• ISRAEL THREAD (Post new Israel threads = get banned)
    1,592 replies, posted
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529351]The ship's captain admits that the passangers prepared ahead to attack the Israeli soldiers: [Media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JdfxKEGGtc&feature=player_embedded[/media] Thread end.[/QUOTE] Er, I don't see how this is in any way damning. He says that some people were cutting up bits of metal piping, and he sent ship security to toss the piping into the sea. That sounds like a good decision. Besides, this is completely irrelevant to our point. Once again they show only a part of a longer interview, yet again they refuse to show the footage before the boarding of the ship, yet again they refuse to release the footage that would clear up this entire mess. We know that people on the ship fought the Israeli soldiers, the part in question is what happened [I]before[/I] that.
Yes, we already know you refuse to accept evidence that supports the Israeli claim. No need to repeat it. He actually said, by the way, that they were preparing to attack the military. You can't argue with that.. oh wa-
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529402]It proves that the passangers have prepared ahead to attack the Israeli soldiers, without any provecation or voilence inflicted on them by the Israeli military. Therefore, the thread (well, the discussion on the boat incident, at least) ends.[/QUOTE] No, you incoherent 'person', it just means they PREPARED for the attack, in a sense preparing to defend themselves if they were attacked. Thread revive.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529402]It proves that the passangers have prepared ahead to attack the Israeli soldiers, without any provecation or voilence inflicted on them by the Israeli military. Therefore, the thread (well, the discussion on the boat incident, at least) ends.[/QUOTE] No, not really. It's in no way illegal to prepare for an attack in international waters, and this argues that this wasn't in any way planned by the people leading the flotilla.
No, not at all. They were preparing to attack the soldiers. I already know that half of you will refuse to accept the fact the ship's captain has admitted some of the passangers prepared to attack the soldiers ahead - I'm really not suprised. I left that video for everyone who isn't blinded by his bias to re-think of their position.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529468]Yes, we already know you refuse to accept evidence that supports the Israeli claim. No need to repeat it. He actually said, by the way, that they were preparing to attack the military. You can't argue with that.. oh wa-[/QUOTE] What? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not saying that this interview didn't happen, I'm saying it's irrelevant to the point. He said that he saw people preparing weapons and he ordered ship security to toss the piping into the ocean. I'm not saying some people on the ship didn't fight the commandos, that's been established. What's important is what happened [I]before[/I] and [I]after[/I] that. [editline]11:04AM[/editline] [QUOTE=smartdog;22529497]No, not at all. They were preparing to attack the soldiers. I already know that half of you will refuse to accept the fact the ship's captain has admitted some of the passangers prepared to attack the soldiers ahead - I'm really not suprised. I left that video for everyone who isn't blinded by his bias to re-think of his position.[/QUOTE] Uh, are you reading my posts?
[QUOTE=starpluck;22528257]Still waiting a response BurnEmDown. You posted directly under me. [editline]09:52AM[/editline] Nope. Activists disarmed an Israeli commando(s). If they really wanted to kill the commandos as you claimed; they would of shot the commandos.[/QUOTE] I don't have proof for anything other than the videos released. And no, two commandos were shot with their own weapons taken from them by the activists.
It's either this forum is screwed in Google Chrome, or I donnu... I can't find the quote bottun. Anyways, Scorpio: He clearly says that they were preparing before the Israeli ships reached them. What is more needed to grasp they have been preparing without any provocation by the Israeli army? Videos also clearly show that these guys have mobbed the soldiers immidietly as they left the helicopter... I find this rather pointless, since you clearly dismiss any evidence presented to you.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22529511]I don't have proof for anything other than the videos released. And no, two commandos were shot with their own weapons taken from them by the activists.[/QUOTE] After they had been shot at. [editline]02:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=smartdog;22529527]It's either this forum is screwed in Google Chrome, or I donnu... I can't find the quote bottun. Anyways, Scorpio: He clearly says that they were preparing before the Israeli ships reached them. What is more needed to grasp they have been preparing without any provocation by the Israeli army? Videos also clearly show that these guys have mobbed the soldiers immidietly as they left the helicopter... I find this rather pointless, since you clearly dismiss any evidence presented to you.[/QUOTE] Boarding in international waters is a crime, therefore they were mobbed in self defense. L2read
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529527]It's either this forum is screwed in Google Chrome, or I donnu... I can't find the quote bottun. Anyways, Scorpio: He clearly says that they were preparing before the Israeli ships reached them. What is more needed to grasp they have been preparing without any provocation by the Israeli army? Videos also clearly show that these guys have mobbed the soldiers immidietly as they left the helicopter...[/QUOTE] No, he says he saw some people on deck preparing for an attack and ordered them to stop. Which is exactly what I would have done in his position. And yes, we do see Israeli commandos getting attacked after boarding the ship. However, we have no context to situation. We don't know what happened before they boarded the ship, we don't know what happened after they boarded the ship, so how can we judge the actions of those on the flotilla when they boarded the ship? They haven't released the video in full, we have no idea of what the situation was. Unless, in the face of the obstinacy of the IDF, we decide to look at what those on board the ship say. And if what they say is true, I'd say those who fought back were perfectly justified. [editline]11:13AM[/editline] [QUOTE=smartdog;22529527]I find this rather pointless, since you clearly dismiss any evidence presented to you.[/QUOTE] I'm not dismissing the evidence. I'm accepting it. I'm saying what it proves is irrelevant to the situation until we know the context in which the actions took place. For example, why not release the full interview? Why just release this one part? Because they're trying to take the actions of those on board the flotilla out of context. It's a ploy to gain support from people who aren't thinking about the situation.
Sickle, according to international law it is actally legal to board a ship which intends to break a country's blockade. I think the law was posted here, but here's a quote of a legal expert of Reuters which explains it well: The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say. CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS? Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship. "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions. "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments. "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view." [url]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm[/url] Scorpio: Did you watch the whole video? At 4:10--- the interviewer asks whether they (the IHH members who were on the ships) prepared to use voilence against the Israelis. And the captain says they did... But we both know that you don't really and honestly want to know what happened. I've seen this in your constant refusal to even consider the Israeli version, although the immense evidence which supports their claim.
[QUOTE=Sickle;22529532]After they had been shot at.[/QUOTE] proof. [quote]Boarding in international waters is a crime, therefore they were mobbed in self defense. L2read[/QUOTE] No it's not: [url]http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf[/url] "5.2.2 Seizure and condemnation Cargo constituting contraband and a ship carrying such cargo may be seized by a belligerent, brought before a prize court and condemned. Confiscation without a prize court decision is prohibited. 5.2.3 Contraband Contraband are goods ultimately destined to the enemy of a belligerent which are designed for the use of war fighting and other goods useful for the war effort of the enemy."
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529587]Sickle, according to international law it is actally legal to board a ship which intends to break a country's blockade. I think the law was posted here, but here's a quote of a legal expert of Reuters which explains it well: The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say. CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS? Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship. "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions. "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments. "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view." [url]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, this is exactly my point. If the Israelis were the provocateurs in this conflict, then this would be illegal. And we won't know that until they release the footage before the boarding. You see?
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529527]It's either this forum is screwed in Google Chrome, or I donnu... I can't find the quote bottun. Anyways, Scorpio: He clearly says that they were preparing before the Israeli ships reached them. What is more needed to grasp they have been preparing without any provocation by the Israeli army? Videos also clearly show that these guys have mobbed the soldiers immidietly as they left the helicopter... I find this rather pointless, since you clearly dismiss any evidence presented to you.[/QUOTE] I doubt your reading capabilities. [editline]12:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22529511]I don't have proof for anything other than the videos released. And no, two commandos were shot with their own weapons taken from them by the activists.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me you don't have proof that jamming an aid ship is standard procedure as well as the claim that the aid activists fired upon the commandos?
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529587][B]Sickle, according to international law it is actally legal to board a ship which intends to break a country's blockade. I think the law was posted here, but here's a quote of a legal expert of Reuters which explains it well:[/B] The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say. CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS? Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship. "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions. "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments. "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view." [url]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm[/url][/QUOTE] Unfortunately for you, this blockade is illegal.
[QUOTE=Sickle;22529678]Unfortunately for you, this blockade is illegal.[/QUOTE] And how so?
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22529686]And how so?[/QUOTE] Because the Je... err Israel is evil.
[QUOTE=starpluck;22529644]I doubt your reading capabilities. [editline]12:19PM[/editline] So you're telling me you don't have proof that jamming an aid ship is standard procedure as well as the claim that the aid activists fired upon the commandos?[/QUOTE] I'll look for the standard procedure thing but the aid activists firing upon the commandos is pretty much irrefutable seeing as how two commandos were treated for gunshot wounds, if you still don't believe me I'll look for the article on it as well.
[QUOTE=bugfix;22529697]Because the Je... err Israel is evil.[/QUOTE] Yes. That is our argument exactly. You must have read my mind.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;22529716]Yes. That is our argument exactly. You must have read my mind.[/QUOTE] You're pretty easy to read.
It definitly isn't, sickle. Read the link I posted earlier, it covers that issue as well. Scorpio, I edited my previous post.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529748]It definitly isn't, sickle. Read the link I posted earlier, it covers that issue as well. Scorpio, I edited my previous post.[/QUOTE] What do you mean? The captain quite clearly clarifies that when he saw them preparing to fight, he ordered the metal pipes thrown off the ship.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;22529709]I'll look for the standard procedure thing but the aid activists firing upon the commandos is pretty much irrefutable seeing as how two commandos were treated for gunshot wounds, if you still don't believe me I'll look for the article on it as well.[/QUOTE] Find me both articles please.
