Options

UN Report on Gaza Flottila is out.

1356

Posts

  • Options
    BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    This doesn't fit with your other posts in this thread, which are basically 'lol idiots running blockade = idiots.'


    So either A. they deserved to get shot, or B. they wanted to get shot. Oddly enough the not wielding lead pipes boats seemed to come out ok. How odd the boat with the guy running the whole show had the most problems. Odd that.

    Execpt for the beatings, and the robbery. . .

    239. The mission’s attention has been drawn to several allegations regarding misuse of
    items confiscated by the Israeli authorities, including laptop computers, credit cards and
    mobile telephones. On 20 August 2010 it was reported in the Israeli media that “at least
    four” Israeli soldiers had been detained on suspicion of stealing and selling laptops
    belonging to passengers that were on board the flotilla.84 Furthermore, at least four
    passengers have stated that their personal items, including credit cards and mobile
    telephones, have been subsequently used in Israel. There is an account of a particular
    witness, a journalist, who was on board the Sfendoni and alleged that his credit card was
    used to purchase items in Israel, both while he was detained at the Beersheva prison and
    after he had been released.85 There is another specific account where more than $1,000 was
    spent on a confiscated credit card in Israel.86



    Also initial Free Gaza runs did not end in executing civilians out of hand

    76. The Free Gaza Movement, a human rights organization registered as a charity in
    Cyprus, organized five successful boat voyages to Gaza between August and December
    2008 using on each occasion one or two small boats. The self-declared purpose of the
    voyages was to break the blockade on Gaza. The boats were not intercepted by the Israeli
    authorities at the time, although some threatening messages were received by the organizers
    from the Israeli authorities.


    So it seems Israel made a conscious decision to up the stakes

    A sixth mission in December 2008 was obliged to divert to Lebanon after the boat was rammed and severely damaged by the Israeli Navy and a
    seventh mission in January 2009 was aborted after fears it too would be rammed.

    77. On 29 June 2009, approximately 20 nautical miles from the coast of Gaza, the Israeli
    Navy intercepted a boat called the “Spirit of Humanity” owned by the Free Gaza
    Movement, carrying 21 passengers and a cargo of humanitarian aid to Gaza. After Israeli
    requests to turn around were refused, the boat was boarded and taken to Ashdod where the
    passengers were arrested and detained



    And escalated to the point where they send commandos with such poor grasp of the laws of armed conflict that they execute civilian prisoners.

    The time line of the esculation gives lie to asanine varient of "she was asking for it."

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    This wasn't the "simple humanitarian" situation you make it out to be.

    The argument is that groups were sending much more than humanitarian aid. That is why a blockade was instituted.

    A group tried to bypass that blockade and the consequences resulted in violence. No big surprise.

    The items that groups were sending in that Israel classified as "more than humanitarian aid" were explicitly defined as humanitarian aid by the U.N. and Israel was explicitly required to let those materials pass by that definition. They were not (as in, they were boarding ships and disallowing building supplies in)

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    This wasn't the "simple humanitarian" situation you make it out to be.

    The argument is that groups were sending much more than humanitarian aid. That is why a blockade was instituted.

    A group tried to bypass that blockade and the consequences resulted in violence. No big surprise.

    The items that groups were sending in that Israel classified as "more than humanitarian aid" were explicitly defined as humanitarian aid by the U.N. and Israel was explicitly required to let those materials pass by that definition. They were not (as in, they were boarding ships and disallowing building supplies in)
    Oh come on Goum, you know Hamas needed all that concrete so it could build big stony rockets with which to terrorize helpless Israelis with. It was terrorist concrete.

    Hacksaw on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This is a very upsetting report. I'd like to take a deeper look at where some of the conclusions come from, but I can't say that any of them are a huge surprise.

    To anyone defending the blockade: The siege of Gaza has failed. Whether or not it was ever a good tactical decision, it has only served to strengthen Hamas' grasp in the hearts and the minds of the people, not turn them against Hamas, as was its goal. The siege should have been ended ages ago, and short of that should have been ended after this incident, and short of that should be ended now.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Bastable wrote: »
    Execpt for the beatings, and the robbery. . .

