Israeli Commando: 'We Had No Choice': (I beleive this guy more than anyone else)

page: 15
79
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by Libertygal
 


This was an allegation from a single French magistrate, not a fact. In fact all of the ties beyond the diplomatic ones are allegations and most of the allegations come from Israel.

Allegation != Terrorist.

There are allegations that Israeli snipers target Palestinian children and laugh at it. Shall we bring unsupported allegations into the dialog, then? There are plenty to go around.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by JohnnyElohim]


Funny. There are allegations against "Israeli Snipers", so you are justified in villifying all Israel, but allegations against the others... are 'just allegations', not to be taken seriously...


Thanks, bub. I needed to start my day with a good laugh!

[edit on 2010/6/5 by nenothtu]


Please show where I have vilified all of Israel. I work hard to keep my criticism focused. If you cannot do so, please admit to the forum at large that you are mistaken as I do not appreciate dishonest attacks on my character.

Thanks.




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 


NONONONONONO

a group that launches assualt against civilians in attempt to push an agenda is a terrorist


But in your argument above did you not posit that we could not call this a terrorist action, piracy, etc, because it was performed by a commissioned military on behalf of a state?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Right...(i think)...

Israel is taking military action in response to terrorist attacks. Instead of violent action, they have placed an embargo...And its working



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
Right...(i think)...

Israel is taking military action in response to terrorist attacks. Instead of violent action, they have placed an embargo...And its working


It sounds like you are confusing the blockade with the violent attack on a ship commissioned for a humanitarian mission. Further, the blockade does constitute a form of collective punishment and is vastly harmful to the generational equity of Palestinians. Each day the blockade is in place does immeasurable harm to future generations of Palestinians. What we are essentially saying here is that Israeli lives are simply more important.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 


You ARE talking about the Mavi Marmara right?

Even after all the information i provided showing that this ship wasnt on a humanitarian mission?

To play devils advocate, I could probably make a case for Israel in that I consider body armor to be military items...So they werent shipping rockets this time they were shipping body armor



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by JohnnyElohim
 


You ARE talking about the Mavi Marmara right?

Even after all the information i provided showing that this ship wasnt on a humanitarian mission?

To play devils advocate, I could probably make a case for Israel in that I consider body armor to be military items...So they werent shipping rockets this time they were shipping body armor


No, you have not presented any compelling evidence undermining the ships role in a humanitarian mission. You have introduced a theory suggesting that there were other ulterior motives but the evidence introduced is essentially a recycling of IDF propaganda. There were no real weapons on the boat. The defensive supplies (gas masks, bullet proof vests) are not incriminating. You take them to be evidence of an ulterior motive but the fact is there were no rockets, no bombs, no guns. The Isrealis did not have prior knowledge of what was on the boat, so one cannot say they were justified because they knew there were bullet proof vests. And even if they did know, it is still not a justified action.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Sad thing it is when people see common items that would be on a boat... i.e. sticks , cooking knives etc. and use it as a justification for smuggling arms into a nation.... whoever sent those "armaments" was retarded or playing a practical joke on Hamas.

And to clarify I do not really support either Israel or Hamas. I think they are both terrorists and terrorize each other. Just because one side has uniforms does not change their actions or the intent of those actions. Anyone who believes so has the veil of ignorance blinding them.

I do however believe that Hamas or whatever forces the Palestinian people decide to ally with have the right to defend their land from invaders. And that is exactly what Israel is doing. If you know anything about the history between Israel and Gaza you would know Israel has been the instigator of violence for a long time.

Now it seems they both cannot agree in peace as the hatred was fueled for too long and they may never coexist peacefully. It is a shame.

What is Hamas started to blockade boats giving Israel aid? Would it be looked at the same? After all , for every 1 Israel death there are 100 or more Palestinian deaths. Is it cool that Israel gets its weapons while the people dying get nothing to defend themselves?




[edit on 5-6-2010 by IamBoon]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Well i posted a list of facts in the middle of page 13 of this thread...




1. Israel had a naval blockade in place due to an armed conflict with Hamas.
2. The Mavi Marmara was loaded by an organization that has suspected ties to terror groups.
3. The organization that loaded the Mavi Marmara made public statements to their intent to break through the blockade.
4. The Mavi Marmara is not part of the turkish naval fleet.
5. Israel provided several warnings for the Mavi Marmara to leave or to enter port for inspection.
6. The Mavi Marmara ignored the warnings and entered restricted blockade space.
7. Israel responded by sending a small contingent of marines via a blackhawk helicopter.
8. The marines were attacked violently as they fastroped onto the deck of the ship.
9. The occupants of the Mavi Marmara were not just captain and crew.
10. The marines issued warnings to stop violent action.
11. The activists continued their assualt on the marines.
12. The marines fired utilizing handguns (of the glock variety i believe) killing 9 activists.


The point is that this cruise ship was on a mission. The mission was to garner negative feelings toward Israel and draw attention to the blockade.

I cant say whether or not the ship was actually carrying any food or other supplies. I havent seen the info on that.

A kitchen knife is a kitchen knife when you are cutting up lettuce for a salad. A kitchen knife is a weapon when you take it out of the kitchen and plunge it into another persons stomach.

Same thing with ship railings...they are supposed to be affixed to the ship...not cut off and used as bludgeons

[edit on 5-6-2010 by BingeBob]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Yeah, I saw the "weapons" too. As a matter of fact, those "weapons" weren't "weapons" at all.


Whatever you use as a weapon IS a weapon. If you think not, you mean to say you wouldn't MIND getting whacked in the head with steel pipe?



It was stuff that was laying around the ship that were used for self defense when they were illegally fired upon by the psychopathic Israelis.


"Laying around"? No. The pipes were purposely cut from the ships handrails. That's not a spur of the moment operation, I don't care WHAT you've seen on tv shows like "The A-Team". That was done ahead of time, to make... WEAPONS. A clear demonstration of premeditated intent.



Anyone that calls those tools weapons are simply making excuses for the Israelis because they don't want to believe the situation that is occurring right before their eyes. Or, they're just simply DELUSIONAL.


OR... they might just have a clue about 'improvised weaponry'. The same axe that splits a chunk of wood will split a chunk of head. 'Weapon' would fall under the category of 'useage' there.



You're trying to complain that the people who were fired upon were not Pacifists???


So I guess 'pacifism is in the eye of the beholder'? Cool. There's hope for me yet, then. I can have weapons and improvised weapons all over my house, and still claim 'pacifism' if I use them? "Your Honor, it's ok that I attacked those folks, 'cause I'm a pacifist. Here's my card to prove it."



Let me tell you right now...Pacifism goes out the window when someone is firing bullets at you.


Yeah, that's exactly why I stay away from situations where folks are firing bullets, if I don't have a real need to be there. The math on that is pretty simple, and it don't take a rocket scientist.



And not a single ONE of those activists had guns, knives, or anything of the sort. They had tools that were already on the ship that they used to defend themselves.


I've already addressed the improvised weaponry, but now you throw knives into the mix. I'm guessing your contention is that the cuts and stab wounds were REALLY just fingernail marks, right?



It was the Europeans that were on board that caused the public outrage after viewing what the Israelis did to INNOCENT people. Imagine what would have happened if the Israelis had accidentally killed ONE OF THE EUROPEANS.


Be one more dead, and that's about it. Looks like the Europeans might have been bright enough not to be in on the attack to begin with, hence no need to pop 'em.



But, as it were, Israel only killed a few "WORTHLESS" Muslims, so people like YOU can rest easy and place the blame back on the Western made Boogeyman of the Islamic faith without having to lose a seconds worth of sleep.


OR... they only had a need to neutralize the ones that were attacking? Not too complex an idea for you too handle, is it? Sorry, I couldn't figure out a way to inject the emotion you seem to crave into it.



So, let me get this straight... in this age, even self defense is viewed upon by the "hopelessly brainwashed" as aggression,


How was it 'self defense'? No one on the other ships felt an irrational need for 'self defense', and lo and behold, none of them got themselves all corpsified! See how that can work?



and something as simple as a pipe from aboard a ship can be considered a "viable" weapon against machine guns being wielded by highly trained COMMANDOS. Is that close? Am I representing your opinion with accuracy here?


Close, except for the "machine gun" part. I'm overly familiar with weapons. I invite anyone who cares to to have a go at a pipe wielding little old me, as long as all they bring is a paintball gun with pepper balls. That's only a "machine gun" to fearful San Franciscans. Add in a ballistic vest and gas mask for me against those pepper balls, and I won't even worry about how many 'rounds' they can crank off before I crush their heads with my 'non-weaponized, steel pipe.

If I'm ever in that situation, can I hire you for a defense attorney?



HAVE YOU LISTENED TO YOURSELF???


Can't hear myself for all the emotional whining going on here.



Final example: Lets say someone were to come to your home with a 9 millimeter and start shooting while attempting to break into your house. They make their way into your home, and somehow you're able to neutralize the assailant by smashing a lamp over his head because its the only thing at your disposal. The next thing that you know, you're being arrested in your own home for defending yourself against this lunatic. Then the lunatic decides to sue you because of your act of aggression against him. The next thing that you know, you're having to explain your side of the story to the American public for nothing more than trying to protect you and your family. That's right. Now, you're the criminal.


I can avoid that by simply not calling up the local element that does break-ins, and telling them I'm gonna drive my house through their turf, daring them to try to break in to it, and then proceeding down the street at the wheel of my house. Had to use that analogy, because I don't think my house would float very well in the way that ships travel, but If I jacked it up and put a truck under it, I might get it mobile enough for an invasion attempt.

Aren't wild, non-analagous analogies fun?



Believe it or not, this exact scenario has happened before because people LIKE YOU have made it possible for a CRIMINAL to get away with MURDER because of the subjective way that they CHOOSE to view the story, as opposed to looking at the HARD facts that surround the event. Those commandos didn't even get a splinter, while people died and were injured on the other side of the coin.


Yeah. My dear old dad told me to never take a knife to a gun fight, and I guess the same applies to steel pipes. If folks have guns on them somewhere, and you whack them enough with steel pipes, you probably ought not to be surprised at the results. The real strange part is, if these Israelis were as murderous as you claim, how did anyone get within arms reach with a steel pipe to begin with?



I bet you're the type of person that claims that there are two sides of a story when a woman gets raped as well. "Spin," as you call it. Tell me, when a woman gets raped...DOES SHE DESERVE IT??? Does she cease to be a pacifist, in your eyes, when she has the AUDACITY to defend herself against the advances of a lunatic??? Was she asking for it???


Irrelevant appeal to emotion. No women were raped in the production of this video.



Why don't you put that into perspective and come again when you've applied some critical thought to this situation.


Likewise.



Jesus wept.


Research it, find out why, and then report back how that applies here.

Edit: to fix quote tags


[edit on 2010/6/5 by nenothtu]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Quote of the week...




The same axe that splits a chunk of wood will split a chunk of head.


The people that are going to argue with you are the same that argue with me and the same that dont read posts on the thread they are posting on.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

Please show where I have vilified all of Israel. I work hard to keep my criticism focused. If you cannot do so, please admit to the forum at large that you are mistaken as I do not appreciate dishonest attacks on my character.

Thanks.


Well, you could review your post history, and let the spin begin, but to avoid a pissing contest that would have not much bearing on the topic at hand, I'll amend my statement to say you just villify those who defend Israel's very existence, those standing between Israelis and oblivion.

Feel better now?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BingeBob
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Quote of the week...




The same axe that splits a chunk of wood will split a chunk of head.


The people that are going to argue with you are the same that argue with me and the same that dont read posts on the thread they are posting on.


That would be the same folks who can't comprehend why "Arms and Armor" is a phrase often uttered inseperably. They don't seem to understand that 'defensive' weapons and 'offensive' weapons are the same thing, with different uses. BOTH are just tool to assist in the conduct of belligerence. Gas masks and ballistic vests, keep one happily uninjured while allowing him to attack with relative impunity. Neither is inherently 'evil', they're just tools, like a hammer (which I've ALSO seen used as a weapon - go figure). It's all in the usage.

How this simple fact escapes them is beyond me, but 'blinded by emotion' comes to immediate mind.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
many people here do not understand WHEN a country CAN board a ship in international waters.

Israel had the right to board these ships.


In international waters, are you beyond the reach of the law?

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Freedom of the seas is a fundamental principle of the law, but it only applies to countries. At sea ordinary folks remain subject to at least one nation's jurisdiction--sometimes more.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) lays out the current rules. As of April 2006, 149 nations had ratified the LOSC.

The protective principle. According to Amnesty International:

National law in most states permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct by persons abroad which harms the national--particularly the security--interests of the forum state in violation of its own national criminal law (protective or security principle or compétence réelle ou compétence du protection). This principle has been used to prosecute national security offences; currency offences; counterfeiting currency, stamps, seals and emblems; desecration of flags; economic crimes; forgery, fraud or perjury in connection with official documents, such as passports and visas; immigration offences and political offences.


These ships had already stated that they were going to violate Israels blockade.
That cleared Israel to board them.


Traditionally, where the territorial sea ends, the high seas began and the laws of the coastal State no longer apply. However, policing maritime zones is no easy matter and, unlike land boundaries, they are simple to cross. It would therefore be easy for vessels to commit offences within the territorial sea but to evade arrest by moving just a little further seaward. The answer is to permit coastal States to arrest vessels outside their territorial seas in connection with offences that either have been committed or which it is suspected are going to be committed within their territorial sea.


The ships told every one they were going to break Israel blockada.
This gave Israel the right to board at any time to keep these ships from offloading in international water to other boats.

the US does this all the time with drug smugglers that come just out side US waters and transfer there cargo to Go-Fast boats.


1. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:

(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State;

(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea;

(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or

(d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

www.straightdope.com...

These ships were violating (a) and (b) that gave Israel the right to board.

As for the ships.

United States Challenger 1

The US-flagged Challenger 1 is operated by the Free Gaza Movement.
the US gave permission for it to be boarded.

Comoros MV Mavi Marmara

Further information: MV Mavi Marmara

The Mavi Marmara ("Blue Marmara") is a Comoros-flagged passenger ship,[57][58] which was formerly owned and operated by Istanbul Fast Ferries Co. Inc., in the Sea of Marmara. It was purchased especially for the trip to Gaza by the İHH.


This is the ship that the fight was on and it was owned by IHH and has links(and may be owned by) to Hamas, Al-Qaida or other Islamist and Jihadist groups.
A number if countries call this ship a terrorist owned ship.
And it may have been bought to move terrorist from country to country around the world.
frontpagemag.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


And for the millionth time, the blockade is illegal. How can it be legal to board a ship, violently, to defend an illegal blockade?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by ANNED
 


And for the millionth time, the blockade is illegal. How can it be legal to board a ship, violently, to defend an illegal blockade?


How, precisely, is this blockade 'illegal'? Cite relevant laws in support of your contention, please.

This is just like the emotional calls of "murder! murder!". No one seems able to cite relevant law in support of their emotional contentions.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


In order for the blockade to be legal, Israel has to be an occupying force.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by nenothtu
 


In order for the blockade to be legal, Israel has to be an occupying force.


That's not "citing a law", that's just more hearsay. What law says they have to be "an occupying force" in order to make it legal?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I would not call statements and reports from the UN, hearsay.

Edit, hit the button to fast.

Israel claims it is not responsible for the humanitarian needs of Gaza. That is absolutely false according to the UN. If Israel is blockading the Gaza Strip, it is obligated to ensure that the people get the supplies they need. That is not happening.



[edit on 5-6-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

The Fundamentalist, Muslim, Arab PROPAGANDA???


Are you for real??? Why don't you look at all the major media outlets and see who owns them. Muslims don't own SH@T. Therefore, they have a hard time pushing out PROPAGANDA or information that reaches anyone but the people in their own backyards.

Are YOU for real???


Muslims don't own SH@T.
Ohhh, those poor Saudis... [sarcasm]

It's not only Israel that loads the western media with propaganda. Just google the word "Pallywood" and see for yourself....

YouTube 1
Pallywood"

YouTube 2
Richard Landes explains the creative "journalism" from "Pallywood"

Unfortunately much of the "Pallywood" staged news reaches the main stream media as true news. YouTube is full of examples of the "Pallywood" productions...

...and to get the record straight. I DON'T LIKE THE ISRAELI PROPAGANDA EITHER!

This conflict is ugly. Both sides use propaganda to ensure the conflict is alive and hot. Believing everything you see or hear is not going to get you any wiser. Denying false news and propaganda is equally as important as denying ignorance...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross

I would not call statements and reports from the UN, hearsay.


I would, but that's a whole 'nuther thread. At the very least, the UN is not a lawmaking body.



Israel claims it is not responsible for the humanitarian needs of Gaza. That is absolutely false according to the UN. If Israel is blockading the Gaza Strip, it is obligated to ensure that the people get the supplies they need. That is not happening.


The supplies going into Gaza from Ashdod, along the legitimate route, with local inspections, are... what then?

Still no law cited.





top topics
 
79
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join