• 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

DeeJayH said:
what you fail to be able to understand is that teh IDF tried to minimize any hostilities by Inspecting the boats unarmed.
the videos on Youtube and everywhere else do not show IDF with paintball guns. EVERY VIDEO show Israeli Inspectors being assaulted by animals
requiring armed militants to respond to a situation exploited by those who wanted to affect the situation
Click to expand...

So you still offer no concrete proof that they boarded with only paintballs guns? You offered the videos as proof, and have just now conceded that they don't show what you claimed that showed.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
So you still offer no concrete proof that they boarded with only paintballs guns? You offered the videos as proof, and have just now conceded that they don't show what you claimed that showed.
Click to expand...

you can deny the stated facts of the case. That matters not to me or anyone who honors honesty and integrity.
you wish to dispute the paintball guns, take it up with the IDF
in actuality it has no bearing on the legality of the killing of the animals of the flotilla
 
DeeJayH said:
you can deny the stated facts of the case. That matters not to me or anyone who honors honesty and integrity.
you wish to dispute the paintball guns, take it up with the IDF
in actuality it has no bearing on the legality of the killing of the animals of the flotilla
Click to expand...

You've offered no facts. But hey whatever dude, who needs facts when you've got "honesty and integrity"

/quit thread.
 
if you are so ignorant to ignore the video of IDF forces being assaulted unprovoked that is your ****tard position.
it turns out you are useless in debate as a result.
or maybe only Fox News people got to see the videos of the events at it occured.
am I responsible because you aRE ****ed???
 
kaya'08 said:
This ship came from Greek Cyprus, not bloody Syria.
Click to expand...

These ships were funded by the IHH, one of these ships was actually fully payed for by the IHH. There were more Turks on the ship than all the other nationalities combined. 3 of the 4 casualties are on record dreaming of martyrdom, many of them are on video invoking battle cries against the Jews, and they attempted to murder Israeli troops conducting a legal weapons inspection.

There where no weapons, there was no guns.
Click to expand...

A) Two Israeli soldiers were shot.

B) They carried daggers, power saws, and metal clubs.

The footage shows no proof of any of your claims.
Click to expand...

Really? The footage doesn't show them brutally assaulting the IDF soldiers?

Here they are assaulting the IDF troops:



Here they are invoking battle cries against the Jews:



There where 2 british journalists on the ship who got killed.
Click to expand...

A) Prove it.

B) Then they shouldn't have kept company with Jihadists.

One german man also gave a first hand account on the violent approach and technique of the IDF on the ship to the BBC.
Click to expand...

lol you mean the IDF responded with violence after being brutally assaulted during a legal weapons inspection? Wow.

I find it hard to believe a collective group of journalists and activists are lying, but i find it very believable the IDF, a government institution is waffling. The same institution which denies any existence of nuclear bombs and the stealing of western passports even though impartial investigations in the West have seen various Israeli diplomatics removed.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? This was a terrorist sponsored event, ran by terrorists with terrorists on board the ships.
 
Last edited:
DeeJayH said:
if you are so ignorant to ignore the video of IDF forces being assaulted unprovoked that is your ****tard position.
it turns out you are useless in debate as a result.
or maybe only Fox News people got to see the videos of the events at it occured.
am I responsible because you aRE ****ed???
Click to expand...

Dude that is the third time you have personally insulted me... nice debating yourself... really mature/

The only issue I have with anything that you've said is the accusation that the first team landed with only paintball guns. You have not mother****ing proven it.

have I once disputed that the soldiers were attacked... No I have not.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Dude that is the third time you have personally insulted me... nice debating yourself... really mature/

The only issue I have with anything that you've said is the accusation that the first team landed with only paintball guns. You have not mother****ing proven it.

have I once disputed that the soldiers were attacked... No I have not.
Click to expand...

idf paintball - Google Search

feel free to review this propaganda
 
kaya'08 said:
  • Breach of international law
Click to expand...

Legal weapons inspections on a ship with the explicit intent of running a legal blockade.

  • Murder of two foreign journalists
Click to expand...

A) Prove it.

B) If true then they shouldn't have kept company with Jihadists.

  • Edited footage and Israeli defence statements which lack any fundamental proof of the existence of weapons
  • Murder of 10 activists with sticks.
Click to expand...
Activists with sticks? You're joking right? They had metal ****ing clubs, power saws, and daggers and at least one of them had a gun.
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
Nice to know you think Israel should violate the Geneva Conventions. Every great idea starts off with violating international law. Keep up the great work.
Click to expand...

The Geneva Conventions only apply to the occupation of the sovereign territory of state actors. The governing authorities of Gaza are not state actors and they are not high contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions nor do they abide by the Geneva Conventions thus Gaza does not fall under the purview of the Geneva Conventions.
 
kaya'08 said:
Thats right, the aid flotilla is making a political statement. That statement is, the gaza strip cannot be blocked out, isolated or forgotten about forever. The international community wants it removed, and what a great way to challenge this blockade. It may have failed but it sure as hell lifted a few eyebrows and shifted people's attention. There where protests in Turkey, Greece, UK and so on. They got what they wanted, and the consquences of Israel's actions will become clear in the coming days. There's no shortage of rations in gaza, by the way. Not proper food. The blockade has unfortunately completely improvished the region. Is it any wonder they have turned to psychotic jihadist governments?
Click to expand...

lol they turned to the jihadist government before the blockade.
 
