U2start.com | General Politics Discussion Topic [closed]

Yep, and if it were American citizens you would've send in the army to wipe out Israel.

Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]

If they had just surrendered like the 5 other ships, thye woulnd't have been shot. These people were looking for trouble. Supposedly, many of them had filled out there wills, and made statements of martyrdom.

why the hell would they surrender to an illegal boarding? Would you? I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.

Argue in their defence all you like but they boarded a ship illegally and killed 9 people delivering aid.

wtshnnfb01

14 years

Originally posted by Risto:Yep, and if it were American citizens you would've send in the army to wipe out Israel.

If they wer Americans, I woulda cared even less. Theres enough dumb people here. Let natureal selection thin the heard.

iTim

14 years

Well those on board had every right to defend themselves from what is being reported. Since they hadn't entered Israels area of blockade they technically had comitted no offence (intentions aside). If those on board did initiate attack, then why retaliate with deadly force? I would condone the deadly force used by the Israelis if their soldiers were being shot at once they boarded, but as of yet I've seen no reports that suggest that the soldiers were attacked with the intent to kill.

Reports say that the military started the confrontation other reports suggest it was those on board. So I'm not drawing any conclusions from that.

To be fair to the Israel army, they did tell the organisers of the aid flotilla that the ships would be intercepted before they reach the coastline and then taken to an Israeli port for inspection. They also said that the activists would be given two choices, to be jailed or deported. The activists response was that they would passively resist...

So both sides are to blame here. The activists knew the consequences and were told that their mission was a provocation of Israeli law. The Israeli's were perhaps anticipating a less agressive welcome (if of course the activists were agressive) and resorted to violence themselves to send a message that they were in control. Or the Israel army were told to go in heavy handed to assert their authority.

Both parties are in the wrong here in my view and I'm not willing to side with either.

wtshnnfb01

14 years

Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

why the hell would they surrender to an illegal boarding? Would you? I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.

Argue in their defence all you like but they boarded a ship illegally and killed 9 people delivering aid.

They boarded a ship sponsered by an organization with know terro ties, after the I.H.H. had turned down the opurtuniety to dock legally in either Israel, or Egypt, and be inspected. Both the Israelis, and Egyptians had told them to turn back. They didn't.

Would we even be having this discussion if the egyptians had carried out the bording action?

wtshnnfb01

14 years

Originally posted by iTim:Well those on board had every right to defend themselves from what is being reported. Since they hadn't entered Israels area of blockade they technically had comitted no offence (intentions aside). If those on board did initiate attack, then why retaliate with deadly force? I would condone the deadly force used by the Israelis if their soldiers were being shot at once they boarded, but as of yet I've seen no reports that suggest that the soldiers were attacked with the intent to kill.

Reports say that the military started the confrontation other reports suggest it was those on board. So I'm not drawing any conclusions from that.

To be fair to the Israel army, they did tell the organisers of the aid flotilla that the ships would be intercepted before they reach the coastline and then taken to an Israeli port for inspection. They also said that the activists would be given two choices, to be jailed or deported. The activists response was that they would passively resist...

So both sides are to blame here. The activists knew the consequences and were told that their mission was a provocation of Israeli law. The Israeli's were perhaps anticipating a less agressive welcome (if of course the activists were agressive) and resorted to violence themselves to send a message that they were in control. Or the Israel army were told to go in heavy handed to assert their authority.

Both parties are in the wrong here in my view and I'm not willing to side with either.

Thats actually fairly close to my actual view. Mostely, I'm playing devils advocate, because someone has to defend Israel. My as well be the Yankee basterd you all hate.

Also, supposedly, a couple of the flotilla members managed to steal some of the Israelis sidearms, and used them against the commandoes, inspiring them to shot back. If that is true, The Israeli military must have some dumb members, since its like regarded as one of the most important rules for soldiers, and cops across the world. Never lose your weapon.

haytrain

14 years

I'm just wondering how many of these "Supposedly, they signed martyrdom papers, Supposedly they stole Israeli guns" things you can throw out. You sound more and more like Glen Beck in each post.

wtshnnfb01

14 years

Originally posted by haytrain:I'm just wondering how many of these "Supposedly, they signed martyrdom papers, Supposedly they stole Israeli guns" things you can throw out. You sound more and more like Glen Beck in each post.

The flotialla claims to have taped the whole thing. If the video doesn't incriminate them, why haven't they released any of it other than the aftermath?

BTW, Beck=Micheal Moores right wing brother. Every peron I've ever made the comparison too who isn't too far gone on either side, has agreed.

Risto

14 years

Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]

If they wer Americans, I woulda cared even less. Theres enough dumb people here. Let natureal selection thin the heard.

Righhhhttt.... Anyway I dont agree with you. What israel did was wrong in so many ways.

wtshnnfb01

14 years