• 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

CrazyMcCool said:
lol yeah but its bs but people believe it cause you know...Its what they do :)

YouTube - IDF Boarding Gaza Aid Flotilla

i am just having issues trying to explain how its not a very good base for an argument..
Click to expand...

Al-Jazeera was really trying hard, you can give them that.

But you should not have any problem with this edited video, it doesn't show that Israeli soldiers are attacking them before they are being attacked and doesn't show anything useful at all.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Fully aware, which makes me even stronger in my willingness to fight for the truth and against this blood libel.
Click to expand...

same here :mrgreen: :2wave:
 
Apocalypse said:
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".
Click to expand...

The loss of life has been unfortunate but I think the real losers are the Palestinians in Gaza who have been used as bait again.

Why did Israel take so long to release the clips supporting its defence?
 
Laila said:
The loss of life has been unfortunate but I think the real losers are the Palestinians in Gaza who have been used as bait again.

Why did Israel take so long to release the clips supporting its defence?
Click to expand...

Because Israel's PR skills suck ass?

The Israeli foreign minister has just stated that he doesn't oppose an independent investigation, repeating another Israeli minister's words saying that "Israel has got nothing to hide".
 
Apocalypse said:
Because Israel's PR skills suck ass?

The Israeli foreign minister has just stated that he doesn't oppose an independent investigation, repeating another Israeli minister's words saying that "Israel has got nothing to hide".
Click to expand...

Yeah apperntly we can control the world media, but our PR skills suck [/sarcasam] :lol:
 
Apocalypse said:
Al-Jazeera was really trying hard, you can give them that.

But you should not have any problem with this edited video, it doesn't show that Israeli soldiers are attacking them before they are being attacked and doesn't show anything useful at all.
Click to expand...

It annoying debating these kind of things with people who do not understand how mass edited videos can and are...

I got to agree with Laila on this one. "...the real losers are the Palestinians in Gaza who have been used as bait again."
 
RightinNYC said:
...
...
I'm arguing that it DOES apply to each subpart. If you acknowledge that it applies to each subpart, then this should be very easy for you to understand.

Look: In order for Israel's action to be illegal under Art. 14 or Art. 6, it has to be a violation of Art. III. In order for it to be a violation of Art. III, the following has to be proved:



One of the elements of a violation of Art. III is that the action itself was illegal. If the action itself was not illegal, then there can be no violation of Art. III (and by proxy Art. 6 or Art. 14). You cannot use a violation of a subpart to prove an element of the Article. That's circular reasoning.

edit: Consider this example:

Imagine there is a law that says:



Now imagine that someone used a blue crayon. The fact that someone used a blue crayon is not sufficient to show that a crime has been committed. You have to show that someone used a blue crayon and that the person also used a red crayon.

Now go back to the case at hand. It's obvious that someone seized control of the ship under subpart (a). However, nothing in the Convention applies unless you also show that it was done so unlawfully. This is why I've been telling you over and over that this Convention does not answer the question of whether the action was unlawful.
Click to expand...
Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":
Article 6

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:

(a) against or on board a ship flying the flag of the State at the time the offence is committed; or

(b) in the territory of that State, including its territorial sea; or

(c) by a national of that State.

2. A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such offence when:

(a) it is committed by a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or

(b) during its commission a national of that State is seized, threatened, injured or killed; or
Click to expand...

You said this once. I will repeat this. This is basic legal interpretation.
 
Degreez said:
Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":
Click to expand...

Actually not correct. The main ship where the deaths occurred was flying a flag of convenience.. the Comoros Islands. But as far as we know at this time, the Israelis did not request permission to board the ship from said government.
 
PeteEU said:
Actually not correct. The main ship where the deaths occurred was flying a flag of convenience.. the Comoros Islands. But as far as we know at this time, the Israelis did not request permission to board the ship from said government.
Click to expand...

I could've sworn the Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag.


Ah, I see. It's homeport is the capital of Turkey and the flag it was flying on the way to Gaza was the Turkish flag (along the Palestinian flag):
4629293801_8ecce1d7cf.jpg
 
RightinNYC said:
I honestly have neither the inclination nor the patience to do this. I'm sorry if that sounds like a copout, but I can assure you that it's fairly well accepted that the UNGA and other international bodies focus disproportionately on Israel as opposed to other human rights violators.
Click to expand...

So it's disingenuous to make a claim against the UN that you can't back up. Thank you.

RightinNYC said:
-- My understanding is that Israel allows all sorts of aid materials to enter Gaza via land. Someone cited 100 trucks/day, though I'm not sure of the details on that.
Click to expand...

There are posts with links way back in this thread that quote the UN view that what Israel lets in (in terms of food and other civilian supllies) is only a quarter of what it needed or used before the blockade went up.

deltabtry said:
Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
Click to expand...

Right now, there are International Law experts at different universities and agencies around the world who have differing opinions. I can probably speak with certainty that the legality of this raid won't be resolved anytime soon.


DeeJayH said:
-- they attacked and killed people who were armed with nothing more than painball guns --
Click to expand...

It was the IDF who were armed with paintball guns - no Israelis died as far as I can recall

DeeJayH said:
the initial team had paint ball guns
when the 'innocent passengers began assaulting the contraband inspectors' the following IDF forces entered with REAL GUNS--
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, Netanyahu spoke with the guy we see thrown off the ship in the early stages of the commandos coming on board - I believe this guy had his gun stolen during that melee. Certainly another commando has his gun taken off him too - and that's where the 2 guns come from that the IDF later said had been used against them.
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
It was the IDF who were armed with paintball guns - no Israelis died as far as I can recall
Click to expand...
Two soldiers were seriously wounded, and a few others have suffered from gunshot wounds.
That they did not die is hence only fortune playing its role, and I can't see how you're planning to use it to justify the lynch.
 
RightinNYC said:
Given that there were no incidents on any of the other boats and that the audio of the encounter indicates that the troops were very startled by the resistance, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Moreover, why on earth would the Israelis want this to turn into a violent confrontation? Both sides knew full well that a violent incident would arouse sympathy for the activists, so that's exactly what the Israelis were trying to avoid and what the activists sought out.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the question. Keystone cops perhaps?
As for the paint ball guns, this is what Ambassador Peck-who was there- had to say on the matter:

EDWARD PECK: Yeah, this is the other thing. You know, I did not expect that the government of Israel would refer to us as tree-hugging, you know, flowerchildren. Of course we’re also savage, murdering, you know, anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian—aw, come on, get off it. But of course he has to say this. This is Israel’s position. But it’s as full of holes as a window screen. You know, if you look at the people who were there and the stuff that we were bringing, and he quotes—forgive me, I get—I’ve been talking about this since I got back yesterday morning, just about this time, I guess. The international law, he says, you know, you can do this if it’s provoking a danger, but Gaza does not belong to Israel. It is illegally occupied by international law, so you can’t really stop ships from going there. Well, you can, and they did, but if people try to resist what you’re trying to do, you cannot really accuse them of attacking your heavily armed soldiers. And they were heavily armed. On our little boat, a couple of them had paint guns attached to their submachine guns, along with stun grenades and the pepper spray and the handcuffs and the pistols, you know. So this is sort of a twisting reality, which of course I understand why they’re trying to do it. I’ve been a diplomat. But it’s laughable."
 
CrazyMcCool said:
Yeah apperntly we can control the world media, but our PR skills suck [/sarcasam] :lol:
Click to expand...

What I find amazing are the number of truly mind-numbingly stupid people who talk about all the supposed influence you folks have over the media and then go on and on about how they are justified in hating you because all their little mates hate you and their media hates you and the U.N. hates you, etc.
 
Degreez said:
I could've sworn the Mavi Marmara was flying the Turkish flag.


Ah, I see. It's homeport is the capital of Turkey and the flag it was flying on the way to Gaza was the Turkish flag (along the Palestinian flag):
4629293801_8ecce1d7cf.jpg
Click to expand...

That boat was payed for by the IHH, it was a jihadist owned and operated ship.
 
Degreez said:
Now you are missing the point. It became unlawful for Israel to board the ships because they had not, at first, made contact with the goverment of Turkey to request permission to board. The ships were flying the Turkish flag, and Article 6 is clear on where jurisdiction lies if suspicion that an offence has been committed. While that ship is in international waters, the jurisdiction lies with the State that is on the flag of the ship. Even other States, like those from Britain, can establish jurisdiction because one or more of their nationals was "seized, threatened, injured or killed":

You said this once. I will repeat this. This is basic legal interpretation.
Click to expand...

