• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

This account seems to corroborate what is reported in the Guardian article I posted above. If any of this is true, it's very ugly indeed. I can understand soldiers defending themselves when being attacked, but why become unnecessarily violent with people who offer no resistance at all?

I think that account would prove to be frabricated, but for now you'd have to wait for the investigation.
 
Obvious strawman.
You were speaking about proportionality in wars in general, you said so yourself and I have witnesses.
That's what I was replying to.

Then you do not understand what proportionality is.
 
I think that account would prove to be frabricated, but for now you'd have to wait for the investigation.

Why should we trust the IDF more than the German MEPs who were on board?
 
So you admit it was a strawman.

I don't really know what's a strawman, but your comparison was sick and I felt the need to point it out. That does not change the fact that your analogy was wrong since it did not adress the concept of proportionality
 
Why should we trust the IDF more than the German MEPs who were on board?

Because those radical left MEPs were on board of a ship filled with boxes of long knives and cold weapons, and on a ship with a crew that has attacked and lynched soldiers, and because so far the IDF is the only one that is backing its statements with evidence.
 
Last edited:
I think that account would prove to be frabricated, but for now you'd have to wait for the investigation.

I see absolutely no reason to assume this. I listened to the elderly man talking. He was very shaken but quite clear on what happened. That was on a ship where 'no violence' took place, only beatings. The other ship where there was violence may well have started because the Israeli's set off detonations to withdraw attention from the parachutes. We will have as much interest to the words of those who come out as any Israeli inquiry and we will be wanting our people back too.
 
Because those radical left MEPs

Isn't that what you call "strawman"? Or is that an "ad-hominem"? I always get confused with the way people name logical fallacies

were on board of a ship filled with boxes of long knives and cold weapons,

with the clear intent to stab israeli after their assault craft lands on the shores of Gaza

and because so far the IDF is the only one that is backing its statements with evidence.

It's difficult to bring evidence when you're censored
 
If the UN cannot be regarded as impartial, then who can? If, and I don't think this would be accepted by anyone other than the most partisan pro-Israeli, the UN is not the impartial body to adjudicate and investigate the incident, who would you suggest should do so? Perhaps you believe that no investigation of the raids and the deaths is necessary.

The UN is in no way, shape or form impartial. Take a look at some of the GA condemnations of Israel that have come out in the past few years and try to tell me that it's impartial.

Then who do suggest would be more impartial than the UN? Whilst the UN may have passed many, many resolutions that the Israelis have failed to adhere to (perceived as Israel-critical bias?) they have failed repeatedly to enforce them (pro-Israeli bias?). There is no such thing as an objective party, just one that attempts to behave in an impartial manner.

Who said there has to be an impartial body? I doubt there is such a thing in any areas of international law, particularly in the IP conflict. I've got no problem with the UN conducting its own investigation, in addition to the other investigations that will go forward. What I take issue with is the faulty conclusion that because it's the UN, it must be impartial.


I think the Israeli government has gone too far. There were many other incidents which shook me considerably, but this one is very troubling. Attacking humanitarian aid people and calling them people trying to "delegitimate" Israel. Calling an aid ship an "enemy ship, intruding into Israeli waters"....My, my, what arrogance.
Also, the US just watched the incident without batting an eye, while it roared in anger when NK tested nukes which killed nobody (I'm not pro-North Korean)......

Perhaps because the testing of nuclear weapons is marginally more dangerous than a raid on a ship?

Well we clearly have a different view on this. I do not know your age but many changes happened because people were willing to put in a stand against what was. You will find this in the suffragette movement, civil rights movement, CND and so on. Civil disobedience is where people are willing to make a stand despite risk because they believe that what they are working for is worth that. A green peace boat got shot at and possibly destroyed by France when involved in such action. What is, is not always, what is right. Civil disobedience has gone out of fashion but it is a powerful force for change. Note how everyone is talking about how the situation in Gaza must change now and that includes in Israel, certainly by the news reports I have heard.

Civil disobedience is the decision to break the law because you think that the law is unjust. Part and parcel with that decision is the fact that you will be subjected to the harms attendant to breaking the law. I don't care whether you or anyone else sympathizes with the underlying goal of these protesters, because that's not the point. When they were boarded after declaring their intent to violate Israeli law, they decided to fight back. That's not civil disobedience, that's a ****ing fight.

If they had done what actual civil rights protesters did and sat there peacefully while the troops boarded their boat, they would be ****ing heroes today. Instead, they started a fight and some of them ended up dead. That's what you get when you attack a military officer, regardless of whether you think you're doing the right thing.

For everything apart from the violence including as I hear people choosing detention rather than deportation, it is appropriate for their objective. For the violence, I need to find out more. The best strategy is always complete pacifism in such situations. We know one Brit is among the injured. Like all the killed and injured, this is not good.

And again, had they done this in the first place, this would have played out very differently.

The link below asks an interesting question. Israel forcefully boarded a ship of another nation Turkey in International Waters. What will happen if Turkey decides to send another ship but next time with a military escort. Interesting question.

YouTube - Inside Story: A look into the aid flotilla attack by Israel

Israel will wait until it's within its territorial waters and then do the same exact thing.

I expect comments like that from many Americans on the forum who misunderstand the nature and workings of the UN - didn't expect that from you Don.

Do you have a unique insight into how the UN operates? The fact that you think it's not biased doesn't make that the sole reasonable position.

Indeed some are international sympathisers including a couple of German MPs. Why are they locked up?

They were given the option of detention or deportation. They chose detention. That's why they're locked up.

Why are they all saying that it is illegal then?

Because most "experts" in international law are overwhelmingly opposed to individual state action? The average international law "expert" is convinced that the UN is the ultimate body that should have complete and total control over all international isses. They cringe at the idea of the use of force outside of SC authorization, and become filled with rage every time someone reminds them that Art. 2(4) is little more than a fantasy.



Is it ****ing stupid to run an illegal blockade, or just ****ing brave when the only weapons you have are a couple of hunting knives and a slingshot? That David, when he took on Goliath, he was just ****ing stupid, eh?

And here your real position is laid out for all to see. You think it's "bravery" to declare your intention to violate the law of a sovereign nation and then to attack those who try to enforce that law.

Knives? I think I was the one who mentioned them. There were knives, we saw knives, please don't raise red herrings. My point here is that the only "evidence" you are using is the "evidence" of what the Israelis are saying. Up until now we haven't known the extent of injuries or the evidence of the activists testimonies because Israel has kidnapped them.

:rofl You're kidding right? The activists who are currently being held were given the option of being deported or detained. They chose to be detained. In what alternate universe does that constitute kidnapping?

Reporters that are returning are know saying that IDF fired first at people on the ship.

Witness have spoken out

Did you actually read your own article? It says nothing about being fired on. It reports the claims of an Al-Jazeera reporter who says that the IDF is throwing flash-bangs onto the deck. That's a little different than firing bullets.

Killing 10 to 20 people and wounding 36 more while a single one is said to have stolen a pistol to an IDF soldier is very disproportionate.

Nuking a ship in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = disproportionate
Using limited physical force and live ammunition in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = perfectly proportionate
 
Last edited:
I see absolutely no reason to assume this.
Then you see no reason.
They(the activists) were already wrong when they've claimed that soldiers were not attacked, that has proven to be wrong.
They have then claimed that Israeli soldiers came in firing.
That has proven to be wrong as well from the footage of the incident.
There is no reason to assume that they're right, and that's why there's every reason to simply wait for the facts to rise from the shadows.
 
Nope it is true Turkey announced that they will send another flotilla with a armed gurd

Your link says they are sending a boat and it looks like it will get in through Egypt. It doesn't though say anything about a Turkish Military escort. Turkey has said it will not go to war over this but that Israel must be punished.
 
This account seems to corroborate what is reported in the Guardian article I posted above. If any of this is true, it's very ugly indeed. I can understand soldiers defending themselves when being attacked, but why become unnecessarily violent with people who offer no resistance at all?

You mean a radical activist is claiming that a hated figure of authority beat him unnecessarily? He must be telling the truth, because nobody would ever lie about that!
 
