Gaza Aid Convoy

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

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!

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

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canticle

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.

---

I thought you read posts in the thread and other areas.... you seem to indicate that you do..... tho your answers indicate otherwise

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

I thought you read posts in the thread and other areas.... you seem to indicate that you do..... tho your answers indicate otherwise

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

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardnbubbly

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.

---

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 stance

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardnbubbly

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.

---

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.


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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

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 stance

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......

---

This is a very confusing post and at times, it appears to be extremely contradictory.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

I thought you read posts in the thread and other areas.... you seem to indicate that you do..... tho your answers indicate otherwise

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tenni

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!

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

I've waited for someone to post something about Israel's raid on the aid convoy and so many deaths. It is sad that no one has felt fit to say a dickie bird. It is in all our interests to show concern and argue against oppression and discrimination from wherever it comes.. I make no comment at this stage about my view of the truth of the matter, except to say that so far the evidence as best I can see does not back Israel's claims. I am still absorbing what I can before doing so.. most of you will know where my sympathies lie but its no use shooting from the hip which I can and do do quite often..

Gaza, whatever the truth of the matter is an absolute mess and its getting worse by the day.. the fact that Netanyahu cancelled a meeting with the American President says a lot about his mindset and his determination to keep the pressure on Gaza.

---

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.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canticle

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.

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

---

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......

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hephaestion

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.

---

actually I am suggesting that there is no difference......
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 )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canticle

This is a very confusing post and at times, it appears to be extremely contradictory.

---

I will break it down for you

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.......

Gee, I'm tired.......too tired to deal with replying to you LDD. However......refreshed....my mind with be at 100% efficiency and the Queen's English, with be used with full force.......and here I was being mildly humorous.......yawn. Nite.

Democracy, in and of itself, is no guarantee of freedom. Dictators and regimes know full well how to run a nation that has only known dictatorial control into voting to restore it. Part of that problem is that pure democracy is a terrible way to run things, almost worse than a dictatorship, and usually guaranteed to result in one eventually.

Representative democracy, however, is the best way to do things IF you want to prevent the oppression of the majority over the minority, and prevent the voting in of regimes who will take that 'mandate' and turn around and take away the freedoms democracy is intended to bestow.

Just because Gaza voted in Hamas does not mean we have a free democracy. In fact, the first order of business was to execute anyone associated with the losing faction. But don't let that stop you from declaring it a victory for democracy, President Carter.

Pasa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2

Democracy, in and of itself, is no guarantee of freedom. Dictators and regimes know full well how to run a nation that has only known dictatorial control into voting to restore it. Part of that problem is that pure democracy is a terrible way to run things, almost worse than a dictatorship, and usually guaranteed to result in one eventually.

Representative democracy, however, is the best way to do things IF you want to prevent the oppression of the majority over the minority, and prevent the voting in of regimes who will take that 'mandate' and turn around and take away the freedoms democracy is intended to bestow.

Just because Gaza voted in Hamas does not mean we have a free democracy. In fact, the first order of business was to execute anyone associated with the losing faction. But don't let that stop you from declaring it a victory for democracy, President Carter.

Pasa

---

lol.... did I mention that I do not believe that freedom exists ????:tong:

I believe that there is not freedom as we like to see freedom.....and that freedom on the level that many want it, is actually dangerous to the average human.....

in order for the human race and cultures to survive, they need to create and have boundaries that curb actions and words, to stop themselves imploding
a example is the fact that we are free to vote for a government, and free to choose to vote or not.... but we are limited by the people that we can vote for, and in turn they are limited in what they can and will do for the people that voted them in

Was the voting in of Hamas the same as the voting in of Hitler i.e. by people who were desparate to have their voices heard and who had been oppressed under the then existing system?

In many respects both the Germans and Palestinians would not just accept their fate decided by a neighbour.

In the interwar years, there were French raiding parties into SW Germany looting in the name of reparations while hiding behind the Maginot Line; at the end of WW1, the Germans had accepted peace through armistice not surrender.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

actually I am suggesting that there is no difference......
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 )

---

Cynic.

There is of course the argument that democratization is the ameliration of mob rule and that it prevents the odd lynching of the overbearing. However, so long as there is deposing via the ballot box there is no need for such extremism. We substitute shame for murder for so long as it works e.g. Mussolini. It does seem to work reasonably well.

The greater number of western democratically elected govenrments do not withhold human rights. Rather the opposite tends to be true and our societies tend to be more progressive and 'understading'. Now when it comes to 'democracy' in e.g. parts of Africa, S.America and the far east, well that does tend to have an unusual flavour.

.

not a cynic.... I just hate politicians and politics lol

honestly based around a centuries long overview.... in my opinion, we have taken 2000 years of going backwards under the illusion of going forwards, to almost be back where we started.....

originally, you fucked who you want ( in the bed and on the war fields ) but generally you were allowed to be who you were.....then we added politics, lol.....

2000 years later, we are finally starting to reach the point where you can be who you are ( lgbt rights ) and we are going backwards again, as groups fight for their rights and seek to have their way accepted while infringing on the rights of others.....something that counters equal rights....
( in nz, in auckland, our biggest city, the celebration of xmas in the city streets by way of xmas decorations and lights, has been stopped as its offensive to muslims, tho its a big part of christian / non christian celebrations )

I tend to view changes in society as the same, but instead of war, we have peaceful conquering, as diversity comes to the forefront....and under the guise of equal rights, many groups lose their individuality.....


the voting in of hitler and hamas is no different to the electing of bush and obama...... they all speak a message that gets attention..... ( or they use other means ).....
thats democracy at work......

