Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dale_M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquinas62 said:
because i can, ok?? BTW stop being so hostile, if you read my post, i was addressing the issue in a general manner, and not you specifically. I just used your question, sorry, I didn’t know it was copyrighted.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t being hostile but you were being rude. Your apology is accepted - again.
 
trdchubi said:
No, in fact I have to deal with a third one here
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. I thought I detected a tendency to direct translation in your posts 🙂 Though English is now my dominant language, it is not my first, either, and I still have that same tendency to direct translation - and I only have to deal with two languages:p
 
Yellow_Belle said:
I wasn’t being hostile but you were being rude. Your apology is accepted - again.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t apologizing, and I think the rudeness had cut both ways. you took offense where none was intended and ignored the point I was trying to make, and yes, my response was rude.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Interesting opening line in the article:

I see.

The losses dont begin with the killing of 9 peace activists then.
Click to expand...
No, the losses begin with the Israeli soldiers being battered. that is a loss for them, just as it would be for anyone getting the snot pummeled out of them.

David Frum then seriously wonders if the 9 peace activists ought be tallied in the loss or win column. If it was truly martyrdom that they sought, then they would see themselves as being winners.

It is like the Hamas who described his cause as loving death as much as the Jews love life. Liberals just seem incapable of understanding that the whole world is not bleeding hearts like liberals tend to be. this is not a tragedy for true Islamists but a victory.

The whole premise of the Frum argument is that Turkey’s Islamist government is the true winner. The Turkey military has been the ally of Israel for decades now.Now the Islamist Turkish government has Turkish blood spilled, and this is the gore than they can rally their people around in their political maneuverings against the secular Turkish military.
 
MugenOne said:
Mate,

If the activists were truly peaceful, none of this would have happened. Everytime we have hippie (liberal/tree hugger) protest, it always results in property or bodily damages. The left can’t control themselves. They love anarchy.
Click to expand...
You know, if commandos boarded a ship I was on illegally, there’s a high chance I might fight back even though I hate violence
 
It is illegal for a military force to board a foreign ship on international water. Since the ship was technically Turkish ground, it was an act of war against Turkey. I say prosecute those responsible for the attack
 
Israel is not accountable to any entity. While there may be “international law” and “international maritime law”, Israel does not have to comply nor does it have to consent to any investigation and trial.

And furthermore, we are all to be silent about this incident and just let it slide.

This is an excerpt from this article…
**IS ISRAEL EXEMPT FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW?
**
**By Rev. Ted Pike
7 June 10
**

"Here are some of Israel’s skewed terms, [ interviewDaily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=115591) with renowned international law expert, Marcello Kohen:
  • “Armed Conflict” and “Blockade” — Israel says it is at “armed conflict” with Gaza’s leadership, Hamas, and this justifies its blockade. Yet international law says a blockade is justified only in international armed conflict (IAC) between nations - not a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Gaza is not a state but an occupied territory of Israel. Despite violations, Hamas did agree to a truce after Israel’s bombardment 17 months ago. According to UN General Assembly resolution 3314, the Israeli blockade is illegal - an act of aggression and collective punishment against the people of Gaza.
  • “Custody” — Israel says it has the right, as do nations at war, to intercept (possibly violently) and seize ships of other nations in international waters who might penetrate their blockade. These include ships in the flotilla registered by Turkey, Greece, and the United States. Yet if Israel’s blockade is illegal, Israel’s commandeering of such ships in international waters is an act of war against non-combatant nations.
  • “Self-Defense” —If Israel’s interception of the flotilla was illegal, then it was defenders of the flotilla, not Israel’s commandos, who acted in self-defense. They were entitled to defensive, even violent resistance.
  • “Terrorist Sympathizers” — Israel asserts that since some of the flotilla passengers from 40 countries have ties with Hamas, all 700 may be arrested, detained, deprived of free speech and action, and looted of belongings such as cameras and computers. By such actions, Israel says *anyone in the world *who strongly sympathizes with Palestinian rights has no rights under Israel’s interpretation of international law.
  • “Provoking” and “Violent”— Days before the flotilla was raided, Israel described its relief efforts as “violent propaganda” meant to discredit the Jewish state. Israel implies that Israel’s critics are unstable and imminently lawless; they should be restricted before they actually commit violence. "
 
It’s a little like terrorists or their supporters claiming rights under the Geneva Conventions when the terrorists are not in any way, shape or form signatories to the Geneva Conventions.
 
Archie said:
— Israel says it is at “armed conflict” with Gaza’s leadership, Hamas, and this justifies its blockade
Click to expand...
The British were in armed conflict with the IRA and their leadership for more than 30 years.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if the British Government authorised The Royal Navy to cordon off the North of Ireland with a blocade, threw up a massive no-mans land along the border with the south, and put the catholic inhabitants of the six counties that comprise the North ‘‘on a diet’’.

No civilized country would think that was acceptable.

Neither did the British apparently.

Maybe the Brits are just that bit smarter, and realised the IRA were not a country or a state, but freedom fighters or terrorists (tick what is applicable according to your politics).

While the British troops did operate stop and search, manned border controls etc there was complete freedom of movement, and commerce and general society continued to function.

In fact, in the 70’s at the height of the campaigns, bus companies regularly ran ‘‘shopping trips’’ to the North from the South because things like petrol and electrical goods were considerably cheaper there when the pound/punt - sterling exchange rate was taken into account.
 
Baer said:
Luckily international law and treaty disagrees with you. Israel has no right to run the blockade against the West Bank, just as they have no right to assassinate individuals in Dubai, spy on America, or use White Phosphorous ammunition. Let me remind you to that the ship was flying the Turkish flag and in international waters, meaning that this could be construed as an act of war against not just Turkey, but NATO as a whole.
Click to expand...
Nopers! Nowhere except in your dreams, that is.
Secondly, try getting your facts straight: There is no blockade against Judea and Samaria.

1: Israel has sovereignty in the waters outside of the Gaza strip, as specified by the Oslo agreement.

2: The use of white phosphorous IS allowed, though not as anti-personnel ammunition. And I would like you to prove that’s what Israel has done.

3: The only way that ship would fall under the category specified in the NATO-treaty, is if it was a Turkish warship, on active duty for the Turkish navy.
Yet, in THAT case Turkey would have been the aggressor, and given Israel casus belli, in which case it is then doubtful if article 5 could be applied.

Care to try again?
 
O_Duirnin said:
You show me evidence that this section only applies to military vessels - so far you haven’t done so.
Click to expand...
Here ya go:
QUOTE=NATO Treaty, article 6]
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
The NATO-treaty was drafted when the threat looming was not people smuggling contraband, but Ivan the Barbarian standing at the gates, ready to invade and subjugate the nation-states of Europe under the yoke of Communism. He would attack the military forces (land- naval- and air) of the Western democracies, and invade their territory, and article 5 ensured that he couldn’t pick off the nations of the West one by one without all of them fighting back.

It was the first part of article 6 (territory) which allowed the US to activate article 5 after 9/11.
If Israel had landed commandos in Istanbul (or whereever the headquarters of the terrorist-sympathizers were), and blown up the place, THEN there might be a cause for talking about activating article 5. Or if it had been a Turkish warship, but, as I’ve said, then Turkey would’ve been the aggressor.
O_Duirnin said:
Turkey have called an emergency meeting of NATO, and Article 5 has been given some mention in the British press, although nothing as yet has been heard from the Turkish Government.
Click to expand...
LOL :rotfl:
Yeah, how did it go with that? Can you tell me? British press (the press in general, to be honest) doesn’t always wait for the facts…or even care about them.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I agree and will also boycott Israeli goods. For a year now, my mother has been planning to visit Rome and the Holy Land, which she wants to do before she dies.

I will encourage her to go on her Italian visit, but will do all in my power to disusade her from going to Israel. It’s not much that I can do, perhaps only a gesture, but it’s what I am able to do and shall do.

Those who find Israel spotless may go visit in her place and make up for the revenues lost by her absence…
Click to expand...
So you don’t begrudge your mother the immense experience of seeing the places of the birth of Christ, the life of Christ, and the death of Christ, during this one life that she has, even though she has the means and the ability? Just because of your political views?

I have no words…well, yeah, I do, but they’d get me suspended…
 
MugenOne said:
Is the Mossad blood thirsty? Why would someone feel like he or she is going to die by meeting with them?

From what I have heard from my former partner in Saudi Arabia, the reasons the Liberty was sunk were because the U.S. was alleged of spying on the Israelis and supplying information to the Arabs. They felt like the U.S. was jeopardizing their mission. So, they had to take action and sunk the Liberty. Then, claimed it as an accident. Was my partner correct?
Click to expand...
Your partner in Saudi Arabia…
Let’s dwell on that…and then rethink the potential truth of his claim. It’s a bit like asking a Neo-Nazi if the Holocaust happened - the answer is straight-forward.

Of course a Saudi-Arabian would concoct such a story! It’s right up their alley!
 
Gift_from_God said:
It is illegal for a military force to board a foreign ship on international water. Since the ship was technically Turkish ground, it was an act of war against Turkey. I say prosecute those responsible for the attack
Click to expand...
sigh
This “act of war against Turkey”-manure is getting really old, really fast…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top