This is the last thing I'm going to say to you on this.

You're saying that Article III was violated.
You're saying that the reason Article III was violated is because Article VI was violated.
Article VI says:

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 3 when the offence is committed:
Click to expand...

In essence, you're saying that Article III has been violated because Article VI has been violated because Article III has been violated because Article VI has been violated...
 
I like how people are arguing if this is legal or not..

the UN has nothing it can do by whine, and other than getting condemned over something that logically and legally makes sense, nothing is going to change..
Cause Israel has long ago leanred that peer pressure does not get you into the cool club :roll:
 
CrazyMcCool said:
I like how people are arguing if this is legal or not..

the UN has nothing it can do by whine, and other than getting condemned over something that logically and legally makes sense, nothing is going to change..
Cause Israel has long ago leanred that peer pressure does not get you into the cool club :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm actually amazed at the anti Semitism the countries in the UN have put on display condemning Israel before knowing all the facts. Has any country come out and said "opps". Not a single one I've seen.
 
texmaster said:
I'm actually amazed at the anti Semitism the countries in the UN have put on display condemning Israel before knowing all the facts. Has any country come out and said "opps". Not a single one I've seen.
Click to expand...

non will either, cause they dont care, its like on facebook, you join a group saying " LOL CAT" cause everyone else is...Its like we are in highschool
 
Erod said:
Well, blow me away. Joe Biden supports Israel in this.

FOXNews.com - Biden: Israel Has Right to Stop Gaza Ships

I wonder if Obama agrees? Did Joe stick his foot in his mouth again?
Click to expand...

Sort of, but not really.

U.S. to urge new approach to Gaza aid | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Headline | International News

The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration considers Israel's blockade of Gaza to be untenable and plans to press for another approach to ensure Israel's security while allowing more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area, senior U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The officials say that Israel's deadly attack on a flotilla trying to break the siege and the resulting international condemnation create a fresh opportunity to push for increased engagement with the Palestinian Authority and a less harsh policy toward Gaza.

"There is no question that we need a new approach to Gaza," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the policy shift is still in the early stages.
Click to expand...
 
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...
Not able to help with the shooting part but, the news last evening showed a video of activists water hosing a smaller boat along side with what appeared to be IDF team members inside. Also, an activist lobying a stun grende into the smaller craft.
If looking for an video showing IDF's firing before and/or during boarding will venture a guess no such video exists.
 
Gardener said:
Yes, Jews have no credibility when it comes to Jews.
Click to expand...

Y'see, that's what I always thought you believed. When you were calling Richard Goldstone nasty names the fact of his Jewishness didn't seem to be very relevant.

Perhaps this Jewish opinion will be similarly credible...

Gaza’s waves will crash on Turkey’s shore | David Aaronovitch - Times Online

Aaronovitch is a former communist, now neo-con columnist for the right-leaning, Murdoch-owned Times. He's also Jewish, btw, whether or not that's relevant.
 
Jetboogieman said:
texmaster said:
OH spare me Texmaster. What are you trying to say? That I'm denying anyone attacked the IDF Troops, cause I did not dispute that, and if you read what I've posted before, were I a soldier put on that deck, I would have probably opened fire too. So spare me your poor attempt at an insult.

I merely wish to convey that massacring the entire ship when the vast majority of it wasn't on the deck trying to Kill IDF troops, is a little far. Or are you advocating mass killing too now?
Click to expand...

You know...I COULD be missing something here...but...here goes...

YOU claim to have watched the video. there is absolutely NO ****ING WAY you watched that video and dont see the people on that boat swarming those soldiers and swinging chains, metal rods, and all manner of other ****...and i mean swinging for the fences, with the INTENT to do significant bodily harm...

but you cant see why the IDF was FORCED to fire back?

You, my friend, are full of ****. Your entire vision is clouded by Jew hatred. That is THE only answer. You KNOW damn good and well that the ONLY reason that group went was to engage in a conflict. They got PRECISELY what they wanted...and then assholes from all around the world feign outrage. Consider the bull**** flag thrown.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom