Unbelievable: US calls Israel to investigate into its own crime (Flotilla) - Polidicks

Also, have a look at this: [url]http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009,1001.html[/url] and then this: [url]http://en.rsf.org/israel-at-least-60-journalists-were-02-06-2010,37646.html[/url]

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326391]Oh, go away. Read up on the history of the land - and I'm talking biblical history. Actually, past biblical history.[/QUOTE] I think he meant that the lands were stolen by the Zionists, regardless of what's written in the bible.

[QUOTE=Sickle;22326374]No it doesn't it's all fucking stolen land.[/QUOTE] Where's the troll rating? I'll rate you funny instead.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;22323519][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=534nme0kjUk[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtYnZBKSFgM[/media] The violence seems semi legit. They ignored the warning.[/QUOTE] Yeah that would be legit... if it actually happened on Israelian waters. Which it didn't.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;22326410]I said the Israeli regime.. the government, military, etc. death to them[/QUOTE] Death to them? I don't think they deserve death. Also not all of the military is responsible for the war crimes.

[QUOTE=Tigster;22326406]Defend itself from what? Scrutiny over international incidents? Do you honestly expect their investigation to be completely unbiased? Do you not think the fact that they are asked to investigate their own criminal actions might indicate that they may blur it a bit in their favor?[/QUOTE] Defend itself from attack. When I say that, it's unrelated to the aid vessel. And yes, I expect their investigation to be impartial. They're not going to go as far as prosecuting soldiers, but I expect them to make changes to the way the IDF operates. Why? Because of the amount of damage this attack on the flagship of the flotilla did.

[QUOTE=Re-y-tard;22326431]Yeah that would be legit... if it actually happened on Israelian waters. Which it didn't.[/QUOTE] Israeli*

I'll sum the thread up with this quote : ''TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL''

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326440]Defend itself from attack. When I say that, it's unrelated to the aid vessel. And yes, I expect their investigation to be impartial. They're not going to go as far as prosecuting soldiers, but I expect them to make changes to the way the IDF operates. Why? Because of the amount of damage this attack on the flagship of the flotilla did.[/QUOTE] The IDF disciplines soldiers who have broken the law, for example the two officers who have used WP illegally. I do understand though why everyone would think that the investigation will be weak. [editline]08:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JOMBIX;22326483]I'll sum the thread up with this quote : ''TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL''[/QUOTE] Please don't, you are sounding more like a troll than them.

Claim 1: The raid was illegal The flotilla openly stated that it was going to break the military blockade Israel has on Gaza. According to the San Remo memorandum: [I]67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are [B]believed on reasonable grounds[/B] to be carrying contraband or [B]breaching a blockade[/B], and [B]after prior warning[/B] they intentionally and [B]clearly refuse to stop[/B], or [B]intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture[/B];[/I] As you can note, they were openly intending to breach a blockade, and they clearly refused to stop. Therefore the raid on the flotilla was completely legal. Claim 1: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 2: The Gaza blockade is illegal, therefore this raid is illegal Israel is currently at war with Hamas, a recognized terrorist group who was elected by the residents of Gaza as the government, and is therefore legally allowed to blockade it under international law. While certain events and acts that take place during the blockade can be argued legal or illegal on an individual basis, the blockade itself is in fact legal. Claim 2: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 3: Israel fired on the activists before boarding These are the claims supporting this: "All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people." "Moments later, we heard detonations and then soldiers from helicopters above us dropped down on board," he said. "The soldiers were all masked, carrying big guns and were extremely brutal." "They were shooting without warning," said Groth. "It was like war. ... They had guns, Taser weapons, some type of teargas and other weaponry, compared to two-and-a-half wooden sticks we had between us. To talk of self-defense is ridiculous." As can be seen by video evidence, the soldiers did not come on board and immediately start shooting people, they did not come on board with big guns, and the activists did not just have a few "two-and-a-half wooden sticks" between them. The fact that the IDF fired weapons first before boarding, as taken from this quote: "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said. Does not mean that they fired [B]on[/B] the activists first, they fired warning shots, and the "attack" was the boarding. Claim 3: [B]FALSE[/B] Claim 4: The lethal force used by the IDF was unnecessary As you can see by the quotes above, the activists tell a story of the IDF roping in and indiscriminately shooting people. Based on the video evidence, the IDF roped in using non-lethal weaponry such as pepperball guns, and were attempting to gain control of the bridge. As you can also see by the video, as soon as the first IDF operator hits the ground he is immediately mobbed and thrown over the side of the deck. Throughout the video, this can be observed: -Being mobbed and beaten by blunt instruments, which does not take long to inflict lethal damage -Being thrown over the side of the deck, where one IDF member sustained serious neck injuries -Being stabbed by makeshift implements, as one IDF member was seriously wounded -IDF members being restrained and having their firearms taken, which now puts the belligerent group as having the ability to inflict immediate casualties at range As you can see by the above, before the IDF resorted to lethal measures, their lives were seriously in danger. You may say that the activists had the right to defend themselves, except that they were doing so in a legal raid against a non-lethal policing force in an aggressive and malicious fashion. The other five non-Turkish ships were boarded peacefully, with no violence from either side, if these activists were truly defending themselves, what was it against? Being legally boarded? Claim 4: [B]FALSE[/B] As you can see by the above, these issues are now [B]NON-ARGUABLE[/B].

The Islamophobic is back; run to the hills.

What the fuck is that shit CriticalThought? Did you copy and paste it from somewhere?

Does it matter if he's an Islamophobic? His claims are still true. Edit: well, some of them.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22326646]Does it matter if he's an Islamophobic? His claims are still true. Edit: well, some of them.[/QUOTE] Actually, no, they are not. Pretty much the same list was brought up in another forum I visits, and it was plucked to pieces by people who are more knowledgeable to the law than I am. I'll try to see if I can find the posts, but I need some food now.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326391]Oh, go away. Read up on the history of the land - and I'm talking biblical history. Actually, past biblical history.[/QUOTE] The Bible talks shit.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326640]What the fuck is that shit CriticalThought? Did you copy and paste it from somewhere?[/QUOTE] No I researched and wrote it [QUOTE=starpluck;22326601]The Islamophobic is back; run to the hills.[/QUOTE] Because when you can't refute what someone says, you just just ad hominem them.

[QUOTE=Sickle;22326702]The Bible talks shit.[/QUOTE] Sigh... I'm talking about history during the biblical years.

great, clinicalthought is back.. did they release you from the psychiatric ward?

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22326703]No I researched and wrote it Because when you can't refute what someone says, you just just ad hominem them.[/QUOTE] I will actually refute what you said. You brought very weak arguments. [editline]07:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721v2;22326724]great, clinicalthought is back.. did they release you from the psychiatric ward?[/QUOTE] lol'd

[QUOTE=starpluck;22326732]I will actually refute what you said. You brought very weak arguments. [editline]07:13PM[/editline] lol'd[/QUOTE] Do it then

[QUOTE=Jugulum;22326678]Actually, no, they are not. Pretty much the same list was brought up in another forum I visits, and it was plucked to pieces by people who are more knowledgeable to the law than I am. I'll try to see if I can find the posts, but I need some food now.[/QUOTE] The only claim I see which might be wrong is the second one. Of course the first one relies somewhat on the second, so it might be considered wrong if the second is wrong as well. Please do post what you find, I'm interested in what we might have to say about these posts.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;22326718]Sigh... I'm talking about history during the biblical years.[/QUOTE] Yes. Zionists raped the land, turned into Israel's shitty regime.

[QUOTE=Sickle;22326702]The Bible talks shit.[/QUOTE] There are many evidence that the kingdoms of Israel and Judea have existed.

[QUOTE=Sickle;22326751]Yes. Zionists raped the land, turned into Israel's shitty regime.[/QUOTE] Yep, that's why the land is one of the most prosperous in the Middle East.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22326762]There are many evidence that the kingdoms of Israel and Judea have existed.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the Bible in itself.

[QUOTE=Sickle;22326777]I'm talking about the Bible in itself.[/QUOTE] OK, but the kingdoms of Judea and Israel still exited, and that's all that matters in this argument.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22326748]The only claim I see which might be wrong is the second one. Of course the first one relies somewhat on the second, so it might be considered wrong if the second is wrong as well. Please do post what you find, I'm interested in what we might have to say about these posts.[/QUOTE] The second can be answered by a few simple questions: 1. Is Israel in an armed conflict with Hamas? 2. Does Gaza recognize Hamas as it's elected and sovereign government? 3. Are blockades against hostile territory legal under international law? You will find the answer is yes to all these questions.

[QUOTE=CriticalThought;22326806]The second can be answered by a few simple questions: 1. Is Israel in an armed conflict with Hamas? 2. Does Gaza recognize Hamas as it's elected and sovereign government? 3. Are blockades against hostile territory legal under international law? You will find the answer is yes to all these questions.[/QUOTE] How about the fact that Israel doesn't let enough food and supplies through? Doesn't this hurt the legality of the blockade?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22326840]How about the fact that Israel doesn't let enough food and supplies through? Doesn't this hurt the legality of the blockade?[/QUOTE] This is arguable. I would say that it does, but either way it does not make the blockade illegal. You could also argue that Egypt doesn't let enough aid through.

As far as I know nobody is trying to move aid through Egypt, only through Israel, and this is why it's Israel's responsibility to make sure all the aid gets through.