Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That dont mean the Israeli media is honest on the Turkish articles content does it now..
    We have them on video invoking war chants against the Jews.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,057

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    I would like to take this opportunity to once again applaud Israel for the incredible restraint they continue to show day after day and year after year. It is amazing what Israel puts up with in that region, and with so little actual physical help from the rest of the planet.

    If they decide to push the big, red button, I wouldn't blame them one bit. They are more than justified in doing so.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    That is merely your opinion. Dozens of others have already objectively made observations as well:

    Gaza flotilla raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The only opinion that can debunk the San Remo Memo 67A argument is the one which explicitly addresses it, first the guy asserts that San Remo only applies to state actors and Hamas is not a state actor when the Memorandum clearly says "parties to conflicts at sea" it does not mention state actors, then the guy laughably goes on to say that the GC would then apply when the GC explicitly states that it applies to state actors and moreover state actors that are "high contracting parties to the GC".

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No, but they cant be trusted without serious scrutiny.
    Guilty until proven guilty. Just as Netanyahu said.

    Can you provide a counter argument debunking the article in question or is all you have to offer an ad-hominem logical fallacy?

  5. #45
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,492

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by FinnMacCool View Post
    So they deserved to die then, I guess, right?


    Yes



    Those evil, evil terrorists.

    Those terrible human beings who carried no guns and were transporting humanitarian aid to gaza.

    10 of them deserved to be shot, right?

    Come on. That is exactly the kind of bs that is hurting this world right now. The idea that is ok to slaughter civillians and get away with it. No matter which way you spin it, the fact was that 10 people were killed by the Israelis in international waters, who were intending to give aid to gaza. This is WRONG.



    I find your avatar rather ironic in this thread.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #46
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,729

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by FinnMacCool View Post
    These people had the right to defend themselves. I will say for the millionth time, this happened in International waters.
    Israel had the right to inspect the ships. Not long ago, the US boarded a Liberian ship in international waters, and guess what they found? Nuclear technology, from North Korea, bound for Iran. Are you going to tell me that the US acted illegally here?

    Freedom on international waters doesn't mean freedom to do whatever the hell you want. You cannot run arms. Granted, there were no arms on the ships, but given the history of such shipments to Gaza in the past, Israel had reasonable suspicion there they MIGHT be weapons aboard the flotilla, and that gave them the right to board the ships in order to inspect them. Also, given the fact that the ships were brazenly attempting to run the blockade, that further heightened reasonable suspicion. According to existing maritime law, Israel acted legally. Now, was this a smart move on Israel's part? Probably not, but it was all legal.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #47
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Israel had the right to inspect the ships. Not long ago, the US boarded a Liberian ship in international waters, and guess what they found? Nuclear technology, from North Korea, bound for Iran. Are you going to tell me that the US acted illegally here?

    Freedom on international waters doesn't mean freedom to do whatever the hell you want. You cannot run arms. Granted, there were no arms on the ships, but given the history of such shipments to Gaza in the past, Israel had reasonable suspicion there they MIGHT be weapons aboard the flotilla, and that gave them the right to board the ships in order to inspect them. Also, given the fact that the ships were brazenly attempting to run the blockade, that further heightened reasonable suspicion. According to existing maritime law, Israel acted legally. Now, was this a smart move on Israel's part? Probably not, but it was all legal.
    We are not going to resolve this legality issue here on DP. As has been quoted earlier on another thread, to board in International waters the Israelis should have contacted and sought permission from the government of the flag-bearing vessel, in this case the Comoros. This wasn't done. I don't expect this opinion to be taken as read, nor would you expect me to take yours as read. It's an education to debate it, but don't expect any agreement.

    International Law, like the British constitution, does not exist in one canon of documents but is established through a mind-blowing network of treaties, agreements and precedents and has no single authority to enforce it. There simply will be no conclusive judgement on the matter, as there wasn't with the legality issue on the Iraq invasion. Might can be right and so can the force of international diplomatic and economic pressure. It seems that de jure authority will always play second fiddle to de facto power. Israel may either prosper or suffer as a result but the legions of lawyers and professors currently working on Tuesday morning's events won't be the ones who decide the outcome.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  8. #48
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Unprovoked? Give me a freaking break. The IDF attacked a civilian ship in international waters and that is not a provocation?
    The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.
    Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

    OBL 11/24/02

  9. #49
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,196

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    We are not going to resolve this legality issue here on DP. As has been quoted earlier on another thread, to board in International waters the Israelis should have contacted and sought permission from the government of the flag-bearing vessel, in this case the Comoros. This wasn't done. I don't expect this opinion to be taken as read, nor would you expect me to take yours as read. It's an education to debate it, but don't expect any agreement.

    International Law, like the British constitution, does not exist in one canon of documents but is established through a mind-blowing network of treaties, agreements and precedents and has no single authority to enforce it. There simply will be no conclusive judgement on the matter, as there wasn't with the legality issue on the Iraq invasion. Might can be right and so can the force of international diplomatic and economic pressure. It seems that de jure authority will always play second fiddle to de facto power. Israel may either prosper or suffer as a result but the legions of lawyers and professors currently working on Tuesday morning's events won't be the ones who decide the outcome.
    I call bullcrap.
    You're saying that if a permission by the ship's nation is not being given it cannot be boarded, no matter what.
    For example, permission would have to be given by Iran before an arms ship to Hezbollah/Hamas is boarded(Francop affair) .
    That is clearly wrong, everything that was necessary for the ships in this case to be boarded legally on international waters was that they'll decalre their intention as running a blockade, which they did.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,980

    Re: 3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom'

    This only supports the fact that the flotilla was created to provoke Israel to defend itself and thus be accused of being an evil man slaughtering nation. It's just as PM Netanyahu said. The world will find Israel guilty until proven guilty. Any action of Israel receives world condemnation because the world has sold out to Arab interests. So much for "humanitarian" mission.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •