This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Israel, Honourable Defender or Aggressor?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
The only 'wrong-ness' of the operation was the fact that it was carried out in international waters. So the issue is that, not the fact that civillians were killed. This is the point I've been driving all along.
The thing is, they were never going to enter Israeli waters in the first place. Palestinian waters =/= Israeli waters. They may have a blockade up. That doesn't make it their waters.
Let's say that Israel puts up a blockaide in International waters, in an attempt to stop their neighbor who is ruled by a terrorist organization from getting short range nuclear capable missiles. Not to mention food spices, canned/dry fruits, fresh meats, seeds and nuts, chickens, fishing rods, horses/donkeys and cattle, musical instruments (?), newspapers, wood.
If I'm not mistaken, Israel are letting aid through that they identify as materials that cannot be used to convert into weapons. So they may not let a piano in, for example, because the inside can be smelted down to form weaponry, but they would let food, meat, etc. Some
fishing poles
may be permitted, and I assume that
others
might not be.
Yes, but
sources say
that this is not as totally objective as it seems to be.
They stop a ship at that blockaide. The people they stop begin to preemptively fire on them with automatic weapons.
I've heard multiple views about this. Can someone site some sources to show the actual log of the order in which things happen?
As far as I'm aware, the people on the boat attacked with metal and wooden rods. Not the same as automatic weaponry, but still lethal.
So I'm assuming it's once they've already boarded the boat, illegally (Freedom of Seas: The doctrine that ships of any nation may travel through international waters unhampered).
Post by
Monday
As far as I'm aware, the people on the boat attacked with metal and wooden rods. Not the same as automatic weaponry, but still lethal.
I heard there was gunfire... but I could be wrong.
Post by
Heckler
If I'm not mistaken, Israel are letting aid through that they identify as materials that cannot be used to convert into weapons. So they may not let a piano in, for example, because the inside can be smelted down to form weaponry, but they would let food, meat, etc. Some
fishing poles
may be permitted, and I assume that
others
might not be.
You are mistaken -- although, 2 points for the WoW links. The embargo blocks things like steel, for buildings (like hospitals and schools), because they might be used to make weapons. However, it also blocks things like chocolate and toys.
Isreal's REAL purpose for embargoing Gaza isn't just to prevent them from building rockets -- Isreali officials make no secret of their goals (
source
):
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported, the Israeli officials in charge of the embargo adhere to what they call a policy of
“no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.”
In other words, the embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve.
This explains why Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets.
I can almost see justification in a blockade that is designed to stop an existential threat. I see no justification in an embargo with a stated goal of “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” It's borderline barbaric, especially when you're willing to kill those who attempt to run the blockade, not to build rockets, but to bring happiness.
Post by
Squishalot
I disagree - saying "the" terrorist implies that there is only one terrorist, not "the one who falls under the category best". "The winner" implies only one winner, "the teacher" implies that there is only one teacher, etc.
ffs...you obviously use the English language differently than I do.
So stop pretending like your silly grammar argument actually means anything, and deal with the issue, not your dislike of how I use grammar.
Your examples are flawed because either you are a teacher or a winner or you aren't. The situation here is that of degree. It's a perfectly valid way of talking where I'm from.
That's pretty funny, coming from you. I'm sure many others here would agree with me.
The issue is, you're making claims based on a bunch of numbers that have no relevance to the issue of who is the terrorist. If all of Palestine's civillian kills were made to other countries, they wouldn't appear in your flawed analysis, leading you to believe that Israel are bigger terrorists, when in fact, (using what I believe is a flawed approach that you're using) Palestine are the bigger terrorists,
but you're not counting all their stats
, only the ones that you feel like counting in the Israel / Palestine conflict.
This is what I mean. You're saying that 'Israel has killed a number of civillians, therefore they are more terrorist than Hamas / Palestine'. That's a flawed argument, it has no logical basis, and ignores relevant information that should be used to determine 'who the better terrorist is'.