    239. The mission’s attention has been drawn to several allegations regarding misuse of
    items confiscated by the Israeli authorities, including laptop computers, credit cards and
    mobile telephones. On 20 August 2010 it was reported in the Israeli media that “at least
    four” Israeli soldiers had been detained on suspicion of stealing and selling laptops
    belonging to passengers that were on board the flotilla.84 Furthermore, at least four
    passengers have stated that their personal items, including credit cards and mobile
    telephones, have been subsequently used in Israel. There is an account of a particular
    witness, a journalist, who was on board the Sfendoni and alleged that his credit card was
    used to purchase items in Israel, both while he was detained at the Beersheva prison and
    after he had been released.85 There is another specific account where more than $1,000 was
    spent on a confiscated credit card in Israel.86

    We know Israel is batshit crazy. No surprises here.
    Also initial Free Gaza runs did not end in executing civilians out of hand

    76. The Free Gaza Movement, a human rights organization registered as a charity in
    Cyprus, organized five successful boat voyages to Gaza between August and December
    2008 using on each occasion one or two small boats. The self-declared purpose of the
    voyages was to break the blockade on Gaza. The boats were not intercepted by the Israeli
    authorities at the time, although some threatening messages were received by the organizers
    from the Israeli authorities.


    So it seems Israel made a conscious decision to up the stakes
    Yes, yes they did. No one should be surprised about this.
    A sixth mission in December 2008 was obliged to divert to Lebanon after the boat was rammed and severely damaged by the Israeli Navy and a
    seventh mission in January 2009 was aborted after fears it too would be rammed.

    77. On 29 June 2009, approximately 20 nautical miles from the coast of Gaza, the Israeli
    Navy intercepted a boat called the “Spirit of Humanity” owned by the Free Gaza
    Movement, carrying 21 passengers and a cargo of humanitarian aid to Gaza. After Israeli
    requests to turn around were refused, the boat was boarded and taken to Ashdod where the
    passengers were arrested and detained



    And escalated to the point where they send commandos with such poor grasp of the laws of armed conflict that they execute civilian prisoners.

    The time line of the esculation gives lie to asanine varient of "she was asking for it."

    I am just happy they didn't sink the boat and let everyone drown. Next time they might very well do so. Here is the disconnect, you are expecting them to act rationally. I am not. When people set out on one of these "lets poke Israel with a stick" missions, bad shit happens, and Israel lies about it people are acting surprised. Some people are not surprised, some people are going "WTF did you expect to happen?" the response we get is "well for them to let humanitarian aid in, and not act like they are batshit crazy." They are batshit crazy. Stop poking them, stop hoping to hide behind humanitarian aid. When they do show up do not attack them with knives and pipes are more people are going to get hurt.

    If you are doing something Israel does not like, do not be surprised when they drop commandos on your ship and kill a couple people and lie about it. This is one of the risks you are going to run. Pretending it is not a risk, and acting shocked these people are dead either means you were to stupid to know the risks in the begining or were hoping for the response you got. Either way I lack sympathy.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    This doesn't fit with your other posts in this thread, which are basically 'lol idiots running blockade = idiots.'
    It does quite well lets follow the logic.

    1. Israel is batshit crazy and has been for some time.
    2. Israel sets up an illegal blockade to prevent people from giving their RPG tennis partner any more ammo, as well as make their lives as miserable as possible by blocking as much stuff as possible.
    3. People decide to run said blockade. Tell Israel they are doing it. They are either A. Idiots, or B. Expect bad shit to go down that they can spin for political gain and are willing to get people killed to do it.
    4. They arrive at blockade, most ships immediately surrender. Some don't. Israeli special forces (not nice people) are deployed to deal with the last ship. Bad shit happens.
    5. Random people who couldn't be bothered to pay attention up until now suddenly start freaking about how Israel has become batshit crazy and there was no way to expect bad shit would go down.
    6. People point out that Israel has been batshit crazy for some time, and anyone attempting to run their blockade was either A. an Idiot, or B. Provoking this very response.

