Israeli troops armed with paintball guns

[Niccolo]

Check out the video at 0.52 to 0.54. What's he got in his hand there? The weapon of choice for anyone engaged in "genocide" or "state terrorism" - a paintball gun!

YouTube- Israeli paintball guns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpClq89euxU)

[russtafa]

cool paint the town red

[notdrunk]

Interestingly, the other ships were boarded and nobody was killed. Why? because nobody didn't attack the soldiers like dummies. The Israelis underestimated the Islamists* on the Turkish ship.

*Google IHH (insani yardım vakfı)

[yosi]

YouTube- Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg)

[Faldur]

Yosi, that video hits the nail on the head. Funny stuff..

[trish]

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2256127/entry/3/

[notdrunk]

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2256127/entry/3/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG

Those peaceful activists...righttttt. Interestingly, the Rachel Corrie was boarded without incident. Why? No radicals on board..:geek:

[trish]

Thanks for the reuters article. I'm not going to pretend to take any side on this incident. It's clear they were boarded in international waters. It also seems clear from the reuters article that the first marines who boarded were seized. According to the Slate article, there are activist bodies with 30 rounds fired into them. I'm not sure anybody has the real story as to what went down. But it wasn't done with paint guns, that's for sure.

[evilernie]

Fucking religions and their self-fulfilling prophecies.

[notdrunk]

Thanks for the reuters article. I'm not going to pretend to take any side on this incident. It's clear they were boarded in international waters. It also seems clear from the reuters article that the first marines who boarded were seized. According to the Slate article, there are activist bodies with 30 rounds fired into them. I'm not sure anybody has the real story as to what went down. But it wasn't done with paint guns, that's for sure.

And, we don't why they killed those people. The commandos were shooting some people not trying to kill them too. It seems they went to pistols when the situation became fubar.

[Niccolo]

Reuters have been caught doctoring photos so that the "peace activists" can't be seen standing over Israelis with knives in their hands.



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/lying_with_photos_rzk6vz5XbhTSZrjLCo6rGP

[Rogers]

And, we don't why they killed those people. The commandos were shooting some people not trying to kill them too. It seems they went to pistols when the situation became fubar.

I see the clueless conservative sheep are still present, as ever. Still checking under your bed daily for OBL and WMDs' too no doubt. No, we know EXACTLY why people were killed. Those ships were boarded in INTERNATIONAL WATERS by well armed soldiers with the sole intent of seizing them. No matter how you try and spin this, it's piracy. Still not got a dictionary yet, notdrunk? Ready = invade. LOL.

"S: (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=piracy&i=0&h=00#c) (n) piracy, buccaneering (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=buccaneering) (hijacking on the high seas or in similar contexts; taking a ship or plane away from the control of those who are legally entitled to it) "air piracy""
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=piracy

And some of the people on those ships had the temerity, the TEMERITY, to try and resist the pirates. Where were all those weapons the Israeli's are blockading and collectively punishing 1.5 million people for, huh? Is anyone here seriously trying to question a person's right to defend their property against armed tresspassers with a knife???!!! Come on, it's always fantastic to see conservatives squirm and boil in their hypocrisy. LOL.

Still, high seas piracy is nothing new to the Israeli's.
Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311)

The Israeli's DELIBERATELY tried to sink the USS Liberty so that the Egyptian's would get the blame. Cairo came close to being nuked because of the Israeli deception. So, any ideas why that attack is still being covered up? Why that's a foreign documentary about it and not an American one, huh? Could it possibly be that American's don't care about their servicemen?
"It remains the only case of an attack on a US ship without a full Congressional enquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/06_june/08/uss_liberty.shtml

The survivors of that attack knew exactly what was going on, and what is still is going on. Some of the survivors of the USS Liberty were on those ships the Israeli's hijacked. Petraeus gets it too, so why can't you guys? Oh, that's right; it's because you're clueless conservative sheepies.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-general-israel-palestinian-conflict-foments-anti-u-s-sentiment-1.264910

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." Desmond Tutu (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/desmondtut106145.html)

YouTube- What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg)
YouTube- We are SHOCKED by Israel's Violence Against Humanitarian Aid Flotilla for Gaza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoBSq9n59nc)

The cost of wars since 2001 has passed the $Trillion mark.
http://www.costofwar.com/

[Rogers]

Yosi, that video hits the nail on the head. Funny stuff..

The Israeli's been caught lying time and time again over this, and many other things, yet it really seems they can never do any wrong for some. Hell, some people even get a kick out of them murdering innocent people too.

Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla
Sunday 6 June 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-youtube-gaza-flotilla

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
Monday 24 May 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

[Niccolo]

Saying something is "piracy" doesn't make it so.

"The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerence against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security." - Alan Dershowitz.

I'm not an expert in maritime law, and I'm pretty sure no one else on this thread is either. Certainly there have been many blockades throughout history. Just out of interest, I wouldn't mind finding out more about say, the Egyptian blockade of Israel during Operation Badr in 1973, or how the United States behaved towards Cuba during the missile crisis in 1962.

What else? Well, obviously ad hominem remarks don't make a case. As for bringing in past events, well it would be easy enough to do that with certain people who involved in the groups sponsoring the "flotilla" now, wouldn't it? And how far back should one go, anyway? Back to the time of the Weather Underground, perhaps? None of your efforts alter the fundamental facts of this particular incident. Simply put, if one wishes to actually prove that a "murder" took place (as opposed to merely using opprobrious language) then one must show intent. And that's going to be difficult to do if the Israeli soldiers came aboard with paintball guns in their hands. Which was kind of the point of the original post ...

[notdrunk]

What Niccolo said...:iagree:

[hippifried]

Piracy is assault for financial gain. When it's done for political gain. it's called terrorism. When it's done by governments, it all just becomes a cavalcade of excuses, justifications, & quotations of past excuses or justifications.

I don't think right & wrong can be defined by techmical legalese or whether the action is taken by us or "those/them".

[Niccolo]

So according to you the "peace activists" who assaulted the Israeli troops for political gain are terrorists. Well, okay then ...

[Rogers]

Saying something is "piracy" doesn't make it so.

I've already given you the definition of the word piracy, Niccolo. Sure UNCLOS excludes States under "International Law", and I know all about UNCLOS. But the States who signed the "Law of the Sea" wouldn't have signed it otherwise, understand? In the traditional sense of the word it's still piracy, no matter what legal mumbo-jumbo Dershowitz uses to back his beloved apartheid state with. I've been reading his articles about this, and for some strange reason he says, "Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel." That's just plain wrong! Shows you how much he knows. He reeks of bias. Hamas won the elections and offered Israel peace. I also loved his line, "Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area.". Wow, after decades of illegal occupation that was truly warm-hearted of them!
Hamas sweeps to election victory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4650788.stm
"There's no question that Israeli policy aims to keep the conflict going."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0512-34.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1104-26.htm

Many things on those ships have still not been returned to their rightful owners, and never will be. Things like cameras and laptops. Gee, I wonder what's the reason behind that? The "Law" excuses a lot of things, that's how BushInc got away with war crimes. Still not going to deny a person's rights to defend their property from trespassers then? ;)


"The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerence against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

LMAO. If a State says it can blockade another even without an act of war it's alright, because the blockading State says it's alright! FANTASTIC!!! You can just tell he's a lawyer, can't you. LOL. That's the "Law" for you. Same might = right BS again. But the blockade isn't really about self-defense, more like harassment. Collective punishment of 1.5 million people because they voted "wrongly". The Israeli's won't even let concrete in for rebuilding the damage THEY did! Doesn't take a genius to know that this is creating a shitload more "radicals", "islamists", "insurgents", "islamo-faschists", or whatever dipshit phrase you want try and spin things with. From the Israeli human rights group, Gisha:
http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8654337.stm

Anyway, the blockade has completely backfired on Israel. It's lost it's only ally in the region, Turkey, and Egypt has re-opened it's border with Gazza. The EU will undoubtedly take Turkey's side over Israel's, as that's the way EU-Israeli relationships have been going for sometime now thanks to other illegal Israeli actions.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/136116
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/foreign-policy/hague-israel-must-end-the-blockade-$21378854.htm

Many more ships will now try and break the blockade. Iran has threatened to get involved. Those Christian fundamentalist nuts who support Israel unquestionably may still get their Armageddon yet.
Gaza blockade: Iran offers escort to next aid convoy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/gaza-blockade-iran-aid-convoy
Gaza blockade is a blessing for the black economy – and for Hamas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/gaza-blockade-black-economy-hamas


The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security." - Alan Dershowitz.

States can justify anything. I've already suggested that to you. They can even say things like, "This Land is ours because "God" gave it to us. How do we know that? Because "God" told us so!". That's just about as batshit crazy as it gets. You can justify anything thinking like that, including ethnic cleansing.

