Israel kills to Maintain Blockade

[Fragony]

So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.

[LeftEyeNine]

So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.

Why do you want to miss the point, I wonder.

An UNARMED CIVILIAN ship with ALL CIVILIANS ON BOARD can be captured by the army WITHOUT OPENING FIRE AT ANYONE as soon as the ship penetrates YOUR COUNTRY'S WATERS. It's all problem-free and legitimate.

A Norwegian Org member, (Spartakus in IRC) told me that there were Norwegian activists on board as well. So you must have vowed to destroy Israel if you're on that ship.

Sorry but how different is that from falling into the same pit as the antisemitists ?

All of this, yes. I think I agree. Murderous show by Israel, but let's not forget who sought to have these activists killed -at least pitted in direct confrontation with Israel - and to what political intent.

That's what can be debated on -I'd agree with you as well, as I implied in my previous post addressing you. However the common sense tells me that there is a priority to be considered right now. What could be more important than human life ?

[tibilicus]

So, you do think they should look away when a fleet heads directly to Hamas-country? Who have vowed to destroy Israel? Kidding me? I would also justify it if they sank them all.

I'm sorry but your blinded by your own biased attitudes to anything Muslim related again. It was carrying basic supplies. Not weapons of mass destruction. Many on board were western citizens looking to their bit, it's no different from any other civil rights movement. well, arguably a bit, but I think those on board had good intentions, many wern't "EVIL MUZLIMZ" as you try and portray such aid convoys as.

Once again Fragony's ridiculous anti-Muslim views lead him to state that he would justify the death of all those aboard the ships. You really don't know where the line is, do you?

[Fragony]

I'm sorry but your blinded by your own biased attitudes to anything Muslim related again. It was carrying basic supplies. Not weapons of mass destruction. Many on board were western citizens looking to their bit, it's no different from any other civil rights movement. well, arguably a bit, but I think those on board had good intentions, many wern't "EVIL MUZLIMZ" as you try and portray such aid convoys as.

Once again Fragony's ridiculous anti-Muslim views lead him to state that he would justify the death of all those aboard the ships. You really don't know where the line is, do you?

I know that you know how I think, I know you think that you know that.

but no

[tibilicus]

I know that you know how I think, I know you think that you know that.

but no

I'm sorry Fragony but you've never offered anything to suggest that your thought pattern is anything but hate related when it comes to the middle east. Just a couple of pages back you stated you would be happy if all the ships were sunk, and all those on board died.

Maybe if you actually explain your thought process instead of offering your musings in a form which advocates the death of civilians, I might be prepared to listen to you. You seem to paint most Muslims/Arabs with the same brush, did it ever occur to you those on board the convoy might be doing what they're doing because they think it is right? Contrary to your opinion, most on board were there to do what they saw as helping those in need, they didn't see themselves as part of some Muslim plot to shatter the very foundations of Israel and western society, despite your claims.

Even if you do hate them, how can you justify wanting all those on board to die?

[KukriKhan]

Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?

All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.

All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?

All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.

All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?

I extend my condolences as well. Kukri, according to what I have read there are 10 Israeli personnel injured.

Israel defended its actions, saying armed activists attacked Israeli soldiers as they were being lowered onto the deck by helicopter. The Israeli army said early Monday that one soldier's weapon was taken and turned against Israeli forces. It said earlier that more than 10 people had been killed but later lowered the number of dead to nine people, the Associated Press reported. At least a dozen activists had been injured, as well as 10 Israeli military personnel.

[KukriKhan]

I extend my condolences as well. Kukri, according to what I have read there are 10 Israeli personnel injured.

I see. The same article continues:

Israeli officials have for days warned that they wouldn't let the flotilla reach port in Gaza. Last week, Israel said that if the ships docked at an Israeli port first, it would allow the full shipment of humanitarian cargo to reach Gaza, after undergoing security checks.

Sensitive to the possible public-relations fallout of any confrontation, Israeli officials had debated the appropriate response to the flotilla, with many worried about a heavy-handed approach that could deepen Israel's current diplomatic woes.

Obviously, those worries have come to pass.

[Furunculus]

Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?

All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.