    So either A. they deserved to get shot, or B. they wanted to get shot. Oddly enough the not wielding lead pipes boats seemed to come out ok. How odd the boat with the guy running the whole show had the most problems. Odd that.

    So if I understand your reasoning correctly, a group of people carrying no illegal cargo, not violating international law, and not in Israel "deserved to get shot." You seem to have a very low threshold of determining who deserves to get shot.

    Yougottawanna on
  • Options
    KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    This doesn't fit with your other posts in this thread, which are basically 'lol idiots running blockade = idiots.'
    It does quite well lets follow the logic.

    1. Israel is batshit crazy and has been for some time.
    2. Israel sets up an illegal blockade to prevent people from giving their RPG tennis partner any more ammo, as well as make their lives as miserable as possible by blocking as much stuff as possible.
    3. People decide to run said blockade. Tell Israel they are doing it. They are either A. Idiots, or B. Expect bad shit to go down that they can spin for political gain and are willing to get people killed to do it.
    4. They arrive at blockade, most ships immediately surrender. Some don't. Israeli special forces (not nice people) are deployed to deal with the last ship. Bad shit happens.
    5. Random people who couldn't be bothered to pay attention up until now suddenly start freaking about how Israel has become batshit crazy and there was no way to expect bad shit would go down.
    6. People point out that Israel has been batshit crazy for some time, and anyone attempting to run their blockade was either A. an Idiot, or B. Provoking this very response.

    So either A. they deserved to get shot, or B. they wanted to get shot. Oddly enough the not wielding lead pipes boats seemed to come out ok. How odd the boat with the guy running the whole show had the most problems. Odd that.

    So if I understand your reasoning correctly, a group of people carrying no illegal cargo, not violating international law, and not in Israel "deserved to get shot." You seem to have a very low threshold of determining who deserves to get shot.

    His argument is that they were provoking Israel, a country known for its disproportionally high armed response to any perceived national security threat. And unsurprisingly, the Israeli military responded with disproportionally high armed response. No one is saying what happened is ok. He is arguing that they brought it on themselves because they must have known something like this would have happened.

    And in some ways i agree. What Israel did was fucking terrible. But its not surprising in the slightest.

    My point of contention is the lack of sanctions against them for this. Jesus, they attacked a boat full of civilians in international waters.

    Karl on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    Didn't we already go through this shit?

    Yeah, we did. The whole thread about Islam. Right on the last few dozen pages.

    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    Of course we don't even have to go there. We could start debating about why do you think it's okay to starve people out, completely annihilate their economy, and bomb them and their children because their leaders do/think/write bad things. I suppose you have no problem with say, 9/11? Or Hamas's terrorist attacks on Israel? Or religiously motivated genocide on Israelis should such happen? Say, if I stole your money and shot your dog because I consider America's stance on torture, messing around on other countries and wars to be pretty horrible?

    After all, it's a far bigger motivation then three fucking sentences in a charter.

    I also love how people think that because these people did something risky for a good cause, where they did not put anyone else in harm's way except themselves, they deserve to be executed. You would have been right there not giving a shit when African Americans got beaten by cops and fire hosed back in 1955, right? They had it comin'. How about Kent State, huh? Fuck those retards, they knew what was going to happen. Bloody Sunday? Well they should not have messed with soldiers, they can go suck it. How about those guys trying to defy drug gangs in Mexico? What did they expect to happen, I can't bother to care about them.

    You guys are so edgy, seriously, I'm getting a boner here.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    Didn't we already go through this shit?

    Yeah, we did. The whole thread about Islam. Right on the last few dozen pages.

    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    Of course we don't even have to go there. We could start debating about why do you think it's okay to starve people out, completely annihilate their economy, and bomb them and their children because their leaders do/think/write bad things. I suppose you have no problem with say, 9/11? Or Hamas's terrorist attacks on Israel? Or religiously motivated genocide on Israelis should such happen? Say, if I stole your money and shot your dog because I consider America's stance on torture, messing around on other countries and wars to be pretty horrible?

