Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by LessBread
That would be a repeat of the "lynch mob" excuse that Netanyahu has been using. To that I have to ask why would a death squad be afraid of a lynch mob? And why was a death squad boarding a ship in international waters in the first place? Were they practicing their pirate play?

A death squad? Where is this death squad? The death squad armed with paintball guns (you can see them in the videos)? Man Israel is pretty brutal if they've started killing people with paintball guns... what a horrible way to die.

You say lynch mob, I say death squad. Who died? Who did the killing?

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
On your Al Jazeera reporter, if you're going to take the Israeli reports as propaganda why would you not take his as the same? Similar sources have already said that the passengers didn't resist with any force, which is clearly false.

He was on the boat. He reported what happened on the deck as it happened. The Israeli videos have been edited to show the worst of the lynch mob's attack. Get back to me after Israel releases the complete unedited footage of it's assault on the ship.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care
The ship was believed to be carrying contraband (and was as defined in the Helsinki principles).

Cement!

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Yes, poor Israel, who attack a civilian ship in international waters, and were forced to kill civilians armed with sticks. I'm sure the commandos were really traumatized. Poor them.

There were 10 soldiers armed with paintball guns vs. 50 or so men armed with knives, poles, chairs, stun grenades, firebombs, slingshots, and various other blunt instruments. A 20 pound wrench can still fuck your day up regardless of it being a weapon or not.

Stun grenades and firebombs? I think you've got who brought what mixed up.

Nations need to stop tip-toeing around Israel, and seriously call them out on these kind of actions. America is the obvious culprit here. The watered down UN response is a beyond a joke.

Legal or not (and I find it hard to believe it was legal), it seems a totally disproportionate and unnecessary response. I don't understand why they didn't wait until the ships entered their territory, that would be the beginnings of some legitimacy to such an operation. But given how badly it must of been carried out - 10 people is a lot. I would expect resistance to halt pretty quickly once at least one person had died. I'd find it hard to believe that the soldiers were afraid for their lives.

These are soldiers, right? They should easily be able to quell even a modest sized group of relatively untrained and undisciplined opponents without resorting to deadly force.

This has come at the wrong time for Israel too, given Turkey's increased hostility and America making the first formal complaints against Israel for their recent resumption of building permits as Joe Biden flew in. This is when they need allies, if they are serious about reaching a permanent agreement with the Palestinians.

Incidents like this seem to prove that this is not their interest, it is buisness as usual with the Palenstinian people, on balance, suffering the most, but innocent Israelis suffering too from the inevitable conflict and escalations.

Quote:
This thread once again demonstrates why there will never be peace in the Middle East.

You would be surprised. But I wouldn't be holding my breath for peace during my lifetime, but maybe after a few more generations of violence will convince them of the pointlessness.

It is critical that the collective world nations punish Israel severly for such behaviour. If the economic and policital consequences were severe enough, it wouldn't pay them (metaphorically) to launch such operations.

In many ways, the recent peace in Northern Ireland had roots in the Northern Irish people from both sides of the divide looking with envy at Southern Ireland flourishing economically, while ordinary people had poor prospects and had to live with violence, fear and intimidation and the once all-powerful "cause" seemed less appealing day by day compared with a compromise that would let people just get on with life.

Israels allies need to distance themselves every time Israel flouts the rules. Suspending the miltary aid would have an important effect. The Israeli authorities have gotten too used to throwing their weight around with minimal consequences. Political outcries don't interrupt their sleep I'm sure.

And Lessbread, be angry if you want. But "terrorism" is extremely weak. Throwing the word terrorism in a situation like this is a great way to get otherwise valid opinions ignored or ridiculed.

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
So why were they carrying one handgun? Why didn't either all of them or none of them carry these weapons? And again, it doesn't matter anyway; it's the surrounding circumstances that are the main problem here.

why do police officers carry handguns in the united states? They rarely use them, but they still carry them in case shit hits the fan.

Quote: Which does absolutely nothing to detract from the point I made.

your point hinged on them using non-lethal force, which is clearly false.

Quote:

Quote: Hey man. Contraband is contraband. A "well they only broke the law a little bit" defense should never hold up.

Really? Then why do you use that very defense in favour of Israel? A rather obvious double standard, don't you think?

how so? I don't think Israel broke the law at all. I've stated why in this thread.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Stun grenades and firebombs? I think you've got who brought what mixed up.

