is no way of knowing. So far however there have been several videos released that were not at all taken by any IDF or Israeli source so...
The whole thing is fubar.
Israel does have a right to defend herself, but not to murder innocent people trying to prevent an illegal blockade.
Innocent? These people were stabbing and beating soldiers to death. There was nothing innocent here. And as infuriating as it is for you to accept the blockade is very much a legal thing.
Today they captured ANOTHER ship. The Irish-owned MV Rachel Corrie. At least this was peaceful and nobody (from what i know so far) was hurt.
Well they took one of our ships, maybe I should take their embassy in Dublin. :D
I have also just heard according to couple of news channels (still to be confirmed) that the Turkish PM is to travel on the next aid convoy WITH a Turkish military escort. Interesting.....
That would be very interesting. Any idea when?
[Edit] Actually, on re-re-reading my first post, I can see how he might have understood one of the sentences differently than I intended. I was a bit ambiguous in the phrasing. So I guess it may be an honest misunderstanding. At any rate, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
I apologize if I misunderstood your intent. I sincerely don't look for more people to disagree with. It was unintentional.
But Israel is not exactly making it easy for them. They're being kept in a state of perpetual poverty and starvation as the blockade allows far less supplies to pass than is actually needed for any kind of decent life. And under those circumstances, expecting them to clean up their game is rather optimistic. Israel is making much the same mistake that the US did with post-war Iraq and in Afghanistan, albeit on a smaller scale - You're making people's life miserable instead of improving it, and at the same time expecting them to stand up to the only group that seems to be trying to help them... in this case, Hamas.
The only poverty and starvation are being caused by Hamas while they may go hungry Israel sends plenty of food and supplies but Like I mentioned before Hamas steals their supplies both for the gain of Hamas with more money and food and also to create this notion that Israel is starving the people. Hamas just happens to have enough money for huge swimming pools and fancy restaurants and clubs. Abuse on every level has been a complaint by the Palestinian people many times from stealing food to stealing supplies to stealing children to use for shields to murdering those that don't lend support or complain about the stealing.
Sandwich makes it sound liek most of the violence is directed at Israelis, but it probably isn't. Wikipedia has casualty numbers all the way back to 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
Also, Sandiwch said something about IDF bulldozing illegal housing, and some of it happens to be Palestinian? As far as I'm aware, there's really aren't Palestinians building houses in Israeli-controlled areas, just Israelis building homes in Palestine in order to steal the land. But then again, all of Palestine apparently belongs to Israel. If I was Palestinian, I'd be launching rockets too. Israel has them all caged up like pet dogs and then goes on about how it's soooo good to them by feeding them, when the reason they need feeding in the first place is that Israel is keeping them from fishing, growing crops, etc.
The reason they need feeding in the first place is because of farming and living and letting live they chose the path of blood. They demanded war and sought violence they took to the streets blowing people up shooting at people driving by launching rockets and using what precious little they had to fund a flailing terror machine and then complain about the punishments. Yes many of them are caught in the middle but all they can do is blame Israel and yell for Israels destruction or get beaten and murdered by the local branch of terrorists. They are hostages to the monster they facilitated.
-
For all my sympathy for Israel (which is at least as great as my sympathy for the Palestinians), posts like that are a big turn-off. They remind me of US conservative rhetoric.
Nothing is that black-and-white.
-
the media loves depicting us as the bad guys, and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdogs.
Uhh... What media? Certainly not US media, lol.
Anyway, to be honest, the more research I do, the more I'm convinced Israel shouldn't even be there. All this talk about rockets, but Palestinian casualties are several times that of Israeli casualties to date. The IDF repeatedly kills nonviolent protesters. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes.
I love when people quote the ratios. It's like the world forgot what war was. Yes don't kid yourself this is a war. A very long and drawn out war with fuzzy lines and shady players. So if the kill death ratio was closer together you would feel much better right? Next time I am being shot at by 20 terrorists and I happen to have 1st class military training and 1st class support at my disposal I will be sure to try and miss them all and let them hit my compatriots first before I actually try and hit them. Wouldn't want to tip the scales there would we. Very nice how they conveniently don't point out how many of those deaths were armed terrorists/militants/peace activists gone berserk.
What are the Iraqi or Afghani to Coalition forces kill/death ratio? Next time I see them I will ask them to die cause you are getting a bit worried about the ratio and they seem to be surviving better than the terrorists they are hunting.
They have a K/D ratio of (this is figuring the LOWER estimates of Iraqi casualties) 4,500 – 90,000. That's a very nice 20 to 1 ratio. The Israeli Palestinian ratio is 6 to 1. I suppose in WWII the Allies won by keeping the K/D ration closer to an acceptable 2 to 1 right?
First of all, you misunderstand my meaning. Israel is *****ing about being under attack, and trying to defend itself, but it's six times more people than Palestinians are. That's what we call "overkill."
And you'll find that I absolutely do not support the Iraq war. We have as much right to be killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis as Israel has to be killing thousands of Palestinians.
It's retarded to claim victim or self defense status when you're occupying an entire country. It sounds incredibly stupid to whine about being attacked by the people you're caging up like dogs. What the hell do you expect?
If I was Palestinian, I'd be firing rockets too.
-
If you were Palestinian, you'd be firing rockets too.
Altered to more closely reflect what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. Do I need to point out that there was an Israeli plot to poison Germany's water supplies and kill millions AFTER the end of the war? Not to mention that there was one approved by Chaim Weizmann to murder thousands of SS soldiers being held prisoner by the Americans. That one only didn't succeed because the poison turned out to be weaker than they had thought. Doesn't the entire state of Israel owe its very existence to terrorism against the British?
But no, the rockets are just an act of unprovoked aggression.
Personally, I'm getting sick to death of Israel being a mob of pricks and getting away with it. Just in the last few years they've invaded Lebanon,
Ooooh nice context. Invaded Lebanon after Hizbullah attacked and killed several soldiers and kidnapped the other who were returned in pieces. But you go right ahead to their families and tell them they had no right to react and they should have just accepted it.
Exactly. Invaded Lebanon after a terrorist organisation and NOT the government of the country did something. So you declared war on a country over the actions of what your own country call a terrorist organisation.
-
I think that part of the problem is that the attacks are being defined as the actions of Palestine as a geographical/political body, rather than the acts of individuals within that body. I've often been of the opinion that Hamas actually has very little control over the rocket-firers, and that is part of the problem, even when they do sign peace agreements, there will always be those who just ignore them (much as some settlers simply ignored Israeli government rules). Both sides are sort of playing the same game, they are limited in their abilities to stop the trouble-causers, and doing so would promote a large amount of negative public opinion, it's their own propoganda working against them, on both sides.
The first problem is humanitarian, but the second problem is infrastructure, without the infrastructure for any palestinian authority to actually enforce a ceasefire on its own side of the border from nutters and idiots who'll fire not because of any reason other than 'they're Israeli', then no cease-fire is actually going to work.
Indeed, the irony is that Israel may actually be in a position to gain more from helping the Palestinian authorities than from harming them.
-
What I find particularly weird about Splinter's kill/death ratio argument is the morally bizarre notion that outrage over the number of Palestinian deaths is somehow predicated on the comparatively small number of Israeli deaths.
A death is a death, and worthy of concern, no matter who's doing the dying. It's a tragedy either way. And more people dying is bad. The fact that relatively few Israelis have died compared to Palestinians isn't the root cause of the concern here.
-
As long Israel avenges Hamas attacks via such methods it will only bolster the numbers of Hamas and other such groups. Banning freaking coriander for what? Out of spite?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm
Among the large range of goods currently forbidden are jam, chocolate, wood for furniture, fruit juice, textiles, and plastic toys.
Seriously? Chocolate and jam? If Hamas can make weapons out of chocolate and jam then Israel has already lost. :p
-
What a singularly strange list...
Edit: Jaffa Cakes are certainly off the list then...
-
Maybe Jaffa cakes are the reason they don't allow chocolates and jam in. I have no idea if they use Israeli oranges for them. :p
-
Funny you should mention that, I was just bored enough to look, and the result was surprising...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_orange
I think we've unearthed the conspiracy... ;)
The Jaffa orange, also known as the Shamouti orange, is a very sweet, almost seedless orange variety. Originally developed by Arab farmers in Palestine in the mid-19th century, it takes its name from the city of Jaffa where it was first produced for export.[1][2] Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, it has been grown and exported by Israeli producers.
-
Oh, duh, the list of items allowed in is right there.
paper, books, pens, etc. aren't on the list. shoes and clothes have only been allowed in for 3 months. kitchenware has been allowed in for 2 months.
-
That really is a weird list. I'd be fascinated to see anything about the reasoning behind it, if anyone runs across anything.
I only have one comment, about the death ratio that keeps on being brought up. As General Battuta said, indeed a death is a death, and is tragic regardless. On the other hand, anyone who tells me honestly that they haven't found amusing the (supposed) deaths reported through the Darwin Awards is a liar. So, while it still may be tragic, when the circumstances are right, we do think that "he kinda had it coming".
Imagine 500 soldiers die fighting in a war. Tragic? Yes, of course - especially to their loved ones. But understandable... at least, as understandable as war can be. Those soldiers knew what they were getting into, and still put their lives on the line. One could argue that from a certain point of view, "they kinda had it coming." Now, imagine 500 civilians are killed when a dam breaks and a small town is swept away. Tragic? Yes, of course. But could one make the argument that they had it coming? Not at all.
Back to reality - an example that actually is a Darwin Awards winner (http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-38.html). Read it - it's short. Tragic? Well, considering I live where those bombs were intended to go off, I have to say more tragi-comic. But ok, for argument's sake, yes, tragic that people died. Did they have it coming? Yeah, they kinda really did have it coming.
So the death ratio is meaningless. Are the suicide bombers counted among the Palestinian deaths? How about the AK-47 toting terrorists who got into gun battles with the IDF? Do they count? Sure, they're deaths, but did they have it coming?
Damn straight they did. But mom and baby at the cafe didn't.
Differentiate, please.
-
What's the difference between a Palestinian civilian killing an Israeli civilian and an Israeli civilian killing a Palestinian civilian?
In the former scenario, the result is another 500 dead Palestinians.
Also-- funny link, Sandwich. The really sad thing is that the "terrorists" kids still don't have toys to play with, despite their parents' sacrifice.
(See what I did there? Quotes! Because it's a war, and civilians die in wars! Who cares, until it's American or Israeli civilians, though, amirite?)
-
What's the difference between a Palestinian civilian killing an Israeli civilian and an Israeli civilian killing a Palestinian civilian?
In the former scenario, the result is another 500 dead Palestinians.
Also-- funny link, Sandwich. The really sad thing is that the "terrorists" kids still don't have toys to play with, despite their parents' sacrifice.
(See what I did there? Quotes! Because it's a war, and civilians die in wars! Who cares, until it's American or Israeli civilians, though, amirite?)
What are you talking about? I don't particularly care who's doing the killing (civvies or military) as I do who's getting killed (civvies or military).
The rest of your post doesn't make any sense to my 4:30am brain. Perhaps tomorrow it will - sorry.
-
Well, since Palestine doesn't actually have a real military as far as I'm aware, it's all civvies. Just because a civilian gets a gun doesn't make them a soldier. Or a terrorist.
-
When said civvie uses that gun or any other weapon, they become a combatant.
-
I don't think this is about any kind of ongoing 'score' to be honest, at least, not in that respect. The score that needs settling is much, much larger, and needs to involve far more than Israel and Palestine, it's easy to think of it as an ongoing, but localised annoyance in the world, but the roots, and most likely the solution to this problem both required international effort.
-
Funny you should mention that, I was just bored enough to look, and the result was surprising...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_orange
I think we've unearthed the conspiracy... ;)
The Jaffa orange, also known as the Shamouti orange, is a very sweet, almost seedless orange variety. Originally developed by Arab farmers in Palestine in the mid-19th century, it takes its name from the city of Jaffa where it was first produced for export.[1][2] Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, it has been grown and exported by Israeli producers.
Yeah, I knew of the connection when I posted. The only question is whether they use actual Israeli oranges or not cause they are grown over the border in Lebanon and Syria too IIRC.
-
When said civvie uses that gun or any other weapon, they become a combatant.
Which means when Israeli civilians kill or maim Palestinian civilians, they are actually Israeli combatants, right? And, as we've learned from Iraq and Palestine, you can't tell a civilian from a combatant. Since the US and Israel both use that as an excuse to kill thousands of civilians, I guess Palestinians can use the same excuse against Israelis.
-
I think subconsciously America wants Israel to be successful because of all those horrifying parallels.
Start things off with terrorism against the British? Check.
Displace/kill natives? Check.
Move remaining natives into the ****tiest parts of the country? Check.
Aggressively expand into populated areas while using misleading words like "settle"? Check.
The real question is: Is this bull**** ok today? The answer should be no, but things tend to be trending towards Might and Money make Right.
-
When said civvie uses that gun or any other weapon, they become a combatant.
Which means when Israeli civilians kill or maim Palestinian civilians, they are actually Israeli combatants, right? And, as we've learned from Iraq and Palestine, you can't tell a civilian from a combatant. Since the US and Israel both use that as an excuse to kill thousands of civilians, I guess Palestinians can use the same excuse against Israelis.
Did you seriously just advocate escalation?
-
I don't think iamzack is advocating escalation, she is saying that countries need to be very careful when they start playing word games with the definition of 'Combatant', much like Judge Scalia did with torture, because by opening the door to justifying that kind of action means they are also opening the door to making such actions against their own people justifiable.
No country signed the Human Rights Act to help other countries, they signed it to protect their own citizens, not enough countries remember that now.
-
Yeah, that.
-
Personally, I'm getting sick to death of Israel being a mob of pricks and getting away with it. Just in the last few years they've invaded Lebanon,
Ooooh nice context. Invaded Lebanon after Hizbullah attacked and killed several soldiers and kidnapped the other who were returned in pieces. But you go right ahead to their families and tell them they had no right to react and they should have just accepted it.
Invaded a sovereign nation, killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians, damaged or destroyed Lebanese infrastructure - yeah, totally justified.[/quote]
attacked in Gaza with illegal weapons,
Attacked Gaza after how many rockets over how many years? Oh I'm sorry I didn't see you there with fingers in ears screaming LALALALALALALA. White phosphorus rounds are not illegible and are used by every western army in the world. If Israel wanted casualties with those phosphorus rounds you would have had hundreds of burn victims instead of a couple unfortunate souls caught in the crossfire. But then that begs the question what were those people doing in those areas? It had nothing to do with the fact the the leaflets and phone calls and sms text warnings were used by Hamas to assemble the residents in those areas so that the attack would cause civilian casualties. Nope it also had nothing to do with the fact that many of those people were held at gun point. Had nothing to do with the fact that if they didn't help Hamas would slaughter their family and if they did help and were killed their family would receive money from Iran (just like Saddam was doing back when he was still kicking).
The Goldstone report singled out reckless and excessive WP use in civilian areas as a war crime during that conflict, and nobody's talking about WP "rounds" like tracer rounds, but artillery shells. Which you know. And are deliberately avoiding.
blockaded Gaza causing massive poverty and economic hardship,
Blockaded Gaza causing Olympic sized swimming pools and 5 star restaurant/clubs to open. And it had nothing to do with the prevention of weapons and materials to a group that is accepted the world over as a terrorist organization. And they cut off all supplies right? No medical, food, water, electricity, gas supplies allowed in right? There are reports of thousands of people dying of starvation and diseases caused by poverty and lack of any civilized treatment right?
Source for the swimming pools and clubs? The UN has consistently condemned the blockade, and considers it to have caused the collapse of the legitimate economy in Gaza - are you saying that the Palestinians in Gaza are all awanning around in the lap of luxury?
used Australian and other international passports to commit international murder
Oh I didn't realize they had found out that it was the Mossad. Funny.
The Australian government is convinced enough to take formal action against Israel (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907598.htm). I trust my government in that at least.
and now killed 10 people in international waters.
10 “peace activists” who didn't try and beat and stab to death commandos. You expected the reaction to be... the soldier down on the ground getting beat senseless one metal rod after another finally finds the strength to pull out his... sternly written letter telling them how angry he is with them.
If the soldiers are unable to subdue these people without killing them, then they were the wrong people to send in.
North Korea han't killed anywhere near as many people as the Israelis in the last decade, and yet they have huge sanctions while Israel gets treated as a civilized, responsible member of the international community. And they're not, not by a long shot.
good luck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c).
Never said anything about a boycott, and nobody cares where things are invented. Do you even understand the basic ideas behind sanctions? Are you even aware of what the word means in this context? Or are you just posting unrelated videos for the fun of it? The fact that Israel has such a high tech economy would mean that relatively light sanctions would be far more crippling to them than many other less developed countries.
The fact is that Israel has a long history of violence and aggression, that has been demonstrated most noticeably in the last several years, and is only continued by this incident. And yes, it's in a dangerous part of the world, and under pressure from militant attacks, but they do nothing to help itself by perpetuating the treatment of the Palestineans, which represents the biggest destablizing factor in the entire middle east, and even less when they kill people trying to help them.
[/quote]
-
Opinionations.
Of course they ****ed up, people are dead. Whether that was their intention or not is debatable.
In general, the situation between Israel and Palestina (and the surrounding countries) has been ****ed up by everyone involved. The core of the most recent problems lies in colonial history of the area and the decisions made after the WWII, which injected the state of Israel into existence on very shallow grounds right on top of an area that was already inhabited by another group of people, namely the palestinians (arabs). Obviously, this has proved time and again to have been a Bad Idea.
However the blame seeking game is something that never typically helps in conflicts like this, since there's been too much time passed and blood spilled, and no one is willing or able to back up.
The most ironic thing is that the two sides in the conflict are more alike than either wants to admit.
On the Israeli side, we have people who have been displaced, shoved around, told what to do, constrained in movement and other freedoms and subjected to mass killings - a few generations ago. Then they were given their own state, location defined by their holy texts (!). In my opinion, these are at best dubious justifications for the existence of Israel as a state, but be that as it may they do exist now as a nation and a country, and their government and military have the obligation to do their best to protect their population in a situation where collateral damage is nearly impossible to avoid. There must be a lot of frustration going on there.
On the Palestinian side, we have people who have been displaced, shoved around, told what to do, constrained in movement and other freedoms (whether it be with good reason or no), have very low standards of living, limited supplies, limited infrastructure and a rotten leadership that is not helping the situation AT ALL.
As I see it, it's a Catch-22 situation at worst.
To reduce the overall tension on the area, Israel wold be required to lift their embargo and other regulations, giving the Palestinian areas more of an autonomous regime.
However, they cannot do that as it would arguably lead to increased terrorist activity and deaths of Israeli citizens. They would need to observe clear reduction in the support to Hamas and Fatah before easing up on the Gaza strip and West Bank.
Obviously, the population's support to Hamas and Fatah is unlikely to continue as long as Israeli forces are there to provide easy targets for propaganda and to act as the embodiment of the oppression (perceived or intentional) of the Palestinian people. So, the acts of terrorism will continue as long as Israel is perceived as a threat, but Israel can't back off before acts of terrorism stop or reduce significantly.
So, there aren't easy solutions and neither side is free of wrongdoing in my eyes.
However I would say that it's not impossible to solve the situation. Northern Ireland was a real mess a few decades ago. Generational/cultural memory is a real curse in cases like this...
-
Israel really do have to stop the whole 'sending in operatives with fake passports' thing. We, also, had to expel a diplomat because of fake passportery.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8582518.stm
Y'See. I always thought the people who used deception to sneak into other countries and kill people were the bad guys...
And, yes, I don't doubt every country does it to a degree, but that doesn't make it justifiable either. This sort of blatant disregard for the sovereignty of other people's land will never help add to the argument about the sovereignty of their own.
-
Bloody hell, if the Mossad had their **** together, no-one would have known in the first place. I recall seeing an interview with an ex-Mossad bloke or some related **** talking about how their quality has rapidly declined from what it supposedly was 'back in the day', and if they keep this up, I'm inclined to agree.
But surely there must have been better ways to do this rather than using someone else's passports...
-
Bloody hell, if the Mossad had their **** together, no-one would have known in the first place. I recall seeing an interview with an ex-Mossad bloke or some related **** talking about how their quality has rapidly declined from what it supposedly was 'back in the day', and if they keep this up, I'm inclined to agree.
Yup, about 20-30 years ago Mossad had their **** together, and they are still one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, but personally, I think the years of allies vetoing UN action against Israel has given their Intelligence service an 'above the law' attitude, and that belief that nobody would ever take action against them because they were protected has led to them getting sloppy and, to be blunt, arrogant.
-
Absolutely, and it happens to everybody who gets to that stage. I can't think of anyone who would fill the gap, however.
-
First of all, you misunderstand my meaning. Israel is *****ing about being under attack, and trying to defend itself, but it's six times more people than Palestinians are. That's what we call "overkill."
Who is 'we'? Depending on who those 'six times more' are it could be a very good thing. I hope six times more terrorists die than soldiers. I hope six times more militants die than civilians. I hope it's higher than that. I hope none of it is innocent lives. But anyone knows that's impossible. You cannot just take 2 numbers and say this one is higher therefore they are in the wrong. That's ignorant and deceptive.
And you'll find that I absolutely do not support the Iraq war. We have as much right to be killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis as Israel has to be killing thousands of Palestinians.
Well good for you. But I still don't see the world up in arms at the coalition forces for their abhorrant treatment and absolute massacre and disregard for lives. (which is not what I believe about them at all)
It's retarded to claim victim or self defense status when you're occupying an entire country. It sounds incredibly stupid to whine about being attacked by the people you're caging up like dogs. What the hell do you expect?
Yeah but what came first? the cage or the bite? See before the cage (read: security fence/wall) that caged dog was running free blowing up buses supermarkets shooting up schools and hotels... on a daily basis deliberately going for the weaker undefended targets. But hey you have a pit bull next door who gets into your yard and decapitates and mutilates your children playing back there your damn right you will build a fence to keep him out and you will shoot the dog. I am sorry that the situation came to this but I have a hard time sympathizing with a people who in general support and facilitate and at the very least don't speak up or try and bring an end to the terrorist attacks against a sovereign nations general populace. But hey that's great for you that you can not only look past that but completely ignore the whole provocation that put that dog in it's cage. Way to be objective. :yes:
If I was Palestinian, I'd be firing rockets too.
If you were Palestinian you would get up go outside point a rocket in the direction of a city say Allah is great and shoot it hoping to hit a civilian target. This is the meaning of what you just said. You realize this? Do you maybe think you might want to take back the fact that you just agreed to the indiscriminate targeting and killing of innocent unarmed civilians? Maybe you would just target the military targets? I really hope you simply forgot the connotations and the meaning of what you said. Because if you really justify that then we really have no other business talking to each other. Nothing and I mean nothing justifies the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Exactly. Invaded Lebanon after a terrorist organisation and NOT the government of the country did something. So you declared war on a country over the actions of what your own country call a terrorist organisation.
My sides almost split. If Israel had declared war there would not be a Lebanon. Why the hell do you think that was such a messy situation BECAUSE Israel was tiptoeing around Lebanese Army and infrastructure as much as possible while still creating a living hell for Hezbollah. But don't worry. Hezbollah the internationally renowned terrorist group has been elected into an official standing inside the Lebanese government. Next time it will be swift, painless (for Israel), and easy.
Indeed, the irony is that Israel may actually be in a position to gain more from helping the Palestinian authorities than from harming them.
What like arming the Fatah? Helping them fight the Hamas? Helping them evacuate from Gaza to the West Bank where they were being hunted like animals and slaughtered? You mean like transferring millions of dollars to them? Or allowing Egypt to transfer weapons and ammunition to them?
Funny how when a group shows the slightest interset of living peacefully and not trying to destroy the Jews, Israel does some crazy stuff and helps them.
What I find particularly weird about Splinter's kill/death ratio argument is the morally bizarre notion that outrage over the number of Palestinian deaths is somehow predicated on the comparatively small number of Israeli deaths.
A death is a death, and worthy of concern, no matter who's doing the dying. It's a tragedy either way. And more people dying is bad. The fact that relatively few Israelis have died compared to Palestinians isn't the root cause of the concern here.
It was presented as 'how can you claim the moral high ground that you are the victims of attack when Israeli deaths are lower than Palestinian deaths/Israeli Kills are higher than Palestinian kills'. Either way it's one of the most blinded out of context statements possible. What are the ratios of civilians to military? what efforts were made to target or avoid unnecessary deaths/damage? THESE factors set up moral high ground NOT how many people died.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with Sandy. No one is rejoicing in the pain of others... well except for Hamas... but I will not feel bad if I kill 20 militants/terrorist/anyone coming to do harm to the nation I protect and no one on my side dies. That is a good thing and I will not feel bad about it.
-
What like arming the Fatah? Helping them fight the Hamas? Helping them evacuate from Gaza to the West Bank where they were being hunted like animals and slaughtered? You mean like transferring millions of dollars to them? Or allowing Egypt to transfer weapons and ammunition to them?
Funny how when a group shows the slightest interset of living peacefully and not trying to destroy the Jews, Israel does some crazy stuff and helps them.
Seems to me you are both caught in a cycle of being convinced you are trying to destroy each other. Israel believes that all Palestianians want them dead, Palestinians believe that all Israelis want them dead, not the most stable foundation to build a relationship on.
As I said in my previous post, it's a case of victims of propoganda, both sides have painted the opposite side as 'evil' for so long that now any peace between them is 2 generations away, at least, and willingness by either side to adopt a position other than complete mistrust and hatred is seen as 'weakness' by the hard-liners, there are maybe 2-3 hundred people who are probably responsible for 90% of the rockets coming into Israel, and every single time Israel takes 'retaliatory' action for those attacks, the aftermaths tend to create more haters than it removes. Under such circumstances, it's impossible for the majority of those in Gaza to look 'good' in the eyes of Israel, because then that would mean admitting that maybe those massive shelling campaigns were a bit over the top.
The main problem is that this is an entire section of society being ostracised for the actions of a few, and that ostracisation is not fixing the problem, it is nurturing it, allowing it to fester, and pride won't let either side back down.
-
Keeping the palistinians impovrished in a castrated psuedostate certainly isn't going to help anything.
We shouldn't forget the religious factor to all of this. Zionists believe it is their destiny to have control over the region, american fundies support Israel and want it to do whatever it wants in order to start the apacolypse according to their doomsday prophecies. I don't know enough about islamic doomsday prophecies to speak about the Palestinian view, other than trying to get out from under Israel's boot. As long as this factor remains in politics, the Israel-Palestine problem will never go away, period.
-
I think I need to mention a couple of things of the IR camera.
- IR camera is able to produce shades of gray. The reason you don't see it is simply that humans are rather small compared to the field of view.
- A visible wavelength camera sees the almost the same as eye. A true IR-camera does not see visible wavelengths.
That's all
-
More media is popping up now - Hürriyet has pictures of the peace activists(See: Islamist fanatics) kidnapping and their stabbing of an Israeli soldier:
http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2
-
If I was Palestinian, I'd be firing rockets too.
If you were Palestinian you would get up go outside point a rocket in the direction of a city say Allah is great and shoot it hoping to hit a civilian target. This is the meaning of what you just said. You realize this? Do you maybe think you might want to take back the fact that you just agreed to the indiscriminate targeting and killing of innocent unarmed civilians? Maybe you would just target the military targets? I really hope you simply forgot the connotations and the meaning of what you said. Because if you really justify that then we really have no other business talking to each other. Nothing and I mean nothing justifies the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Well apparently Palestinians can't get toys, paper, or crayons, so what else have they got to do but kill the people oppressing them?
-
More media is popping up now - Hürriyet has pictures of the peace activists(See: Islamist fanatics) kidnapping and their stabbing of an Israeli soldier:
http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2
Following what happened with the Audio tapes, I'll wait for more word than simply 'Israel says so' before I take those pictures at face value, though, I'll accept they could very possibly be real, but stabbing someone who is trying to forcibly invade your vessel, possibly already using firearms at that stage is not evidence of 'Islamic Fanaticism', no time-frame was given for those pictures, was this after one protester recieved 4 bullets in the head? Were these people who, by this stage, genuinely believed they were fighting for their lives?
Neither side behaved particularly well in that situation, the difference was that it was armed soldiers versus civilians with shanks and metal poles. even if they had kidnapped a member of the IDF, what, exactly, would they do with him on aid ship, surrounded by the Israeli navy, that would not completely cripple any chance of Gazas blockade being lifted for another decade and, indeed, strengthen Israels argument to maintain one?
Both sides have published photographs without context, edited audio tapes etc, claims of 'abuse' etc are rife, though, frankly, I suspect both sides were riling for a fight before the ship was ever boarded, I'm not saying that the people on the relief ship were 'innocents', I have no real evidence either way, but when you get a situation of guns vs metal poles, people's sympathy will land with the underdog.
-
Oh, FFS....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jnuiLTovjxjwSwo415F9qITUTsZA
Fine if the Pixies choose to cancel it's their loss in the way of earnings, I was actually on Israels' side on this until they dragged up that bloody word again...
Why is it the moment someone does something a country doesn't like, they try to slide the word 'Terrorism' in there somewhere? I swear, if there were a plague of spiders, it would be described as Arachnoterrorism....
-
BTW, IRONY BONUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus). :p
Exodus 1947 was a ship that carried Jewish emigrants, that left France on July 11, 1947, with the intent of taking its passengers to Mandate Palestine
Following wide media coverage, the British Royal Navy seized the ship, and deported all its passengers back to Europe.
The boarding was challenged by the passengers (the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no jurisdiction), and so the British soldiers used force. Two passengers and one of the crews, 1st mate William Bernstein, a U.S. sailor from San Francisco, died as a result of bludgeoning and several dozen others were injured before the ship was taken over.
The officer in charge of the operation, Lt. Col. Gregson, later gave a very frank assessment of the success of the storming of the ship, which, according to a secret minute, left up to 33 Jews, including four women, injured in the fighting. Sixty-eight Jews were held in custody to be put on trial for unruly behaviour. Only three soldiers were hurt. But it could have been a lot worse. Gregson later admitted that he had considered using tear gas against the immigrants. He concluded:
"The Jew is liable to panic and 800-900 Jews fighting to get up a stairway to escape tear smoke could have produced a deplorable business." He added: "It is a very frightening thing to go into the hold full of yelling maniacs when outnumbered six or eight to one." Describing the assault, the officer wrote to his superiors: "After a very short pause, with a lot of yelling and female screams, every available weapon up to a biscuit and bulks of timber was hurled at the soldiers. They withstood it admirably and very stoically till the Jews assaulted and in the first rush several soldiers were downed with half a dozen Jews on top kicking and tearing ... No other troops could have done it as well and as humanely as these British ones did." He concluded: "It should be borne in mind that the guiding factor in most of the actions of the Jews is to gain the sympathy of the world press."
Security fears seemed justified after the Jews were removed when a large, homemade bomb with a timed fuse was found on one of the three ships. It was apparently rigged to detonate after the Jews had been removed, the cables indicate.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine also covered the events. Some of its members were even present at Haifa port when the emigrants were removed from their ship onto the deportation ships, and later commented that this strong image helped them press for an immediate solution for Jewish immigration and the question of Palestine.
The ship's ordeals were widely covered by international media, and caused the British government much public embarrassment, especially after the refugees were forced to disembark in Germany.
It is said that the events convinced the US government that the British mandate of Palestine was incapable of handling the Jewish refugees problem, and that a United Nations-brokered solution needed to be found. The US government then intensified its pressures on the British government to return its mandate to the UN, and the British in turn were willing to accept this. But this is dubious as the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry Conference of July 31 1946, meeting in London, had already recommended a federal scheme for solving the Palestine problem known as Morrison-Grady Plan, a U.N. trusteeship over Palestine.
Further, on September 24 1946 the Counsel to the US President, Clark Clifford had written to him to warn that the Soviet Union wished to achieve complete economic, military and political domination in the Middle East. Toward this end, Clifford argued, the Soviet Union would encourage the emigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine and at the same time denounce British and American policies toward Palestine and inflame the Arabs against those policies. Also, on the eve of Yom Kippur, October 4 1946, President Truman had issued a statement indicating United States support for the creation of a "viable Jewish state.", and the British government had already announced on February 7 1947 that it would terminate its mandate for Palestine.
Does any of this sound familiar? :p
-
Yeah, except the result of that was their very own country.
The recent incident didn't even earn Gaza candy bars.
-
Arachnoterrorism....
Unlike regular terrorism, Arachnoterrorism actually sounds like it would be terrifying.
-
Which means when Israeli civilians kill or maim Palestinian civilians, they are actually Israeli combatants, right? And, as we've learned from Iraq and Palestine, you can't tell a civilian from a combatant. Since the US and Israel both use that as an excuse to kill thousands of civilians, I guess Palestinians can use the same excuse against Israelis.
Did I miss something? When have Israeli civvies been killing Palestinians?
If the situation you state exists, then yes, when an Israeli civvie picks up a weapon with intent and means to harm another person, they're fair game. Why do you think I'd classify things differently?
-
BTW, IRONY BONUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus). :p
Wow, that's...huh.
-
Then neither side is in the right. Honestly, they should both be sanctioned and blockaded and left to starve I guess. They're all terrorists on either side.
-
Then neither side is in the right. Honestly, they should both be sanctioned and blockaded and left to starve I guess. They're all terrorists on either side.
Except that's not the case. Israel are terrorists. Palestinians want their home back.
-
Well they're not getting it back. No western government is going to support a Muslim state over a Jewish one.
-
Then neither side is in the right. Honestly, they should both be sanctioned and blockaded and left to starve I guess. They're all terrorists on either side.
Except that's not the case. Israel are terrorists. Palestinians want their home back.
I'm so glad you're here to contribute such statements. You just seem to have a knack for getting right to the heart of a matter, breaking it down, and then portraying things in such a delicately depicted light that I can't help but be convinced that you're absolutely, truly off your friggin' rocker.
-
Well you said Islam is evil a few months ago. He's a tit-for-tat kind of guy.
-
Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are. You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.
-
I do wish you two would sort out which account you are going to post on, because this gets bloody confusing...
-
We're on separate computers. Israel is just about the only thing that makes Turambar angry.
-
The way I look at it, pretty much every race in the world is where it is because of 'Right of Conquest', the Romans pushed out the Celts, the Americans pushed out the Native Americans etc, it's an ongoing theme in history. History has never been famous for being 'Nice', particularly to the pushee, as opposed to the pusher.
Does any race have a 'Right' to be where it is beyond its ability to hang on to it, if all it took were bits of paper, why spend billions per year on defence budgets? And that's the crux of the matter, it's not about whether it should exist, that's looking at it from the wrong perspective, it's a question of how Israel, now it is established, interacts with the surrounding cultures, and how those cultures can be bought, if not into harmony, which I doubt, then at least to a less abrasive dislike of each other.
-
I don't realistically expect Israel to pack up and skip town, but they could do with being less antagonistic.
My big problem is that I try to think we've come a long way since the founding of America, and we should know better by now.
-
Time (generations) and education (instead of propaganda).
I wonder if it would help if Israel admitted that "because god said so" is not a legitimate land claim.
-
Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are. You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.
Didn't you guys steal your land from native Americans?
-
Does any race have a 'Right' to be where it is beyond its ability to hang on to it, if all it took were bits of paper, why spend billions per year on defence budgets? And that's the crux of the matter, it's not about whether it should exist, that's looking at it from the wrong perspective, it's a question of how Israel, now it is established, interacts with the surrounding cultures, and how those cultures can be bought, if not into harmony, which I doubt, then at least to a less abrasive dislike of each other.
Best typo, ever? :D
-
:lol: Missed that :nervous:
-
Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are. You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.
Didn't you guys steal your land from native Americans?
Collapsed their economies, forced them to move into ****ty land, forced them to move again when we discovered gold, oil, etc on that land, caged them off and let them pretend to be their own states...
As Turambar pointed out, that's probably why Americans support Israel.
-
Ah, I missed that. Carry on. ;)
-
Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are. You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.
I can name three continents worth of nations living on "stolen lands," history is rife with that, not to mention the particular piece of property you're all arguing about has changed hands more times then I can count. Unless Sandwich has a time machine he's not responsible for Israel existing and in a few decades I doubt anyone will be alive from that period anyway, so really just save the silly ass guilt trip crap. Israel is an established country that's a fact and baring some genocidal war that isn't going to change, so demanding Israel ceases to exist is a unrealistic argument. Now arguing that Israel needs to get it **** together and correct its mistreatment of Palestinians is a valid debate. If the current orthodox nut bag gov't in power got changed out for a moderate one then we might actually have a decent shot of obtaining real meaningful peace. But arguing over whether or not Israel should exist is a bunch of bullocks, and if the parties involved can't even move beyond that then there is never going to be any peaceful solution and you might as well deport everyone and bulldoze the entire god forsaken land mass into the Med.
-
Sorry if it stings Sandwich, but you got no right to be where you are. You and your family are on stolen land, and you need to leave.
Didn't you guys steal your land from native Americans?
The difference is we practically wiped them out.
-
I can name three continents worth of nations living on "stolen lands," history is rife with that, not to mention the particular piece of property you're all arguing about has changed hands more times then I can count. Unless Sandwich has a time machine he's not responsible for Israel existing and in a few decades I doubt anyone will be alive from that period anyway, so really just save the silly ass guilt trip crap. Israel is an established country that's a fact and baring some genocidal war that isn't going to change, so demanding Israel ceases to exist is a unrealistic argument.
The problem is that the refusal of Israelis to accept the parallels between themselves 60 years ago and the Palestinians now is part of the problem. The Israelis refuse to accept that their country only exists due to exactly the same kind of terrorism that they now decry from the Palestinians. In the case of the UK they did simply acknowledge that the land wasn't theirs, packed up and left. I'm not saying that Israel should do the same thing but they really need to realise that their country only exists because someone did.
Maybe then they'd realise that they really can't complain about the Palestinians doing what they are doing since they're the ones who showed them that it might just work.
I'm so glad you're here to contribute such statements. You just seem to have a knack for getting right to the heart of a matter, breaking it down, and then portraying things in such a delicately depicted light that I can't help but be convinced that you're absolutely, truly off your friggin' rocker.
Except that you have said the pretty much the same thing the other way round in the past. You've certainly claimed a god given right to Israel in the past. What is that if not "The Jews were not terrorists, they were just taking back their homes"
-
All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect? :rolleyes:
Fact of the matter is that for whatever its reasons were, the UN assigned this land as a Jewish homeland back in 47/48. Live with it - or die fighting it. Your choice.
Now, there have been many arguments tossed back and forth in this thread, but I recently ran across Netanyahu's response to the flotilla issue. It states simply and clearly what the crux of the matter is, far better than I ever could:
Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time. Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes. Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now. But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry—smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities.
These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva—these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel. Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.
This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hizbullah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hizbullah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.
I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass—people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow. For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.
And here’s our policy. It's very simple—Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot. And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.
On this occasion too, we made several offers—offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again. So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.
Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship—you can see this in the videos—the first soldier—they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed; they were clubbed; they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach; one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.
It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.
This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism. I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.
Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it—under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers—you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.
Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.
This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway—Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.
Thank you.
-
All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect? :rolleyes:
I am Catholic, but, slightly off-topic, I find a bit of an inherent problem with that. Isn't it kindof unjust to damn people just because they explain something a little differently? No one religion has been proven right. I don't think God would kill people just because they said he was a bunch of gods.
No offense, just my opinion.
-
That is indeed a topic for another thread, so pardon if I don't encourage this one from dragging off-topic. :)
-
All my religious-God-gave-Israel-to-the-Jews statements have been, I believe, couched in disclaimers of personal belief. I also happen to believe that if you don't accept Jesus, you're going to hell, but you don't see me shoving that down people's throats, now do you? Are you going to claim that because I believe that way, anything I say about pretty much anything is suspect? :rolleyes:
I am Catholic, but, slightly off-topic, I find a bit of an inherent problem with that. Isn't it kindof unjust to damn people just because they explain something a little differently? No one religion has been proven right. I don't think God would kill people just because they said he was a bunch of gods.
No offense, just my opinion.
A deity isn't worthy of faith and devotion if s/he is going to damn folks to hell just because they weren't born into a particular belief system.
-
And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.
Same concept. Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).
-
For all my sympathy for Israel (which is at least as great as my sympathy for the Palestinians), posts like that are a big turn-off. They remind me of US conservative rhetoric.
Nothing is that black-and-white.
I must object to that statement. ... It's black-and-white... :doubt:
-
And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.
Same concept. Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).
Hardly the same concept, supporting or neglecting orphans is not the same thing as actively punishing them for something they have no control over. Sending people to hell and fiery damnation for crimes they did not commit is not the indicative of a benevolent god, more like a church forcing folks into obedience through fear.
-
And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.
Same concept. Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).
Hardly the same concept, supporting or neglecting orphans is not the same thing as actively punishing them for something they have no control over. Sending people to hell and fiery damnation for crimes they did not commit is not the indicative of a benevolent god, more like a church forcing folks into obedience through fear.
You apparently didn't read the second half of my post. It's not an active process. It's more akin to not going in and getting a sweepstakes prize than it is actively throwing someone into hell. You do have control over it, people just merely refuse to exercise it, for some reason or other.
-
And a good and upstanding man isn't worth looking up to because he won't adopt every orphan in a city that wasn't born into his particular family.
Same concept. Damning isn't an active process, it's passive (then again, that's if you're into all the fire and brimstone stuff).
But a human doesn't claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. Your god could easily rain bread down on everyone on earth, or even just the innocent babies. You know, if he gave a ****.
*snip*
Israel should never have existed. Israel wouldn't sound so damn retarded talking about defense if it recognized that. You know, "The UN made a mistake in 1947/8 but we're here now and that's that." But no. "PALESTINES IS TERRORISTS THEY'S KILLIN OUR CIVILIANS!!!" Israeli civilians kill Palestinian civilians too, but they don't get called terrorists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence
And in fact, why is it a tragedy when someone who gets paid to kill dies (soldier) but a cause for celebration when someone who kills because they want freedom dies ("terrorist")? You probably like to think that Palestinian rockets come from people who just want political power or from individuals who only want to hurt others, but you have to realize they are just like your IDF. They have families, friends, et cetera, and they believe their fight might give them back the right to build a house or be employed, or have access to some damn books.
-
Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in. The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces. Do you get that little fact zack? Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers. There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.
-
Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in. The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces. Do you get that little fact zack? Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers. There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.
Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars. The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
-
Nobody is saying the Palestinians don't have the right to fight for what they believe in. The issue here is the Palestinians are deliberately targeting civilian populaces. Do you get that little fact zack? Most of our objections would be gone if the Palestinians were attacking only valid military targets like bases, equipment, and soldiers. There is absolutely no reason to target civilians, and the fact that their targets are civilians with the intent to cause terror is why we are calling them terrorists and not freedom fighters.
Well, why was it okay when we deliberately targeted civilians?
-
Actually, 'target' is really the wrong word, from what I understand of the weapons they use, you can't really target anything, you just point them in the general direction of Israel and fire. That doesn't make it acceptable, but, then, as the last shell-bombardment shows, neither side seems overly concerned about civilian casualities on the opposite side if it is in the execution of their little spat.
Fact is, Hamas was voted in because of Israels actions, not its existence, I personally think Palestine would not have voted for them if it hadn't been for the way Israel treats the Gaza area, it's like a protest vote, our current Mayor in London is there because of a protest vote, it's not that we liked him, it was that we hated the alternative, and I have a strong suspicion that's the motivation behind the formation of our entire government in the UK at the moment.
It's the situation breeding the anger, not vice versa.
Edit: In short, the current 'Road to Peace' is a Ringroad, and we are going round and round in a cycle of action/reaction/accusation/counter-accusation.
The Circle Must Be Broken.
-
Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.
You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]
The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?
A). How much flak has been taken over that? And you saying we should regard these nations differently, because...?
B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated. Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
--
Now, please stop trying to Godwin (it's getting there, trust me) the Hell out of this thread. :ick:
-
Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
Actually, from what I understand, it was far more complex than simply 'let's attack the Americans while they aren't looking', but was far more a case of a breakdown of communications, so I'm not certain that would really count as a 'Terrorist' attack, more like a 'screw up of monumental proportions'.
Edit: And, can I re-re-reiterate that 'Terrorism' as a word has now lost any meaning to me, it's being bolted onto everything that happens that people don't like, it's lost any weight it once had as far as I'm concerned.
-
Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
That was called Okinawa.
-
Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.
You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]
I was referencing what someone said earlier in the thread when I pointed out how many Palestinian civilians are dying because of Israel. They said something akin to "well, it's war."
The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?
B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated. Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
Well what do you think Palestinians are trying to do? Do you really believe their sole goal is to frighten Israelis? Zionists got their very own nation through terrorism, so why do you think no one else would try?
Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?
-
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
:rolleyes:
A grand total of... 57... Civilians were killed. Totally justifies the complete indiscriminate killing of thousands.
-
Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
That was called Okinawa.
Do I need to bring up the statistics again? Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing. That's according to the experts at the time.
The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists!
Hiroshima was a Japanese naval base and production center. Nagasaki was a target of opportunity that was very nearly stricken from the target list because it was a city. We didn't bomb plain old cities because we wanted to. We also dropped leaflets. The parallel ends well before we get into target criteria.
Why is there a distinction? It's war remember, that's why we aren't feeling bad about killing Palestinian civilians. Civilians die in wars.
You don't feel bad when civilians are killed? At all? Have you no conscience? No soul? [/parody of zack's trolling]
I was referencing what someone said earlier in the thread when I pointed out how many Palestinian civilians are dying because of Israel. They said something akin to "well, it's war."
The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we?
B). It could be argued that, since it was the only way to force a surrender (there's a whole other topic in this forum on that issue), the action was justified in that it actually reduced the amount of casualties that would have occurred had a land war (which, in Asia, is one of the great blunders) been initiated. Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
Well what do you think Palestinians are trying to do? Do you really believe their sole goal is to frighten Israelis? Zionists got their very own nation through terrorism, so why do you think no one else would try?
Answering BloodEagle first: No, it was not the only way to force a surrender. It was simply the fastest, most politically expedient way. However, it did in face SIGNIFICANTLY reduce casualties. By a projected two million civilians.
Now for iamzack: Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. One of their goals is to frighten Israelis, or they wouldn't be firing rockets, they'd be firing rifles. Zionists got their own nation through U.N. mandate, then defended it.
Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?
Quit moving the damn goalposts.
-
I really think that people should stop ****ing glorifying the Second World War. It wasn't a ****ing Michael Bay movie for ****'s sake.
-
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
You know, I think this betrays a bit of a misunderstanding of history. The Japanese objective in Pearl Harbor was not to terrorize the US into surrender, it was to destroy the American Pacific fleet and neutralize their ability to interfere with Japanese plans. A military objective, by and large.
Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
That was called Okinawa.
Do I need to bring up the statistics again? Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing. That's according to the experts at the time.
What the **** does that have to do with my post?
And seriously, those figures you have right there are...well, let's just say pretty ****ing conservative. 40,000 dead is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. It probably would've been ten times that.
**** knows why you think the existence of Okinawa somehow requires the need to bring up statistics about the invasion of the Japanese mainland. If anything Okinawa is evidence that the A-bomb was a tender mercy.
-
There was an alternative for the A-bombs but it didn't get chosen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation
-
Think Iwo Jima squared, with no gender or age discrimination.
That was called Okinawa.
Do I need to bring up the statistics again? Projected casualties for the invasion the Japanese mainland were approximately 40,000 dead, 153,000 wounded/missing. That's according to the experts at the time.
What the **** does that have to do with my post?
And seriously, those figures you have right there are...well, let's just say pretty ****ing conservative. 40,000 dead is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. It probably would've been ten times that.
**** knows why you think the existence of Okinawa somehow requires the need to bring up statistics about the invasion of the Japanese mainland. If anything Okinawa is evidence that the A-bomb was a tender mercy.
My apologies, I meant to take your quote of that little chain. I was trying to directly respond to BloodEagle and that general line of discussion, since he did bring up the invasion. Admittedly, opening with that kind of question didn't help much.
Anyway, those figures are from the Cheifs of Staff estimates on the cost of invading the Kyushu plain and marching on Tokyo misrememberd now that I check my source again. Total estimated dead varies between 109,000 and 193,000, with up to half a million injured. However, that's assuming both a fanatically hostile populace, a complete concentration of all remaining Japanese military assets. Any report that estimates half a million dead was done by someone who didn't have a very good idea of what he was talking about. The combination of a large number of landing zones and significantly less heavily defended areas that couldn't be simply bypassed drastically reduced the number of projected dead.
All that said, the A-bomb caused significantly less deaths than an invasion would have at ANY projection. Now I'm going to stop talking, because I keep missing the point.
-
The US didn't distinguish when we dropped the A-bomb on two *cities* did we? Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists!
Hiroshima was a Japanese naval base and production center. Nagasaki was a target of opportunity that was very nearly stricken from the target list because it was a city. We didn't bomb plain old cities because we wanted to. We also dropped leaflets. The parallel ends well before we get into target criteria.
"nearly" stricken but it -wasn't- stricken. If we didn't want to bomb cities, we wouldn't have bombed cities. We decided that bombing cities would help us win faster so that's what we did. What's the difference when Palestinians are firing rockets because they think it will help them win faster? Oh, right, they're not on our side.
Japan *did* attack a military base, and they were still terrorists! There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters except complexion.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (killing many noncombatants, I assume) without a formal declaration of war, with the purpose of terrorizing the general population of The United States into submission. I'm pretty sure that that's the definition of 'terrorism'.
Where's the formal declaration of war against Iraq?
Quit moving the damn goalposts.
What goalposts? He said it was terrorism when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war. Why isn't it terrorism when we attack Iraq? Once again, when the US does it, it's okay. If it's anyone we don't like, it's terrorism.
-
Terrorism's lost it's meaning because it hasn't been applied in the right situations, not because it's been applied to everyone and everything "bad". Terrorism's definition in the Wikipedia is all amuck precisely for that reason - people are afraid to outright label something as "wrong" in this day and age when what used to be "wrong" is so often accepted and seen as "ok". However, the final sentence of Wikipedia's intro section to terrorism is what I would consider to be a perfect definition of "terrorism":
...the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.
The purpose usually has nothing to do with the direct results of the action itself. In full-blown war, for example, attacking an enemy military formation has the express purpose of removing that threat from the battlefield, thus bringing the attacking side closer to victory. Inaccurate rocket barrages into cities and towns cannot have a specific target in mind. Suicide bombings in crowded cafes cannot have a specific target in mind. The purpose of such acts is to generate fear among the civilian populace, often with the hope that that civilian populace will pressure their government to capitulate to the demands of the rocket firing, suicide-bombing, terrorists.
It's not that difficult to define, really, as long as you realize that certain acts can be easily, unequivocally categorized as "terrorism", while other acts might be in more of a gray area. I fully recognize that.