    After all, it's a far bigger motivation then three fucking sentences in a charter.

    I also love how people think that because these people did something risky for a good cause, where they did not put anyone else in harm's way except themselves, they deserve to be executed. You would have been right there not giving a shit when African Americans got beaten by cops and fire hosed back in 1955, right? They had it comin'. How about Kent State, huh? Fuck those retards, they knew what was going to happen. Bloody Sunday? Well they should not have messed with soldiers, they can go suck it. How about those guys trying to defy drug gangs in Mexico? What did they expect to happen, I can't bother to care about them.

    You guys are so edgy, seriously, I'm getting a boner here.

    Exactly. Every country has done some bad shit, so the country actively trying to murder people by writ of constitution is exactly as good as everyone else.


    Your argument is so juvenile and hamfisted and full of kindergarten-level naivete, it barely merits an engaged response.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010

    Exactly. Every country has done some bad shit, so the country actively trying to murder people by writ of constitution is exactly as good as everyone else.

    Yeah, it doesn't matter what they actually do, but by god if they have it written on paper! Now that's terrible!

    Oh, I'm sorry, you uphold an apartheid, colonialist state which keeps millions of people under it's total control without any human rights whatsoever. But you don't have it on writing...okay, I guess it's not as bad then.

    What's that, you assassinate, torture, bomb, institute military coups and support dictatorships which routinely murder thousands of their citizens. Fine, but don't you let me catch you putting that on paper, mister!

    Hey! Genocide! War crimes! What's that? You deny it all? No worries then!

    You know, some people might consider doing terrible things and not owing up to them actually worse then at least not lying about them.
    Your argument is so juvenile and hamfisted and full of kindergarten-level naivete, it barely merits an engaged response.

    Beats arguments based on sociopathy, though.

    Uhh, and arguments based on calculating the level of morality based on whether those acts are written down or not, too. Do they even have a word for that?

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Oh lord.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    I'm getting a weird sense of déjà vu here...

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    I'm getting a weird sense of déjà vu here...

    Maybe because you're a raving lunatic?

    It's not like you're exactly looking for legitimate discourse. You already have your worldview, and it's obviously not just incompatible with mine, but with any other. The level of your vitriol says more about the fate of any future discussion we might have than the actual discussion itself would produce.

    You don't want to have a discourse, you want to have soapbox to loudly broadcast your hand-wringing polemic on apolitical humanism from. And I'm not going to provide that to you. Sorry. That's a dead end.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    I'm getting a weird sense of déjà vu here...

    Maybe because you're a raving lunatic?

    It's not like you're exactly looking for legitimate discourse. You already have your worldview, and it's obviously not just incompatible with mine, but with any other. The level of your vitriol says more about the fate of any future discussion we might have than the actual discussion itself would produce.

    You don't want to have a discourse, you want to have soapbox to loudly broadcast your hand-wringing polemic on apolitical humanism from. And I'm not going to provide that to you. Sorry. That's a dead end.

    I'm sorry, I thought I was the one actually answering to your points (what little do you actually write) instead of focusing into trying to find as many excuses as possible to avoid actually touching on them. Your "legitimate discourse" on this thread has comprised of the following post:
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    and on the rest of your posts you whine about how you can't possibly actually answer to anything I write despite it being there very clearly.

    Let's try it again. Why do you believe that it's okay to do bad things to people because their leaders do bad things?

    If you believe that there is a certain degree of evil said leaders have to demonstrate in order for it to be okay, what things has Hamas done that are worse then the things Israel or United States does?

    Why do people deserve to die for taking risks?

    All very legitimate questions raised on my previous posts. Which you ignored.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I distinctly remember you not answering my post right after I lined out why this is a retarded view based on complete bullshit on your part.

    I'm getting a weird sense of déjà vu here...

    Maybe because you're a raving lunatic?

    It's not like you're exactly looking for legitimate discourse. You already have your worldview, and it's obviously not just incompatible with mine, but with any other. The level of your vitriol says more about the fate of any future discussion we might have than the actual discussion itself would produce.

    You don't want to have a discourse, you want to have soapbox to loudly broadcast your hand-wringing polemic on apolitical humanism from. And I'm not going to provide that to you. Sorry. That's a dead end.

    I'm sorry, I thought I was the one actually answering to your points (what little do you actually write) instead of focusing into trying to find as many excuses as possible to avoid actually touching on them. Your "legitimate discourse" on this thread has comprised of the following post:
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    and on the rest of your posts you whine about how you can't possibly actually answer to anything I write despite it being there very clearly.

    Let's try it again. Why do you believe that it's okay to do bad things to people because their leaders do bad things?

    If you believe that there is a certain degree of evil said leaders have to demonstrate in order for it to be okay, what things has Hamas done that are worse then the things Israel or United States does?

    Why do people deserve to die for taking risks?

    All very legitimate questions raised on my previous posts. Which you ignored.

    Except you see everything inside a vacuum.

    There IS a large difference between perceived policy failures and outright declarations of genocide, and if you can't get past such simple concepts as that, I don't know why this conversation should persist.

    Your "points" are little more than broad appeals to humanism outside the context of political realities. You parse events to make completely dishonest arguments, and you don't deserve to have that legitimized with any depth of effort.

    "Do people deserve to die for taking risks?"

    No, but people deserve honest discourse instead of pointless wharblgarble and handwringing, which is all you ever care to provide on this issue.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Wow. Just wow. I mean you're claiming to know the "political realities" of the situation, but your contribution to this topic so far has been a flippant remark on how Gaza should stop supporting religious genocide attacks, somewhat completely and totally missing the historical and political context of Israel/Palestine conflict in the first place.

    Since you are so knowledgeable in this topic, please enlighten us!? I'd love to hear your opinion on the subject, instead of you running amock in the thread accusing DarkCrawler of being a humanist (I didn't know you could be accused of cherising human values...you learn something new every day).

    WMain00 on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Except you see everything inside a vacuum.

    There IS a large difference between perceived policy failures and outright declarations of genocide, and if you can't get past such simple concepts as that, I don't know why this conversation should persist.

    And this argument is based on the false impression that there aren't hundreds of different actions done by Hamas that contradict various different points their charter, including those three sentences that you so love to grasp.

    So we are once again faced with the fact that you believe that what is put down on writing has more stake then the actual actions done by states and individuals. In that case, I would like to direct you to the constitution of North Korea and their "percieved policy failures".

    And again, something you have refused to once again answer, why does Hamas being evil make it okay to do anything you want to people living in Gaza?

    and it it does, why doesn't other leaders being evil make it okay to do anything to their people?
    Your "points" are little more than broad appeals to humanism outside the context of political realities. You parse events to make completely dishonest arguments, and you don't deserve to have that legitimized with any depth of effort.

    It wasn't a broad appeal to humanism. It was an demonstration of how there is no logic behind your thinking.

    I'm actually fine if you think it's okay to do whatever to people if their leaders are evil. But you don't seem to extend this opinion to other people with evil leaders who do evil stuff. It's your hypocrisy I have a problem with, not your lack of morals or your lack of empathy.

    Humanism has nothing to do with it. Intolerance of bullshit does.
    "Do people deserve to die for taking risks?"

    No, but people deserve honest discourse instead of pointless wharblgarble and handwringing, which is all you ever care to provide on this issue.

    See, but you didn't actually answer the question there, you just directed the discussion into something that had nothing to do with it in the first place.

    Hell, your entire first reply was not about honest discourse, it was just about you wanting to have a soapbox where to shout "Hamas are evil terrorists!". It was completely pointless, had nothing to do with anything previously established in the thread, and contributed nothing but your own opinion, which was "I don't care" anyway.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2010
    Oh lord.

    I second the oh lord, only it should be aimed at you and not DarkCrawler.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Man, the apologists are really crawling out of the woodwork for this.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I haven't read the entire thread yet and if someone else has commented on this, I'm sorry, but we do realize the UN "Human Rights Council" has members such as Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, not to mention a few others known for supporting terrorism or not exactly having clean humans rights records?

    And that a lot of the countries are Islamic countries, who might have a bias in this situation?

    Not that I'm exactly taking Israel's side. They have done as much, if not more, to continue this conflict for generations than the other side has.

    I wish we had a government who could stand up to Israel and make them behave in a way that could end this crap once and for all.

    valhalla130 on
    asxcjbppb2eo.jpg
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    I haven't read the entire thread yet and if someone else has commented on this, I'm sorry, but we do realize the UN "Human Rights Council" has members such as Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, not to mention a few others known for supporting terrorism or not exactly having clean humans rights records?

    And that a lot of the countries are Islamic countries, who might have a bias in this situation?

    It also has the US, which makes it equally surprising that the council came to this conclusion and used this strong condemnation.

    Echo on
  • Options
    WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Man, the apologists are really crawling out of the woodwork for this.

    What exactly is that supposed to mean?

    WMain00 on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I haven't read the entire thread yet and if someone else has commented on this, I'm sorry, but we do realize the UN "Human Rights Council" has members such as Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, not to mention a few others known for supporting terrorism or not exactly having clean humans rights records?

    The Mission itself doesn't have much relation on the member countries. The members of the mission were an former ICC Judge from Trinidad and Tobago, a British UN Prosecutor, and a women's rights leader from Malaysia. I don't see them having much biases on way or another. The hundred or so interviews were done in Geneva, London, Istanbul and Amman. The Council doesn't even "vote" whether it's right or wrong. It's not a binding document or relevant in any other way or form except telling what happened, and whether if anything that happened broke the law.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    BastableBastable Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Kipling wrote: »
    In terms of more reports from different viewpoints, Israel won't deliver. All we will get from them is the "Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010" report, which can't interview the military. So that will be pointless.

    For Turkey, there is even better stuff coming. This Turkish movie about revenge on the Israeli commander of the raid looks good.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves:_Palestine

    A description of that series? One episode showed Israeli security forces kidnapping children and shooting old men.

    Israel actually is playing the role of comical evil empire
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/2010103164134284152.html

    An Israeli court-martial has found two soldiers guilty of forcing a nine-year-old Palestinian boy to search for suspected booby-traps on their behalf during the 2008-2009 war in the Gaza Strip.


    Note the initial defense of the other guys were doing it, she was asking for it or they're much worst was initially used. Sort of similar to the apologist in this thread.

    Following an internal Israeli investigation in 2009, the military justified its actions by claiming that "the enemy booby-trapped its houses with explosives, fired from the schools attended by its own children and used its own people as human shields".

    So there are elements in the IDF that are punishing at least some of the breechs of LOAC (law's of armed conflict), concern is if they will punish the soldiers involved with executions on the free gaza ships.

    And there is the concern that only the little people are punished:

    Ilan Katz, the soldiers' attorney, said they were being used as scapegoats.

    "These two soldiers are the ones that pay the price for the mistakes of senior people, and the system thinks that if they are convicted the world will get off Israel's case - and whoever thinks this is severely mistaken," he said.

    Several of the soldiers' former comrades attending the court session at an army base in southern Kastina wore shirts with the slogan "We are victims of Goldstone" - a reference to Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist , who authored a scathing UN report on war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

    Bastable on
    Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
    "I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."

  • Options
    Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated NZRegistered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I don't care.

    Until the governing body of Gaza decides that it's no longer acceptable to call for religiously-dictated genocide within their establishing charter, I just don't care.

    Agreed. Israel have no responsibility whatsoever in anything they are involved in, just like Apartheid South Africa. If black South Africans wanted me to care about them, maybe so many of them (including a certain Mr Mandela) shouldn't have become terrorists.
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Just in case this is an issue, the proposed chair (iirc) was Geoffrey Palmer, former PM of NZ and noted constitutional lawyer and I assume he is still involved. This guy is responsible for most of the good reforms of NZ constitutional law in the 1980s and an incredibly talented constitutional lawyer and academic. So far as anyone who has an actual clue with regards to Westminster style constitutional law goes, he would be very high on the list.