They are in the videos. You can see both.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
So why were they carrying one handgun? Why didn't either all of them or none of them carry these weapons? And again, it doesn't matter anyway; it's the surrounding circumstances that are the main problem here.

why do police officers carry handguns in the united states? They rarely use them, but they still carry them in case shit hits the fan.

So? By your argument, all of the soldiers should have been carrying handguns, which was most likely the case. Your argument that only one soldier had a handgun is a laughable example of buying Israeli propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Quote: your point hinged on them using non-lethal force, which is clearly false.

Oh? Who did the civilians kill? Nobody? So how was the force they used lethal?

Quote: how so? I don't think Israel broke the law at all. I've stated why in this thread.

Arguing that transporting cement on international waters is illegal while boarding a cement-carrying vessel and killing part of its crew is legal is a huge and obvious example of a double standard. By your argument, it would be perfectly legal for, say, the Swedish navy to board and commandeer a German ship carrying cement anywhere on the worlds ocean, provided that Sweden first declared cement to be contraband and the ocean to be a "Swedish security zone". It's ridiculous, and it's what you're arguing for.

Quote: Original post by Hnefi
So? By your argument, all of the soldiers should have been carrying handguns, which was most likely the case. Your argument that only one soldier had a handgun is a laughable example of buying Israeli propaganda hook, line and sinker.

how does my argument correlate to that? If you watch the videos, they are all using paintball guns. If they were being attacked with deadly force and had handguns, don't you think they would have used them?

Quote: Oh? Who did the civilians kill? Nobody? So how was the force they used lethal?

Watch the videos please.

Quote: Arguing that transporting cement on international waters is illegal while boarding a cement-carrying vessel and killing part of its crew is legal is a huge and obvious example of a double standard.

I never argued the legality of transporting cement. I have also shown that they were transporting a lot more than cement.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2care

Quote: Oh? Who did the civilians kill? Nobody? So how was the force they used lethal?

Watch the videos please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethal
lethal
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
3. causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

Now look at number 1/2.

The force they used was by definition non lethal because nobody of the special forces got killed! The Israelis however killed multiple (at least ten according to the bbc) people with their "single" handgun.

However it is of course visible that the people on the ship attacked the special forces.

Quote: Original post by way2lazy2carehow does my argument correlate to that? If you watch the videos, they are all using paintball guns. If they were being attacked with deadly force and had handguns, don't you think they would have used them?

They did use them, according to some reports; but information regarding what happened the first few minutes when they boarded is sketchy and unreliable, at best. Either way, you're still talking in circles; if the soldiers were unarmed, why send them instead of negotiators instead? And if one was armed, why not all of them? And either way, what does it matter?

Quote: Watch the videos please.

Oh, I have. And yes, the civilians sure use force. But hitting someone who's clad in helmet and body armor with a stick is not at all likely to kill them, and indeed, nobody did die except at the hands of the Israelites. Given these two facts, the civilians didn't use lethal force by any reasonable definition of the word.

Quote: I never argued the legality of transporting cement.

Yes you did, when you labelled part of the cargo as "contraband" - because the part of the cargo labelled "contraband" by Israel is indeed cement.

Quote: I have also shown that they were transporting a lot more than cement.

No, you haven't. You've shown videos with smoke and violence. Nowhere have you shown that any weapons used, besides blunt objects, were not brought and used by the Israeli commandos.

But all this is getting tiresome. All you do is drop arguments about the real issue which you've been unable to refute: that Israel had no authority whatsoever to board these ships on international water in the first place. What happened after that is secondary, because the whole situation is to be blamed on Israel due to them boarding these ships in the location and manner that they did. That's the problem, and that's why so many governments are blaming Israel for this.

Quote: Original post by raedeo
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethal
lethal
1. of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.
2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack.
3. causing great harm or destruction: The disclosures were lethal to his candidacy.

Now look at number 1/2.

The force they used was by definition non lethal because nobody of the special forces got killed! The Israelis however killed multiple (at least ten according to the bbc) people with their "single" handgun.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lethal+force

"An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person."

it was both likely to cause death as well as actually causing serious bodily injury.

Quote: Original post by Hnefi

Quote: I have also shown that they were transporting a lot more than cement.

No, you haven't. You've shown videos with smoke and violence. Nowhere have you shown that any weapons used, besides blunt objects, were not brought and used by the Israeli commandos.

I'm afraid he did. I even quoted a video he posted in wich you can clearly see they were in fact transporting weapons, lots of weapons.