Israeli troops armed with paintball guns

[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/new...cle7144099.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...

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.


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.

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-Is...rab-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

[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).

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)

Does a person have the right to protect their property? YES OR NO? - R (post 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? - R

I 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


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. - Niccolo

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 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.

[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

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) 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)