Israeli commandos used painballs for rioters

[P F Tinmore]

Usually by taking a waepon and fighting back. Now there is nothing wrong with resisting what you see as an attacking force, just dont go whining that THE JOOOOOS were attacking civilans.

You dont believe the blockade is legitamate, so my argument is invalid in your eyes anyway. In my view they resisted with arms a legal bloackade, and therefore lost thier "innocent" status.

So, would these guys still be considered innocent civilians , or should they be considered militants i.e. legitimate targets?

I'm assuming those are armed settlers, but without context I really can't comment. The settler thing is another issue, and I try to keep to one discussion at a time. Strawmen make nice got ya's but dont do much for debate.

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

If civilians attack military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, the people they attack are allowed to defend themselves. If civilians walk, or sail, into a combat zone they are can be escorted out of that zone. Regardless of whether you think the blockade is legal, it exists, and every idiot on those ships knows that. Regardless of whether or not you think the IDF had the right to board that ship, those idiots knew it was going to happen. The IDF usually carries lethal weapons,because, according to you, they want to murder innocent civilians, especially women and small children. The idiots on that ship think the same way about Israel that you do.

These idiots, knowing they were going to be attacked by the IDF, chose to go up against them unarmed. That makes them terminally stupid, and thus the IDF greatly benefited the entire human race by eliminating them from the gene pool. Maybe you should join the next ship that goes out and contribute to the betterment of the human gene pool yourself by repeating their mistake.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

If civilians attack military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, the people they attack are allowed to defend themselves. If civilians walk, or sail, into a combat zone they are can be escorted out of that zone. Regardless of whether you think the blockade is legal, it exists, and every idiot on those ships knows that. Regardless of whether or not you think the IDF had the right to board that ship, those idiots knew it was going to happen. The IDF usually carries lethal weapons,because, according to you, they want to murder innocent civilians, especially women and small children. The idiots on that ship think the same way about Israel that you do.

These idiots, knowing they were going to be attacked by the IDF, chose to go up against them unarmed. That makes them terminally stupid, and thus the IDF greatly benefited the entire human race by eliminating them from the gene pool. Maybe you should join the next ship that goes out and contribute to the betterment of the human gene pool yourself by repeating their mistake.

You are just upset because Israel is losing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

If civilians attack military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, the people they attack are allowed to defend themselves. If civilians walk, or sail, into a combat zone they are can be escorted out of that zone. Regardless of whether you think the blockade is legal, it exists, and every idiot on those ships knows that. Regardless of whether or not you think the IDF had the right to board that ship, those idiots knew it was going to happen. The IDF usually carries lethal weapons,because, according to you, they want to murder innocent civilians, especially women and small children. The idiots on that ship think the same way about Israel that you do.

These idiots, knowing they were going to be attacked by the IDF, chose to go up against them unarmed. That makes them terminally stupid, and thus the IDF greatly benefited the entire human race by eliminating them from the gene pool. Maybe you should join the next ship that goes out and contribute to the betterment of the human gene pool yourself by repeating their mistake.

You are just upset because Israel is losing.

You think I sound upset because I am somehow deluded that the only country in the Mid East to nuke their enemies is somehow losing? If they were as crazy as you say they are their would be no debate, because they would simply eliminate the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If civilians attack military personnel, or anyone else for that matter, the people they attack are allowed to defend themselves. If civilians walk, or sail, into a combat zone they are can be escorted out of that zone. Regardless of whether you think the blockade is legal, it exists, and every idiot on those ships knows that. Regardless of whether or not you think the IDF had the right to board that ship, those idiots knew it was going to happen. The IDF usually carries lethal weapons,because, according to you, they want to murder innocent civilians, especially women and small children. The idiots on that ship think the same way about Israel that you do.

These idiots, knowing they were going to be attacked by the IDF, chose to go up against them unarmed. That makes them terminally stupid, and thus the IDF greatly benefited the entire human race by eliminating them from the gene pool. Maybe you should join the next ship that goes out and contribute to the betterment of the human gene pool yourself by repeating their mistake.

You are just upset because Israel is losing.

You think I sound upset because I am somehow deluded that the only country in the Mid East to nuke their enemies is somehow losing? If they were as crazy as you say they are their would be no debate, because they would simply eliminate the Palestinians.

Israel's mooched military might is virtually useless against the Palestinians. Is Israel going to nuke Gaza, East Jerusalem, or Hebron?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ask them, I don't make state decisions for them.

Since you obviously are impermeable to reason or logic, and freely ignore facts, I am just going to treat anything you post as the absurdity it is, and respond accordingly.

If you want my opinion, I think Israel should start by nuking Iran and Syria, and if anyone still wants to give them shit after that, they can nuke them also.

If you really think Israel is on the verge of losing you should join the next freedom flotilla and make sure you are right up front repelling those illegal borders with nothing more than your bare hands. I am sure the IDF has learned their lesson and will simply let you all pass, and you can be an international hero for single handily saving all those starving children in Gaza.

 

[martybegan]

So, would these guys still be considered innocent civilians , or should they be considered militants i.e. legitimate targets?

I'm assuming those are armed settlers, but without context I really can't comment. The settler thing is another issue, and I try to keep to one discussion at a time. Strawmen make nice got ya's but dont do much for debate.

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

Don't do any gotcha posts on what I discuss here, This is an open line of thought.

The armed settler issue is an interesting one. Again I do not want to get into the issue of settlements themselves. In taking up arms they would make themselves combatants, that I dont disagree with. That being said your line that all palestinians are civillians is not truly accruate. By joining Hamas and taking up arms you make yourself a belligerent. A true civillian does not resist occupation with force of arms. Ignoring morality and such both armed parties would be viable targets in armed conflict. There is also the issue of who is on offense, and who is on defense at a given time.

You keep ignoring the fact that only 1 boat had casualties, and on that boat you have video of people attacking the commandos with weapons. (You also ignored my Munich reference in the last post). Ignoring points that you cannot counter is poor form.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm assuming those are armed settlers, but without context I really can't comment. The settler thing is another issue, and I try to keep to one discussion at a time. Strawmen make nice got ya's but dont do much for debate.

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

Don't do any gotcha posts on what I discuss here, This is an open line of thought.

The armed settler issue is an interesting one. Again I do not want to get into the issue of settlements themselves. In taking up arms they would make themselves combatants, that I dont disagree with. That being said your line that all palestinians are civillians is not truly accruate. By joining Hamas and taking up arms you make yourself a belligerent. A true civillian does not resist occupation with force of arms. Ignoring morality and such both armed parties would be viable targets in armed conflict. There is also the issue of who is on offense, and who is on defense at a given time.

You keep ignoring the fact that only 1 boat had casualties, and on that boat you have video of people attacking the commandos with weapons. (You also ignored my Munich reference in the last post). Ignoring points that you cannot counter is poor form.

You keep ignoring the fact that only 1 boat had casualties, and on that boat you have video of people attacking the commandos with weapons.

What is the relevance?

(You also ignored my Munich reference in the last post).

I believe that attack was by the PFLP (a Christian organization by the way) a long time ago. The PFLP was started outside Palestine as Israel kicked the founder out of Palestine. So they attacked the occupiers outside Palestine.

The armed settler issue is an interesting one. Again I do not want to get into the issue of settlements themselves. In taking up arms they would make themselves combatants, that I dont disagree with.

Israeli settlements is the Israel/Palestine conflict. Everything else goes from there.

That being said your line that all palestinians are civillians is not truly accruate. By joining Hamas and taking up arms you make yourself a belligerent.

Palestine has no military. It never had a military. Palestinians are ALL civilians. Officially some could be classified as militias or resistance groups.

Belligerent? Is that the new name calling thing now that the propagandists have burned out the terrorist thing?

The bottom line is that occupiers have no "right" to attack the occupied regardless of whatever name calling is done.

A true civillian does not resist occupation with force of arms.

Oh really? Explain the US 2nd amendment or the codified right of Palestinians to bear arms.

Ignoring morality and such both armed parties would be viable targets in armed conflict. There is also the issue of who is on offense, and who is on defense at a given time.

Israel has always been on the offensive. Israel's military began attacking Palestinian civilians in 1947 driving them out of their home and off their land. Israel then moved in their foreign settlers. Palestinian civilians have been on the defensive since then.

 

[2Parties]

A true civillian does not resist occupation with force of arms.

 

[manu1959]

There really is no "good" way to attack civilians.

When you try to repel boarders who are enforcing a declared blockade you cease to be a civillain, and become a combatant.

And Cmike, I doubt the load was paintballs, it probably was a pepper/mace load. Werent the commados wearing gas masks.

Interesting premise. When do civilians lose their civilian status and become legitimate targets?

hamas or the taliban or al qaida gould probably answer that question for you.....

odd all the other ships agreed to be boarded and searched before they entered israeli waters....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm assuming those are armed settlers, but without context I really can't comment. The settler thing is another issue, and I try to keep to one discussion at a time. Strawmen make nice got ya's but dont do much for debate.

You are the one who floated the idea that civilians could lose their protection as civilians under certain circumstances. I was merely following your line of thought.

It is a tough sell to say that civilians bringing aid to civilians is somehow illegal and those civilians would then be subject to legitimate military attack. I don't know if this particular issue has been addressed in legal precedence or not but this is a PR battle not a court case.

However, the status of civilians is the at the core of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Palestine has no military. All Palestinians are civilians. Now if Israel can justify attacks on Palestinian civilians, what Israelis can the Palestinians justly attack. That is the question.

Don't do any gotcha posts on what I discuss here, This is an open line of thought.

The armed settler issue is an interesting one. Again I do not want to get into the issue of settlements themselves. In taking up arms they would make themselves combatants, that I dont disagree with. That being said your line that all palestinians are civillians is not truly accruate. By joining Hamas and taking up arms you make yourself a belligerent. A true civillian does not resist occupation with force of arms. Ignoring morality and such both armed parties would be viable targets in armed conflict. There is also the issue of who is on offense, and who is on defense at a given time.

You keep ignoring the fact that only 1 boat had casualties, and on that boat you have video of people attacking the commandos with weapons. (You also ignored my Munich reference in the last post). Ignoring points that you cannot counter is poor form.

Don't be to hard on him, it is the only form he has.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh really? Explain the US 2nd amendment or the codified right of Palestinians to bear arms.

That show that all able bodied citizens are members of the militia, and thus not civilians.