* is curious too *

[Lemur]

A contrary example:

For years, IRA terrorists bombed Britain's pubs and shops and eventually nearly killed the entire cabinet in the Brighton hotel bombing. Those terrorists lived among the population in both the republic and Ulster? Did Britain bomb Ireland in response? Were republican areas in the north sealed off and pulverized as happened in Gaza? Were British casualties one hundredth of Irish casualties in response?

None of this happened. Margaret Thatcher no less accepted what became known as an "acceptable level of violence" because the alternative would a) have caused domestic outrage and b) made the situation far, far worse and recruited a new army of terror. Again, one has to ask: why is Israel different?

[Furunculus]

Q: Is it locked in concrete, dead certain, everyone agrees, that this action took place in "International Waters", and not Israeli Territorial Waters, or its (Israel's) Contiguous Zone, or Exclusive Economic Zone?

All those zones, defined by international Maritime Law, represent various levels (and distances from the shoreline) of rights of sea control to sovereign nations. We should take care in throwing around the term "International Waters", and therefore asserting International judgment rights, when those jurisdictions are not clear in this case.

All that said: my condolences to the dead and their relatives. That better, less-violent methods of enforcing blockades couldn't be found is a shame. I had come to think that the Israeli military had come closer to conducting this kind of action casualty-free. Wishful thinking, I guess - not reality. If they were fired upon as they report, why do we not see Israeli wounded among the injured?

your question is looking remarkably prescient, it would appear that the boarding happened inside Israel's EEZ:

http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnis...kish-stand-off
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread577130/pg85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

which may make the whole international-waters argument less clear cut.

to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........

[Sigurd]

your question is looking remarkably prescient, it would appear that the boarding happened inside Israel's EEZ:

http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnis...kish-stand-off
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread577130/pg85
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone

which may make the whole international-waters argument less clear cut.

to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........

Just to make things perfectly clear. the Economic Zone is not the same as territorial waters.
The EEZ can be a 200 miles zone where Israel has exclusive economic interests. The territorial barrier is only 12 miles from shore.
The ships were at least 65 miles from the shore when attacked and therefore in international waters.
(The Israeli has declared a 68 mile security zone, but this is an illegal act according to maritime laws)
The international convention of the seas state that you can't attack flag bearing ships unless you carry the same flag - i.e. Israeli ships can only attack other Israeli ships outside the 12 mile territorial water zone (war between nations is exempted).

And this is not an act of war as there were only civilian ships in the flotilla. So NATO is not invoked in this. Turkey can however act on itself.

They are claiming an act of self defense, but the location of the ships indicates an act of aggression.
IMO a very amateurish display of such. These are supposed to be commandos. I doubt it.
Its as if the Israeli wanted to be beat up on camera. I am very confused at the decision of dropping soldiers one by one onto a deck full of people. I mean... this was a ship with how many passengers?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...to be honest, i would be surprised if israel made a mistake that elementary...........

The crew of the U.S.S. Liberty might beg to disagree....

[tibilicus]

You lefties and your simple minds..

Me the one with a simple mind? I'm afraid your the one who must suffer some form of mental retardation if you think I'm a leftie. Evidently I used to be more left-wing than I am now but ask any of the UK posters here, Furunculus, PCV, Beskar ect or read some of my posts and you will find I'm actually centre-right on the political spectrum.

Oh no Frag, there's a clear difference between my idea of centre-right thinking and yours. I try and base mine on rational and logic, although evidently I will be the first to admit that I'm not a model poster, I don't claim to be either. The difference is that I try and reason when coming to a conclusion, indeed I've tried to reason on this and as I stated previously, my position still stands, I have no problem with Israel checking ships, as long as they do it properly. My views are based on the evidence before me, yours are based on a hate for anything Arab/Muslim.

By the way, it's good to see you say you support the people of Iran in your signature. I wonder what they would make of your views about their religion. I imagine you wouldn't last to long in central Tehran, after you denounce their religion as wacky.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You lefties and your simple minds..

Me the one with a simple mind? I'm afraid your the one who must suffer some form of mental retardation if you think I'm a leftie.

I'm fairly certain Fragony was referring to leftwing fondness of songs about displaced, oppressed peoples by the Simple Minds.

[tibilicus]

I'm fairly certain Fragony was referring to leftwing fondness of songs about displaced, oppressed peoples by the Simple Minds.

Going of his previous comments about "lefties", I highly doubt it..

Which is still besides the point, seeming my political views certainly aren't "lefty".