Palestine circa 1000 B.C.
YouTube- Battles BC - Joshua: Epic Slaugther - 1/5 [HD] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjRO8GqLpp8)
YouTube- Battles BC - David The Giant Slayer 3/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SXRi4CJ7tg&feature=related)

Palestine 2010
Ethnic cleansing of the living:
http://jfjfp.com/?p=1112
Ethnic cleansing of the dead:
"Shimon Wiesenthal would be turning in his grave if he knew what is happening in his name."
http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2010/01/jerusalem-site-israel-cemetery


What else? Well, obviously ad hominem remarks don't make a case. As for bringing in past events, well it would be easy enough to do that with certain people who involved in the groups sponsoring the "flotilla" now, wouldn't it? And how far back should one go, anyway? Back to the time of the Weather Underground, perhaps? None of your efforts alter the fundamental facts of this particular incident. Simply put, if one wishes to actually prove that a "murder" took place (as opposed to merely using opprobrious language) then one must show intent. And that's going to be difficult to do if the Israeli soldiers came aboard with paintball guns in their hands. Which was kind of the point of the original post ...

You seriously believe the Israeli's boarded with paintball guns??? More BS spin. All the Israeli's have shown is heavily edited clips, and just as I told you they've confiscated everything the passengers recorded. So what they got to hide if they did nothing wrong? Must have been some "paintball gun" that shot that "islamo-faschist radical" dead in the forehead at range, Niccolo. Better hope for your sake that no one breaks into your property then, because Karma can be such a bitch.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

[Niccolo]

If you'd care to actually look at the original post, you'll see the Israeli guy holding something in his hand. What is it?

And what do you think about Reuters doctoring those photos? Do you consider that to be "BS spin"?

(I see you now acknowledge that it wasn't piracy at all, but that it is a blockade. Interesting. And btw just for your own edification, providing a definition of a word doesn't make an argument either. I could provide you with a definition of a word of my choosing, as I interact with you here on this message board, but if I did, then would the word necessarily apply to you? Of course not. So your reasoning is pretty shaky there. Oh well, what can I expect. This is a porno board after all.)

[notdrunk]

"Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel." That's just plain wrong! Shows you how much he knows. He reeks of bias. Hamas won the elections and offered Israel peace. I also loved his line, "Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area.". Wow, after decades of illegal occupation that was truly warm-hearted of them!

In 2007, Hamas did infact seize control over Gaza in a small civil war against Fatah. And, what peace are you talking about? Hamas only talked about a ceasefire.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1229777020070312



"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank.

Yay, another Korea situation...:dancing:



You seriously believe the Israeli's boarded with paintball guns??? More BS spin. All the Israeli's have shown is heavily edited clips, and just as I told you they've confiscated everything the passengers recorded. So what they got to hide if they did nothing wrong? Must have been some "paintball gun" that shot that "islamo-faschist radical" dead in the forehead at range, Niccolo. Better hope for your sake that no one breaks into your property then, because Karma can be such a bitch.The Israelis already admitted on the first day that they also carried handguns onto the boats for emergencies. Those activists were Darwin candidates. It wasn't the first time that the Israelis had boarded ships trying to break the blockade. None of them turned violent. I wonder why...:yingyang:

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/cynthia-mckinney-is-in-gaza-and-the-medicine-got-through/

[Niccolo]

I must say you have brightened up my evening by trying to argue that Israeli troops landed on the boat in question and were attacked by people wielding pipes and knives (and wearing lifejackets and facemasks so that they wouldn't feel the impact of the expected paintballs btw) because they didn't want to hand over their mobile phones! That's great stuff! Do you think that perhaps one of the "peace activists" had a new iPad and the Israeli soldiers got wind of it? They are difficult to get hold of, after all. Your theory explains everything!

Well, maybe not ...

By the way, I've read that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn support the organisation that sent those boats. If you wish to try to investigate the background of the different parties involved in this particular incident, then I wonder what your thoughts are on people who were involved with the Weathermen supporting those "peace activists". One can't help wondering what their motives might be here. You'll remember of course that the WUO stated, "The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism." Here's another gem, from the same group: "Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the siezure of power, and the creation of socialism."

Sometimes you really don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing ...

[trish]

We're now more than a week into this affair; do we yet know what was found on board?

[Niccolo]

An interesting video, which sheds some light on who was on board:

YouTube- German news on the flotilla to Gaza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCGeKuyc_c)

[hippifried]

So according to you the "peace activists" who assaulted the Israeli troops for political gain are terrorists. Well, okay then ...
Well actually, I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that. You can quote me all you like. I don't mind. Just don't lie. There isn't any "in other words".

In your lame & unsuccessful attempt to be snide, you apparently missed the point. In the most simplistic way I can synopsize so you can understand, the point is this: There's no good guys. There's no clean hands. There's no justification for any of the crap that's going on over there. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't miss a moment's sleep if that entire region went up in a big mushroom cloud. I don't give a rat's ass about anybody's ancient lore & religion, & I certainly don't give a fuck about some 5000 year old intra-family feud over a bowl of soup & who mom liked best. A pox on all their houses.

[notdrunk]

We're now more than a week into this affair; do we yet know what was found on board?

Legal aid (e.g., medicine) and "illegal" aid (e.g., concrete and body armor). The Israelis tried to send some of the legal aid using trucks to the Gaza strip; however, Hamas refused the aid.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/israel.palestinians.aid/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sANhzjcC0&feature=player_embedded#!

Even before the incident happened, the Israelis offered the activists the chance to send the legal aid into Gaza Strip by trucks. However, they wanted to pull a stunt.

[Niccolo]

Ignore post.

[Rogers]

If you'd care to actually look at the original post, you'll see the Israeli guy holding something in his hand. What is it?

From the BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYDVKuvr418 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYDVKuvr418)
UZI Submachine Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aax35iZsBU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aax35iZsBU)
“Israel (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Israel): Uzi and Mini-Uzi variants.[10] (http://www.hungangels.com/ cite_note-jones2009-9) Mini-Uzi variant was used by the YAMAM (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/YAMAM) elite unit and Shin Bet (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Shin_Bet).[18] (http://www.hungangels.com/ cite_note-meyr1999-17)[dead link (http://www.hungangels.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Linkrot)]”
Uzi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Uzi_1.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Uzi 1.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Uzi_1.jpg/300px-Uzi_1.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/8/86/Uzi_1.jpg/300px-Uzi_1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi)

It’s also a 9mm weapon. Duh!!! Google “9mm suppressed uzi” videos if you don’t believe me. Also google “Israeli uzi 9mm”.
“He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results)

"We were a bit surprised by the much heavier weapon, and it has considerable recoil unlike other paintball guns we've used. Also, the paintballs only leave red stains on our victims, instead of multiple colors", said one player.”
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i75879 (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i75879)


And what do you think about Reuters doctoring those photos? Do you consider that to be "BS spin"?

A New York Post article. I’m impressed! ;) Another Murdoch rag. You do know that photographers rarely, if ever, get a perfect shot that the publishers don’t have to mess around with, right? That article reminds me of the whole “climate-gate” rubbish where data was “fixed”. Just another case of people not knowing about what a profession actually does and seeing bias where there is none.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice)
If you look at the part of the photo they published, Reuters have clearly focused in on the person/object in question. This is what publishers do, focus in on the main thing in the picture. A photographer simply can’t take perfect shots fast, understand? Even in the “undoctored“ ones I still only notice the knife because it‘s signposted. Talk about looking for “shadows on a grassy knoll“. Did the people on the flotilla ever deny that they had knives? Don’t think so. If you think that’s convincing evidence of anything, “paintball guy”, well I’m afraid there’s really no hope for you.

Now, I’ve answered your questions, you answer the one of mine you keep dodging!!! Does a person have the right to protect their property? YES OR NO???


(I see you now acknowledge that it wasn't piracy at all, but that it is a blockade. Interesting. And btw just for your own edification, providing a definition of a word doesn't make an argument either. I could provide you with a definition of a word of my choosing, as I interact with you here on this message board, but if I did, then would the word necessarily apply to you? Of course not. So your reasoning is pretty shaky there. Oh well, what can I expect. This is a porno board after all.)

Anti-semite, right? LOL. Water off a duck’s back to me now. That’s two words you clearly need to learn the meaning of now. Maybe you should try reading something a bit more high-brow than the NY Post to improve your grasp of the English language. Here’s a nice article for you to start you off with:
“Inflating the meaning of 'antisemitism' to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html)

And am I hell about it not being piracy. But since you want to get all legal, with the help of apartheid apologist Dershowitz I may add; and you seem to be as morally bankrupt as the apartheid state that you’re trying to defend, let’s look at actual Laws then, instead of Dershowitz’s mere “precedents”.
“By misstating the numbers by a factor of 100, he actually undermines his own argument, making the numerical mistake most likely a simple typo. "Obviously, the phrase '2,000 to 3,000 Arabs' refers either to a sub-phase [of the flight] or is a typographical error."[1] (http://www.hungangels.com/%20cite_note-Goodman-0)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair)

Ooops, it was a genuine mistake. Honest! LOL.
　