I gave my definition of terrorism above. It's solely concerned with civilians (or innocents, depending on context). It's not flawed, it's the most logical way of measuring terrorism.
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
But steering this away from a religious debate, using your flawed definition, I still refer you to my above statement, clearly identifying how your use of numbers in your analysis of 'who is the best terrorist' is still flawed. You're not going to win this argument.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
Uh what? ....
If all of Palestine's civillian kills were made to other countries, they wouldn't appear in your flawed analysis, leading you to believe that Israel are bigger terrorists, when in fact, (using what I believe is a flawed approach that you're using) Palestine are the bigger terrorists, but you're not counting all their stats, only the ones that you feel like counting in the Israel / Palestine conflict.
That makes no sense... I'm counting Palestinians killed by Israelis and Israelis killed by Palestinians, because this is a Palestinian-Israeli war....
Post by
MyTie
And lastly, 'cause I completely forgot to mention this: make sure you understand the difference between The PLO and Hamas.
Palastinian Liberation... err... Pickled Lettuce Oranges. Durrr... I know nothing.
Instead of playing Professor, try taking a step back and looking at the situation. Blockade stops weapons from reaching their borders, into the hands of people who want to kill not only the soldiers, but every living Isrealite. That means their children, their wives, their grandmothers... everyone.
No matter how you try to complicate the situation by trying to defend terrorism by calling it 'freedom fighting', or how you want to try to make it sound like I have no idea what I'm talking about, or try to insinuate no one could possibly know anything about it besides you, the situation still is this: People trying to defend themselves.
No international law, redefining of 'terrorist' (or any other term for that matter), or anything else for that matter, is going to stop me from defending my family. I would expect the fathers and mothers of Isreal feel the same way.
Post by
Squishalot
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
Uh what? ....
If you want to measure terrorism by the deaths of innocents / civillians? Yeah, sure. The medical community's poor service (hospital complications, spreading of illnesses and diseases in hospitals, overprescribing of drugs resulting in superimmune viruses, hell, not washing hands between surgical operations) probably results in more civillian deaths than any organisation worldwide.
If all of Palestine's civillian kills were made to other countries, they wouldn't appear in your flawed analysis, leading you to believe that Israel are bigger terrorists, when in fact, (using what I believe is a flawed approach that you're using) Palestine are the bigger terrorists, but you're not counting all their stats, only the ones that you feel like counting in the Israel / Palestine conflict.
That makes no sense... I'm counting Palestinians killed by Israelis and Israelis killed by Palestinians, because this is a Palestinian-Israeli war....
Are you saying that terrorism is a bilateral thing only? So if Palestine bombs civilians elsewhere in the world, it's alright, because Israel bombs them more than they bomb Israel?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Instead of playing Professor, try taking a step back and looking at the situation. Blockade stops weapons from reaching their borders, into the hands of people who want to kill not only the soldiers, but every living Isrealite. That means their children, their wives, their grandmothers... everyone.
uh no.... Gaza is blockaded....not Israel.
No international law, redefining of 'terrorist' (or any other term for that matter), or anything else for that matter, is going to stop me from defending my family. I would expect the fathers and mothers of Isreal feel the same way.
But those Palestinian pigs and their 1500 dead children can't, amirite?
Post by
Heckler
. . .
lol, go back and read every post you've made in this thread. You've contradicted yourself repeatedly and changed your stance and your facts and your opinions over and over again -- you shouldn't act surprised if someone talks down to you as if you don't know anything about the subject -- You haven't presented yourself to be a trove of knowledge.
But all that aside, tell me, how does blocking chocolate and jam keep "Israeli children, wives, grandmothers" safe?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
Uh what? ....
If you want to measure terrorism by the deaths of innocents / civillians? Yeah, sure. The medical community's poor service (hospital complications, spreading of illnesses and diseases in hospitals, overprescribing of drugs resulting in superimmune viruses, hell, not washing hands between surgical operations) probably results in more civillian deaths than any organisation worldwide.
Killing.
I'm very much questioning your English skills now.
Post by
Squishalot
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
Uh what? ....
If you want to measure terrorism by the deaths of innocents / civillians? Yeah, sure. The medical community's poor service (hospital complications, spreading of illnesses and diseases in hospitals, overprescribing of drugs resulting in superimmune viruses, hell, not washing hands between surgical operations) probably results in more civillian deaths than any organisation worldwide.
Killing.
I'm very much questioning your English skills now.
If that's the case, then the American forces in Iraq aren't 'terrorists' by your definition (despite your statements to the contrary) because they had no intent to kill civillians.
I've been led by your statements to believe that you think intent isn't important. Would you like to clarify then?
Furthermore, are you going to concede that your argument by presenting numbers on Israeli/Palestinian deaths is flawed and incorrect, or am I going to need to keep beating you over the head about it?
Post by
MyTie
how does blocking chocolate and jam keep "Israeli children, wives, grandmothers" safe?
lol, I know right. Geez, what was I thinking?
Hey, later this month Iran is holding a BBQ. You should show up in a cowboy outfit.
Seriously, what alternate reality do you guys live in?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's a pretty flawed definition of terrorism, if you ask me. By that token, the medical community would be the biggest terorrists of all, if not the religious community.
Uh what? ....
If you want to measure terrorism by the deaths of innocents / civillians? Yeah, sure. The medical community's poor service (hospital complications, spreading of illnesses and diseases in hospitals, overprescribing of drugs resulting in superimmune viruses, hell, not washing hands between surgical operations) probably results in more civillian deaths than any organisation worldwide.
Killing.
I'm very much questioning your English skills now.
If that's the case, then the American forces in Iraq aren't 'terrorists' by your definition (despite your statements to the contrary) because they had no intent to kill civillians.
I've been led by your statements to believe that you think intent isn't important. Would you like to clarify then?
Furthermore, are you going to concede that your argument by presenting numbers on Israeli/Palestinian deaths is flawed and incorrect, or am I going to need to keep beating you over the head about it?
Intent to kill....
A doctor who's patient dies generally didn't intend to kill.
Honestly what's your problem? At this point, I don't even think you want to understand. It's this are very simple concepts, which have been around for a lot longer than I have.
And how are my numbers incorrect? We're talking about a specific war here. You want to talk about other wars, then do it with someone else.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
lol, I know right. Geez, what was I thinking?
Hey, later this month Iran is holding a BBQ. You should show up in a cowboy outfit.
Seriously, what alternate reality do you guys live in?
Definitely not yours.
How are those 1500 not-dead children doing in your reality? I hope their not being starved by the Israelis.
Post by
Squishalot
If I'm not mistaken, Israel are letting aid through that they identify as materials that cannot be used to convert into weapons. So they may not let a piano in, for example, because the inside can be smelted down to form weaponry, but they would let food, meat, etc. Some
fishing poles
may be permitted, and I assume that
others
might not be.
You are mistaken -- although, 2 points for the WoW links. The embargo blocks things like steel, for buildings (like hospitals and schools), because they might be used to make weapons. However, it also blocks things like chocolate and toys.
Isreal's REAL purpose for embargoing Gaza isn't just to prevent them from building rockets -- Isreali officials make no secret of their goals (
source
):
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported, the Israeli officials in charge of the embargo adhere to what they call a policy of
“no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.”
In other words, the embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve.
This explains why Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets.
I can almost see justification in a blockade that is designed to stop an existential threat. I see no justification in an embargo with a stated goal of “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” It's borderline barbaric, especially when you're willing to kill those who attempt to run the blockade, not to build rockets, but to bring happiness.
Only partially mistaken. But thanks for the clarification. I don't necessarily think it's 'barbaric', any moreso than it would be to blockade a solitary state of the US who broke away from the rest of the US. It's very much a case of "we disagree with what you've done, but you made your own bed, you sleep in it".
Remembering that from Israel's perspective that they own Gaza, what they're doing is 'fair' in their mind. It's only 'unfair' if you assume that they don't own Gaza.
Post by
Heckler
how does blocking chocolate and jam keep "Israeli children, wives, grandmothers" safe?
lol, I know right. Geez, what was I thinking?
Hey, later this month Iran is holding a BBQ. You should show up in a cowboy outfit.
Seriously, what alternate reality do you guys live in?
So if I interpret this "quick and loose" -- you're saying "Arabs don't like chocolate and jam, and if they have any or want any, they're surely making weapons out of them." or something? I'm too baffled by your reply to even be offended, I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Remembering that from Israel's perspective that they own Gaza, what they're doing is 'fair' in their mind. It's only 'unfair' if you assume that they don't own Gaza.
I don't care about what's in their mind. I care about what's best for those people.
Anyways, I've gotta get up in 4 hours. I urge all of you, except MyTie, to actually research the past 20 years of this conflict. MyTie, I assume you'll be too busy at the barbecue.
Post by
Heckler
Only partially mistaken. But thanks for the clarification. I don't necessarily think it's 'barbaric', any moreso than it would be to blockade a solitary state of the US who broke away from the rest of the US. It's very much a case of "we disagree with what you've done, but you made your own bed, you sleep in it".
If the U.S. did this, and an Ally of Texas (c'mon, we all know it would be Texas) tried to help by sending humanitarian supplies, and the U.S. raided the supply convoy and killed 10 people -- you better believe a large portion of the world would think that was wrong.
You don't even need to consider the Judaism-Islam clash to know that what Israel did was wrong.
Post by
Squishalot
Intent to kill....
A doctor who's patient dies generally didn't intend to kill.
A solider who bombs a school accidentally doesn't intend to kill the civilians either.
Honestly what's your problem? At this point, I don't even think you want to understand. It's this are very simple concepts, which have been around for a lot longer than I have.
My problem is that you're applying concepts incorrectly - using one definition in one case, and another definition in another, to suit your argument, like below.
And how are my numbers incorrect? We're talking about a specific war here. You want to talk about other wars, then do it with someone else.
A terrorist, as you've defined it, is an organisation or group that kills civilians. It's an objective title. You can suggest it's subjective based on the number of civilians killed by the organisation - that one group is more terrorist than another, fair enough, I'll accept your argument for the purposes of discussion.
Now, suppose Palestine has killed 1 million European civilians. They've also killed 2000 Israeli civilians. The Israelis have killed 6000 Palestinian civilians.
In total, Palestine has killed 1,002,000 civilians. Israel has killed 6,000 civilians. Who is the bigger terrorist?
The fact that the bulk of those civilians were not killed in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict does not mean that they should be removed when determining the degree to which Palestine is a terrorist state, or whether Israel are bigger terrorists than Palestine.
Have I made myself clear? Or do you still not get it?
Post by
MyTie
lol, I know right. Geez, what was I thinking?
Hey, later this month Iran is holding a BBQ. You should show up in a cowboy outfit.
Seriously, what alternate reality do you guys live in?
Definitely not yours.
How are those 1500 not-dead children doing in your reality? I hope their not being starved by the Israelis.
One bomb or one missile. That's all it takes for that region to destabalize, and the whole world to enter into a fight with unforeseen consequences.
I'm reasonable. I don't want food to be blocked from anyone. I think the hunger is abhorrant. However, I'm also reasonable on the other side of the issue also. I've read enough news, and have seen enough of the Palastinian history to know that unrestricted shipments will result in an armed conflict.
There HAS to be a blockaid. Period. Food and medical aide should be allowed through, no doubt.
It's not that I'm flip flopping on the issue of the blockaid, it's just that I realize that there has to be a happy medium. Comparing American Patriots to terrorists to defend organizations like Hamas doesn't bode well for my temper, though. Stick to the issue, the blockaid.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.