Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Laudable LDD - the soldier gives an example of breakdown in discipline.
A misplaced and botched military operation whatever the arguments. (#398 above noted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Laudable LDD - the soldier gives an example of breakdown in discipline.
A misplaced and botched military operation whatever the arguments. (#398 above noted)Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
hardnbubbly
Thanks for the information in your post #394. If I understand you the victim was on his knees when shot by an Israeli soldier. What was the source where you learned about this video?
In post #326, Heph points out the following as the position of the US government.
"0100hrs BST Announced by the USA:
a) that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is untenable
b) a 400million dollar aid package is being arranged for Gaza
c) the Israelis should succumb to an international enquiry under the UN"
To Pasa and those who support the Israeli soldiers murdering of these activists
Since you all seem to be from the USA, your government is telling you that it disagrees with you. I don't think that there has been significant discussion on this. When combined with the video showing an Israeli soldier killing an activist on his knees, those who continue to defend Israel in this situation, should be rethinking their position. Instead they make accusations about other posters intelligence or other such distractive attempts. I am wondering if we will read words to the sort that the US government is wrong and Obama attacks, etc.?
If Israel refuses to permit the UN to investigate this situation and turn over all video footage,this will not ease the tensions in the middle east. All comments about Israel needing to defend itself with force and this blockade, increases the need for the UN and the US to act. As a key financial supporter, the US should cut off financial aid to Israel but I doubt that will happen. If it doesn't, it demonstates the problem.
The question is what should the world do as a reaction to Israel's actions? Should there be consequences against Israel. Will the US send war ships to protect the promised four hundred dollar aid package for Gazans? Will Israel back down? I doubt that it would stop a US cargo ship with aid for Gaza. I'm sure that it is practising its dance steps on this one.
Signed
The moron :)
Canticle
Thanks for your kind words in post #389
This is the only point I'm going to make, ya it is given back but you don't have to take East Germany for example how long did they have to go before they got their land back. And that's all I'm going to say. Oh and I do think that a creation of a state for the Jews was in need after all WWII was not the first time the Jews were hunted down and murdered in Europe. Look at all the crusades Germany has always had it out for the Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
Hmmmmmm.....and there was I, thinking that this was an open forum.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
I often go off on a tangent.......Charlotte Bronte used to do the same thing.......but I don't think that I did.
Guess what, Pasa, I am well able to focus.......so much so, that I am usually very efficient and able to do certain things, extremely well. Focus is needed...and discipline, in many areas of life. I know a few people, who are most undisciplined. I am not one of them.
In terms of international law, Gaza is not a country therefore has no Territorial waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephaestion
Gaza Shares a big border with Egypt. It would have been very easy to go through Egypt. But of course, it would not have been as sensational as Israel commandos boarding a peaceful ship. remember the ship that carried This whole affair is a ploy.
The funny thing about all of this is that nothing was said about North Korea that sank a south Korean ship last march 26. more than 40 sailors died.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042503113.html
Why did Israel board the ship? because it has no choice. Many ships have been caught in the past carrying arms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125732536158927651.html
Why can't we all just get along!
DM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Not bullshit and I stand by my opinion. I didn't see that link, before this post. Sorry about that, You missed quite a bit out. I think, from what I read, on the link, that far more than this small piece you have copied and pasted, does apply, to what went on in international waters.
Perhaps all posting here, should re-read the bits about what happens at sea. Each single section. We know what happened. Telling, isn't it, that 9 humanitarian people, lost their lives, many injured. No Israeli forces killed, only injured, in an operation, which took place at night, upon the high seas, in international waters. Hardly a friendly, board and search, party, if helicopers land troops upon ships in the dead of night, whilst surrounding those ships, with other, seafaring vehicles, which are also armed to the teeth.
You missed out quite a bit, with your cut and paste. I'll just cut and paste the titles of the various sections.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
Full text [Display Introduction] [Display articles]
PART I : GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION I : SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE LAW
SECTION II : ARMED CONFLICTS AND THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE
SECTION III : ARMED CONFLICTS IN WHICH THE SECURITY COUNCIL HAS TAKEN ACTION
SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE
SECTION V : DEFINITIONS
PART II : REGIONS OF OPERATIONS
SECTION I : INTERNAL WATERS, TERRITORIAL SEA AND ACHIPELAGIC WATERS
SECTION II : INTERNATIONAL STRAITS AND ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
General rules
SECTION III : EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE AND CONTINENTAL SHELF
SECTION IV : HIGH SEAS AND SEA-BED BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION
PART III : BASIC RULES AND TARGET DISCRIMINATION
SECTION I : BASIC RULES
SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK
SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
SECTION IV : OTHER ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
SECTION VI : PRECAUTIONS REGARDING CIVIL AIRCRAFT
PART IV : METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE AT SEA
SECTION I : MEANS OF WARFARE
SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
SECTION III : DECEPTION, RUSES OF WAR AND PERFIDY
PART V : MEASURES SHORT OF ATTACK: INTERCEPTION, VISIT, SEARCH, DIVERSION AND CAPTURE
SECTION I :DETERMINATION OF ENEMY CHARACTER OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT
SECTION II : VISIT AND SEARCH OF MERCHANT VESSELS
SECTION III : INTERCEPTION, VISIT AND SEARCH OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT
SECTION IV : CAPTURE OF ENEMY VESSELS AND GOODS
SECTION V : CAPTURE OF ENEMY CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND GOODS
SECTION VI : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND GOODS
SECTION VII : CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL CIVIL AIRCRAFT AND GOODS
PART VI : PROTECTED PERSONS, MEDICAL TRANSPORTS AND MEDICAL
AIRCRAFT
GENERAL RULES
SECTION I : PROTECTED PERSONS
SECTION II : MEDICAL TRANSPORTS
SECTION III : MEDICAL AIRCRAFT
You cut and pasted one small piece of that document. I have read it and there seem to be many sub-sections, which could be applied to the delivering of humanitarian aid and to the interception of ships upon the high seas, in international waters. Each part, section and sub-section of the document needs to be read. This area is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.
Plus, the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Is it just a sea blockade? Or is this an air and land blockade, also? If so, and if countries and organisations, decide to fly in aid and refuse to land, if ordered to by the Israelis, with Isaraei airforce fighter planes, shoot the such planes, out of the sky.
If Egypt decides to fully open it's border with Gaza, allow ships and planes to land aid in Egypt, so that it can be taken across the border by land, will the Israeli Government, see this as breaking their blockade of Gaza and therefore decide to invade Egypt. After all, they haven't thought it was wrong to invade Lebanon and purely for the sake of Israel....not the Lebanese.
I still say it was piracy and an act of war.
I'm sorry rayjamesus, but I do not see the significance of the link, which you posted. However as that link is on your profile, I assume there must be a valid reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by rayjamesus
I think that most people understand how germany was separated, after WWII and how whole families were unable to see their relatives, for many, many years. All sides wanted a piece of the cake and I think that there was also a fear, that a united Germany, could once again become very powerful and pose a threat to world peace. The Soviet Union wanted its pound of flesh and also to get a boot, not a toe, into the West. As things do, though, it came full circle and the Communist states crumbled. But, heck...that is a whole history book in itself.
Many people died at the hands of the Nazis and over 55 million people died in WWII. I don't think that the holocaust, was a good enough excuse, for artificially creating a state of Isarel and displacing thousands of Palestinians, from their homelands.
That the state of Israel exists and should be recognised, by all states, is without question. What can be questioned and criticised, is how that state behaves. If everyother state on the planet can be criticised and condemned, for the things that go on within those countries and what they do elsewhere, then no exception should be made, where Israel is concerned.
The Jewish race have been persecuted throughout history. Jews have been massacred....at different points in history and in many different countries and they have also been exiled from the countries they settled in. It's never been right, but when we are talking about massacres and exiles, from a few hundred years ago, we tend to look at them in that historical manner, which we cannot, when learning about what happened in Europe, in the 1930s and 40s. Over 60 years ago, it may well be, but it is still a raw wound. Maybe it should always be that way.
I have read about Stalin and watched documentaries about him and his rule of the Soviet Union. It is said that his rule of that collection of states, led to
the killing of far more people, than the Nazis, were guilty of deliberately exterminating.
Unfortunately, it is too easy to bandy numbers about. Millions died in the wars and peace of the 20th century. No doubt, similar things will happen in the 21st century. Indeed, they already are. We've all heard about the deaths at Darfur, how a once wealthy and prosperous Zimbabwe, has been brought to its knees by the ruling regime and so it goes on.....and on and yet, always.....it is the Middle East which is mentioned.
Liquid gold....oil.....the wealthy, big business, influence in high places....politically. Hmmm...............
Not sure what you are trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by DareMe
Territorial water would have been those waters in which by their proximity to land would have given Israel legal right to exercise some kind of customs activity in rather than international waters where it had none.
Put up job? The accepted idea was to give the Palestinians in Gaza humanitarian aid. Nobody forced the Israelis to deploy the wrong strategy.
As for aid to Gaza going in via Egypt that is exactly what has now happened as a result. If it was a put up job then it was a masterstroke to simultaneously: open borders; ensnare the Israelis masterminds into world wide condemnation; embarrass them as incompetent and ill disciplined; damage the relationship with their main allies. The Israelis did themselves great disservice.
-----
Yes, there were 40 South Korean navy sailors killed in an attack by the North Koreans who are still at war with the South Koreans. So despite the apparent 'cease-fire', the attack was part of an on-going war which by some may be seen as a 'Fair game' move in a squabble over territorial waters. The majority probably see such events as a tragic waste of life. Was the South Korean ship being intentionally provocative? One side will say yes the other side will say no. Why doesn't somebody start a thread on this?
.
I asked you to show me where under the international humanitarian law.....that it was a act of piracy and war...... not a wall of text that means nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
the part I copied and pasted, showed under the law, where the activists breached the law protecting them.....
btw the local airport is closed for minor repairs
local airport
Hmmmmm!!! Pretty obvious why the airport is closed and totalled!!! Could it be that Isarael, had a hand in that???
any investigation by the un, will find what we already know......Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
the activists failed to stop, they were boarded, people died.....
regardless of who investigates, the facts speak for themselves.....
as for the us government disagreeing with people.... its a bit like the us ignoring international opposition to the war on iraq....... they will do as they see fit, not what the majority of the world feels is the right move to make....
hell in nz, there is a wall of silence from our government and thats nothing unusual, nz has less balls than a eunuch when it comes to speaking up and even then, they are careful not to upset most of nz, rather than be honest....
and regardless of what the un or any government says..... I stand by the simple ruling that if the ships has stopped, this shit never would have happened......
others can argue that the blockage is wrong.... and yes thats fair enuf... but in rebuttal to that, what alternative as they suggesting, in regards to stopping the transfer of weapons to people intent on using them on civilians....
instead of saying the blockage is wrong, yadda yadda..... give us your recommendations for stopping the civilian deaths...... without suggesting that people be uprooted and moved from one place to another, as most countries would not allow or condone that anyway
if you read the link, you would see that yes the IDF did it in 2001..... sighs....Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
thats why I posted the bloody link.... cos it states that clearly.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
The ships were sailiing under the Israeli's local ally's flag. That should have been sufficient reassurance for the Israelis that nothing of consequence was being carried. Turkey is the kind of country that would have known what was going on and would have stopped the flotilla had it thought that things would have degenerated as they did.
Why did matters degenerate? We have debated this at length: A military response in international waters rather than one of Customs declaration in local waters; Witnesses say firing from the outset; loss of discipline at crucial moments etc.
Turkey's official reaction post event was not critical of the flotilla but one of anger at the Israelis. No doubt that telephone lines betweeen Ankara and Washington glowed since, as Turkey appears to have calmed down and with the USA stepping in as a replacement guaranteur - temporarily?.
Lastly, as far as can be assertained, nothing was found. Surely this suggests that humanitarian aid via Turkey is the simplest viable answer for relief. The recomencement would do two things. One, is that it would provide what is necessary - humaintarian relief. Two, it would set Israel and Turkey back to being mutually appreciative; the Israelis would trust the supplies with routine customs overview and the Turks would have made a point that they are to be trusted. The alternative would be to lose Turkey to an even more islamic stance.
.
.
nods yeah.... the part that concerns me is that the protestors that attacked the soldiers, boarded at a different port of call, so I would contend that the ships were loaded at a official port of call, but that the extra boarding of people was not as a official capacity....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephaestion
I tend to have the view that turkey played no part in this beyond the aid.... they were actively assisting in a strictly humanitarian role .....
turkish protestors were killed, but that doesn't, in my mind, lay blame on turkey.... as people do not always represent their countries with actions and words....
I see that you and myself think similarly.... a official and neutral loading area with inspectors from a neutral country.... no other port of call after that..... the ships sail to ashdod port, are unloaded and transported ( tho I doubt hamas would allow that, based around their statements that they will not accept any aid that the israelis has had anything to do with) or allowed to sail thru the blockade and unload where hamas will accept the aid......
after reading in a report from nov last year, about a shipment of weapons interceded by israel... I can understand why israel is so hot under the collar.....
Doesn't matter how long ago the airport was totalled. If it's not usable and because of Israeli attack and the ruling forces in Gaza don't have the dosh to rebuild it, there's gonna be nowhere to land large planes. If the ruling forces, in Gaza, also know, that if they did rebuild, that upon completion, Israel would most likely, destroy the airport again.....there is little point in them doing so. So....apparently.....they are not supposed to have aid brought in by air or sea. I hope that as much aid, as is at all possible, will get through to Gaza, via Egypt, I truly do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Coming back to this....
''I asked you to show me where under the international humanitarian law.....that it was a act of piracy and war...... not a wall of text that means nothing
the part I copied and pasted, showed under the law, where the activists breached the law protecting them.....
btw the local airport is closed for minor repairs''
I stated why I was posting the titles of the parts and of the different sections, of those parts, of that document. You quoted one small piece. Upon reading the document, it appeared to me, that many more sections and sub-sections of said document, apply to what happened upon May 31st. In such a matter, it should not be a case, of pick and choose what is and isn't relavent, to a situation. Like I said, things are not black and white. There are many shades of grey.
RE: post 413
Actully, aid through Egypt " a Neutral Avenue "is the best approach, afterall iad has used this "way" for a long time, without incident they seem to find any questionable "goods" and let true aid flow through. Thank You "Balfour" 1916.:(
I think that in many ways, I agree with you Marie. If all the aid bound for Gaza, could get there, without the fear of Israel, intervening, in the way it did on May 31st....three cheers! However, This does not get rid of the blockade and Gaza, being kept from having freedom, of it's own waters and receiving visits from ships. I think that Israel would find an excuse for detroying anything that might be innocent and not anti-Israel. The bombing of an airport...no matter how long ago....is one example. Seems like they don't want anyone getting in or out of Gaza.Quote:
Originally Posted by mariersa
in simple english, you can not share any laws that prove a act of piracy and war......Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
its just a personal perception.......
I used a set of laws that were created to cover the situation that happened, that PROTECTED the ships..... the actions of people on board the ship, changed the nature of the ship and breached the law that protected it....
that is why I never focused on the laws pertained to aircraft etc.... cos the protestors were in ships, not planes......
as for the bombing of the airport...... etc.... read around..... all israel is trying to do is stop the importing of weapons that are being used to kill people......
hama is intent on killing people, they have clearly stated that......
I find it interesting that there is a big outcry over the protestors getting killed, yet silence over the use of weapons to kill civilians......
that tells me more about each countries stance of the whole picture, rather than just the deaths of nine protestors
An international law to specifically cover one incident, or, at least, very similar incidents? I do not see how that is at all possible, when there are so many grey areas. It's not a cut and dried situation.
Great feeling of power...the ability to have a country rich enough, that although it is only small, can afford the necessary arms, to obliterate an airport, therefore denying access to Gaza by air and then have the capability to blockade sea routes.
No body wants the innocent to die......Jewish, Muslim, Christian.....Arab or Israeli. Any terrorism is wrong, but so are the retaliations, because they just cause another response.....and so it goes on.
A land called the Lebanon was rebuilding itself, rebuilding Beruit, when the Israelis decided to bomb it to bits and took no notice of world condemnation. They never do.
I copied and pasted all the titles of parts and sections....those covering planes as well, because the document you put a link to, includes them and because I was going to make a reference to what kind of a blockade was this. Sea, alone, or Sea, land and air. I would have thought that this was quite obvious.
The event on may 31st cannot be covered by only a few lines, from one document. There is a bigger issue there.
I perceive that it was piracy and an act of war. I don't need simple English used. I speak the Queen's English, quite well, thank you very much.
actually the laws were created a good number of years ago, to cover conflict and humanitarian aid and the guidelines of war and conflict..... its why its so varied....
things like the Geneva convention were not set up for one situation, but to cover most sceneries.... the humanitarian law is the same, it applied as best as possible to many scenerios....as a general guideline
now surely if you were well read, you would have noticed that its been referred to in the media as a naval blockage... by governments as a naval blockade and by the Israelis as a naval blockade.....
naval means at sea..... hell the thread has been about the naval blockage....
now the single line refered to a naval blockade, not aircraft, not vessels of war etc etc..... thats why I posted it......
now israel, like other small countries, rely on support and aid from other countries..... thats not a isolated aspect, it has happened with a number of countries over the years......
and lastly, I am not drawing into question the language in which you post..... I have been refering to the fact that I ask you simple english questions, and you talk like a politican, a lot of hand waving and waffling and never simply answer the question.....
Sighs.....i know what you're saying....I just don't agree with you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
And what was the question?
A politician? Thank you, I'll take that as a compliment. However, I never waffle and only use my hands for expressive gesture.
PS. I know it's a naval blockade. I asked the question ''Was it just a naval blockade, or an air and land blockade too.'' I see no point to a naval blockade, if there is no air and land blockade, also.
Aid can be dropped from planes...certain aid and the border with Egypt, allows for aid being supplied by land. If you're going to have a successful blockade, surely it should be air, sea and land.
Of course, in the present climate, I doubt very much, that Israel would dare to invade Egypt, for allowing aid to be supplied, across it's border with Gaza, because it knows that all hell would break loose.
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/new-fo...i-account.html
I've seen it first on the site above. I've seen it repeated elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
I thought you read posts in the thread and other areas.... you seem to indicate that you do..... tho your answers indicate otherwiseQuote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
1) there is a naval blockage on the water, dealing with the ships
2) read up on egypt and the border crossings, and the opening of the borders etc....
3) read up on israels air force
there have been reports all thru the media ( newpapers and websites ) about the opening of borders etc etc......
now there is a big difference between transporting 600 ton of aid ( one ship ) and about 30 aircraft and 55 trucks
most of the transportation of weapons has been by ship.... refer back in the thread to the post about the shipment of weapons last nov
lastly...... ( I copied this from another site, it is not my own words )
Israel left Gaza, and forcibly ethnically cleansed Jewish towns and villages in the area, as part of an understanding with the US on the status of other Jewish towns and villages. The Obama administration has since then chosen to not only ignore that understanding, but to expand its definition of “settlements” to include Jews living in Jerusalem. The Obama administration has unilaterally revoked the understanding reached with Israel that was the basis for the Gaza Disengagement. As such Israel has every right to reverse its own disengagement.
By leaving Gaza alone and only monitoring its borders and coastlines, Israel displayed superhuman patience and tolerance for terrorists. But if the world refuses to back a naval blockade, then Israel has no choice but to take control of the ground. If the Obama administration refuses to accept the understanding on which Israel’s original withdrawal was based, then it is time to reverse that withdrawal. The ongoing imprisonment of Gilad Shalit, Hamas’ own atrocities against fellow Arabs and the presence of Al Queda in Gaza—are all additional factors that demand action
OMG!!!! There are parallel universes aren't there?? :p
Israel withdrew from Gaza unilaterally, without agreements for strategic economic and military reasons. It is much cheaper and easier for them to deal with territories that are completely sealed off by walls from those it oppresses that to have a big military force that has to guard each person.
Btw, who the hell is the U.S. to decide for another people when and if to give them their human rights? Yes Israelis that come into East Jerusalem are settlers by every single definition. Whether it is 40 years after occupation or just 1 month after occupation.
If you don't want to consider them settlers, then I suppose you support a one state solution where every person living in Israel and the occupied territories has equal rights under the law. A state for all its people and not only for some. (Democracy vs. Apartheid). Something tells me that this is not a solution you like? Correct me if I am wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
"If you don't want to consider them settlers, then I suppose you support a one state solution where every person living in Israel and the occupied territories has equal rights under the law. A state for all its people and not only for some. (Democracy vs. Apartheid). Something tells me that this is not a solution you like? Correct me if I am wrong."
The position that what is going on in this territory is Apartheid is an interesting point of discussion. Recently, in Toronto, On, Canada, this has blown up and created friction as far as the upcoming PRIDE parade. The city of Toronto gives money for this PRIDE week because it is a huge tourist attraction and brings in revenue. Last year there was a group that marched under the banner "Queers Opposed to Israeli Apartheid". Toronto threatened to withdraw the funding unless that group was not permitted to march. The Pride organizers banned the group stating that without the money from Toronto city council that the week events would be seriously affected. Some in the GLBT community have become angry over this as they believe that the parade is political and these people should be permitted to march under the banner. Some who have received honours have turned in their award or refused to accept the award this year. Some have argued that the GLBT are not suppose to take up other causes.
The question of whether Israel's actions are Apartheid and perhaps this blockade as being an indication of Apartheid is interesting.
One definition of apartheid states:
1/ A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
2/ The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
3/ / An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites. (note by tenni: most commonly understood meaning)
Wiki states: "The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
btw I watched the video that hardnbubbly posted. I do see some men with weapons. The weapons were broom handles and sling shots. The vast majority had nothing but cameras in their hands. I saw a couple of men shooting sling shots at the helicopter. Pfft. I scanned it and didn't watch it in detail. I didn't see a man kneeling and then being shot but it may be there.
who the hell is the us ??? go ask the us..... as they, like other countries, appear to only give a shit, when its their own back yard that somebody shits in.... but if its somebody elses, then the us, like other countries, take a different stanceQuote:
Originally Posted by hardnbubbly
now I am a person that doesn't give a rats ass about laws or rules, even tho I posted some..... actually I posted them to see how many people would read the rules and see how many of them are broken by the same countries and groups that helped create them
as for basic human rights, yes, i support basic human rights, but I do not fight for equal rights, as I embrace the differences between cultures and races... and I am acutely aware that what works for one country, will not work for another
I use the example of democracy.... yeah sure, democracy is good, it allowed the people of gaza to elect a government of hamas that is intent on mass murder......
the same type of democracy allowed for the elections of hitler....
there are times that a dictatorship is the better option.... if the dictator is fair and just and is looking out for the people.... but who am I kidding..... nobody wants a dictator, when you can democratically elect people like hamas......
Thank you for posting this. It was most interesting and also rather disturbing, to watch. Not shocking (even though it should be), for we have all become very much numbed, by the images, which we see upon our screens.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardnbubbly
From LDD's last post.
''btw I watched the video that hardnbubbly posted. I do see some men with weapons. The weapons were broom handles and sling shots. The vast majority had nothing but cameras in their hands. I saw a couple of men shooting sling shots at the helicopter. Pfft. I scanned it and didn't watch it in detail. I didn't see a man kneeling and then being shot but it may be there.''
I watched both videos, the shorter, edited piece, lasting 14 minutes and the longer, ''raw'' video footage, lasting an hour.
I saw the same things a LDD, but I also saw other things. I saw quite a lot of people, men and women, many appearing to be journalists. The atmosphere seemed relaxed and people were talking, resting, sitting at computers and at one point, taking part in religious activity.
The the small Israeli boats were seen, three of them and a larger ship in the distance. The people on board the aid ship, saw what they thought, were drone aircraft and this is when people began to worry. Lifejackets were given to all those on board and look outs were scanning the sea.
A small Israeli sea vessel came alongside the aid ship and the soldiers were very obviously shooting at the ship. There were also other noises which sounded as if they could have been the paint ball guns (the paint later mistaken for blood, by one journalist). Then a helicopter arrived and soldiers could be seen abseiling, to the ship's deck.
Gun fire could be heard...quite clearly and it was soon very obvious that people were getting shot. I saw one man, who was obviously dead or dying (in fact he bled to death and the worried woman in black, was his wife), and another, younger man, not an Arab, or Turkish, who looked to be seriously wounded.
People were ordered inside, the wounded were carried below (including two wounded Israeli soldiers), and a woman asked the Israeli's not to attack, that there were no guns aboard, there were civilians on board, there were many injured people and help was needed.
A white, middle aged man, in his 50s, with either an American or Canadian accent (His name was Kevin), showed to the camera, a document, which must have been taken from one of the Israeli soldiers. It was in Hebrew, but had the name of the ship in English and had photographs and details of certain people, obviously expected to be on board the ship.
There were men...frightened men, agitated men, who had armed themselves with sticks and rods, but I saw no sign of any of them carrying guns. Mostly what looked like walkie talkies, or cameras and of course, a couple of men with slingshots.
Like LDD, I saw no footage of anyone on their knees, being shot by an Israeli soldier.