    He is also a slight douche, but I do know the guy well enough to say (as he taught me for a year or so at law school during post grad) he is perhaps one of the smartest guys I've ever met and one should assume that he would not sign off on a fundamentally flawed report.

    Wrong inquiry, he's chairing the UN one (which is seperate from the Human Rights Council one).

    Edit:
    Bastable wrote: »
    Several of the soldiers' former comrades attending the court session at an army base in southern Kastina wore shirts with the slogan "We are victims of Goldstone" - a reference to Richard Goldstone, the South African jurist , who authored a scathing UN report on war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.[/I]

    Ugh...

    Unco-ordinated on
    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • Options
    WMain00WMain00 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Who let tea party members crawl onto this forum?

    WMain00 on
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Running blockades gets you shot. There's no exemption for charity. These people had to know they were putting themselves in great danger.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    HonkHonk Honk is this poster. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited October 2010
    He's clearly not being serious, I thought.

    Honk on
    PSN: Honkalot
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2010
    make every effort to stay civil and avoid name-calling in this thread please

    this is a warning

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Running blockades gets you shot. There's no exemption for charity. These people had to know they were putting themselves in great danger.

    Yes.

    Now what did they do wrong? What law did they broke and how are they not the wronged party in this case? Why did they deserve to get shot?

    I'm not sure why we can't be outraged towards Israel for shooting these protesters just like we can be outraged towards China for shooting students in Tiananmen Square protests.

    In each case, both people who were killed knew that they were putting themselves in great danger, for a good cause.

    People tout this "they knew what they were doing" as if it changes anything. It doesn't.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question. If someone is going to prove the blockade is illegal, it would be smart to do it with lawyers instead of casualties.

    If you look at the televised quotes coming out of the NGO before they left port, you can tell right from the start they were anticipating a conflict. For what it's worth, I don't think it's right to give people credit for martyring themselves, even if it's in support of a goal I agree with. That's not the right way to do things, IMO.

    I know that's a minority position around here, so go gentle.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question. If someone is going to prove the blockade is illegal, it would be smart to do it with lawyers instead of casualties.

    If you look at the televised quotes coming out of the NGO before they left port, you can tell right from the start they were anticipating a conflict. For what it's worth, I don't think it's right to give people credit for martyring themselves, even if it's in support of a goal I agree with. That's not the right way to do things, IMO.

    I know that's a minority position around here, so go gentle.

    Uh you do understand they didn't even get the chance to run the blockade right? This shit all went down in international waters. What they did was Piracy or an Act of War. Pick one.

    hawkbox on
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question.

    Goods that are delivered to Israel to be redistributed into Gaza have the tendency to not arrive in Gaza intact, if they do arrive at all.

    gtrmp on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question. If someone is going to prove the blockade is illegal, it would be smart to do it with lawyers instead of casualties.

    Because they knew that the only way you can get a load to go through is when you raise a massive stink over that single load.

    Now these are two million people. They would ideally need as much stuff as say, Houston, every day.

    You think they are going to raise a stink over every separate load? Or do you think this action of theirs raised more attention to the blockade?

    They turned down the opportunity because it would be empty gesture that would hold the news for a day or so and then be forgotten. Let's face it, they weren't there to bring aid to the Gazans. It was a part of it, but not the main part. The little amount they had would last just for a day or so, for a minimal amount of people. They were there to raise attention to the issue.
    If you look at the televised quotes coming out of the NGO before they left port, you can tell right from the start they were anticipating a conflict. For what it's worth, I don't think it's right to give people credit for martyring themselves, even if it's in support of a goal I agree with. That's not the right way to do things, IMO.

    "Anticipating a conflict" isn't the same thing as "yeah, I believe I'm gonna get killed", and even if it is, you would be looking at what, two people out of hundreds that participated? One mistranslated youtube clip of the word shahid? Yeah, they were expecting an altercation with the IDF because that had happened the previous what, six times? They weren't expecting to get assaulted in the middle of night in international waters with helicopters and killed.