Also, don't get me wrong. I recognize the fact that the Palestinians feel victimized/brutalized/etc by the Israelis, and that they claim to want their own state. I understand those feelings and desires, and in no way can I blame them or say that they shouldn't be feeling or desiring that. Built in to every human is the desire for freedom, to live life however you wish. It's completely natural.
What I do blame them for is the methods they choose to implement in order to make their point or get their own way: deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of inflicting terror. I've said it before (in this thread and others throughout the years), and I'll say it again: I, as an ex-Israeli soldier, and as an Israeli citizen who is drafted into reserve duty on a yearly basis, consider IDF soldiers as valid targets for Palestinian violence. I'm not saying I'm happy about it of course, but military forces are valid targets.
There are rules, even in war. If the terrorists followed those rules of war, they would no longer be considered terrorists, and would most likely achieve greater success in their plight.
On to Israel's side. Israel does not always do the right thing in every situation - nobody, no nation does. Yes, Israel has made mistakes in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to make mistakes in the future, especially as long as the terrorists operating among the Palestinian populace continue to use innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields. That is an impossible situation to resolve without undue bloodshed. However, I stand by the fact that Israel does everything possible to eliminate, or at least minimize, innocent civilian casualties, within the demands of needing to provide security to Israeli citizens. The two goals are not always mutually compatible, and in those cases, Israel tends to get the blame for killing innocent civilians as opposed to the terrorists being blamed for using said civilians as human shields.
From my personal, firsthand knowledge and experience of the IDF's rules of engagement, I know for a fact that Israel does go to extreme lengths to prevent civilian casualties. I also know that Israel will do whatever is necessary to defend herself - every nation would do that for its citizens.
This will be my last post in this thread (for a while, at least)... not because I'm "giving up", but because I just don't have time to debate in circles anymore - I've got deadlines I need to meet this month. You have all been told and shown the truth, time and again. If you choose to ignore the evidence of your eyes merely because it conflicts with your possibly-ignorant, preconceived notions of who's right or wrong in any given situation, I grieve for you and for what such an outlook will do throughout your life.
-
I recognize the fact that the Palestinians feel victimized/brutalized/etc by the Israelis, and that they want their own state back.
fixt
If the world were fair, Israelis would be eating the scraps Palestinians throw over the fence, not the other way around.
Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? Disappointing, not to mention completely wrong. // Sandwich
You've never seen anyone quote someone else, change the quote and then put "fixed" under it before?
-
Maybe my problem is age. I'm old enough to remember reports of people being shot trying to get out of the Russian half of Berlin, I'm old enough to remember people in South Africa saying they'd be more inclined to end apartheid if the blacks 'came up to our standard'.
This has all happened before, and will happen again...
Edit: And just for clarification, that's not an attack on Israel, it's a statement of fact that anyone can justify their actions and claim them to be 'truth', everyone has their own truths, their own 'reality', everyone thinks that their way of life is the 'right' one, and that other people just have to understand how wrong they are for not being the same, it's happening on both sides of the divide now in Gaza, as well as several other places in the world, and I doubt anyone will ever really stop to think that maybe their truths aren't the only ones in the world.
-
Terrorism's lost it's meaning because it hasn't been applied in the right situations, not because it's been applied to everyone and everything "bad". Terrorism's definition in the Wikipedia is all amuck precisely for that reason - people are afraid to outright label something as "wrong" in this day and age when what used to be "wrong" is so often accepted and seen as "ok". However, the final sentence of Wikipedia's intro section to terrorism is what I would consider to be a perfect definition of "terrorism":
...the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.
So - and again, coming from a fairly neutral guy here - why don't you disapprove of the use of terrorism to found Israel in the first place?
-
Also, I'm pretty sure that definition doesn't really fit Palestinians firing rockets, unless someone can prove they're doing it for publicity.
-
Asymmetrical Warfare's a real ***** sometimes.
-
A fair amount of nations have been built by organizations or parties that could very well be defined as terrorists. The French Revolution had the mass executions, the Americans had the Sons of Liberty, and the Bolsheviks had the Cheka.
-
Zionists got their own nation through U.N. mandate, then defended it.
And how is that supposed to happen now when the US would veto any attempt to put pressure on Israel to accept a UN solution? It worked for the Zionists because UK was willing to step back and allow the UN to resolve it. We can't get Israel to accept the need for an international inquiry into this incident even though it happened in international waters and IIRC the law does require it. What makes you think they'll listen to the UN on a larger issue?
-
This was exactly what I was worried about when I heard it was a Turkish vessel...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/gaza-blockade-iran-aid-convoy
Iran are offering to send in Warships as an escort for the next convoy, they've been itching for an excuse to suggest something like this, and they are pretty close to Turkey following the Nuclear deal earlier last month. Now, I don't see it actually happening, but all of a sudden the Iranians are given the chance to portray themselves as a 'Good Samaritan' protecting people who are trying to help those who are suffering.
It's all gathering pace.... We're getting to a situation where you have British, American, Iranian, Lebanese and a host of other countries' vessels who are all supposed to be uncomfortable with each other actually working together to break a blockade. I find I have mixed feelings, here is something that has caused disparate groups to unite and work to a common cause, which almost makes me proud, but then I remember the political/religious context of it all, and it makes me nervous. Somone is going to have to blink soon, or there's going to be an even larger tragedy.
-
Worst part is, I'm fully supportive of a humanitarian breaking of the blockade, but it would put the humanitarians legally in the wrong, even if morally in the right.
And I'm not against inspections...Israel does have that right to enforce a blockade. But they really should let the ships deliver the cargo themselves.
-
That's what makes the situation so difficult, I can understand Israel wanting to protect their people, and I know exactly what game Iran are playing here, it's quite transparent, they've been itching for a chance to taunt the Israeli navy for years, all it takes is one hothead on either side and the entire situation could kick off, and there seem to be plenty of hotheads to go around.
But, I also recognise the cost of that security that is being paid by people in Gaza, all the people in Gaza regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of belief. Hamas got a majority, not a unanimous vote, that means that some of the people suffering in Gaza were people who are being punished for something they didn't vote for in the first place. Just as not all Jews are Zionists, neither are all Arabs extremists, or even in favour of the abolition of Israel, but people seem to judge both sides by their most extreme representations and punish them all for their actions, from the best of them to the worst. At the risk of being highly controversial, it's like Bin Laden saying that any Americans are viable targets because they voted in the Government, same mentality, same mistake.
As I've said before, both sides have allowed hard-liners to grab power, and pleasing those hard-liners is the only way for the Government to maintain its position. That means that every problem, every confrontation is underscored with a hard-line opinion of the other side, it's easy to put everyone into a box and judge them all the same, it's easy to call Israelis 'invaders' or Palestinians 'terrorists', but the world has never, ever been as simple as that.
-
Nuclear, the problem with that is blockades are all-or-nothing. Israel can't let anything through or their blockade will get declared null-and-void.
-
Yup, borders can be negotiated, trade and aid can be discussed, but pride is non-negotiable, and that is more and more what this is becoming about.
-
(http://i49.tinypic.com/309k228.jpg)
-
Oh.. I shouldn't laugh....
-
hah
-
Well I guess they didn't really have a choice... But you'd think his buddies would've pelted those below once they saw how hostile it was down there, wouldn't you? Regardless of how inaccurate the fire may have been, it might have eased the pressure a little bit on their guys on the bottom.