I am gonna say something thats gonna sound very bad indeed....

in NZ, it took a atheist childless woman that did not believe in marriage ( she married cos it was considered a good look politicially ), to get nz LGBT the right to marriage......
most of the nz government argued against the lgbt having rights.....
the female called helen clark, was head of the labour party, refered to as the *communist * party in nz.. and regarded as a dictatorship type government ....as they will look after themselves first and screw nz over ...( in fact they did that, its estimated that it will be 2025 before nz gets out of the shit from 9 years of a labour led government.....)

thats why I said that in some cases a dictatorship style can at times, be better than a democracy

I find it interesting that the people who put forth an argument about whether a society is a democracy frequently refer to "true" (or direct) democracy as a beacon. Apparently, there are many types of democracy and determining who may vote is a factor. Now, in contemporary democratic countries we are referring to forms of "representational" democracy and rarely this "true" democracy that some (very few) get hung up on. There is the last to the post type of democracy where the number of votes per riding determine which candidate will represent that riding in a government. Another type involves not only electing members per riding but factoring in the total number of votes cast per political party and then allotting the remainder of seats based on the the percentage cast by all per political party. It might be argued that is "true" democracy rather than direct democracy. Other forms of democracy determine who may vote as a citizen. Land ownership may come into play or voting by hereditary forms of democracy. We could go on but why?

It seems to me that this argument about whether a country is a democracy is used by those who wish to nullify the votes cast by citizens. The fact is that Gazan's decided to have Hammas as their government. I've seen documentaries where this has been discussed and it is seems that some voted for Hammas as a reaction to Fatta. They voted in a protest vote. This has happened in many democratic countries. The outcome is a surprise when the protest votes bring in a very different and radical party compared to the voting history of the people. Some might say oh they didn't really want that party to win. That does not nullify the results though unless some forms of voting corruption has happened. As far as I can tell, Hammas is a more legitimately democratically elected government than the Karzai government in Afghanistan.

Hammas won democratically. Stop whining and using your distrust of Hammas to excuse your bigotry about arguing whether the Gaza government is a democratic government. Now, get back to the ethics of Israel's actions in this particular situation.

Well, let's see who brought up the fact that Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza... oh yeah, Tenni.

There is no bigotry, they are terrorists. I have openly stated I support Israel, not because I'm an American, but because of their history. I do not believe any group should be systemically wiped off this earth. People offer solutions that they should just move, move where? It's their home. They have the right to defend it. It's easy for people who sit safe and sound in lands that war never touches to spout off their hypocritical bs. Bottom line, until you are living there and living with the fear each day that you are going to watch your children die you have no right to sit and point fingers. But if it makes you feel better to spout your political drivel, then by all means do so. That's what free speech is about.

the ethics of israel ????

lmao.... we are at a impasse......

I see a humanitarian aid mission..... on ships..... I see israel with a blockade
I see the ships sailing under the rule of aid..... I see israel told them to waylay
the ships chose not to stop under the guidelines of international aid laws...
I see israel boarded the ships in order to stop them... I see protestors attacking the soldiers.... I see the soldiers reacting.... and I see death

people can argue it all they want....... they are the simple facts.....

you can add in all the morals and ethics and personal opinions til the cows come home..... and argue pro or anti israel...... or pro or anti the protestors....

at the end of the day, the ships sailing under the rule of international aid laws, had a obligation to stop, regardless of what country they were sailing under or who they thought they were or if the blockade was legal or not....
the international aid laws stated that the ship should have stopped.....
they chose not to.......

if they had waylaid as requested, nobody would have died...... blaming israel for a illegal blockade yadda yadda.... doesn't change the fact that a ship sailing under international aid laws, chose to ignore the directive to stop

btw did I forget to add that the transportation and distribution of aid for a foreign country, is supposed to be done by a international recognized aid relief group, like the red cross...... thats also part of the international aid law..... so thats two aid laws that the protesters ignored.....

now I am not anti protestors..... but I am anti idiots that ignore the very laws that protect them and keep them alive.....

Lessee Tenni, you brought up the idea of democratically elected government. So, it is a fair point of debate, which you now object to. In the courts that's called opening up the door, and your objection would be overruled.

BTW, the phrase 'True Democracy' has a very specific definition: that every person gets a vote. That there is no filter at all to prevent the oppression of the majority.

@Heph not similar to Hitler. He was elected to a representative democracy and then lied to the people. That's different, subtly so, but different. What I'm talking about is things like Hamas being elected in Gaza, the government in Darfur being 'elected', Hugo Chavez being 'elected', hell, even Saddam was 'elected.' When people, especially passionate people who, as Tenni pointed out, have been oppressed vote they do not always vote in their actual best interests, but in how they perceive them at the time.

If Hamas had said "vote for us and we'll kill ever Fatta member we can find" I don't think they would have been elected. Then again, they might have. Who knows. It's not like Palestine has any peaceful political organizations.

Pasa