• ISRAEL THREAD (Post new Israel threads = get banned)
    1,592 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;22514820]As does every state government in the Union. My house isn't a boat trying to peacefully break a blockade[/QUOTE] lol so you think it's okay to shoot someone who is looting your TV? but if a ship is illegally boarded and assaulted then the passengers shouldn't defend themselves.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22512444]If an enemy were to come across such videos he could learn the tactics the IDF is using and find weakness and exploit them.[/QUOTE] lol that reminds me [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQyIKyd2gqA[/media]
[QUOTE=GunFox;22514081]Not really. It put the lives of all 500 passengers at risk because the group of assholes on deck didn't understand the concept of a [B]peaceful blockade break.[/B] And then so do you. And all your friends on the boat. You either show up with warships and shoot your way through a blockade or you show up peacefully and get arrested to make a point. You can't show up peacefully and then attack when they board your ship. It hurts the entire point of the demonstration.[/QUOTE] and illegal blockade and ship boarding in international waters is not peaceful. [editline]09:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22514505]Well if a burglar was caught sneaking into someone's house, and the owner of the house would say, stab him with a knife, and then the burglar had to kill the owner in order to save his own life, I don't think the burglar would be punished for killing the owner of the house, if he could prove he had to do it to save himself. Also you are forgetting that the boarding was legal, it's more like resisting having your house searched by a police officer with a warrant.[/QUOTE] castle doctrine brosteak
[QUOTE=JDK721;22514609]except the burglar has a gun and just broke into the guy's house which means the owner has the right to defend himself your example is terrible[/QUOTE] If the burglar didn't point the gun at the owner of the house I don't see how could the owner be in danger, and even if he would, it's extremely rare that burglars kill people, it's not worth the risk. [quote]proof[/QUOTE] The Helsinki principles of maritime law say so.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22514658] Not to mention that is a completely horrible misrepresentation of this situation in the first place.[/QUOTE] they killed 9 people in an illegal boarding and wounded 50 others... uh, yeah, that's not a misrepresentation. [editline]09:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515015] The Helsinki principles of maritime law say so.[/QUOTE] we've already been over this, no it doesn't.
[QUOTE=JDK721;22514676] they had the right to defend themselves the ISRAELITES ASSAULTED their ship [editline]03:54PM[/editline] international waters, illegal blockade, etc.[/QUOTE] And in a startling case of total misunderstanding of non-violent resistance, the people on the ship became violent. Thus harming the entire message they were trying to make and putting everyone on the ship at risk. If someone shows up with overwhelming force, it isn't a matter of whether you have the right to resist or not, it's whether resisting puts more lives at risk. If a group of commandos supported with a tank breaks into my house I have the right to resist, but doing so would be extremely irresponsible. Plus, they dropped tear gas. Tear gas has one use: non lethal suppression. The commandos are armed with blatantly non-lethal guns. If they are boarding your vessel when they have gunship helicopters and a clear view of a fuckton of people on the deck, they are OBVIOUSLY doing so in order to take the ship without loss of life.
so the Helsinki principles of maritime law says "oh hay, you can totally set up a blockade where the fuck ever you want" [editline]09:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;22515057]And in a startling case of total misunderstanding of non-violent resistance, the people on the ship became violent. Thus harming the entire message they were trying to make and putting everyone on the ship at risk. If someone shows up with overwhelming force, it isn't a matter of whether you have the right to resist or not, it's whether resisting puts more lives at risk. If a group of commandos supported with a tank breaks into my house I have the right to resist, but doing so would be extremely irresponsible.[/quote] Regardless if the people did it or not, they were still being illegally boarded. [quote]Plus, they dropped tear gas. Tear gas has one use: non lethal suppression. The commandos are armed with blatantly non-lethal guns. If they are boarding your vessel when they have gunship helicopters and a clear view of a fuckton of people on the deck, they are OBVIOUSLY doing so in order to take the ship without loss of life.[/QUOTE] uh, glocks are not non-leathal. And lol, you have a giant gunship, you drop tear gas onto the ship, have armed commandos land onboard... meanwhile it being an illegal boarding, is... peaceful? are you fucking joking?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22515019] we've already been over this, no it doesn't.[/QUOTE] Yup, we have been over this, and the UN security council didn't declare it illegal yet, and that's the only body in the world that can come close to doing that, and even its powers are extremely limited.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlElXOJV4CA[/media] Uhm, has this been posted yet?
So Israel can do whatever the fuck you want because the UN babies them. ok, burnemdown, I'm SO glad to know where you lie on this. [editline]09:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jugulum;22515341][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlElXOJV4CA[/media] Uhm, has this been posted yet?[/QUOTE] I bet he was a suicide bomber! Free Israel! [/burnemdown]
[QUOTE=Warhol;22515070]so the Helsinki principles of maritime law says "oh hay, you can totally set up a blockade where the fuck ever you want" [editline]09:07PM[/editline] Regardless if the people did it or not, they were still being illegally boarded. uh, glocks are not non-leathal. And lol, you have a giant gunship, you drop tear gas onto the ship, have armed commandos land onboard... meanwhile it being an illegal boarding, is... peaceful? are you fucking joking?[/QUOTE] Police during riots carry pistols in addition to riot shields, pepperball guns, batons, or tear gas. I still assume they are aiming for non-lethal. If they wanted the people on the ship dead, they would have been dead. It was obvious that they were attempting to take the vessel without loss of life. Fuck, I imagine they even announced as much. You can argue all day long about legal or illegal or if they had the right to defend themselves (Which you apparently disagree with in a home, but not on a boat), but the fact of the matter remains it was obvious the Israelis were trying to accomplish this without loss of life and the people still chose to resist anyways and got people killed on both sides as a direct result. It was irresponsible, reprehensible, and totally damaging to the movement.
[QUOTE=Jugulum;22515341][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlElXOJV4CA[/media] Uhm, has this been posted yet?[/QUOTE] Nope, but I don't understand much of it. I can clearly see the soldiers kicking someone or something, and I can see at the end that the soldier is aiming his weapon, but it doesn't seem at all like he's shooting, there's no recoil and stops aiming (but not in a recoil-kinda way) every few seconds.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515429]Nope, but I don't understand much of it. I can clearly see the soldiers kicking someone or something, and I can see at the end that the soldier is aiming his weapon, but it doesn't seem at all like he's shooting, there's no recoil and stops aiming (but not in a recoil-kinda way) every few seconds.[/QUOTE] It does fit together with the autopsy of the guy showing that he was shot 4 times in the back of the head though.
[QUOTE=Jugulum;22515507]It does fit together with the autopsy of the guy showing that he was shot 4 times in the back of the head though.[/QUOTE] I could bring a guy who was shot 10 times and show a video of someone supposably standing over him with a rifle in his head and say "well it fits, he must have done it". Edit: I mean, but that would be stupid.
[QUOTE=Jugulum;22515507]It does fit together with the autopsy of the guy showing that he was shot 4 times in the back of the head though.[/QUOTE] That guy was shot from short range. He clearly ran to one of the soldiers and was shot by a nervous (explains the multiple shots) soldier.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515568]I could bring a guy who was shot 10 times and show a video of someone supposably standing over him with a rifle in his head and say "well it fits, he must have done it". Edit: I mean, but that would be stupid.[/QUOTE] So, what you are saying is that these soldiers were just standing around and kicking/aiming their guns at something for fun?
[QUOTE=GunFox;22515394]Police during riots carry pistols in addition to riot shields, pepperball guns, batons, or tear gas. I still assume they are aiming for non-lethal.[/quote] Because the passengers did an inventory check of the IDF before attacking them right? [quote]If they wanted the people on the ship dead, they would have been dead. It was obvious that they were attempting to take the vessel without loss of life. Fuck, I imagine they even announced as much.[/quote] do you HONESTLY fucking think it's that simple? So a large, armed force with fucking tear gas raids your ship in international waters... oh, wait, they're being friendly. There's no proof of an "Announcement" [quote]You can argue all day long about legal or illegal or if they had the right to defend themselves[/quote] That's the fucking point, and should ONLY be the fucking point. [quote](Which you apparently disagree with in a home, but not on a boat)[/quote] International waters and some guy stealing your TV is different [quote] but the fact of the matter remains it was obvious the Israelis were trying to accomplish this without loss of life[/quote] How the fuck is that obvious? They killed 9 people and wounded 50 others. You think that's proof they were trying to be fucking gentle? Are you fucking insane? [quote]and the people still chose to resist anyways and got people killed on both sides as a direct result. It was irresponsible, reprehensible, and totally damaging to the movement.[/QUOTE] On both sides? I don't think any IDF were killed.
[QUOTE=Jugulum;22515619]So, what you are saying is that these soldiers were just standing around and kicking/aiming their guns at something for fun?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that's 100% what happened, but I can't possibly see how is this proof that they shot him. The problems are that: 1. I can't see anyone there (though I'd admit they certainly are looking and kicking at something). 2. I don't see how can anyone think the soldier is shooting, given the fact that there's no recoil, no muzzle flash, no evidence that he shot at something except for him aiming at something, which is very short too.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515429]Nope, but I don't understand much of it. I can clearly see the soldiers kicking someone or something, and I can see at the end that the soldier is aiming his weapon, but it doesn't seem at all like he's shooting, there's no recoil and stops aiming (but not in a recoil-kinda way) every few seconds.[/QUOTE] Right, so the IDF were just kicking the ground for no fucking reason? [editline]09:29PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515771]I'm not saying that's 100% what happened, but I can't possibly see how is this proof that they shot him. The problems are that: 1. I can't see anyone there (though I'd admit they certainly are looking and kicking at something). 2. I don't see how can anyone think the soldier is shooting, given the fact that there's no recoil, no muzzle flash, no evidence that he shot at something except for him aiming at something, which is very short too.[/QUOTE] you can, uh, you know, beat people to death
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22515771]I'm not saying that's 100% what happened, but I can't possibly see how is this proof that they shot him. The problems are that: 1. I can't see anyone there (though I'd admit they certainly are looking and kicking at something). 2. I don't see how can anyone think the soldier is shooting, given the fact that there's no recoil, no muzzle flash, no evidence that he shot at something except for him aiming at something, which is very short too.[/QUOTE] You know, if we had the original footage, maybe we would find a video with a clearer view. Since you are an Israeli, I would guess you are closest. Would you mind heading over to your defence department and ask them to return all of the footage they have confiscated?
[QUOTE=SunBird;22515596]That guy was shot from short range. He clearly ran to one of the soldiers and was shot by a nervous (explains the multiple shots) soldier.[/QUOTE] how does being a nervous soldier justify it? [editline]09:31PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jugulum;22515862]You know, if we had the original footage, maybe we would find a video with a clearer view. Since you are an Israeli, I would guess you are closest. Would you mind heading over to your defence department and ask them to return all of the footage they have confiscated?[/QUOTE] yo ehud, mah breda gimmie sum dat footage know'm sayin?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22515812]Right, so the IDF were just kicking the ground for no fucking reason? [editline]09:29PM[/editline] you can, uh, you know, beat people to death[/QUOTE] You just proved the point of why the IDF started using their pistols. Bit of a double standard you think?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22515729] That's the fucking point, and should ONLY be the fucking point. [/QUOTE] No, I've made it clear that they had the right to defend themselves. The legality is moot because there are no actual laws. Having the right and exercising the right to defend themselves are two different things. Again, they had the right, but exercising it was an incredibly poor choice. Again, defending themselves was a NO WIN SITUATION IN WHICH THE ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME WAS LOSS OF LIFE. Either they fail, as they did, and people die, or they succeed, as they luckily didn't, and the IDF slaughters them horribly. The only possible logic train here is that a great many of them wanted to become martyrs.