You know, if they really were shot by the activists, why don't they release the security footage showing that? I mean it's clear that they're willing to release security footage, and we know that ship was covered top to bottom in cameras. So why not?
Quoted a comment from Reuters [release] One of the great things about the internet is how quickly it enables someone with the will to check sources to spot misleading information. In this instance, you really have to read the whole San Remo document to spot it, but the most important parts are here: Part III: Basic Rules and Target Discrimination Section 1: Basic Rules 39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives. 41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document. 42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which: (a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or (b) are indiscriminate, in that: (i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or (ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document. SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK 46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack; (b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives; (c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and (d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive. SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK Classes of vessels exempt from attack 47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack: (ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations; SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT Neutral merchant vessels 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces; (d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; (e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions. 69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it. SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE Blockade 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies… The bottom line is that the legality of the blocade- which has, by the admission of the Israeli government itself, the purpose of “put[ting[ the Gazans on a diet”, is in fact illegal under these laws because it is designed specifically to cause collective suffering throughout the entire populace. That renders Israel’s interception of the humanitarian aid ships illegal. Additionally, Israel is not letting supplies through freely after inspection- it is in fact seizing those supplies and letting the vast majority of them rot, for the express purpose of enabling the continued starvation which the blockade is meant to enforce.[/release] Pretty much what all the pro-Israelis was was doing was taking a passage out of the San Remo out of context
Scorpio, he says he threw them to the sea 2 hours before the attack, and later they continued to cut metal rods... He also said, as I pointed out, that they planned to use voilence against the military - and there is the footage which shows them doing that (using knifes, metal rods etc'). So what is there to keep arguing about really? A reliable source says that the IHH passangers have planned to attack the Israeli military, and says they prepared weapons before the Israeli ships have gotten any close to the Marmara. We have a video which shows them attacking the soldiers with metal rods, knives, chairs etc'. I really don't understand why don't you just accept that Israel is on the right in this incident.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529587]Sickle, according to international law it is actally legal to board a ship which intends to break a country's blockade. I think the law was posted here, but here's a quote of a legal expert of Reuters which explains it well: The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters. Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say. CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS? Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship. "If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College. Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons. Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives. "But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said. The use of force may also have other repercussions. "While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments. "However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view." [URL]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm[/URL] Scorpio: Did you watch the whole video? At 4:10--- the interviewer asks whether they (the IHH members who were on the ships) prepared to use voilence against the Israelis. And the captain says they did... But we both know that you don't really and honestly want to know what happened. I've seen this in your constant refusal to even consider the Israeli version, although the immense evidence which supports their claim.[/QUOTE] [quote=Reuters] I wonder which Israeli lawyer you have been dealing with. 1. Gaza by International Law is an occupied territory – neither a territory nor a state. 2. Even if it was a state, you would need to declare a state of war or belligerence. Neither were declared or made by the Israeli government. 3. In the absence of a declaration of war or a state of belligerence, the action of Israel is considered civil… that it is the persons who organized the raid, and those who took part in it are subject to the International Maritime Law… just the same as most of Israel politicians are subject to common criminal laws in Europe, today, for example. But Israel’s spin is in top gear.[/quote]
1. Gaza is an occupied territory? Who is it occupied by? 2. Hamas has declared war on Israel.
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529822]Scorpio, he says he threw them to the sea 2 hours before the attack, and later they continued to cut metal rods... He also said, as I pointed out, that they planned to use voilence against the military - and there is the footage which shows them doing that (using knifes, metal rods etc'). So what is there to keep arguing about really? A reliable source says that the IHH passangers have planned to attack the Israeli military, and says they prepared weapons before the Israeli ships have gotten any close to the Marmara. We have a video which shows them attacking the soldiers with metal rods, knives, chairs etc'. [B]I really don't understand why don't you just accept that Israel is on the right in this inciden[/B]t.[/QUOTE] Why won't you accept that we're right?
[QUOTE=smartdog;22529822]Scorpio, he says he threw them to the sea 2 hours before the attack, and later they continued to cut metal rods... He also said, as I pointed out, that they planned to use voilence against the military - and there is the footage which shows them doing that (using knifes, metal rods etc'). So what is there to keep arguing about really? A reliable source says that the IHH passangers have planned to attack the Israeli military, and says they prepared weapons before the Israeli ships have gotten any close to the Marmara. We have a video which shows them attacking the soldiers with metal rods, knives, chairs etc'. I really don't understand why don't you just accept that Israel is on the right in this incident.[/QUOTE] You're not listening to me. Please read my posts again, that is not the point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.