All of Palestine is still occupied by Israel.
Oslo Accords
Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png" class="image" title="Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights"><img alt="Israel with the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png/150px-Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/12/Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png/150px-Is-wb-gs-gh_v3.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords)
The occupation is illegal under United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg" class="image"><img alt="Small Flag of the United Nations ZP.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg/50px-Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/2/2f/Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg/50px-Small_Flag_of_the_United_Nations_ZP.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242)
The settlement of occupied land is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Warsaw_1939_refugees_and_soldier.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Warsaw_1939_refugees_and_soldier.jpg/220px-Warsaw_1939_refugees_and_soldier.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/95/Warsaw_1939_refugees_and_soldier.jpg/220px-Warsaw_1939_refugees_and_soldier.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention)
Everyone has a right to violently resist an occupation under Article 1(4) of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions.
Protocol I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I)
Collective punishment of civilians is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention too.
EU warns against 'collective punishment' in Gaza
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-30214320071029 (http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-30214320071029)
Netanyahu aide admits collective punishment of Gaza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inynw-MubCk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inynw-MubCk)
Summary of Israel’s crimes against humanity by Professor Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law, University of Illinois.
http://www.ifamericaknew.com/cur_sit/boyle.html (http://www.ifamericaknew.com/cur_sit/boyle.html)

So, exactly who’s position is “shaky“, Niccolo? ;)

Finkelstein > Dershowitz.
'Israel is a Lunatic State' - Finkelstein on Gaza Flotilla Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB_CKL5h2_8)
‘Israel is a Terrorist State’ - Finkelstein International Law and War Crimes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_3_-Osh78 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_3_-Osh78)

[Rogers]

In 2007, Hamas did infact seize control over Gaza in a small civil war against Fatah. And, what peace are you talking about? Hamas only talked about a ceasefire.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1229777020070312

What is it that you don’t understand, notdrunk? It’s a gross oversimplification, that’s why it’s wrong. Understand? Palestine is occupied, therefore it’s people have every right to resist their occupation violently. Would American’s do anything differently? That is pretty much the same question as the right to defend your property that your friend “paintball gun guy” keeps dodging. And Hamas has every right to fight the illegal occupation, and for the political power it was democratically given. They’re also legally entitled to be in power in the West Bank too, but U.S. interference prevented that.

Mark "Liar" Regev tells the truth for once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM)
Finkelstein on the same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynKttkKWJ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IynKttkKWJ8)

And why would the multi-billionaire Zionists who own America’s media want a little sheepy like yourself finding out that Israel doesn’t really want peace, huh? For peace to happen you need both sides to agree on it. Israel simply doesn’t want to give up the land it occupies illegally. Far too many Israeli’s, and American's, have power and money because of it. I’ve already posted 2 articles by Professor Ira Chernus. Here’s more. If you think you’re going to be told about this by the mainstream media then you’re just plain wrong.

Hamas Getting on Board Peace Train
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/07 (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/07)
Israeli Leader Reveals Why Israeli Shuns Negotiation
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/23-3 (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/23-3)
How Israeli Intelligence Fabricated a Frequently-Repeated Myth to Justify Tel Aviv's Aggression
http://www.alternet.org/story/119488/how_israeli_intelligence_fabricated_a_frequently-repeated_myth_to_justify_tel_aviv%27s_aggression/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/119488/how_israeli_intelligence_fabricated_a_frequently-repeated_myth_to_justify_tel_aviv%27s_aggression/)
Carter was Right But Bush, Media Ignore Hamas' Overtures Towards Peace
http://www.alternet.org/story/83662/carter_was_right_but_bush%2C_media_ignore_hamas%27 _overtures_towards_peace/ (http://www.alternet.org/story/83662/carter_was_right_but_bush%2C_media_ignore_hamas%27 _overtures_towards_peace/)


Yay, another Korea situation...:dancing:

You really are scared by bogeymen, aren’t you? BOTH Israeli’s and Palestinian’s claim they own the land according to “God”. That’s one of the points I was trying to make in my post on Thursday. It really is time to move beyond rhetorical bullshit. Ghandi never recognized Pakistan’s legitimate right to exist either. ;)


The Israelis already admitted on the first day that they also carried handguns onto the boats for emergencies. Those activists were Darwin candidates. It wasn't the first time that the Israelis had boarded ships trying to break the blockade. None of them turned violent. I wonder why...:yingyang:

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/cynthia-mckinney-is-in-gaza-and-the-medicine-got-through/

Dodging the question about having the right to defend your property too, huh? ;)

[Rogers]

I must say you have brightened up my evening by trying to argue that Israeli troops landed on the boat in question and were attacked by people wielding pipes and knives (and wearing lifejackets and facemasks so that they wouldn't feel the impact of the expected paintballs btw) because they didn't want to hand over their mobile phones! That's great stuff! Do you think that perhaps one of the "peace activists" had a new iPad and the Israeli soldiers got wind of it? They are difficult to get hold of, after all. Your theory explains everything!

Well, maybe not ...

Hey, it’s the “paintball gun guy” who reads the NY Post again!
http://www.paintball.co.il/faq/faq_en.asp (http://www.paintball.co.il/faq/faq_en.asp)

By all means, please keep digging a hole for yourself, because the truth usually comes out sooner or later…
YouTube- EXCLUSIVE: New Video Smuggled Out From Israel's Flotilla Assault 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlkj7gUl0wc)
YouTube- Apparent execution by Israeli soldiers on board Mavi Marmara (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi6c10ntFZk)


By the way, I've read that Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn support the organisation that sent those boats. If you wish to try to investigate the background of the different parties involved in this particular incident, then I wonder what your thoughts are on people who were involved with the Weathermen supporting those "peace activists". One can't help wondering what their motives might be here. You'll remember of course that the WUO stated, "The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism." Here's another gem, from the same group: "Our final goal is the destruction of imperialism, the siezure of power, and the creation of socialism."

Sometimes you really don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing ...

Ah, here it comes. Nice rant. LOL. Just exactly how old are you? I didn’t know sheep born in the McCarthy era could still be alive today. ;)

But the wind really is blowing only one way…

McChrystal Sees Progress, but 'Nobody Is Winning' Afghan War Yet
May 14, 2010
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/14/mcchrystal-sees-progress-winning-afghan-war/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/14/mcchrystal-sees-progress-winning-afghan-war/)
We want troops out as soon as we can, says Cameron
June 11, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7147223.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7147223.ece)
Questions Surround Third U.S. War Theater: AFRICOM
May-18-2010
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182010/african-tale-tk.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182010/african-tale-tk.php)

Overexpansion and inflation is one of the main ways in which Empire’s decline and fall. Remind me, who owns America’s debt? ;) And exactly how many more trillions is it going to take before the madness ends?

Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock…
http://costofwar.com/ (http://costofwar.com/)

[Rogers]

YouTube- USS Liberty Veteran Seized by IDF on Gaza Aid Flotilla - June 4, 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udfQmSmwsoo)

[Niccolo]

As I said to you originally, ad hominem remarks simply don't make an argument. It doesn't matter where I linked to in order to show Reuter's doctoring of news photographs. The fact is Reuters did it. I'm not familiar with the paper in question at all, and I could have linked to any of several other places. That article was just at the top of Google's search results. (By criticising the source of that particular record of Reuter's activities in the way you did, you comitted a rather interesting ad hominem fallacy. I suggest you buy a copy of Copi & Cohen and read about "poisoning the well". Or, if you just want to keep on presenting fallacious arguments, then don't. It's your choice.)


I see your response to someone mentioning some of the supporters of the group behind these boats is to make yet another ad hominem remark, and then go off on a "rant" about America's debt. This doesn't address what was put before you. Please try again. (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756613&postcount=21)

And once more: what is in this fellow's hand? See link. (http://inthefrozennorth.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/israeli-paintball-guns/)

You seem to want to stick to your theory that Israeli troops boarded that boat in order to get their hands on a new iPad. Well if you want to make that argument, go right ahead. Maybe you could show some video of the "peace activists" cutting off pieces of the boat's handrail before the Israeli troops boarded the boat, saying "I'll go to Paradise before they get my new Nokia!" You know, use facts. Make an argument.

I worked as a marine engineer for many years, and I can tell you that it takes a moment to cut through a boat's handrail. It's certainly not something you would do in response to someone asking you to hand over your mobile phone. You're hardly going to say, "No, you can't have it. Now please wait for a moment till I find a hacksaw then cut through this handrail so I can hit you with it." Clearly this sort of thing would have to be done in advance.

As someone who also knows a little bit about assult as well as marine engineering (I confess that in my younger years, I was once convicted of "assault to injury") I can also tell you that a section of handrail really isn't much use for anything except beating someone with. It may be used as a lever, I suppose, and it is possible that one of the hatches aboard the boat in question was stuck, and they needed something to help force it open. This seems unlikely to have been a priority at that particular moment in time though. Nor would one need several lengths of pipe to carry out such a job. And one could easily find something better than a section of handrail to use for such a purpose aboard a boat. Finally, it's worth stating the obvious here: Cutting out a section of handrail aboard a boat is something that's just not done. Handrails are welded on there for a reason, after all - to stop people from falling over the side. So, experience in the area of both marine engineering and assaulting people tells me that if those guys aboard that boat cut out several lengths of handrail, then passed them around, then there was only one objective - really fucking someone up.

That is to say, it demonstrates an intent to act violently on the part of the "peace activists".

If you cannot produce an argument to support your theory that the "peace activists" were simply determined to hang on to their mobile phones, then your theory will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. You might want to factor into your argument, should you ever get around to actually constructing one, the following: If, as you assert, one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's mobile phone, then it follows that one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's life. Therefore if if the Israeli soldiers' lives were threatened, then their use of force to defend themselves was legitimate. Note that I'm using your own reasoning here.

YouTube- British Naval analyst on Flotilla lynch of Israelis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG0EfG8mnAo)

The story about Reuters doctoring photos originally came from a blog called "Little Green Footballs". See link. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Anothe r_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood) I find it quite amusing that you talk about "BS spin" in the media, then try to claim that cropping the following out of a photo is proper practice within the journalistic profession:

[trish]

Thanks, notdrunk, for the links. The youtube video was illuminating. In addition to some lethal body armor there were also slingshots and marbles. Quite a collection of kitchen and pocket knives too. And people's lives were taken to confiscate this crap?

I'm with hippiefried on this one. I don't think there's much hope for any of these two peoples.

[Faldur]

That knife in the picture is not made to cut the roast beef..

[Niccolo]

And people's lives were taken to confiscate this crap? - TrishAre you really suggesting that a military operation was mounted, by anybody, anywhere, anytime, in order to steal someone's marbles?

As I told the other guy earlier, if you really want to argue that the Israeli soldiers were under order to get their hands on a new iPad, or some mobile phones, or a bag of marbles they could all play with back in their barracks later in the afternoon, then go ahead and do so. If you can't ...

And btw watch the video at the beginning of the thread again. Tell me if the guys pulling the rope at the beginning so that the soldier would fall to the deck were dead keen on having a game of marbles - so keen they couldn't wait for the soldier to land - or if they were trying to injure the guy by assaulting him before his feet had even touched the deck. Which is it?

Then tell me when you see the Israeli soldier being thrown over the side why you think that happened - maybe he had a reputation for cheating at marbles, and the marbles fanatics among the "peace activists" didn't want to play with him?

Then explain what those fellows with the lengths of pipe in their hands are doing when they're flailing away at an Israeli soldier - maybe they're trying to create a bit of wind to blow their marbles about the deck, eh? On the other hand, maybe they're trying to kill someone. Which is it?

[notdrunk]

Thanks, notdrunk, for the links. The youtube video was illuminating. In addition to some lethal body armor there were also slingshots and marbles. Quite a collection of kitchen and pocket knives too. And people's lives were taken to confiscate this crap?


Slingshot + marbles= deadly weapon. I don't think you want to be shot in the head by a marble fired from a slingshot.



It’s also a 9mm weapon. Duh!!! Google “9mm suppressed uzi” videos if you don’t believe me. Also google “Israeli uzi 9mm”.
“He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds.”

A commentator with unknown military experience using the word "seems"? You do know that means he doesn't know? Let me just squash this issue right now...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7144099.ece



The Israeli commando who killed six of the passengers of Mavi Marmara, the Turkish ferry owned by the IHH charity, said that he had been the last of 15 soldiers to rappel down the rope from an overhead helicopter on to the decks of the ship, which he described as “a battlefield”.
.........
Taking charge, he formed his men in a perimeter around the wounded, pulled his 9mm Glock pistol and opened fire on passengers he accused of shooting at the boarding party with guns taken off the first soldiers, who had been overwhelmed as they landed one by one.



And why would the multi-billionaire Zionists who own America’s media want a little sheepy like yourself finding out that Israel doesn’t really want peace, huh?

And, you are gullible to think the Arabs really want peace. Sure they want peace; however, they want peace under their terms. And, it depends on which group is in control. Still waiting for Hamas to reject its belief of destroying Israel...:whistle:

[trish]

Slingshot + marbles= deadly weapon. LOL. What was it John Wayne said, "Keep that helmet on your head, Pilgrim, the enemy may be shooting marbles." Good one notdrunk. I'm still laughing.

Seriously, who in the region is positively known to have illegal, working nuclear weapons?

It doesn't take a genius to know that Hamas is seething in hatred, that they fund, encourage and engage in terrorism. And yes, I do believe that Israel would prefer to have peace; but they too only only want peace under their terms (who doesn't, right?). I'm still waiting for each side to accommodate the other. All I see is walls, violent crackdowns, an effectively two tiered citizenship, flying projectiles, missiles and suicide bombers. Both sides are skirting the edge of sanity.

Will any of us, in our lifetimes, see peace in Middle East? Stranger things have happened, but I'm not holding my breath. Hamas isn't going away. They aren't going to stamped out of existence. Ditto for Israel. The Israeli's aren't going to pack up and leave. Ali is not going to rub them out of existence. Both sides have to eventually realize that they're stuck with each other and they might as well make the best of it.

[hippifried]

Will any of us, in our lifetimes, see peace in Middle East? Stranger things have happened, but I'm not holding my breath. Hamas isn't going away. They aren't going to stamped out of existence. Ditto for Israel. The Israeli's aren't going to pack up and leave. Ali is not going to rub them out of existence. Both sides have to eventually realize that they're stuck with each other and they might as well make the best of it.
No we won't. I don't even buy the idea that Palisraelistine wants peace from any side. This is a 5000 year old intra-family feud between Israel (nee Jacob) & his brother Esau, over a damn bowl of soup & a birthright. Second generation from Abraham. The Covenant of Israel was supposed to bury the hatchet. That's why Jacob changed his name. That lasted less than a generation, & their progeny have been carrying on the fight ever since. None of it has anything to do with "terrorism" or defense. It's a blood feud, with no end in sight. They all have their own set of lies about who did what to whom & when, but who cares?

The problem is that these assholes keep dragging everybody else into their private fight. Personally, I'm sick of it. I'm tired of hearing about it. I don't want to listen to any more whiney excuses or claims about who "God" favors. The Romans had the right idea. DIASPORA! But they picked sides. I say kick them all out. If the shithead brats can't play nice, take away the toy.

[Rogers]

You seem to want to stick to your theory that Israeli troops boarded that boat in order to get their hands on a new iPad. Well if you want to make that argument, go right ahead. Maybe you could show some video of the "peace activists" cutting off pieces of the boat's handrail before the Israeli troops boarded the boat, saying "I'll go to Paradise before they get my new Nokia!" You know, use facts. Make an argument.

I’m going to try and keep this very simple for you, Niccolo, because you’re either playing games, or you just don’t understand what others are saying. You seemed to have an odd effect on hippi, and I‘m maybe now seeing why. He’s usually way politer than I am, but you seemed to irk him greatly. And you know, it really is much easier for all concerned if you reply directly to specific quotes. Then you might not have become confused. ;) And that way I don’t begin to wonder what the hell you’re wittering on about.

Right, that small quote from your last post is YOUR theory, not mine. LOL. You’ve been trying to put words into my mouth for several posts now. You’re either doing it deliberately, or you have simply misunderstood me. If it’s the former, then please stop it. Okay; the property of the passengers on the ships I was referring to with regard to their right to defend it was the AID they were trying to deliver, NOT their cameras and laptops. Understand? After all, that’s why they were on those ships, to deliver the AID they‘d help raise, not to mess around with cameras and laptops. My mention of cameras and laptops related to something else completely which has seemingly gone WAAAY over your head; Israel’s control over information for propaganda purposes. You really seem to be struggling to understand that Israel is feeding the world their side of things only, which is the reason I’ve been calling you a sheep. ;)

So, maybe you can finally answer this question for me that you‘ve been dodging for days now: did the passengers have the right to defend their property/aid? YES OR NO?

Too late, I’ve answered it for you below!

I also wrote a good long bit extra here in reply to the rest of your wittering post, but I’ve cut it way down. You keep dodging point after point I make in reply to your ones, only to throw back the same rubbish. You seem to be suggesting that I'm lying about not seeing anything doctored in the Reuters photos. If you don’t understand what they do with photographs in the media, that’s fine, but please don’t call me a liar. You also witter on about the source of information not being important, then link to blogs. I’m not even going to waste my time replying to that, because I’ll undoubtedly just get more rubbish back. And as for asking me what any type of gun looks like, you‘ve got the wrong guy entirely.


Facts you keep dodging which are of key importance to this whole affair:

The illegality of the blockade under International Law;
The illegality of hijacking ships trying to reach Gaza;
The fact that this flotilla was deep in International waters;
The fact that the passengers had every right to defend themselves and their ship no matter who they were;
“In such cases, any claim of self-defense by Israeli forces is irrelevant. The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach. One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defense if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence.
Legally speaking, government military forces rappelling onto a ship to illegally capture it are treated no differently than other criminals. The right of self-defense in such situations rests with the passengers on board: a person is legally entitled to resist one's own unlawful capture, abduction and detention.”
http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313 (http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313)
The fact that Israel lied about “only paintball guns and pistols“;
The fact that Israel lied about only shooting in self-defense;
The fact that Israel lied about al-Qaeda being on board;
The fact that Israel lied about it being a bungled operation.


If all of that isn’t enough for you to see that Israel is playing games with people for it‘s own selfish ends, then I honestly don‘t know what is. And what’s more, you’re almost certainly morally bankrupt.


If you cannot produce an argument to support your theory that the "peace activists" were simply determined to hang on totheir mobile phones, then your theory will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. You might want to factor into your argument, should you ever get around to actually constructing one, the following: If, as you assert, one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's mobile phone, then it follows that one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's life. Therefore if if the Israeli soldiers' lives were threatened, then their use of force to defend themselves was legitimate. Note that I'm using your own reasoning here.

Utter drivel. Nope, that was YOUR argument/theory/reasoning! LMAO. And stop thinking you know what I'm thinking because you clearly have no idea, you pretentious prick. Inventing the other person's argument then trying to knock it down is just weak, idiotic, and quite frankly annoying. And you're the one who's been mentioning fallacies. SMDH.

Anyway, I've answered the question I posed to you several times which you just couldn't answer. The passengers had every right to defend themselves, and the Israeli's had none! So trying to suggest that they were "radicals", islamists", or whatever BS, just won't wash.

[Rogers]

Are you really suggesting that a military operation was mounted, by anybody, anywhere, anytime, in order to steal someone's marbles?

You see, there you go again. ;) trish never said that, YOU did!

[muhmuh]

well one thing is certainly clear in all of this
somebody lost his marbles

[Rogers]

A commentator with unknown military experience using the word "seems"? You do know that means he doesn't know? Let me just squash this issue right now...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7144099.ece

And, you are gullible to think the Arabs really want peace. Sure they want peace; however, they want peace under their terms. And, it depends on which group is in control. Still waiting for Hamas to reject its belief of destroying Israel...:whistle:

The BBC commentator is ex-military, notdrunk. Like I said, I'm absolutely no expert on guns of any sort, but the BBC and execution clips certainly don't show a pistol. Of course, you get all sorts of "extensions" for guns I have no clue about.
YouTube- Gaza Flotilla - Israeli Commandos Kicking Then Executing 19 y.o. Aid Worker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0mNC4K1ik)

It's very simple, the Palestinians have much to gain from peace, whereas Israel only loses land. The law is simple on this, it says that Israel must pull back to it's 1967 border. Until that happens, Palestine is occupied, and the Palestinian's have every right to forcibly resist Israel.

[Rogers]

It doesn't take a genius to know that Hamas is seething in hatred, that they fund, encourage and engage in terrorism. And yes, I do believe that Israel would prefer to have peace; but they too only only want peace under their terms (who doesn't, right?). I'm still waiting for each side to accommodate the other. All I see is walls, violent crackdowns, an effectively two tiered citizenship, flying projectiles, missiles and suicide bombers. Both sides are skirting the edge of sanity.

It's only terrorism if they deliberately target civilians, trish. But Israel uses settlers to keep it's power. Were the likes of Crazy Horse and Geronimo really terrorists for targeting settlers?
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumannisrael1.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/07/israel1

[Rogers]

If the shithead brats can't play nice, take away the toy.

But will the spoiled brat ever change if father keeps turning a blind eye to his shitty behavior, whilst still giving him pocket money too? I'm pretty sure he won't.

[notdrunk]

The BBC commentator is ex-military, notdrunk. Like I said, I'm absolutely no expert on guns of any sort, but the BBC and execution clips certainly don't show a pistol. Of course, you get all sorts of "extensions" for guns I have no clue about.
YouTube- Gaza Flotilla - Israeli Commandos Kicking Then Executing 19 y.o. Aid Worker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0mNC4K1ik)


And how is that an execution clip? We have no idea what is going on because there is no sound except the loud voice of a commentator. Furthermore, I don't think an uzi operate like that. Remember the boy supposedly getting murdered by IDF on tape...

http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m6d12-France--declares-IDF-slaying-of-Palestinian-Arab-boy-a-hoax

[notdrunk]

It's only terrorism if they deliberately target civilians, trish. But Israel uses settlers to keep it's power. Were the likes of Crazy Horse and Geronimo really terrorists for targeting settlers?
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumannisrael1.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/07/israel1

Wow, I can't believe you are defending the deliberate targeting of civilians. So, how can you explain the following acts before the 1967 war...

List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Unbalanced_scales.svg" class="image"><img alt="Unbalanced scales.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1 967)

[hippifried]

But will the spoiled brat ever change if father keeps turning a blind eye to his shitty behavior, whilst still giving him pocket money too? I'm pretty sure he won't.
I don't care. It's not "he". It's "they". When 2 brats are fighting over the same toy, the fight stops when you separate them & take away the toy. In this case, the "toy" is the land. I'm talking about making the whole place devoid of permanent residents. Kick them all out. I don't care where they go as long as they go. Then the options are wide open.

You could build a theme park. Welcome to Holyland! Dedicated to the proposition that there's no limit to human stupidity. Or just cut a big channel to the Mediteranian & fill the place up. It's all below sea level. Think of the sport fishing & water skiing. What the hell. Nobody's using it for anything productive anyway. Wouldn't a submarine, scuba, or glass bottom boat tour of Jeruselem be fun?

My personal favorite would be to make that place into a giant toxic waste dump. Somewhere for the entire planet to get rid of all the nasty crap they don't know what to do with now. A big steaming mass of lead paint, pesticides, herbacides, diseased blood & feces, dismantled nukes, nerve gas, uncontained murcury, uncountable odd chemicals, & spent reactor fuel. It's a big enough hole to last for centuries. Then they can move back if they want to. Provided they don't mind their children being born with flippers instead of hands & feet.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm all out of sympathy.

[Niccolo]

Piracy is assault for financial gain. When it's done for political gain. it's called terrorism. - hippifried

Assault for political gain is terrorism.
People on board that boat assaulted Israeli troops for political gain.
Therefore those people are terrorists.

You defined your term. We see people acting in the way you described. This leads to a conclusion.

That's how I got there.

[Niccolo]

Is anyone here seriously trying to question a person's right to defend their property against armed tresspassers with a knife???!!! - R (post 12 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756052&postcount=12)).
Many things on those ships have still not been returned to their rightful owners, and never will be. Things like cameras and laptops. Gee, I wonder what's the reason behind that? The "Law" excuses a lot of things, that's how BushInc got away with war crimes. Still not going to deny a person's rights to defend their property from trespassers then? - R (post 18 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756588&postcount=18))
Does a person have the right to protect their property? YES OR NO? - R (post 27 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756996&postcount=27))
So, maybe you can finally answer this question for me that you‘ve been dodging for days now: did the passengers have the right to defend their property/aid? YES OR NO? - RI see that from saying this was piracy and that people had a right to defend their own property, you're now saying that it was a blockade and the passengers on the boat were trying to "defend" the boat's cargo.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 contains the following articles, which help to define "piracy":


Article101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).


Article102
Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied
The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.

Article29
Definition of warships
For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.

Article95
Immunity of warships on the high seas
Warships on the high seas have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of any State other than the flag State.

Source: UNCLOS (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm)


So, to recap: You abandoned your attempt to argue that the Israeli troops had committed an act of piracy once it became clear that it wasn't an act of piracy. You then tried to argue that the violence committed by the passengers on board the boat was an attempt on their part to defend their "laptops and cameras" and other private property. Once the difficulties with that view were brought to light, you tried to advance a new argument, namely that in their capacity as passengers on board a boat, the group of people one sees pulling on the first Israeli soldier's rope so he would fall to the deck, then beating him with steel bars, had a "right" to use such violent means to "defend" the cargo in the boat's hold.

You see how it goes: when one points out difficulties with your hypothesis, you are forced to alter course and bring your position closer, ever closer, to reality.

Please explain, when you try to argue your (new) case, why you think a passenger on a boat has any kind of duty to use violent means to "defend" that boat's cargo. A passenger has a entirely different status from the crew aboard a boat. It's not clear why a deckhand or an engineer working aboard a boat would be expected by the boat's owners, or would be legally obliged, or even legally allowed, to use violent means to "defend" a boat's cargo. It's not their boat, nor is it their cargo. And that's the crew, who are actually in the employ of the ship's owners. Passengers are even further removed, legally speaking, from whatever's in the boat's hold.

Note that I did address the point you were trying to make:

I worked as a marine engineer for many years, and I can tell you that it takes a moment to cut through a boat's handrail. It's certainly not something you would do in response to someone asking you to hand over your mobile phone. You're hardly going to say, "No, you can't have it. Now please wait for a moment till I find a hacksaw then cut through this handrail so I can hit you with it." Clearly this sort of thing would have to be done in advance.

As someone who also knows a little bit about assult as well as marine engineering (I confess that in my younger years, I was once convicted of "assault to injury") I can also tell you that a section of handrail really isn't much use for anything except beating someone with. It may be used as a lever, I suppose, and it is possible that one of the hatches aboard the boat in question was stuck, and they needed something to help force it open. This seems unlikely to have been a priority at that particular moment in time though. Nor would one need several lengths of pipe to carry out such a job. And one could easily find something better than a section of handrail to use for such a purpose aboard a boat. Finally, it's worth stating the obvious here: Cutting out a section of handrail aboard a boat is something that's just not done. Handrails are welded on there for a reason, after all - to stop people from falling over the side. So, experience in the area of both marine engineering and assaulting people tells me that if those guys aboard that boat cut out several lengths of handrail, then passed them around, then there was only one objective - really fucking someone up.

That is to say, it demonstrates an intent to act violently on the part of the "peace activists".

If you cannot produce an argument to support your theory that the "peace activists" were simply determined to hang on to their mobile phones, i.e. were trying to defend their property as you put it (edit for clarity), then your theory will be treated with the contempt that it deserves. You might want to factor into your argument, should you ever get around to actually constructing one, the following: If, as you assert, one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's mobile phone, then it follows that one is entitled to use violent means to protect one's life. Therefore if if the Israeli soldiers' lives were threatened, then their use of force to defend themselves was legitimate. Note that I'm using your own reasoning here. - NiccoloMy argument was quite straightforward: you had previously said that the passengers on board that boat were merely trying to defend their own property. I showed that their behavour was not a response to anyone asking or demanding that they hand over their property at all. Cutting off handrails to use as weapons shows intent. It clearly happened beforehand.

I also pointed out that if you wish to argue that if one has a right to defend their own property, then it follows that one has a right to defend one's life. Consequently, if the Israeli soldiers' lives were at risk, then their use of force to defend themselves was legitimate.

To say as you did, that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves is hardly a convincing argument, is it? It's a bald assertion which reveals your own prejudices. That is all.

So, if you now wish to present a different argument, and say that a passenger aboard a boat has a duty to use violent means to "defend" that boat's cargo, then on you go and present that (entirely new) argument.

Remember to address these points: What legal "right" or "duty" does a passenger on a boat have to "defend" that boat's cargo? Remember that the boat could have put ashore, and its cargo transported to its destination. Remember to clearly define your term "defend". ("Defend" a boat's cargo from what, exactly? Being landed at port A instead of port B? Big deal.)

Good luck.

[Niccolo]

Will any of us, in our lifetimes, see peace in Middle East? Stranger things have happened, but I'm not holding my breath. Hamas isn't going away. They aren't going to stamped out of existence. Ditto for Israel. The Israeli's aren't going to pack up and leave. Ali is not going to rub them out of existence. Both sides have to eventually realize that they're stuck with each other and they might as well make the best of it.- Trish

Have you ever seen Ross Kemp's programmes about Gaza/Israel? I don't know if they would have been shown in America. It aired on Sky a while back, & I think you can get the DVD now too. Link to Sky.
(http://sky1.sky.com/ross-kemp-middle-east-on-sky1-hd)

[Niccolo]

You seem to be suggesting that I'm lying about not seeing anything doctored in the Reuters photos. If you don’t understand what they do with photographs in the media, that’s fine, but please don’t call me a liar. You also witter on about the source of information not being important, then link to blogs. I’m not even going to waste my time replying to that, because I’ll undoubtedly just get more rubbish back.- RWhen you say that someone else "seems to be suggesting" something, then go on to attack that position, what you are doing is creating, then attacking, a "straw man" (i.e. wasting your time). Now getting back to what I put before you: Do you, after complaining (in post 18 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756588&postcount=18)) about "BS spin" in the media, now wish to argue that Reuters behaved in a proper manner when they cropped the bloody knife/body from this photo? (See attachments)

[Niccolo]

You seem to be suggesting that I'm lying about not seeing anything doctored in the Reuters photos. If you don’t understand what they do with photographs in the media, that’s fine, but please don’t call me a liar. You also witter on about the source of information not being important, then link to blogs. I’m not even going to waste my time replying to that, because I’ll undoubtedly just get more rubbish back.- R
Circumstantial ad hominem arguments are sometimes used to suggest that the opponents' conclusion should be rejected because their judgement is warped, dictated by their special situation rather than by reasoning or evidence. [...] One argument of this kind, called "poisoning the well," is particularly perverse. The incident that gave rise to the name illustrates the argument forcefully. The British novelist and clergyman Charles Kingsley, attacking the famous Catholic intellectual John Henry Cardinal Newman, argued thus: Cardinal Newman's claims were not to be trusted because, as a Roman Catholic priest (Kingsley alleged), Newman's first loyalty was not to the truth. Newman countered that this ad hominem attack made it impossible for him and indeed for all Catholics to advance their arguments, since anything that they might say to defend themselves would then be undermined by others' alleging that, after all, truth was not their first concern. Kingsley, said Cardinal Newman, had poisoned the well of discourse." (Copi & Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 11th Ed., Prentice Hall, p. 145.)This is the point I made to you. This is what you did. Now if you would care to address the issue in the previous post, without wasting time "wittering on" about newspapers and blogs please.

[Niccolo]

And as for asking me what any type of gun looks like, you‘ve got the wrong guy entirely. - RGo on, give it your best shot. Is that a "hopper" we see atop the pistol? Could that be ... a paintball gun?

[trish]

Just an aside on philosophical mumbo jumbo:
Seems to me Kingsley merely pointed out the well was already tainted. This is not ad hominem argument (Copi & Cohen not withstanding), it's a true, if irrelevant observation. The priest's first loyalty is indeed to god and faith; reason is used to appeal to those whose faith is weak or non-existent. But when reason fails, faith sustains. This does not make it "impossible" for Catholics to advance their arguments. To claim that it does is whining. After all, Newman did indeed advance his argument! Newman could've simply pointed out that Kingsley's observation was true but that any arguments that he (Newman) put forth should be judged on their logical and evidentiary merits regardless of his or anyone else loyalties.

[Niccolo]

I don't care. It's not "he". It's "they". When 2 brats are fighting over the same toy, the fight stops when you separate them & take away the toy. In this case, the "toy" is the land. I'm talking about making the whole place devoid of permanent residents. Kick them all out. I don't care where they go as long as they go. Then the options are wide open.

You could build a theme park. Welcome to Holyland! Dedicated to the proposition that there's no limit to human stupidity. Or just cut a big channel to the Mediteranian & fill the place up. It's all below sea level. Think of the sport fishing & water skiing. What the hell. Nobody's using it for anything productive anyway. Wouldn't a submarine, scuba, or glass bottom boat tour of Jeruselem be fun?

My personal favorite would be to make that place into a giant toxic waste dump. Somewhere for the entire planet to get rid of all the nasty crap they don't know what to do with now. A big steaming mass of lead paint, pesticides, herbacides, diseased blood & feces, dismantled nukes, nerve gas, uncontained murcury, uncountable odd chemicals, & spent reactor fuel. It's a big enough hole to last for centuries. Then they can move back if they want to. Provided they don't mind their children being born with flippers instead of hands & feet.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm all out of sympathy.

Don't sugar coat it, h. Tell us exactly what you think, lol...

[Niccolo]

Well put. In the case in question, I tried to make the point that it didn't really matter which paper had run the story, what mattered was Reuters cropping the photos in the first place, and that should be examined for what it was, not for who had pointed it out to the general public. If you see what I mean ... it's one am now and I've been up for, ohhhh far too long, so I'm probably typing a load of incoherent shite, but I think that's about it ... I'll have another go before heading off to bed ... in short, saying that something is reported in paper x, y or z, therefore it can't be true, doesn't actually make it false. In the same way, although someone on this thread included a clip from Democracy Now! (for example), one couldn't simply say that because Democracy Now! had aired it, that it couldn't be true. Well, you could. But that alone wouldn't make it false. The idea would be to show that it was false, not just say it. If you see what I'm getting at ... ok that's definitely it for me tonight, 01.07 right now & I have work tomorrow ...