Degreez said:
Incorrect. Go reread the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit collective measures that do not distinguish between civilian and military. The blockade is a collective measure on the inhabitants of Gaza, where it doesn't matter if you are civilian or Hamas, there is no distinction.
Click to expand...

A) The Geneva Conventions do not apply to Gaza, 1) Gaza is not the occupied territory of a state actor, and 2) The governing authority of Gaza is not a high contracting member of the Geneva Conventions and does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

B) Even if they did apply Israel would only be required to allow in food and medical supplies which they do.

C) The blockade is a legitimate security measure intenteded to keep out the weapons smugglers who have on numerous occassions used "humanitarian aid" shipments as cover for massive arms shipments.
 
Degreez said:
That is exactly what the Israeli commandos did, so you seem to be confused about the applicability of Article 3.

And to say this Convention is inapplicable is laughable. This Convention will always apply to State signatories who conduct naval actions in the high seas.
Click to expand...

The Israeli weapons inspectors were conducting a legitimate weapons inspection on a ship which was funded and controlled by known jihadists.
 
I'm glad to see that at least Joe Biden is backing the truth over this.
Even the Israeli Supreme Court, which usually strongly opposes the government on such events, has dismissed pleas made against the IDF over this flotilla, stating that "The soldiers have acted in self-defense, the lost of life is unfortunate".

Edit: Kaya, where did you get that information about 2 British journalists dying?
 
Last edited:
Is the naval blockade legitimate?
Yes, clearly Israel has a legitimate concern as a sovereign state not to want the terrorist organization that targets its civilians to get armed, and clearly the naval blockade is being legitimate as we can point out towards two previous incidents when IDF soldiers have boarded ships in international waters and they were found to be carrying over ten thousand tons of weapons. (Karin A affair, Francop affair)
It all falls under the right of the state to protect its people.

Was it legitimate then to stop a ship on international waters?
Abso****inglutely. International law permits the boarding of a foreign ship on international waters if its declared purpose is to run a blockade.
Nothing was done illegally.

Was it legitimate for the IDF to defend their lives?
Yes. And nevertheless, they have expressed an amazing restraint during the time they were lynched by the mob, stabbed and hit with knives and crowbars.
They have only reacted once the activists have opened live fire on them, and that's completely and absolutely acceptable.
 
Apocalypse said:
Is the naval blockade legitimate?
Yes, clearly Israel has a legitimate concern as a sovereign state not to want the terrorist organization that targets its civilians to get armed, and clearly the naval blockade is being legitimate as we can point out towards two previous incidents when IDF soldiers have boarded ships in international waters and they were found to be carrying over ten thousand tons of weapons. (Karin A affair, Francop affair)
It all falls under the right of the state to protect its people.

Was it legitimate then to stop a ship on international waters?
Abso****inglutely. International law permits the boarding of a foreign ship on international waters if its declared purpose is to run a blockade.
Nothing was done illegally.

Was it legitimate for the IDF to defend their lives?
Yes. And nevertheless, they have expressed an amazing restraint during the time they were lynched by the mob, stabbed and hit with knives and crowbars.
They have only reacted once the activists have opened live fire on them, and that's completely and absolutely acceptable.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, just an observation

I'm truly amazed, as what you just posted is the exact contrary of what I read in every newspaper (from everywhere, the Belgian ones, the French ones, the English ones...), including some articles in the Haaretz, and it is also the exact opposite of what governments from the entire world (from Chile to Russia and from Sweden to Bengladesh) say.

Are you aware that only Israeli and some Americans defend your point of view? (that does not make it wrong per se, but it still means that there is a consensus against you)
 
bub said:
Nothing personal, just an observation

I'm truly amazed, as what you just posted is the exact contrary of what I read in every newspaper (from everywhere, the Belgian ones, the French ones, the English ones...), including some articles in the Haaretz, and it is also the exact opposite of what governments from the entire world (from Chile to Russia and from Sweden to Bengladesh) say.

Are you aware that only Israeli and some Americans defend your point of view? (that does not make it wrong per se, but it still means that there is a consensus against you)
Click to expand...

Um restraint was not sinking the damn boat. They responded TOO deadly force WITH deadly force. There response was proportional and it was restrained.

Personally I would have sent the jihadist owned and operated vessel to the bottom.
 
Last edited:
Hey I keep on being told they were fired at before being borded and there were castualies already before the landing on the boat...Any one know more about that?
 
CrazyMcCool said:
Hey I keep on being told they were fired at before being borded and there were castualies already before the landing on the boat...Any one know more about that?
Click to expand...

Do the violent activists on board of the Mavi Marmara in the footage video look like they're being shot at while they're waiting for the helicopter to arrive?
 
CrazyMcCool said:
Hey I keep on being told they were fired at before being borded and there were castualies already before the landing on the boat...Any one know more about that?
Click to expand...

have you got a source?
 
True but videos that ( I can see are edited) are being used against me in other debates, and I am trying to gather as much info as I can :)
 
bub said:
Nothing personal, just an observation

I'm truly amazed, as what you just posted is the exact contrary of what I read in every newspaper (from everywhere, the Belgian ones, the French ones, the English ones...), including some articles in the Haaretz, and it is also the exact opposite of what governments from the entire world (from Chile to Russia and from Sweden to Bengladesh) say.

Are you aware that only Israeli and some Americans defend your point of view? (that does not make it wrong per se, but it still means that there is a consensus against you)
Click to expand...

Fully aware, which makes me even stronger in my willingness to fight for the truth and against this blood libel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom