|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Aiding the suffering in Gaza deligitimises Israel -- WTF?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That anybody takes the UN seriously amazes me. It is a joke.
I find it wryly amusing that from western media correspondents there has been much hair-tearing about China's apparent unwillingness to back a UN resolution condemning North Korea's recent military action against South Korea, but nothing in similar vein (that I've heard) about the US' unwillingness to condemn Israel here.
Israel has a right to defend itself but not by any means it chooses.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
As a pedant I wish people would stop referring to arabs and their sympathisers as "anti-semites". Arabs are semites!
No they are not. There is no such thing as semite people, only languages.
The term 'anti-semitism' was coined by Wilhelm Marr and was used by him exclusively for Jews.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew are Semitic languages. Whatever Marr may have meant by his word, it covers all semites.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daffy Duck
Shipmate
# 13488
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tessaB:
If they had been Somalis rather than Isrealis wouldn't it have been called 'piracy'? After all it was in International waters.
Somalia is not under blockade, legal or otherwise. Neither does Israel incarcerate the crews of such ships indefinitely, demanding massive ransoms for their release, along with their ships and cargoes.
You are comparing oranges and bananas here.
All we know is that when boarded some masked people on one of the ships produced firarms. Why? And who were they? Anyones guess at the moment.
--------------------
Arohanui
Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz
mailto:enyaj@xtra.co.nz
Posts: 259 | From: Gore, NZ | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I gather that they could have chosen to go legally through Egypt. That they didn't points indeed, possibly, to a publicity stunt.
I find the rank hypocrisy of the UK breathtaking.
I suppose its OK for the RAF to bomb the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians who are mistaken for Taliban by drone missiles?
It seems like Rosa said this 'aid' could have gone to Ashdod, been off loaded and taken by road to Gaza. The organisers didn't want that, they wanted to sail to a port in Gaza and break the blockade.
Israel is no paragon of virtue BUT stop all the sanctimonious bullshit that we (in the UK) are somehow better than the Israelis. We have serious blood on our hands because of the Afghan and Iraq debacles, so he that is without sin let him cast the first stone.
It seems to me in this confused scenario, it was only one ship involved in the violence and a few on board clearly attacked the commando boarding party with stun grenades, revolvers, iron bars etc,
Yes there was a serious cock up on BOTH sides. The bulk of the occupants of the ship where the violence was were probably peaceful; but there were some on board (as witnessed by the video footage) who just wanted violence and bloody mayhem and sadly that is what they got and I don't excuse the commandos what they did; it was an ''own goal'' for Israel - but consider what these ''aid'' ships want...if they want true aid, just work with Israel and they will allow it to be delivered in an orderly way. Stop the Israel/ Jew vilification; its just to sickening.
But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit about us in the UK and EU being whiter than white,.....cos we aint!
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
One of the things that's bothering me about this whole sorry mess is the presence of journalists on the convoy.
What were they doing there? Have there been journalists accompanying the aid that is UN-badged and accepted by Israel?
Of course that's precisely the sort of question it's difficult to get a straight answer on. But if the presence of journalists is unusual, that would say to me that they knew something 'interesting' was going to happen.
In my opinion Israel has an unfortunate history of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, but in this particular case I have some suspicions that the organisers of the convoy were banking on that sledgehammer tendency. So right now no-one is looking particularly angelic to me.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
orfeo - are you equally suspicious of the presence of journalists on civil rights marches in the southern USA in the 1960s, in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, in the Eastern bloc in the 1980s or in China in the 1990s?
In almost every case, journalists being present is not a guarantee of safe passage but a guarantee if it does kick off, there will be at least a record of events, and one that may well be at variance to the 'official' version.
Reports of the British beating the crap out of unarmed Indians supporting Gandhi's salt march pretty much did it for the Empire.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That anybody takes the UN seriously amazes me. It is a joke.
I find it wryly amusing that from western media correspondents there has been much hair-tearing about China's apparent unwillingness to back a UN resolution condemning North Korea's recent military action against South Korea, but nothing in similar vein (that I've heard) about the US' unwillingness to condemn Israel here.
Israel has a right to defend itself but not by any means it chooses.
I could go the route of arguing why those are two different situations. They are. I would gladly be an Arab in Israel before a Korean in North Korea. Those poor people actually try fleeing to China. China. It would be like the old underground railroad taking Southern slaves to a South Africa under Apartheid. But, I'm not going to go that route.
This in a nutshell is why the UN is useless. Any one of five nations can block a resolution from the security council. Why France gets veto power I'll never know. None of those nations will give up veto power and who can blame them. They aren't about to allow a collection of tin pot dictators to tell them what they can and can't do especially with regards to their own national interests. It is silly enough they serve on some of the committees they do. Even if a resolution is passed, they are largely symbolic and by symbolic I mean not worth the paper on which they are printed. Any nation is free to ignore them without consequences. Regardless if China or the United States supports a resolution or not, China will not allow the North Korean regime to fall any more than the United States will ever allow Israel to fall.
Personally, I'm not sure why United States politicians care so much about North Korea. We've spent 60 years protecting the South Koreans from a less affluent, less populated, and less technologically advanced North Korea. What have we gotten for our trouble? It is time they take over their own national defense. Same goes for Japan. Nor do I care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They'll never use it. Using it will get them blown back into the dark ages and they are smart enough to know that. Why expend so much energy keeping them from it?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Any one of five nations can block a resolution from the security council. Why France gets veto power I'll never know.
Beautiful food, beautiful women, nuclear weapons, what's not to like?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nor do I care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. They'll never use it. Using it will get them blown back into the dark ages and they are smart enough to know that. Why expend so much energy keeping them from it?
/off topic
Duh. Because they'll accidentally 'lose one' for someone else to find. Proving for certain (for values of certain that involve reducing Tehran to ashes) it was an Iranian bomb that rips the guts out of a major city will be then next to impossible. That's why.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
ISTM that Israel is using appropriate measures to keep rockets and other arms being imported into Gaza. However, the tactics of an armed boarding the ships of the flotilla are an example of unecessary and provocative acts. Merely, stopping the flotilla and requesting permission to come aboard (without weapons) might have saved the lives expended.
In calling the blockade to the world's attention the effort has succeded. Now we should also include Israel's limitation of Gaza fishermen to the territorial boundries, thereby curtailing food to Gaza.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
Simple solution to a bad problem: Israel should just announce that any further such ships attempting to run the blockade will be sunk without warning and any attempt to rescue the survivors will be prevented. Then proceed to do so.
Sink the damn boats.
[ 01. June 2010, 14:04: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Hamas is motivated. They will use every trick I can think of to build death traps (and many I can't think of). They will kill hundreds or thousands of Israeli soldiers. They will kill more if they get the concrete.
Ridiculous. Hamas isn’t building concrete bunkers, you’re living in a parallel universe. Their rockets are effective (actually they don’t hit anything but effective in that they are launched and the operators get away) only because they are cheap, quick and mobile. They sneak into a launching area, assemble, launch and dissemble the launcher in minutes and by the time the Israelis get to the launch site they’re away. If they tried to construct any kind of facility, let alone any long-term bunker project, they would be annihilated before they laid the foundations.
The concrete was to rebuild homes, schools and hospitals. You know, the ones Israel flattened without mercy last year. The ships were also filled with medical supplies, refugee tents and camps, clothes and much much else. There was no suggestion of weapons. In fact the ships had gone through Turkish customs before sailing so there was no way of getting weapons on board.
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
In order to preserve its security for its citizens, Israel has to impose oppressive measures against the Palestinians. Israel would not exist if it did not oppress the Palestinians.
No, no, a thousand times no. This is the lie that is believed by most Israelis and by much of the west. But it is the source of all the problems. No state should base its existence on the oppression and suffering of others. That is not a legitimate basis for any state’s existence. There is another way. A way of peace and reconciliation. So everyone can live without fear of oppression, not just the powerful minority. It was done in South Africa. It was done in Northern Ireland. It must be done in Israel or Israel will destroy itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I gather that they could have chosen to go legally through Egypt. That they didn't points indeed, possibly, to a publicity stunt.
Well, no, they couldn’t Egypt maintains the blockade. (Until today – they’ve just opened it to aid as a result of this incident – which is an amazing victory!) Egypt only opened its borders to aid for one day every year.
Also, to those who keep repeating the story that Israel was kindly offering to pass the aid on, if you believe Israel then you’ve got the blinkers strapped on tight. Israel refuses to allow more than 15000 tons of aid a week, which is a quarter of what the UN says is the minimum necessary. Also, its list of restricted items changes daily and is a state secret so aid agencies have to guess at what will be allowed in and if they get it wrong the Gazan people starve. A recent court case has brought out some details (reported in the Guardian today) showing that such illogical items as jam and fruit juice are currently banned from Gaza. (Although I’m sure Dumpling Jeff will argue terrorists could use such things to make dangerous jam guns.) Gaza was flattened by Israel and its infrastructure is in a state of collapse. Its water supplies are shocking and 1.5 million people are living in squalor. And Israel won’t let them rebuild as a matter of policy. There is no other choice than blockade running if the Gazan people are going to survive.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems to me in this confused scenario, it was only one ship involved in the violence and a few on board clearly attacked the commando boarding party with stun grenades, revolvers, iron bars etc,
Well, no, the pistols apparently (according to the Israelis) were wrested from the attacking commandos. Though how many were taken isn’t said. I would be surprised if more than one (or even one) highly trained elite commando allowed his weapon to be taken from him. The only stun grenades held or used were by the commandos. The video footage does show bars and a chair being used to attack the invaders but this was only one ship. On other ships reports indicate there was no opposition at all but the IDF assaulted with live ammunition, without warning, all the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Yes there was a serious cock up on BOTH sides. The bulk of the occupants of the ship where the violence was were probably peaceful; but there were some on board (as witnessed by the video footage) who just wanted violence and bloody mayhem and sadly that is what they got
How does the video footage show what the activists ‘wanted’? It shows a small group of them defending themselves against an unprovoked night time assault with whatever came to hand. But while the blockade-running was designed to provoke a confrontation, all indications by the organizers of the convoy (rather than the Israeli propaganda spinners) was that this was to be a peaceful protest and the only resistance was to be passive. Things obviously deteriorated during the confusion, but I doubt the activists went in looking for an unarmed fight against armed soldiers.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that's bothering me about this whole sorry mess is the presence of journalists on the convoy.
There were journalists because they knew Israel would try to stop them. They wanted to monitor the situation as heavily as possible to try and stop Israel committing any more war crimes or illegal acts of aggression. They obviously failed. Israel doesn’t care about international opinion. Perhaps, if the fallout is suitably heated, this will change and Israel may restrain themselves in future activities. That’s the hope in any case. The Israel ambassador to the UK has admitted the violent confrontation was a mistake and lessons need to be learned by Israel.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sink the damn boats.
In international waters? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Merely, stopping the flotilla and requesting permission to come aboard (without weapons) might have saved the lives expended.
They're blockade runners. They're not exactly going to stop at the first sign of a blockade!
And once the Israeli command to stop has been ignored, what do you propose they do? The only options are to allow it to proceed, to sink it, or to forcibly board it. In this case they chose the third option.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Of course the Israelis were going to board, the activists expected it. But there's ways of doing things that don't cause the situation to deteriorate so badly that 10 civilians die and many soldiers get attacked and injured. The boarding was heavily botched by sledghammer tactics, too-quick use of force, and the insane idea to attempt this dangerous action in the middle of the night, by masked men, without appropriate or clear warning.
It reminds me of a British army advert a few years back. From the POV of an officer he approached an angry man to try and calm the situation. The advert asked the audience what you would do next. The answer, as shown, was so simple - just to remove your sunglasses so the man could see your eyes. Simple actions can defuse an explosive situation. If, in daylight, customs officials had approached (suitably escorted by soldiers) in boats and demanded to board, then the situation would have been much different. As it was, any warning given was drowned out by the helicopters, the first anyone knew of the assault was the sound of live gunfire in many cases.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sink the damn boats.
In international waters?
Yep.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Hawk, I'm not an Israeli partisan, I'm an American partisan. Our national policy has been to support Israel. We seem to be changing that policy, but doing it in a dishonest way.
If we want to stop supporting Israel, I'm all for that. But it seems were not just stopping aid for Israel, were supporting Palestine. That is wrong on so many levels.
Let them fight their own war. We shouldn't be involved on either side. IMO, we should step back and let them fight as they please instead of trying to act as police. We are not morally superior and have no right.
In the meantime I'd like to bring a little truth to the conflict. You're arguments are the opposite of truth.
Cheap, quick, mobile rockets need to be stored until they are used. Workers who move them need to be kept out of Israeli jails. Money, supplies, and materials all need to be stockpiled.
All of this can be done in tents, but it's a lot slower. More leaks and more losses occur. Nice, safe underground bunkers with hidden entrances allow for dozens of times as many rockets to be stockpiled and used as the situation on the ground changes.
Your seeming belief that armed men who are attacked with deadly weapons, knocked unconscious, and robbed of their weapons should not fight back is amazingly ignorant.
For most of history, bars of metal were the preferred weapon in boarding actions. In close fighting they are every bit as effective as guns. Were the outnumbered Israeli marines supposed to let themselves be killed?
BTW, I've been using Hamas as an umbrella term for the Israeli opposition in Gaza. There are many organizations and Hamas is relatively new (1980s?), with it's roots in the anti-government, fundamentalist Islamic movement. As such they seem to have more legitimacy than other Gaza movements.
Still, violent opposition to Israel using the same tactics and many of the same people is not new. If the PLO makes peace, another group refuses to and many of the violent people in the PLO switch to the new group.
Obviously the solution is to treat the Palestinians better. Yet the conflict has some roots in Islamic religion. Specifically many Moslems believe the Quran commands them to fight. There is probably no level of good treatment that will placate the more militant.
So Israel has chosen a hard line, suppress them and get on with their lives, approach. I can't blame them because I can't think of a better solution other than abandoning the country and moving en mass to Antarctica or someplace.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems like Rosa said this 'aid' could have gone to Ashdod, been off loaded and taken by road to Gaza. The organisers didn't want that, they wanted to sail to a port in Gaza and break the blockade.
Ah, so there is a blockade.
quote:
if they want true aid, just work with Israel and they will allow it to be delivered in an orderly way.
Wait. You just said there was a blockade, now you're saying the Israelis are passing stuff through unhindered. Which is it? International observers seem to think Israel is only letting a part of what is needed through. Why would this shipment be allowed through when the others have not? There is no reason to suppose so. None. Zip. This is just posturing.
quote:
Stop the Israel/ Jew vilification; its just to sickening.
Stop playing the Holocaust card. Nobody on this thread is vilifying Jews. We're criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, supposedly a democratic government (at least that's what its defenders in the West say), not a theocratic one. One can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. But even if it were a theocratic government, no government is beyond criticism. That's nuts. Human rights violations are human rights violations, even if done by the angelic hosts. And Israel is no angel.
quote:
But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit about us in the UK and EU being whiter than white,.....cos we aint!
Nobody on this thread has suggested otherwise. Engage with what we're actually saying, not with what you think we're saying.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
If this attack by the IDF happened in international waters then its an act of piracy.
Israel forgets that before it was a state there was several jewish freedom groups that did what the PLO, Hamas and others try to do for the arab .Get a state . The IDF personnel that carried out this operation are alike the RN sailors & RM's who manned the blockade of Palestine prior to Israeli statehood in May 1947 who aqrrested & detained refugees who had no where else to go.
Now these people were trying to get humanitarian supplies to people who are very cut off . I believe the UN should condem Israel . Maybe since the UN gave Israel statehood they can take it away.
There will be those who say that Israel has a God given right to exist . I am not one of them . Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust the 6 million would be ashamed to see Jewish soldiers acting like the people who killed them. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
[ 01. June 2010, 17:02: Message edited by: PaulBC ]
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
USS Liberty, maybe?
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.
[ 01. June 2010, 17:48: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
This was a declared blockade. It is in keeping with international law.
Not only is it not piracy, the blockade runners are pirates unless the country that owns the ships supports them in which case that's a cause of war between that country and Israel.
In any case the ships themselves are war prizes. If the ship's officers fought, they are POWs. If they didn't, those fighting are non-uniformed combatants and subject to summary execution.
Israel is on the side of international law here. Largely that's because might makes right, but that's how international law works.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?
Seem pretty active to me Who are you asking this question of? What prompted this assertion of yours, mousethief?...
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.
What about a ship full of journalists, peace activists, humanitarian aid workers, filmakers and cameramen, women and babies: as well as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, a member of parliament for the Malaysian government, the ex humanitarian aid coordinator for the UN and Assistant Secretary-General and a barrister and author (source - Guardian and this list)? Sailing towards a completly seperate neighbouring nation trying to deliver desperately needed medical supplies, and food to their starving children? Still okay to sink it?
[ 01. June 2010, 18:06: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.
What about a ship full of journalists, peace activists, humanitarian aid workers, filmakers and cameramen, women and babies: as well as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, a member of parliament for the Malaysian government, the ex humanitarian aid coordinator for the UN and Assistant Secretary-General and a barrister and author (source - Guardian and this list)? Sailing towards a completly seperate neighbouring nation trying to deliver desperately needed medical supplies, and food to their starving children? Still okay to sink it?
With all those lefties loons on board I'd damn sure sink it.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Of course blocades are bad things and the US would never do anything like that
quote:
The embargo has been criticized for its effects on food, clean water,[27] medicine, and other economic needs of the Cuban population. The Cuban population is in dire need of most of these items. Some academic critics, outside Cuba, have also linked it to shortages of medical supplies and soap which have resulted in a series of medical crises and heightened levels of infectious diseases.[28][29] It has also been linked to epidemics of specific diseases, including neurological disorders caused by poor nutrition[30] and blindness.[28] Travel restrictions embedded in the embargo have also been shown to limit the amount of medical information that flows into Cuba from the United States.[27] Malnutrition and disease resulting from increased food and medicine prices have affected men and the elderly, in particular, due to Cuba's rationing system which gives preferential treatment to women and children.[29]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
This was a declared blockade. It is in keeping with international law.
Not only is it not piracy, the blockade runners are pirates unless the country that owns the ships supports them in which case that's a cause of war between that country and Israel.
In any case the ships themselves are war prizes. If the ship's officers fought, they are POWs. If they didn't, those fighting are non-uniformed combatants and subject to summary execution.
Israel is on the side of international law here. Largely that's because might makes right, but that's how international law works.
Obviously I am not a lawyer but just a couple of minutes googling threw up this from the United Nations Law of the Sea part VII
Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.
4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.
Maybe a lawyer on board can let us know if this has been superceded by some other legislation that justifies Israel's actions?
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years. Do you know anything about the history here, or are you just making this all up?
Seem pretty active to me Who are you asking this question of? What prompted this assertion of yours, mousethief?...
Dude, did you read that link? It says quite clearly, "Hamas was created in 1987." That was 23 years ago, not 40. So I am correct when I say, "Hamas hasn't been around for 40 years." This isn't rocket surgery.
If you read the thread you will see who asserted that Hamas has been around for 40 years. It's always a good idea to read a thread before jumping in with a snippy comment.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
With all those lefties loons on board I'd damn sure sink it.
Here we see the right's understanding of civil rights. They're lefties, kill them. Anne Coulter, eat your hate-mongering, putrescence-filled, black heart out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If we want to stop supporting Israel, I'm all for that. But it seems were not just stopping aid for Israel, were supporting Palestine. That is wrong on so many levels.
Well, I don't know about America but my sympathy is always for those who are suffering rather than those causing the suffering.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Let them fight their own war. We shouldn't be involved on either side. IMO, we should step back and let them fight as they please instead of trying to act as police. We are not morally superior and have no right.
Bollocks, if that was American policy what the hell were you doing in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Gulf?
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Nice, safe underground bunkers with hidden entrances allow for dozens of times as many rockets to be stockpiled and used as the situation on the ground changes.
Maybe if they had the time, freedom and resources to construct something as audacious, your attempt at 'truth' would sound a little less far-fetched. Since today another rocket gang has been wiped out by rapid Israeli response as soon as they showed their heads, the concept that Israel would stand by while a large concrete underground bunker was excavated and constructed and then stocked with arms is pulled stright out of your head.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Your seeming belief that armed men who are attacked with deadly weapons, knocked unconscious, and robbed of their weapons should not fight back is amazingly ignorant.
It would be if you hadn't just made that up as well. I never said it so don't pretend I did.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
For most of history, bars of metal were the preferred weapon in boarding actions. In close fighting they are every bit as effective as guns.
Only because old muskets couldn't be reloaded quickly. Nowadays they're barely effective at all against soldiers with body armour and automatic weapons. Leading to 10 dead on the ships and minor injuries for the soldiers. Hardly an effective weapon!
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Were the outnumbered Israeli marines supposed to let themselves be killed?
No, what they should have done is not shoot first, not attack at night, give fair warning first, and take it slow and control the situation. The tactics were designed as though they were confronting enemy combatants, not civilians. Fast, brutal, rapid, designed to disorient and scare the opponent and get rapid access. Completely wrong for civilian situations which just created panic, terror and chaos. If you don't want to cause injuries then don't create a situation that creates them.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Let's not forget who were the aggressors in this skirmish. The aid boat people didn't board Israeli gunships fully armed. Did people who were attacked try to defend themselves? Golly gee, that's never happened before! This is state-sponsored terrorism. If this were a legitimate exercise it would have happened during the day, in Israeli (or at least Palestinian, since Israel is de-facto the ruler of Palestine) waters.
And can we please lose the absurd argument that since the US and the UK have done wicked things, therefore we have no right to criticize Israel, which is equivalent to saying that Israel has carte blanche to do whatever atrocities it feels like doing? If having done evil in the past makes us incapable of acting, then we should roll over and let whomever invade us who pleases. We should be silent if our enemies are attacked, and disband NATO. In short, red should be green and up, down. It's a fallacious argument and not worthy of anybody on this ship (except a certain few; PM me for names).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.
New Yorker, what relevance does your final sentence have to this discussion? Can you provide a source or some evidence for your implied assertion that the Mavi Marmara was "full of terrorists and terrorist supporters"?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
Irgun tzvai was a terrorist organization that was largely responsible for the setting up of the state of Israel. It's hardly surprising that the losers in that terrorist struggle should feel free to use terrorism against the winners - especially as the Israel voters frequently have elected former terrorists from that period in history, and the Likkud party traces itself back to Irgun.
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Umm, ok.
So are there any circumstances in which you would be against the unilateral sinking of ships in international waters?
How kind of you to ask. Generally speaking I oppose sinking ships in international or territorial waters. However, when a ship full of terrorists and terrorist supporters sails toward my nation intent on delivering material aid to known terrorists, I say sink it.
I'm just glad you're not Stanislav Petrov and hope you are a safe distance away both from any weapons and from making decisions about their use. Under a bridge, perhaps?
[ 01. June 2010, 19:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
It seems like Rosa said this 'aid' could have gone to Ashdod, been off loaded and taken by road to Gaza. The organisers didn't want that, they wanted to sail to a port in Gaza and break the blockade.
Ah, so there is a blockade.
quote:
if they want true aid, just work with Israel and they will allow it to be delivered in an orderly way.
Wait. You just said there was a blockade, now you're saying the Israelis are passing stuff through unhindered. Which is it? International observers seem to think Israel is only letting a part of what is needed through. Why would this shipment be allowed through when the others have not? There is no reason to suppose so. None. Zip. This is just posturing.
quote:
Stop the Israel/ Jew vilification; its just to sickening.
Stop playing the Holocaust card. Nobody on this thread is vilifying Jews. We're criticizing the actions of the Israeli government, supposedly a democratic government (at least that's what its defenders in the West say), not a theocratic one. One can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic. But even if it were a theocratic government, no government is beyond criticism. That's nuts. Human rights violations are human rights violations, even if done by the angelic hosts. And Israel is no angel.
quote:
But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit about us in the UK and EU being whiter than white,.....cos we aint!
Nobody on this thread has suggested otherwise. Engage with what we're actually saying, not with what you think we're saying.