    And I still don't see what they did wrong here. Unless you believe that being a martyr is a bad thing. You do realize that even if you know that you get hurt, you are still a martyr when you die? In fact I think that's pretty much the definition of a martyr. Most martyrs do "martyr themselves" by doing something that is not tolerated, knowing that they will be stopped or killed, and refusing to renounce their beliefs even in the face of certain death.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It's remarkable to me that anyone in this thread is trying to make Israel's actions sound ok without qualifying it with "The activists had good intentions, but..."

    MKR on
  • Options
    Jademonkey79Jademonkey79 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    gtrmp wrote: »
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question.

    Goods that are delivered to Israel to be redistributed into Gaza have the tendency to not arrive in Gaza intact, if they do arrive at all.

    Your injection of reality does not fit with his narrative. By his rationale, everyone involved in the Berlin airlift is a silly goose for putting themselves in a situation where they could have been killed. The good intentions or positive affects of taking a risk to help others is irrelevant in that context.

    It's a convenient viewpoint because it allows for him to essentially do nothing and still be "right". Personally, I'm glad that there are people willing to actually take action instead of those who sit on the sidelines and 'tsk tsk' when something bad happens.

    Jademonkey79 on
    "We’re surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."
  • Options
    LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    They turned down the opportunity to deliver the goods in compliance with the nation in question. If someone is going to prove the blockade is illegal, it would be smart to do it with lawyers instead of casualties.

    If you look at the televised quotes coming out of the NGO before they left port, you can tell right from the start they were anticipating a conflict. For what it's worth, I don't think it's right to give people credit for martyring themselves, even if it's in support of a goal I agree with. That's not the right way to do things, IMO.

    I know that's a minority position around here, so go gentle.

    They clearly thought they were going to be arrested, not murdered. Many, many protestors around the world go out with the intention of defying laws they believe unjust and getting arrested as a means of protest. These guys didn't intend to martyr themselves any more than Rosa Parks did.

    Anyway look, we fought over this for 50 pages last thread, there is no way a commando boarding in the middle of the night was anywhere near the right way to handle this. That's the sort of thing you do for like a pirate hostage situation maybe.

    People who suddenly find themselves under attack by commandos (and really, dropping flashbangs unto a deck where people are sleeping and then fast roping in has got to be the one best ways to turn normal people into fight or flight panic mobs) can be expected to try to defend themselves with whatever is at hand. Professional soldiers, on the other hand, should not summarily execute anyone, ever.

    Why weren't the other ships in the flotilla massacres? They didn't board them, those ships were small enough that they could disable their engines with some kind of netting. How is it not a better idea to wait until daylight and send over some soldiers normally?

    Honestly I can't see any way in which Israel isn't at fault for this disaster, at all levels of involvement. Whoever planned this raid is a moron, the soldiers involved are murderes and the government protecting all of them clearly doesn't give a fuck.

    Protestors going somewhere with the understanding that they'll be arrested are in no way responsible for being waylayed and murdered in the middle of the night.

    Lanlaorn on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    At this point, I really can't summon up anymore care. The Israelis and the Palestinians deserve each other, let them sit there and go at it.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    At this point, I really can't summon up anymore care. The Israelis and the Palestinians deserve each other, let them sit there and go at it.

    I can sympathize there, I certainly don't think either Israel or Palestine are "right", but from a human rights standpoint Israel is really fucking things up. Yes I get that they're fighting terrorists, but the Israeli to Palestine non-combatant death toll is like 1:10, they really don't give a fuck about collateral damage.

    That's just unacceptable for any modern legitimate country. Everyone else does their best to make sure their vastly superior military doesn't slaughter everything that moves, even in Iraq the vast majority of civilian deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi.

    That's not even getting started on nonsense like this blockade, etc. I gather that the middle east is a fucked up place, but this kind of bullshit isn't acceptable.

    Lanlaorn on
Sign In or Register to comment.