Maybe when I get into the IDF, I'll steal the video and make people PAY to see it muhahahahaha.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22515954]No, I've made it clear that they had the right to defend themselves. The legality is moot because there are no actual laws. Having the right and exercising the right to defend themselves are two different things. Again, they had the right, but exercising it was an incredibly poor choice. Again, defending themselves was a NO WIN SITUATION IN WHICH THE ONLY POSSIBLE OUTCOME WAS LOSS OF LIFE. Either they fail, as they did, and people die, or they succeed, as they luckily didn't, and the IDF slaughters them horribly.[/quote] regardless of it being a poor choice or NOT, they still had the right to. [quote]The only possible logic train here is that a great many of them wanted to become martyrs.[/QUOTE] or, you know, defend their ship? [editline]09:35PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Thom12255;22515952]You just proved the point of why the IDF started using their pistols. Bit of a double standard you think?[/QUOTE] uh, what?
[QUOTE=GunFox;22515954] The only possible logic train here is that a great many of them wanted to become martyrs.[/QUOTE] Sigh, I can't fathom how people honestly believe this. If these people were looking for violence, why didn't they kill the soldiers? They offered the wounded soldiers medical treatment for christs sake. Besides, the only reasoning you can make from what you claim is that the members of the flotilla might have acted irresponsible(which would be understandable, considering what was going on), in no way can you use it to pin blame on them at all. The commandos were the ones who brought violence to the flotilla, and bears 100% of the blame. [editline]10:37PM[/editline] Are anyone who defends themselves from Somali pirates martyrs as well?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22516026]regardless of it being a poor choice or NOT, they still had the right to. or, you know, defend their ship? [editline]09:35PM[/editline] uh, what?[/QUOTE] The IDF used their pistols so they wouldn't get beaten to death by that mob which you say was uncalled for.
[QUOTE=Jugulum;22516108]Sigh, I can't fathom how people honestly believe this. If these people were looking for violence, why didn't they kill the soldiers? They offered the wounded soldiers medical treatment for christs sake. Besides, the only reasoning you can make from what you claim is that the members of the flotilla might have acted irresponsible(which would be understandable, considering what was going on), in no way can you use it to pin blame on them at all. The commandos were the ones who brought violence to the flotilla, and bears 100% of the blame. [editline]10:37PM[/editline] Are anyone who defends themselves from Somali pirates martyrs as well?[/QUOTE] Okay again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. It could have been a ship full of marines and defending themselves would have been a poor choice. Why didn't they kill the soldiers? Because when they started trying to beat them to death, the commandos used their sidearms. Again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. There was no win situation to be had by resisting.
[QUOTE=GunFox;22518153]Okay again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. It could have been a ship full of marines and defending themselves would have been a poor choice. Why didn't they kill the soldiers? Because when they started trying to beat them to death, the commandos used their sidearms. Again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. There was no win situation to be had by resisting.[/QUOTE] Uhm, you do know that the managed to get complete control of the soldiers and got them below deck and gave them medical attention while they raised the white flag and asked to get medical attention for those who were wounded? Complete control, they could have killed them at any time, but they chose not to. Tell me, have you read any of the flotilla members side of what happened, or are you just blindly using the IDFs narrative? Also, again with that "Overwhelming force", are you saying that merely by having overwhelming firepower the commandos were in the right? I'd say it would be even more important for the ones having the upper hand to avoid casualties.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;22517406]The IDF used their pistols so they wouldn't get beaten to death by that mob which you say was uncalled for.[/QUOTE] Did you even read my post? [editline]12:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;22518153]Okay again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. It could have been a ship full of marines and defending themselves would have been a poor choice. Why didn't they kill the soldiers? Because when they started trying to beat them to death, the commandos used their sidearms. Again. OVERWHELMING FORCE. There was no win situation to be had by resisting.[/QUOTE] so having superior firepower means you can do what ever the fuck you want?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.