Reports: Israeli ships attack aid flotilla

reply to post by JohnnyElohim

Well the people on the boat were not guilty of anything when they were attacked. One can be forgiving but still insist that certain things stop. Martin Luther King Jr. was forgiving of his oppressors but spoke with clarity and articulated frustration the ugly injustices being perpetrated. I am not calling for terrible things to happen to the Israelis, though I do believe that the Israeli military officials involved in this action should be held to account for their actions.

I said in the beginning the people in charge messed up, on both sides,

but then I weighed all sides, and I have to be impartial,

Five ships had no violence, one did, as they said it was a win win situation I have to in all honesty question their motives as well, and if they had just let it go, perhaps no one would have died, so does that make them just as guilty?

Because they knowingly put innocent people in harms way?

Then I watched the Pollywood videos, as in all conflicts and wars both sides use propaganda.



[edit on 033030p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


OH Proto I don't know why you always have to resort to this sort of argument.

You don't have to be so personally,

You don't have to be so defensive.

But you words betray you.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Murder of humanitarian aide workers, so people who can't even identify the simple truth of what has happened, probably ought not be wasting time imagining the motives of people who want to speak to the truth.

They are at war with one another, let's face it.

They weren't at war with the Humanitarian aid workers, were they?
They sure acted as if they were.

- Lee

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Aquarius1
Too late, I saw what you wrote before you edited it out, I am one of Proto's Jewish friends, he not only cares about Jews but has deep caring and compassion for them, that includes all people, I know that is true or I wouldn't give him the time day. Proto is someone who goes out of his way to find out about people, their backgrounds and problems they may be facing and gives any help that is needed if he can, he looks at all people as one.

Oh, look at that. Another person who didn't get the point of the exercise. The point was not to call him anti-Semitic. Who cares? Even if he was an anti-Semite, it wouldn't make him automatically wrong. The point was to use the same tactics he is employing. Not actually talking to people about their beliefs, but making accusations based on assumptions.

There is a quote function on ATS for a reason.

Quote please where I am using tactics that are akin to calling some one an anti-Semite.

I am not making accusations based on assumptions.

In fact I am not making accusations at all but stating simple facts, humanitarian aide workers have been murdered by soldiers for attempting to deliver Charity.

They were humanitarian aide workers, they were in the process of attempting to deliver charity, the charity they were delivering was real and so is the need for it.

They were stopped by soldiers from personally doing that and 10 of them were murdered by soldiers in that process and another 48 wounded by the soldier's gunfire.

Those are not accusations those are facts with all of these things documented and established.

All I am asking you is a simple question, why do you want to live in a police state where armed troops are used to regulate the people and sanctioned to murder them for being charitible.

Because that is what you are condoning here, period!

Really, that's what happened, period.

All I am asking you is a simple question as to why you think the rest of us would then want to live in the Police State where soldiers regulate us and execute us for being charitible since that is clearly what you are advocating based on the truth of what really happened and based on you condoning and promoting and defending what happened as some kind of virtue and good thing.

So no there is no accusation involved anywhere.

Just questions to a person who promotes murder of humanitarian aide workers and a police state regulated by soldiers.

Simple questions, you refuse to answer.

So my tactics are neither disengenous, false or have changed, I want to know why you are promoting these things, and why you want us all to live in a police state where soldiers have the power to execute people for being charitible.

Hint for you, if you are not denouncing Israeli actions then you are condoning them, and the questions are valid.

So denounce Israeli actions, and invalidate the questions by so doing, or answer the questions.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

OH Proto I don't know why you always have to resort to this sort of argument.

You don't have to be so personally,

You don't have to be so defensive.

But you words betray you.

Still deflecting away from simple questions I see?

I am not being deffensive I am pointing out the fact that none of the people such as yourself who advocate the murder of humanitarian aide workers by soldiers for having conducted a charitible mission of mercy can actually speak to why they condone this or why the rest of us should accept such a world.

That is not being defensive, being defensive is deflecting away from the questions.

Your words are in fact betraying you, most of all the ones you aren't speaking when deflecting away from very serious and thoughtful questions.

So I guess you have no reason why we should accept the murder by soldiers of humanitarian aide workers.

So you are just on the thread to promote murder by the state, for the sake of murder by the state?



[edit on 5/6/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by twitchy
Good grief man, look at what you're really saying here.

I know full well what I am saying, but do you? Perhaps you can tell me what I am doing different from ProtoplasmicTraveler.

Truth is, there is no difference. It is the same tactic, just different words. Everything stopped so ProtoplasmicTraveler and friends could defend him. Discussion of the actual topic suffered. I got the same results that ProtoplasmicTraveler wanted with his off-topic, red-herring and bullying accusations.

And it is not just me he is doing it to but anyone who disagrees with him.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All you are doing is attempting to answer questions, with questions. That is a control and deflection tactic.

You are doing the exact same thing. Instead of addressing points people made, you attempt to control the conversation by bullying anyone who does agree with you.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
For quid pro quo to work, you must first answer the questions put to you.

I am not looking for quid-pro-quo work. I am illustrating a point. The accusing questions I am asking you are no different than what you are doing. The desired results are the same.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Once again the quote function on ATS is there for a reason, instead of editorializing what I haven't obviously done, in yet another attempt to deflect away from the very probing questions I have put to you, quote what I have said that substantiates these accusations that you are making.

Proto has made it clear I condemn this act of piracy and murder of humanitarian aide workers in international waters by uniformed soldiers of a state.

There is no red herring involved there, as uniformed soldiers of the Israeli State did murder 10 humanitarian aide workers, and wounded 48 others by gunfire for engaging in a charity mission to help the needy.

You are advocating the acceptance of the police state where uniformed soldiers regulate all activity including charity and are given the power of life and death to execute others including for attempting to give charity to others.

No one is defending me, they are denouncing your attacks on me, which you are using as a form of deflection to not answer two very simple questions put to you pages ago.

Why do you advocate murder by the state and soldiers regulating us and prohibiting charitible acts of giving, why do you believe the rest of us would want to live in such a world?

You sure have typed a lot of posts to avoid having to answer those questions.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Once again you are wasting a lot of time in not answering the simple questions put to you.

I will in fact answer your questions which you posed as a means to deflect away from my questions, just as soon as you answer my questions.

I have a reputation for answering everyone's questions here on ATS and quite patiently so. On a very, very, very wide array of topics.

I also have a reputation for keeping focused on the topic and not being diverted away from it.

So just as soon as you answer my questions, I will in fact answer your questions.

You are pretending my questions are leading, but in reality they are not leading.

They are suppositional based on the evidence of you in fact supporting and condoning the police state actions of armed soldiers who mudered humanitarian aide workers, at point blank range, and wounded scores of others.

You though are free to give what answer you want even one that contradicts the supposition based on your documented actions and say "No proto, I condemn what the Israeli state did too, I sure don't want to live in a police state where we are all regulated by soldiers."

So no one is forcing you to answer the questions in a specific way, just asking you very specific questions based on what you are condoning and defending in your posts.

See how that works.

In a court of law you would be compelled to answer such questions as they were put to you.

I suppose this is why you advocate a police state run by soldiers who can just execute people for asking questions that would be incriminating to you to answer honestly?

Everyone on ATS can see in fact you are desperate not to have to answer questions that very much do pertain to your position and what you are advocating.

There is a reason why other posters to see merrit in those questions for that reason, and why they too, are chagrined over your inability and fear in answering them.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by JohnnyElohim

 

You are arguing that love and forgiveness mean turning a blind eye to atrocity, ethnic cleansing, the slaughter of civilians?

No I am not, I am asking who deserves forgiveness and who doesn't?

Does it apply to everyone, or does it not,

All are guilty in some form or another.


That is not to say we don't have to pay for breaking laws, or our sins.

What does turning the other cheek mean?

You are defending bloody thugs who attacked people in international waters where they have no jurisdiction, like defending a rapist for raping and killing a victim who tried to fight back.

You have fallen very deep.

Shame on you.

You have lost all respect you had on this forum.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am not being deffensive I am pointing out the fact that none of the people such as yourself who advocate the murder of humanitarian aide workers by soldiers for having conducted a charitible mission of mercy can actually speak to why they condone this or why the rest of us should accept such a world.

I've seen this international travesty condoned and supported in one of five different ways.

1) IDF Self-Defense:

After the IDF dropped down onto the vessel, the passengers either attacked them, or retaliated against their attack, thus giving them the green light to blow them away.

Ignoring the accounts from the passengers that state that they were fired upon before armed commandos dropped from those helicopters, this point seems negated by the fact that they had no right to raid the flotilla in the first place.

2) Legality:

They had a legal right to raid the peace flotillas because it broke their blockade and under the "San Remo Manual on International law" this action is permitted.

Not only is it not applicable in this case (Hammas isn't a State) they left out the fact that the manual also mentions that any blockade such as the one Israel has instituted is NOT permitted. The blockade is in violation of "UNSC resolutions" as well as "Articles of the Geneva Convention" that deals with this level of collective punishment.

Currently Israel has broken around 66 UN resolutions and without repercussions.
More than most of the nations we consider to be rogue, like North Korea or Iran.
Once again Israel is shamelessly quoting a group of laws it has no problem violating.

3) State of Israel Self-Defense:

Israel is defending herself against possible future attacks and this is merely "breaking some eggs" for the greater good.

A strange tactic that would seem to generate more enemies rather than eliminate the threat of a single one.

Seems hardly worth the effort to smuggle in what the Israelis photographed as weaponry which consisted of kitchen knives, sticks and a chain.

4) Israel Warned Them

See above.

Similar to, and equally as callous as what Jack Nicholson said when he heard Heath Ledger had died.

5) Christian Theology:

Israel and its people are Gods chosen and the land given to them by God is being threatened by insane invaders from Satans hordes. Israel must be defended at all costs and it is sinful not to do so.

I don't even wanna touch that one.

- Lee

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
There is a quote function on ATS for a reason.

Funny you should bring that up. At no point have you actually quoted any point I have made and explained why it is wrong. All you have done is made red-herring accusations after red-herring accusations. Unlike others here, I am not intimidated by you and I see right through your tactics.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Quote please where I am using tactics that are akin to calling some one an anti-Semite.

Such as...?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You might want to check personally with Propaganda Minister Goebbels before speaking so poorly on your own again.

You never call me a Nazi or a fascist in some many words, but the implication is there, with your accusations that I (and other members who do not agree with you) advocate a fascist police state and murder.

Possessing little in the way of any sort of self-awareness, you fall to recognize the rest of your post is laden with red-herring accusation after red-herring accusation, never addressing any points that I have made, but deflecting away from them, so you can attempt to bully and control the conversation.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I am not making accusations based on assumptions.

In fact I am not making accusations at all but stating simple facts, humanitarian aide workers have been murdered by soldiers for attempting to deliver Charity...

Those are not accusations those are facts with all of these things documented and established.

Those are not the accusations we are talking about, and you know it. Another one of your deflecting tactics. We are talking about the accusations you have made of me and others who do not agree with you.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All I am asking you is a simple question, why do you want to live in a police state where armed troops are used to regulate the people and sanctioned to murder them for being charitible.

This would be one of those accusations...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Because that is what you are condoning here, period!

And that is what you are assuming.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
All I am asking you is a simple question as to why you think the rest of us would then want to live in the Police State where soldiers regulate us and execute us for being charitible since that is clearly what you are advocating based on the truth of what really happened and based on you condoning and promoting and defending what happened as some kind of virtue and good thing.

Another accusation, not based on anything I have actually said, other than the fact you found some disagreement in something I said.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Just questions to a person who promotes murder of humanitarian aide workers and a police state regulated by soldiers.

Another ad hominem accusation.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I want to know why you are promoting these things, and why you want us all to live in a police state where soldiers have the power to execute people for being charitible.

And another ad hominem accusation.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Hint for you, if you are not denouncing Israeli actions then you are condoning them, and the questions are valid.

"If you are not with us, you are against us." Right?

The questions are not valid. Seeing the complexities of the situation is not the same as advocating or condoning murder, a police state or genocide. The logic you are employing is exactly the same as "If you criticize Israel, you are an anti-Semite." Same logic, different words.