RAW Video: Israelis were attacked by Flotilla Mob

[Quantum Windbag]

!!!!!!!!!!!

Did they have nutmeg on board? Killing is totally justified to prevent nutmeg from getting to the territories. Oh it was just black pepper? Thats ok then.

No, the killing was justified because they attacked the people legally boarding the boat.

If the Marines board a suspected pirate ship in international waters, and the crew attacked them, would you expect them to respond to knives and clubs with flowers, or deadly force?

 

[xsited1]

To all you dumbasses that fell for the propaganda spin. Watch it n' weep. Clearly soldiers are being attacked just as they are landing on the boat.

Anti-Israel sharks sniff O's weakness - NYPOST.com

Fucking thugs, they should of just machine gun sprayed that whole crowd.

From the link:

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill.

 

[Nik]

To all you dumbasses that fell for the propaganda spin. Watch it n' weep. Clearly soldiers are being attacked just as they are landing on the boat.

Anti-Israel sharks sniff O's weakness - NYPOST.com

Fucking thugs, they should of just machine gun sprayed that whole crowd.

From the link:

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

Weakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill.

Well if someone at the NYPost said it, its gotta be true. I mean who can argue with their editorial standards?

 

[jillian]

1) What weapons?
2) Did Egyptian commandos board a boat in international waters and kill 16 people? Must have missed that...
3) You talk about Turkey being a "bastion" of democracy and human rights, now you're hitching your wagon to another "bastion" of human rights, Egypt?
4) This flotilla has boned and owned Israel over this incident. Things could not have gone better for Hamas and other Jew haters if they'd planned it themselves....

1. so if this ship didn't have them, the next one would. that's the point of this ship -- to break the blockade so the next one gets through.
2. egypt wouldn't... they have their own internal problems with islamic extremists.
3, i'm not hitching my wagon to anything. i'm commenting on the hypocrisy of those who only object to israel having the blockade. ask yourself why that would be.
4. i agree with your last. but you know what, it doesn't make a bit of difference ultimately.
and you know what, it isn't stopping turkey's deal to buy weapons from israel.

that' why this is all so bogus.

 

[Nik]

!!!!!!!!!!!

Did they have nutmeg on board? Killing is totally justified to prevent nutmeg from getting to the territories. Oh it was just black pepper? Thats ok then.

No, the killing was justified because they attacked the people legally boarding the boat.

If the Marines board a suspected pirate ship in international waters, and the crew attacked them, would you expect them to respond to knives and clubs with flowers, or deadly force?

I would expect them to try to minimize casualties. Not shoot someone 4 times in the head at close range.

 

[Dr Grump]

!!!!!!!!!!!

Did they have nutmeg on board? Killing is totally justified to prevent nutmeg from getting to the territories. Oh it was just black pepper? Thats ok then.

No, the killing was justified because they attacked the people legally boarding the boat.

If the Marines board a suspected pirate ship in international waters, and the crew attacked them, would you expect them to respond to knives and clubs with flowers, or deadly force?

You know, I bet you're one of those guys who believes in freedom and pursuit of happiness, right? Now you're saying it was 'legal' to board an unarmed vessel in international waters. I wonder how you marry/justify those two different trains of thought....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would expect them to try to minimize casualties. Not shoot someone 4 times in the head at close range.

As would I. On the other hand, if this had been US Marines boarding that ship, and exactly the same thing happened, including a young man being shot like that, I would be inclined to think that one of his crew mates had shot him to gain some sort of propaganda victory.

I know that no Islamic extremest would do such a thing, even the terrorists sympathizers that were on that ship, but it is something to think about.

 

[Dr Grump]

1. so if this ship didn't have them, the next one would. that's the point of this ship -- to break the blockade so the next one gets through.
2. egypt wouldn't... they have their own internal problems with islamic extremists.
3, i'm not hitching my wagon to anything. i'm commenting on the hypocrisy of those who only object to israel having the blockade. ask yourself why that would be.
4. i agree with your last. but you know what, it doesn't make a bit of difference ultimately.
and you know what, it isn't stopping turkey's deal to buy weapons from israel.

that' why this is all so bogus.

1) So you board the next one, and the next one, and the next one - in a calm manner, in your own waters
2) Poppycock. Israel has internal problems, too...
3) Because Israel just shot 16 people, Egypt didn't..that's why. You somehow equate an incident involving Israel with people's dislike of what happened having to do with Israel itself.

 

[jillian]

1. so if this ship didn't have them, the next one would. that's the point of this ship -- to break the blockade so the next one gets through.
2. egypt wouldn't... they have their own internal problems with islamic extremists.
3, i'm not hitching my wagon to anything. i'm commenting on the hypocrisy of those who only object to israel having the blockade. ask yourself why that would be.
4. i agree with your last. but you know what, it doesn't make a bit of difference ultimately.
and you know what, it isn't stopping turkey's deal to buy weapons from israel.

that' why this is all so bogus.

1) So you board the next one, and the next one, and the next one - in a calm manner, in your own waters
2) Poppycock. Israel has internal problems, too...
3) Because Israel just shot 16 people, Egypt didn't..that's why. You somehow equate an incident involving Israel with people's dislike of what happened having to do with Israel itself.

1. that's the thing. i don't know why they did this in international waters. it may well be that it would have by-passed israeli waters and gotten through. again, i don't know. and they did board in a calm manner. they were set upon as they were boarding.
2. israel's internal problems don't include the risk of overthrow of the moderate government by wahabbists.
3. i think that people have problems with israel defending itself. no one would have been killed if the 'peace activists' didn't attack first.

i'm still waiting to hear of one other time where 'peace activists' were the aggressive ones.

(at least since the SDS in the '60's).

will check back in the a.m. off to sleep now.

always fun.

laterz.

 

[Kalam]

2. israel's internal problems don't include the risk of overthrow of the moderate government by wahabbists.

Nor do Egypt's.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

!!!!!!!!!!!

Did they have nutmeg on board? Killing is totally justified to prevent nutmeg from getting to the territories. Oh it was just black pepper? Thats ok then.

No, the killing was justified because they attacked the people legally boarding the boat.

If the Marines board a suspected pirate ship in international waters, and the crew attacked them, would you expect them to respond to knives and clubs with flowers, or deadly force?

You know, I bet you're one of those guys who believes in freedom and pursuit of happiness, right? Now you're saying it was 'legal' to board an unarmed vessel in international waters. I wonder how you marry/justify those two different trains of thought....

Because I am actually intelligent enough to know I do not know everything, and I can read.

Laws are necessary to the survival of society, and what happened was legal. Do you, as, I am assuming, believe that laws are needed, and that countries have the duty to enforce laws? Or are you an anarchist, and believe that all government should be thrown out?

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

SECTION IV : OTHER ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT

Enemy merchant vessels

59. Enemy merchant vessels may only be attacked if they meet the definition of a military objective in paragraph 40.

60. The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:

(a) engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, engaging in visit and search of neutral merchant vessels or attacking other merchant vessels;
(b) acting as an auxiliary to an enemy s armed forces, e.g., carrying troops or replenishing warships;
(c) being incorporated into or assisting the enemy s intelligence gathering system, e.g., engaging in reconnaissance, early warning, surveillance, or command, control and communications missions;
(d) sailing under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft;
(e) refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

Under international law Israel would have bee fully justified in firing upon the vessel when it refused to stop, and even more justified in pulling its forces off the deck of the ship and sinking it after they were attacked. I happen to think they showed great restraint in not doing so, and I commend them for not causing more casualties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. that's the thing. i don't know why they did this in international waters. it may well be that it would have by-passed israeli waters and gotten through. again, i don't know. and they did board in a calm manner. they were set upon as they were boarding.

They had the legal right to board any ship they believed was going to attempt to break their legal blockade under international law, now matter where they found it. Don't let the apologists mislead you with this talk of international waters, it is a red herring.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2. israel's internal problems don't include the risk of overthrow of the moderate government by wahabbists.

Nor do Egypt's.

Yet both blockade Gaza, and Israel generally allows more goods through the points they control than does Egypt. Why didn't the flotilla challenge Egypt's blockade of Gaza instead of Israel's?

 

[Nik]

No, the killing was justified because they attacked the people legally boarding the boat.

If the Marines board a suspected pirate ship in international waters, and the crew attacked them, would you expect them to respond to knives and clubs with flowers, or deadly force?

You know, I bet you're one of those guys who believes in freedom and pursuit of happiness, right? Now you're saying it was 'legal' to board an unarmed vessel in international waters. I wonder how you marry/justify those two different trains of thought....

Because I am actually intelligent enough to know I do not know everything, and I can read.

Laws are necessary to the survival of society, and what happened was legal. Do you, as, I am assuming, believe that laws are needed, and that countries have the duty to enforce laws? Or are you an anarchist, and believe that all government should be thrown out?

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

SECTION IV : OTHER ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT

Enemy merchant vessels

59. Enemy merchant vessels may only be attacked if they meet the definition of a military objective in paragraph 40.

60. The following activities may render enemy merchant vessels military objectives:

(a) engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, engaging in visit and search of neutral merchant vessels or attacking other merchant vessels;
(b) acting as an auxiliary to an enemy s armed forces, e.g., carrying troops or replenishing warships;
(c) being incorporated into or assisting the enemy s intelligence gathering system, e.g., engaging in reconnaissance, early warning, surveillance, or command, control and communications missions;
(d) sailing under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft;
(e) refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument

Under international law Israel would have bee fully justified in firing upon the vessel when it refused to stop, and even more justified in pulling its forces off the deck of the ship and sinking it after they were attacked. I happen to think they showed great restraint in not doing so, and I commend them for not causing more casualties.

Law. Of. Proportionality.

Sinking a ship with 600 civilians on it to keep humanitarian goods from reaching Gaza is NOT proportionate. Under any standard.

By the way. Its good to see such a strong believer in laws. Here is one for you:

Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade".

Considering the documented amount of suffering and the clear intention of the blockade to be collective punishment, its clear that the blockade is illegal, and hence so is the enforcing of the blockade.


Laws from different areas cover the same types of situations.

 

[Nik]

2. israel's internal problems don't include the risk of overthrow of the moderate government by wahabbists.

Nor do Egypt's.

Yet both blockade Gaza, and Israel generally allows more goods through the points they control than does Egypt. Why didn't the flotilla challenge Egypt's blockade of Gaza instead of Israel's?

Its a bit hard to take a flotilla through a land blockade...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Law. Of. Proportionality.

Sinking a ship with 600 civilians on it to keep humanitarian goods from reaching Gaza is NOT proportionate. Under any standard.

By the way. Its good to see such a strong believer in laws. Here is one for you:

Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade".

Considering the documented amount of suffering and the clear intention of the blockade to be collective punishment, its clear that the blockade is illegal, and hence so is the enforcing of the blockade.


Laws from different areas cover the same types of situations.

The only laws that apply to this situation are the international laws, so pulling up some law from South Africa about it being illegal to prohibit chocolate is not going to help you here.

Since the blockade has never been challenged in international court, you are going to have a hard time proving that the damage to civilians is anything significant. They are in a de facto war zone, and Israel supplies food, clothing, and medical supplies to Gaza on a daily basis. The amount of cargo on those vessels is insignificant next to what Israel allows in every year, and barely approaches what they let in in a week.

At least you are attempting to keep the argument about the legality of this blockade based on reality, rather than wild and unsubstantiated claims that it is illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nor do Egypt's.

Yet both blockade Gaza, and Israel generally allows more goods through the points they control than does Egypt. Why didn't the flotilla challenge Egypt's blockade of Gaza instead of Israel's?

Its a bit hard to take a flotilla through a land blockade...

It is pretty easy to ull into an Egyptian port and load it onto trucks. Oops, the Egyptians won't allow that, and if they had tried to sail through Egyptian waters to get there, they would have been boarded and arrested, and not let go.

But keep blaming Israel, it makes you look intelligent.

 

[Nik]

Law. Of. Proportionality.

Sinking a ship with 600 civilians on it to keep humanitarian goods from reaching Gaza is NOT proportionate. Under any standard.

By the way. Its good to see such a strong believer in laws. Here is one for you:

Paragraph 102 of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade".

Considering the documented amount of suffering and the clear intention of the blockade to be collective punishment, its clear that the blockade is illegal, and hence so is the enforcing of the blockade.


Laws from different areas cover the same types of situations.

The only laws that apply to this situation are the international laws, so pulling up some law from South Africa about it being illegal to prohibit chocolate is not going to help you here.

Since the blockade has never been challenged in international court, you are going to have a hard time proving that the damage to civilians is anything significant. They are in a de facto war zone, and Israel supplies food, clothing, and medical supplies to Gaza on a daily basis. The amount of cargo on those vessels is insignificant next to what Israel allows in every year, and barely approaches what they let in in a week.

At least you are attempting to keep the argument about the legality of this blockade based on reality, rather than wild and unsubstantiated claims that it is illegal.

The law I cited IS FROM THE SAME DOCUMENT YOU DID. Don't lie and give me some shit about how its from South Africa.

Pray tell, what international court could the blockade be challenged in?

 

[Nik]

Yet both blockade Gaza, and Israel generally allows more goods through the points they control than does Egypt. Why didn't the flotilla challenge Egypt's blockade of Gaza instead of Israel's?

Its a bit hard to take a flotilla through a land blockade...

It is pretty easy to ull into an Egyptian port and load it onto trucks. Oops, the Egyptians won't allow that, and if they had tried to sail through Egyptian waters to get there, they would have been boarded and arrested, and not let go.

But keep blaming Israel, it makes you look intelligent.

Organizations have tried to make it through the Egyptian blockade, on trucks, in the past. They chose a sea route this time.

And yes. It is Israels fault that they murdered 9 civilians. Personal responsibility anyone?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The law I cited IS FROM THE SAME DOCUMENT YOU DID. Don't lie and give me some shit about how its from South Africa.

Pray tell, what international court could the blockade be challenged in?

I never said it wasn't, but you seem to think that laws from anywhere that makes Israel look bad is applicable.

Don't expect me to do all the work for you, if you want to know who has jurisdiction over the laws I cited look it up yourself.