If you care to read what I wrote I was expressing my personal indignation with the RAF bombing the fuck out of innocent Afghanis', not particularly saying Israel is right no matter what.
As far the Jew/Israel thing, it seems to me that people who live in fairly safe areas (like me in the UK) are happy to pontificate and bullshit whilst others live day in day out with terrorist threats and actions. The Jewish people are clearly not militaristic in the sense that they ''love'' the military; they have had to become skilled in the arts of war because the Arabs have continually wanted to shit on them.
The current bollocks is a set up and Israel responded wrongly, but the facts are that they didn't want to use lethal force and the first commandos on the large Turkish ship (the only one where there was violence in fact ) had paint marking ''guns''which hurt but do not kill, they did not come to use lethal force but were set on by these so called ''humanitarians''.
Let the Jews sort out there own destiny but don't come all the humanitarian bollocks when WE are bombing the shit out of Afghnistan civilians when we send in drone missiles and fairly often get it seriously wrong - that was my main point - the rank hypocrisy of our ruling military / political elite in the UK
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Let's not forget who were the aggressors in this skirmish.
Oh please, Mousethief. They knew the blockade was in place, they knew what was going to happen if they attempted to run it, they knew there were alternatives to running it, they chose to run it anyway.
Now I don't care if you think that's justified and appropriate, if you're a Palestinian supporter, or unjustified and inappropriate, if yuo're an Isreali supporter, but either way you have to face up to the fact that trying to run the blockade was aggressive. Passive-aggression, maybe. But aggressive.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm not bombing the shit out of anybody therefore I can say whatever the fuck I want about Israel's state-sponsored terrorism, thank you very much. Put down the logical fallacy and back away.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ooops, x-post. That was to Saul.
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
Let's not forget who were the aggressors in this skirmish.
Oh please, Mousethief.
Oh please yourself. You have to stand on your head to make delivering humanitarian aid an act of aggression. If you want to go that far, then you have to back up a step and make the blockade an act of aggression. And then the thing before that, and the thing before that, right back to the founding of the State of Israel which was the initial act of aggression that started the whole thing off. Suit yourself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Get off it, Mousethief. Running a blockade is aggressive. Justified aggression, maybe. Or not. But aggressive either way.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And imposing a blockade is aggressive. Get off it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
As far the Jew/Israel thing, it seems to me that people who live in fairly safe areas (like me in the UK) are happy to pontificate and bullshit whilst others live day in day out with terrorist threats and actions.
True but at the same time the Israeli people have it far far better than the Palestinians. At least Israelis have homes that haven't been occupied, jobs they aren't walled off from, and the threat of danger is minor compared to living under the shadow of nuclear armed, phosphurus-throwing missile-launching Israel. Palestinian terrorists use home-made IEDs and rockets that rarely hit anything at all. Israel has a vast, highly funded, top-of the range military machine able to kettle a population and lay waste to it at will. And has recently done so. If you can show so much empathy for Israeli plight, save a little for the Palestinians as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The current bollocks is a set up and Israel responded wrongly, but the facts are that they didn't want to use lethal force and the first commandos on the large Turkish ship (the only one where there was violence in fact ) had paint marking ''guns''which hurt but do not kill, they did not come to use lethal force but were set on by these so called ''humanitarians''.
Well, that's the propaganda from the Israeli spindoctors in any case. The same ones who denied ever using phosphurus. The reports from the activists though claim the IDF attacked without provocation, launched live ammunition and tear gas onto the ships before landing, and the violence on the video happened AFTER the shots were fired, not before. Of course, neither side is unbiased, but lets not just accept everything the Israelis say as gospel please.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
As I said, I don't care if you think running the blockade is justified or not. It's aggressive. Justified aggression or unjustified aggression is still aggression.
Therefore in this situation the aggression was started by the blockade runners.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Imposing a blockade is an act of aggression. Therefore the aggression was started by Israel.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
And actually, thinking about it, no, I don't think you can claim maintaining a blockade or embargo is aggressive per se. Do you seriously maintain that we have been constantly maintaining an aggressive relationship towards Cuba, for instance? Unfriendly, unjustified, hostile, even, but not aggressive. Not by any normal meaning of the word aggressive.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