The whole affair, as seen in those videos, looks like a cowardly, night time attack upon the aid ship. I do not think that anything can be read into the fact that some people upon the aid ship had gas masks. Being intelligent people, I am sure they already knew, what tactics might be used against the aid ships.
An investigation by Israel is not good enough. An independent investigation, should be carried out by the UN and all countries, should press for that. It is already being said that the two independent, non Israeli observers, are too Israeli friendly, to be counted as neutral.
This is a very confusing post and at times, it appears to be extremely contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
14 Jun 2010
Israeli enquiry started on the flotilla incidents. Criticised for not being UN led. Two external participant invited. One from Ireland the other from Canada.
LDD - are you suggesting that a benign dictatorship is preferable to (a) democratically elected leader(s)? One wonders who assesses the values?
A reminder that our "marvelous co-belligerents" of WW2 were the USSR led by their benign dictator Stalin. He made Hitler look like a saint.
LDD, I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless trying to make you understand another's point of view, or how they see things. You appear to see the events surrounding Israel and gaza, in black and white.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
You quote a small part of a document, as if only that particular piece is relavent, to what has happened, in international waters. I am not going to cut and paste each section and sub-section. I believe the readers of the thread to be intelligent enough, to look through said document and decide for themselves, that other sections and sub-sections should be and probably are relavent.
You appear to believe that only someone who has served in the forces, can have any opinion, which is of any importance, where such a serious attack has taken place. Not so!
As....in the past.....Israel has launched air attacks on Tunis, Iraq (or was it Iran), Lebanon, surrounding countries, during war, rescued Jews from Entebbe, collected Ethiopian Jews, to bring them ''back home,'' and continues to use planes for attacks on Gaza, and because, Israel is not a poor country, I am betting that for a tiny state, they have a pretty well armed air force. They have nuclear weapons, so I can't see them having a below par air force.......planes probably sold to them by certain western powers......ain't gonna name one though.
And Al Queda is everywhere and we can probably blame it's existence on certain western states, supporting the rebel forces, in Afghanistan, which later became the ruling Taliban. I wonder how different things would have been, if that hadn't happened and if other foreign policies had not existed. but, heck.....we'll never know.
So let's agree to disagree...OK
Canticle re: your post #427
With regards to your comment about LDD, I actually made that comment in post 425 about watching the video.
The middle aged man in his 50's named Kevin that you comment on is a Canadian from Vancouver, B.C. There were three Canadians in that floatila. When the incident happened, Kevin's friends stepped forward concerned about him. They reported that he is an activist and he stated that the worse that he expected was to be held by Israeli and possibly a little of pushing. The best that I could get out of his pointing to the book was that he thought that the Israelis had targeted certain people and they are the ones who died. He said that he got the booklet after it fell from an Israeli who boarded the ship. I'm not sure that I have it correct though? I don't think that he reported this to the Canadian media?
The Canadian who is to be an observer was reported in our media. He is a retired Canadian military man who has extensive experience as Canada's former chief military prosecutor, retired Brig. Gen. Ken Watkin. Watkin served as a Canadian Forces legal officer for more than 25 years and has been involved in various inquiries arising from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and a visiting fellow in the human rights program at Harvard Law School.
Thank you Tenni. Ah, well.......whatever...whoever.......we saw the same and didn't a certain item...so if i quoted it as being LDD's slice of post....I apologise to both of you. I was eating cheescake at the time!Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
I thought that the booklet had probably fallen out of a soldier's uniform, too. When and where, I guess isn't so important, but I thank that guy Kevin, for finding it.
Let's hope the observers can remain neutral. A UN investigation would be better.
I agree that a UN investigation would be better. I'm not certain as to the two observer's role. Who are they reporting to? Questions like that remain for me but it may be that I didn't read the actual article carefully enough that reported on this. I doubt very much what this Kevin found will be part of the Israeli investigation. To be honest though, I'm not completely convinced that Kevin is an angel. I don't know why and may be completely incorrect.
Cheesecake?....chocolate carmel ice cream is the excellent dessert offering in my house right now...lol
please be open minded about the facts over there. one of which is that this blockade is a military response to a threat. the gazans need but to let israel be and there will not be a problem. now that you've asked and I've put my 2 cents in, let's remember what this site is about..and that's not politics. I'll pray for these folks on both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
The bits of the video I found interesting were:
a) there had been no verbal contact but the people on board the ship could discern that the boats shadowing them were military and so the passengers were given the first reaction in all cases - fluoresent and reflective life jackets.
b) the comment made before any contact that the flotilla had altered course to appease the Israelis and thus they hoped that they would engage in talks come the morning.
c) It did look as though the Israelis carried an identity guide - so were these murder squads out on a misison?
Disgraceful set of events. There was sufficient tonnage on the Israeli side to bring the Mavi Marmara to a stop without boarding. Furthermore, the Israelis could have asked the Turkish authorities for assistance. Radio waves travel fairly fast.
.
ok...... for a start, I see multiple points of view.....thats why my posts are the way they are ..... I do not look at things in terms of right or wrong, black or white..... I look at things in terms of everybodies point of view...... hence I rarely sit in the forums and tell people they are wrong, or fundmentalist pro zionists etc......Quote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
I posted the international humanitarian aid laws and then copied and pasted the part pertaining directly to the protest ship......because it applied to that ship.... then asked you to clarify your stance that it was piracy and war..... I was asking what international law you had read that I had not, that classed it as piracy and a act of war.....
I have the opinion that a person that has served in the forces will have a understanding of a soldiers thinking, and way of doing things, .... thats something that you generally do not find in civilians... as they never find themselves rappelling down ropes and attacking ships.... soldiers do.....
a civilian may understand the aspects of protest and dealing with force while protesting, that is why I acknowledged darkeyes opinion... she has the experience of dealing with that aspect.....
unless you have looked down the barrel of a loaded gun, or pointed a loaded gun at a person.... most people have no idea what can go through a persons head, they can only quess
as for what israel has or has not done, they are no different to any other country.... so i do not see them as any different ..... the same with al queda.... they are no different to many other groups.... so i treat them no different.....
it is people that support or oppose them, that see the difference with them and apply the differences to them and other groups.....
I am happy to agree to diagree.... but it will not stop me asking questions and learning how others think......
actually I am suggesting that there is no difference......Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephaestion
rather than accept dictators that want absolute rule ..... we perfer democracy and elect governments
a dictator will pass laws according to his views and enforce strict rule and remove / restrict rights for people based on any percieved issue
a democratically elected government will pass laws according to their stances, and enforce rules, and in a lot of countries, not grant basic human rights...( lgbt rights to marriage and equal protection and rights etc )
I will break it down for youQuote:
Originally Posted by Canticle
most countries will protest their own boundaries, but criticize other countries for doing the same thing.... or act in a manner that is contradictory....
things like the detaining of civilians without right to trial or due course of justice..... ( in nz, we held a person for 7 years at the request of the us, their own crime was to take pics of tourist locations, but they were held in detention as a suspected terrorist even tho they had no connection to any terrorist groups... yet the us frowns on other countries doing the same thing )
I support basic human rights.... but not equal rights..... a example is australia and the treatment of the aboriginals, they took a group of them, and put them in a housing complex.... and wondered why the hell they destroyed the place..... the answer is cos the aboriginals could not relate to the way we live, they had a different way of life, and when removed from that, they developed issues like alcoholism.....
did you know that australia used to issue licenses to kill aboriginals...
now you can not apply equal rights to everybody when each culture and race has a different way of doing things, and require different levels of rights...... hence you get things like no head coverings in banks but muslim females arguing that they should not have to uncover their heads as part of their beliefs require them to be covered.....
you can not make everybody equal while granting exemptions to the rules for different people and groups... it creates unequality
as for dictators and democracy..... in the olde ways, a gathering of chiefs ( in iceland 930 AD I think it was ) was the first parliament....
the chiefs were charged with the responsibility of upholding justice and balanced interaction in their respective tribes.....
so you has a dictatorship answering to a democratic style parliament where disputes and issues were resolved by a group elected by the chiefs.....
now in those days, everybody had a voice in the tribe as a tribe was built around team work
in todays terms, it would be the united nations.... but using countries, not tribes.... but the issue lays with the ruling person / parties of each country.... they now lack the balanced support system of tribal unity.... as there is too many people and opinions and that allows a ruling person / party, to make the rules as they go along.....
and rather than sort it out so the * tribe * works together again as a co-hesive unit.... they go with the majority.......
hence you end up with a splintered society with different groups pushing different agendas.......