[trish]

Thank you. I’m glad you agree. A discussant’s bias cannot make an logical argument illogical, nor a true statement false. What bias can do, however, is prompt one to misinterpret, slant and even lie. This is why reports do not count as evidence unless they are corroborated by those with independent, or opposing perspectives. Cropping photos is pissing in your own well. Muting the sound of video to narrate one’s own view of what’s going down is pissing in your own well. As far as anyone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight can tell, Israel, Hamas and their respective supporters in the media have pissing in their well for a long, long time.

[Niccolo]

R, I'm just wondering: Have you ever even been aboard a boat?

[Rogers]

And how is that an execution clip? We have no idea what is going on because there is no sound except the loud voice of a commentator. Furthermore, I don't think an uzi operate like that. Remember the boy supposedly getting murdered by IDF on tape...

http://www.examiner.com/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2010m6d12-France--declares-IDF-slaying-of-Palestinian-Arab-boy-a-hoax

You “don’t think“? No, clearly you don’t. All color clips seen so far have only ever shown the Israeli’s with machine guns on the ship, absolutely no paintball guns OR pistols. You do know what a commando actually is, right? The sound of machine gun bursts can also be clearly heard twice too. One burst is quite prolonged. The Israeli’s can also be clearly seen beating people whilst they’re on the ground. In the execution clip it also clearly looks like that they also fired into the person they were kicking too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results)

YouTube- CONFIRMED Israeli soldiers used Suppressed Uzi Sub-Machine Guns, not paintballs!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oll6Hh8DgOM)

YouTube- Shooting a Suppressed UZI 9mm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZS5oKdata4)

YouTube- On-board video of Gaza Freedom Flotilla storm, aid workers & Israeli troops clash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSFwyWyVo74)

[Rogers]

Wow, I can't believe you are defending the deliberate targeting of civilians. So, how can you explain the following acts before the 1967 war...

List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_Israeli_civilians_before_1 967)

Trying to put words in my mouth again, notdrunk? How’d that work out for you the last time? (ready = invade = FAIL = ROFL). People who are occupied and colonized face a moral quandary. It’s called ETHICS, and I posed an ethical question. Know what a question mark is? But I’m not under any illusion that someone as morally bankrupt as yourself has any understanding of this subject, nevermind any care for it.

I have never condoned an act of terrorism in my life. You and paintball guy however have been trying your hardest to defend terrorists for sometime now.
http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313 (http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313)

So, one more time; when is a terrorist not a terrorist?
POOK POOK POOK… ;)
YouTube- WikiLeaks Video of US Military Killing Innocent Civilians in Iraq Part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9P5vIzYyE)
YouTube- Netanyahu aide: Israel using Collective Punishment on children of Gaza because parents elected Hamas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inynw-MubCk)
YouTube- Caterpillar Bulldozer - Israel/Palestine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6C-cAc240)
Watch them shooting up fishing boats and attacking fishermen.
YouTube- Israel GUILTY of Piracy ( They are about to break Maritime Piracy Laws AGAIN ) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8OVwq9rhI)
YouTube- Israeli Navy Incinerates Gaza Fishing Boat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK_0I3ZM1U)

[Rogers]

I don't care. It's not "he". It's "they". When 2 brats are fighting over the same toy, the fight stops when you separate them & take away the toy. In this case, the "toy" is the land. I'm talking about making the whole place devoid of permanent residents. Kick them all out. I don't care where they go as long as they go. Then the options are wide open.

You could build a theme park. Welcome to Holyland! Dedicated to the proposition that there's no limit to human stupidity. Or just cut a big channel to the Mediteranian & fill the place up. It's all below sea level. Think of the sport fishing & water skiing. What the hell. Nobody's using it for anything productive anyway. Wouldn't a submarine, scuba, or glass bottom boat tour of Jeruselem be fun?

My personal favorite would be to make that place into a giant toxic waste dump. Somewhere for the entire planet to get rid of all the nasty crap they don't know what to do with now. A big steaming mass of lead paint, pesticides, herbacides, diseased blood & feces, dismantled nukes, nerve gas, uncontained murcury, uncountable odd chemicals, & spent reactor fuel. It's a big enough hole to last for centuries. Then they can move back if they want to. Provided they don't mind their children being born with flippers instead of hands & feet.

In case you hadn't noticed, I'm all out of sympathy.

So, why you still looking in then, hippi? Just for laughs? And nope, it IS most definitely “he“, unless you think that living in a humanitarian crisis qualifies as being a “spoiled brat”.

“The statement made by the International Committee of the Red Cross took the world by surprise. The organization is, on occasion, criticised (http://www.noobtoob.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20573&sid=2c5f264fa925620b14148799d2703fef) for its position on maintaining neutrality in tense situations. Normally the non-profit organization refrains from making statements about situations in the interests of maintaining impartiality. But the dire situation of people living in the Gaza strip have prompted the ICRC (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-update-140610) to speak strongly on the topic."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293392 (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/293392)

One from 2004:
Red Cross slams Israel barrier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3498795.stm

“Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

"My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

He accused the Israeli government of seeking "conquest" and added: "

They are not simply war criminals, they are fools."“
YouTube- UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8)

[Rogers]

Assault for political gain is terrorism.
People on board that boat assaulted Israeli troops for political gain.
Therefore those people are terrorists.


You defined your term. We see people acting in the way you described. This leads to a conclusion.


That's how I got there.





Jeez, you're a complete and abject failure at logic. hippi was talking about piracy. The Turks were pirates too now? How in the hell can you be a pirate defending your legal property? O.o Fuck, you're dumb.

[Rogers]

So, to recap: You abandoned your attempt to argue that the Israeli troops had committed an act of piracy once it became clear that it wasn't an act of piracy. You then tried to argue that the violence committed by the passengers on board the boat was an attempt on their part to defend their "laptops and cameras" and other private property. Once the difficulties with that view were brought to light, you tried to advance a new argument, namely that in their capacity as passengers on board a boat, the group of people one sees pulling on the first Israeli soldier's rope so he would fall to the deck, then beating him with steel bars, had a "right" to use such violent means to "defend" the cargo in the boat's hold.

You see how it goes: when one points out difficulties with your hypothesis, you are forced to alter course and bring your position closer, ever closer, to reality.

Please explain, when you try to argue your (new) case, why you think a passenger on a boat has any kind of duty to use violent means to "defend" that boat's cargo. A passenger has a entirely different status from the crew aboard a boat. It's not clear why a deckhand or an engineer working aboard a boat would be expected by the boat's owners, or would be legally obliged, or even legally allowed, to use violent means to "defend" a boat's cargo. It's not their boat, nor is it their cargo. And that's the crew, who are actually in the employ of the ship's owners. Passengers are even further removed, legally speaking, from whatever's in the boat's hold.

Note that I did address the point you were trying to make:
My argument was quite straightforward: you had previously said that the passengers on board that boat were merely trying to defend their own property. I showed that their behavour was not a response to anyone asking or demanding that they hand over their property at all. Cutting off handrails to use as weapons shows intent. It clearly happened beforehand.

I also pointed out that if you wish to argue that if one has a right to defend their own property, then it follows that one has a right to defend one's life. Consequently, if the Israeli soldiers' lives were at risk, then their use of force to defend themselves was legitimate.

To say as you did, that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves is hardly a convincing argument, is it? It's a bald assertion which reveals your own prejudices. That is all.

So, if you now wish to present a different argument, and say that a passenger aboard a boat has a duty to use violent means to "defend" that boat's cargo, then on you go and present that (entirely new) argument.

Remember to address these points: What legal "right" or "duty" does a passenger on a boat have to "defend" that boat's cargo? Remember athat the boat could have put ashore, and its cargo transported to its destination. Remember to clearly define your term "defend". ("Defend" a boat's cargo from what, exactly? Being landed at port A instead of port B? Big deal.)

Good luck.

Still dodging me I see. What a sad little coward of a man you clearly are.

Your posts have now deteriorated into nothing more than pure trash. Congratulations. Haven’t you seriously got nothing better to do with your time than to look retarded on the internet? I guess not. You’re like a hamster with a head trauma stuck running round it’s little wheel. This particular question to you, which you are obviously determined to dodge, was really very simple. It has also NEVER changed. Anyone looking at the quotes of mine you’ve used can tell that. LOL. So thanks for finally quoting me so that everyone can finally see it for themselves. XXXD

The aid and their personal property was all their property. Not only did they have the right to defend their property, but they had the right to protect themselves and avoid capture, and they were also legally entitled to do that with force. The Israeli’s are therefore by law, criminals and murders. It’s that simple. But you just can’t admit that, because U R A COWARD!

“Raid Illegal Under San Remo Manual
Gaza Blockade Itself Illegal
Israel's Offers on Cargo Not Credible
Clear Violations of International Law
In such cases, any claim of self-defense by Israeli forces is irrelevant. The treaty necessarily adopts a strict approach. One cannot attack a ship and then claim self-defense if the people on board resist the unlawful use of violence.
Legally speaking, government military forces rappelling onto a ship to illegally capture it are treated no differently than other criminals. The right of self-defense in such situations rests with the passengers on board: a person is legally entitled to resist one's own unlawful capture, abduction and detention.”
http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313 (http://www.nlginternational.org/news/article.php?nid=313)

And whether or not it was an act of piracy still remains to be seen.
Prosecution charges that Israel engaged in acts of piracy.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177028 (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177028)

Either way, there have been many more people who are much more linguistically capable than myself who have called it piracy.
Author Henning Mankell Says Israel Committed Piracy (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=a4s.QcfbD.9c (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=a4s.QcfbD.9c)

Gaza convoy activists claim Israeli soldiers using debit cards stolen in raid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/18/gaza-convoy-activists-debit-card-fraud

YouTube- ISRAELI PIRATES STEAL $3 MILLION FROM GAZA FLOTILLA AND USED CREDIT CARDS TO BUY ALCOHOL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPd79HqTIPg)

[Rogers]

When you say that someone else "seems to be suggesting" something, then go on to attack that position, what you are doing is creating, then attacking, a "straw man" (i.e. wasting your time). Now getting back to what I put before you: Do you, after complaining (in post 18 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=756588&postcount=18)) about "BS spin" in the media, now wish to argue that Reuters behaved in a proper manner when they cropped the bloody knife/body from this photo? (See attachments)

Mommy, look at the retard! You’re like a punch-drunk boxer flailing around desperately to land a punch on me. I never said you called me a liar. That’s why I used “seem to be”. I then politely asked you just to not go there. You clearly have some kind of cognitive problem. I can’t possibly continue answering this trash for much longer, because I can honestly feel my brain cells die in their millions every time I read a new post of yours. And I have absolutely no desire in ending up like a hamster with a head trauma OR a punch-drunk boxer. ;)

Here’s another photo Reuter’s “doctored” earlier. It‘s called “accentuating the subject“. I would have thought this was well known on a porn board. “Hey, guys, I wanted to see the lamp behind her, not her boobies!“ LOL. Photographers don’t think like journalists, because nice pictures aren’t usually about telling a story. Until you know who actually cropped the images, bias remains unproven.
http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2008/05/08/bad-cropping/ (http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2008/05/08/bad-cropping/)

[Rogers]

Now please wait for a moment till I find a hacksaw then cut through this handrail so I can hit you with it." Clearly this sort of thing would have to be done in advance.


Go on, give it your best shot. Is that a "hopper" we see atop the pistol? Could that be ... a paintball gun?

Ha, proves just how much you know about what actually went on! Please keep digging a hole for yourself, litte hamster with a head trauma...
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=47998

[Rogers]

I'm probably typing a load of incoherent shite

Hey, you finally got it right for once! XXXD

[Rogers]

R, I'm just wondering: Have you ever even been aboard a boat?

You have absolutely no idea of what I know about working at sea on all sorts of boats and ships, in widely varying conditions around the world. But I have absolutely no desire in discussing that with a morally bankrupt coward. Not only that, I have absolutely no interest in hearing your mind-numbingly boring little anecdotes about working at sea either. All through this thread you’ve literally blamed the victims for their own deaths.

:fu::fu::fu:

[Niccolo]

So you have no argument to support your rather unusual notion that passengers have a duty (or even a "right") to use violent means to defend a boat's cargo. Oh well ...

Any time you think you actually can construct an argument serving that purpose, feel free to share it on this board. Remember that an assertion ("The aid and their personal property was all their property") is not an argument. Remember too that repeating an assertion won't turn it into an argument.


Here are some helpful hints then, should you decide to try and actually make your case, instead of making bald assertions and expecting other people to accept what you've said (here on a porn board, where your unsupported assertions carry no weight at all.)

Why do you think that a passenger on a boat "owns" the cargo? (Remember to define your term: "own".)

Who exactly do you think is in charge of a boat's cargo when she is at sea?


A passenger has a entirely different status from the crew aboard a boat. It's not clear why a deckhand or an engineer working aboard a boat would be expected by the boat's owners, or would be legally obliged, or even legally allowed, to use violent means to "defend" a boat's cargo. It's not their boat, nor is it their cargo. And that's the crew, who are actually in the employ of the ship's owners. Passengers are even further removed, legally speaking, from whatever's in the boat's hold. - Niccolo.You also need to explain what you think the cargo was being "defended" from? (As I've said already, you need to clearly define your term: "defend".) Being landed at a different port? Big deal. If you were a passenger aboard a boat and the skipper announced that the boat was going to land its cargo at port x instead of port y, that would not give you the "right" to go into the wheelhouse and stab him or hit him with a length of handrail. If you did elect to follow that course of action, I put it to you that this would give him the right to drop you in your tracks. These are just some of the difficulties you must overcome, should you wish to present your case in a more convincing manner. Good luck!

[Niccolo]

there have been many more people who are much more linguistically capable than myselfHey, you finally got it right for once! (I couldn't resist.)

Oh and if you wish to discuss categorical syllogisms then please go ahead. I'd enjoy that. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with logic understands that an ad hominem remark doesn't make an argument invalid. If you genuinely think the argument I presented to the other fellow is invalid, then go ahead and show why you think that. If you can't do so, then naturally the argument stands before you untouched.

Good luck with that project too!

[Niccolo]

Oh and please answer the question. It's very straightforward. Is that a "hopper" we can see atop the gun in the Israeli guy's hand? Is that a paintball gun or not - Y/N

[Rogers]

So you have no argument to support your rather unusual notion that passengers have a duty (or even a "right") to use violent means to defend a boat's cargo. Oh well ...

Any time you think you actually can construct an argument serving that purpose, feel free to share it on this board. Remember that an assertion ("The aid and their personal property was all their property") is not an argument. Remember too that repeating an assertion won't turn it into an argument.


Here are some helpful hints then, should you decide to try and actually make your case, instead of making bald assertions and expecting other people to accept what you've said (here on a porn board, where your unsupported assertions carry no weight at all.)

Why do you think that a passenger on a boat "owns" the cargo? (Remember to define your term: "own".)

Who exactly do you think is in charge of a boat's cargo when she is at sea?

You also need to explain what you think the cargo was being "defended" from? (As I've said already, you need to clearly define your term: "defend".) Being landed at a different port? Big deal. If you were a passenger aboard a boat and the skipper announced that the boat was going to land its cargo at port x instead of port y, that would not give you the "right" to go into the wheelhouse and stab him or hit him with a length of handrail. If you did elect to follow that course of action, I put it to you that this would give him the right to drop you in your tracks. These are just some of the difficulties you must overcome, should you wish to present your case in a more convincing manner. Good luck!

Verb


S: (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=obfuscate&i=0&h=0#c) (v) obfuscate (make obscure or unclear)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=obfuscate

One of the passengers (a photographer) was already dead before the Israeli's boarded. He was only holding a camera when they shot the top of his head off. Many of the passengers actually had family aboard also. Classic "terrorist" behavior if ever I saw it. There are still people missing from the flotilla, most likely dead or in Israeli jails.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/04/gaza.raid.autopsies/

Right of self-defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

More detail about those murdered, including the webmaster on the ship:
YouTube- Gaza Freedom Flotilla protest at Congressman Brad Sherman's office (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NPuFyduZI4)

[Rogers]

Oh and please answer the question. It's very straightforward. Is that a "hopper" we can see atop the gun in the Israeli guy's hand? Is that a paintball gun or not - Y/N

It's fake, that's what it is. Commandos, and you clearly have no idea what that is, don't go up against "terrorists" with paintball guns, and they don't mess up on ropes either.

"BUSTED! I didn’t believe they would be that stupid. You could see the cursor moving in the picture. I saw a man handed a metal bar. Then he walked through, just like a ghost, a solid steel protrusion from the deck, the size of an ashcan. This thing would have stopped a truck but the Fox News “fighters” on the Mavi Marmara were like ghosts. In fact, the “steel bar thugs” were exactly that, or more appropriately, cartoons."
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/06/14/gordon-duff-dancing-israeli-film-studios-present-faked-attack-videos/

YouTube- Jewish man Norman Finkelstein exposes israeli floatilla cover up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxaNf0NnCTk)

[Rogers]

Hey, you finally got it right for once! (I couldn't resist.)

Oh and if you wish to discuss categorical syllogisms then please go ahead. I'd enjoy that. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with logic understands that an ad hominem remark doesn't make an argument invalid. If you genuinely think the argument I presented to the other fellow is invalid, then go ahead and show why you think that. If you can't do so, then naturally the argument stands before you untouched.

Good luck with that project too!

Assault for political gain is terrorism.
The Israeli troops assaulted people on board that boat for political gain.
Therefore those Israeli's are terrorists.

See what I did there. ;) Except hippi was talking about piracy. And it wasn't a boat, it was a ship!

[hippifried]

If it floats, it's a boat. You know... Whatever...