Isn't that what you call "strawman"? Or is that an "ad-hominem"? I always get confused with the way people name logical fallacies
Don't make me laugh.
They're considered to be from the radical left in their countries as well.
with the clear intent to stab israeli after their assault craft lands on the shores of Gaza
With the clear intent to attack the soldiers.
It's difficult to bring evidence when you're censored
Again, don't make me laugh. Most of the activists are back in their countries, including a lot of those who were on that Turkish ship.
It's not that they're being censored, it's that they are engaging in pure propaganda and have no basis in reality which is the reason for their lack of evidence.
 
Is there is a reason why we're instantly assuming that:

1. Israeli's commenting on Israili action that could have grave consequences to Israel are 100% without question going to tell everyone the absolute truth without any fabrication, cover up, or misrepresentation going on?

2. That individuals riding on private boats aiming to specifically antagonize Israel (by going through the blockaide) and are obviously sympathetic to Palestine who are commenting about the actions of Israeli's are 100% without question going to tell everyone the absolute truth without any fabrication, cover up, or misrepresentation going on?

Seriously, the extremely resolute on both sides seem to have dug in their heels and are going off the immediete assumption that their side is telling 100% gospel truth and the other side is giving 100% bull**** propoganda, and it makes absolutely zero sense. Both sides have reasons to lie and cover up, both sides have consequences depending on what comes up, both sides have not had all the facts about what they did or did not do come to light, and both sides have rationalizations for why what they did was okay...so how in the hell are we supposed to believe that one side is absolutely trustworthy and the other absolutely not, especially when we have people in here saying the same things but for opposite sides.

So far, the only fact I see is the fact that both sides are looking like asses here and seem to have acted foolishly in some way. However there's no reason to be making heavy judgements and absolute procolomations, about either side it seems, until we actually have a bit more info then we'd have in a 24 hour time span.
 
Nuking a ship in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = disproportionate
Using limited physical force and live ammunition in response to attacks on soldiers and reports of live fire = perfectly proportionate

Since you seem to agree in principle with this proportionality concept, what's your opinion on imposing a blockade in response to rocket attacks? Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but apparently I am not a very reasonable person.
 
Update: Investigators say the lynching crowd(That were suspected as Turkish mercenaries earlier) is tied to the Global Jihad, apparently recruited and trained by the Global Jihad for that cause.
 
I see absolutely no reason to assume this. I listened to the elderly man talking. He was very shaken but quite clear on what happened. That was on a ship where 'no violence' took place, only beatings. The other ship where there was violence may well have started because the Israeli's set off detonations to withdraw attention from the parachutes. We will have as much interest to the words of those who come out as any Israeli inquiry and we will be wanting our people back too.

Update: Investigators say the lynching crowd(That were suspected as Turkish mercenaries earlier) is tied to the Global Jihad, apparently recruited and trained by the Global Jihad for that cause.

Link would be helpful
 
Then you see no reason.

I think that is the "ad-hominem"
They(the activists) were already wrong when they've claimed that soldiers were not attacked, that has proven to be wrong.
That is different no one can be everywhere.
They have then claimed that Israeli soldiers came in firing.

They came in with detonations and that to the untrained and after the event may be believed to be firing or we may yet find they did come in firing.

That has proven to be wrong as well from the footage of the incident.

No, we have not, or I certainly have not seen footage from before any soldiers were on the ship. In any case I was talking about an American OAP who was on one of the other ships. He said some of the passengers tried not to move in passive resistance and this resulted in them being beaten. His friend he says is in hospital but the Israelis he says will let no one near him. He was an old man, clearly wanting to do some good with his life, nothing more......not even a Muslim.

We even have women missing.

There is no reason to assume that they're right, and that's why there's every reason to simply wait for the facts to rise from the shadows.
What facts? What makes an Israeli 'fact' more factual that a passengers 'fact'.

It sounds from the guy on one of the ships with 'no violence' that the Israelis were to quick to get riled.

I do agree that we will need to wait a bit longer till we make up our minds but we don't do that by just denying, as you did, what you do not want to hear.
 
Link would be helpful

I cannot give you a link at the moment DeeJay, I watched BBC News and BBC Scotland news on my tv.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom