Israel..wouldn't we do the same?

[skitzee2k]

...I have made it very clear where my sympathies lie....and it isn't with the state that voted in a known terrorist organisation that glorifies in the death of children who committed the little known crime of getting on a bus.

Do your sympathies lie with a state that uses artillery to shell families picnicking on a beach?

Or with a state that shoots an unarmed Aid worker in a building that contains only UN staff?

Or that shoots an unarmed aid worker attempting to evacuate children in a refugee camp?

How about a state that makes a “coordinated artillery and air attack” on a UN observer post?

These are all met with deep regret by Israel. This happens in war zones a lot. You would not find people jumping around in the street when this happened.

 

[JohnD]

These are all met with deep regret by Israel. This happens in war zones a lot.

So that's all right then. We just have to find some people who regret the fighting on the aid ships, and then the problem goes away, right?

And if we can find some people who regret the election of a Hamas goverment, you'll stop complaining about them as well, will you?

 

[skitzee2k]

I am saying that it is illegal to attack soldiers if you are not a soldier yourself. Rules of war.
Doesn't matter if they were civilians attacking soldiers or soldiers dressed as civilians attacking soldiers. As soon as they started attacking they are unlawful and can be arrested, not as prisoners of war, but as common criminals.

Where is it illegal? - show me!

Oh sorry, I forgot you're the type of person who will stand aside just before they shoot you because it's (according to you) 'illegal' to do anything to defend yourself...

But hang on, isn't that the argument the Israeli's have used?...

At least try and be consistent...

Be consistent?? Let's be clear, I ...AM....NOT....ISRAEL
So It is not inconsistent if i have different opinions to Israel.

And you are using the straw man fallacy, suggesting a completely stupid argument as my own even though I haven't said anything even close to it, and then disproving it to try and convince yourself you have won the debate. very Silly.

Oh sorry, I forgot you're the type of person who will stand aside just before they shoot you because it's (according to you) 'illegal' to do anything to defend yourself...

No, I am suggesting NOT attacking soldiers when they are not using any violence, who are just stopping people from breaking a blockade.

If you attack someone, who is not threatening you, you are in the wrong. [/quote]

 

[oompah]

I don't know what all the fuss is about - the whole incident is about fighting Nazi forces anyway according to the Israeli Ambassador to the US

Nice to see Israel avoiding the temptation to rake up the past

Interestingly he forgot to mention that those trying to get aid into Gaza might be compared, to relief operations to Berlin.

 

[joinerjohn]

I thought Tony Blair was the Middle East envoy for Europe? Where is he then?
Ohh I forgot. he's off raking the money in on his after dinner speech circuit.

 

[skitzee2k]

These are all met with deep regret by Israel. This happens in war zones a lot.

So that's all right then. We just have to find some people who regret the fighting on the aid ships, and then the problem goes away, right?

And if we can find some people who regret the election of a Hamas goverment, you'll stop complaining about them as well, will you?

I am saying that if i drove down the street and accidently run someone over, and I got out the car called an ambulance and was obviously regretful about it,
that it is completely different from getting into the car, with the intention of running someone over, and after running them over...maybe drive a way and come back a minute or so later to try and run over anyone trying to help the first person. Then getting out and dancing in the street because i have killed people.

If you cannot see the difference between accidental civilian deaths because the cowards of Hamas and similar hide in civilian locations while committing attacks and intentional targeting of civilians then we have come as far as we can in our discussion.

 

[JohnD]

I am saying that if i drove down the street and accidently run someone over, and I got out the car called an ambulance and was obviously regretful about it

Good God!

You equate accidentally running someone over in your car with:

- a state that uses artillery to shell families picnicking on a beach?

- a state that shoots an unarmed Aid worker in a building that contains only UN staff?

- a state that shoots an unarmed aid worker attempting to evacuate children in a refugee camp?

- a state that makes a “coordinated artillery and air attack” on a UN observer post?

One of us has lost his grip on reality, and it isn't me

You obviously have some reason for wanting to defend the actions of a rogue state, and this has led you to take a ridiculous posture.

You might do better to stop digging now.

 

[ajstoneservices]

The Israelis did not board with the intention of killing people did they?

Did they? I don't know, do you?

Ok, they may have decided to kill people on one of the vessels however implausible.

or did they open fire once it became clear they were likely to be killed.

Likely to be killed?

You did watch the video? you have read they asked for permission to open fire?.

if the blockade is legal the crew and passengers were legally obliged to comply with orders given them by Israel.

IF. But what has that to do with them boarding the boat in international waters?

Not been reading this thread then? If the blockade is legal then the Israelis can board any vessel anywhere attempting to break the blockade.

 

[skitzee2k]

I am saying that if i drove down the street and accidently run someone over, and I got out the car called an ambulance and was obviously regretful about it

Good God!

You equate accidentally running someone over in your car with:

- a state that uses artillery to shell families picnicking on a beach?

A State that was aiming at rocket launch pads just off the beach being used to fire at israelis
The verdict is still unclear, as the blast radius of the shells used was too far away to inflict the injuries claimed. They are thinking it may have set of an unexploded shell from earlier fire.

- a state that shoots an unarmed Aid worker in a building that contains only UN staff?

- a state that shoots an unarmed aid worker attempting to evacuate children in a refugee camp?

- a state that makes a “coordinated artillery and air attack” on a UN observer post?
Again, this was a mistake. They mistook them for enemy combatants. Friendly fire DOES happen you know. The setting for this was in lebananon right? In the war.

One of us has lost his grip on reality, and it isn't me

You obviously have some reason for wanting to defend the actions of a rogue state, and this has led you to take a ridiculous posture.

You might do better to stop digging now.

I haven't heard about the other incidents but if you want to post a link i'll peruse it.

 

[ellal]

Be consistent?? Let's be clear, I ...AM....NOT....ISRAEL
So It is not inconsistent if i have different opinions to Israel.

I'm not spartacus, but now you really are losing it...

And you are using the straw man fallacy, suggesting a completely stupid argument as my own even though I haven't said anything even close to it, and then disproving it to try and convince yourself you have won the debate. very Silly.

There are so many twists and turns there, you are indeed in danger of disappearing up one of your own orifices...

No, I am suggesting NOT attacking soldiers when they are not using any violence, who are just stopping people from breaking a blockade.

If you attack someone, who is not threatening you, you are in the wrong.

Ah thanks for clearing that up...I shall no longer believe that soldiers firing on a ship from inflatable rafts in INTERNATIONAL waters, rapelling down from helicopters armed with guns are attacking anyone...

And that no-one was killed onboard, or indeed that the soldiers did nothing but blow kisses in the direction of the people on those ships...

you really are a clueless numpty!

 

[skitzee2k]

Be consistent?? Let's be clear, I ...AM....NOT....ISRAEL
So It is not inconsistent if i have different opinions to Israel.

I'm not spartacus, but now you really are losing it...

And you are using the straw man fallacy, suggesting a completely stupid argument as my own even though I haven't said anything even close to it, and then disproving it to try and convince yourself you have won the debate. very Silly.

There are so many twists and turns there, you are indeed in danger of disappearing up one of your own orifices...

No, I am suggesting NOT attacking soldiers when they are not using any violence, who are just stopping people from breaking a blockade.

If you attack someone, who is not threatening you, you are in the wrong.

Ah thanks for clearing that up...I shall no longer believe that soldiers firing on a ship from inflatable rafts in INTERNATIONAL waters, rapelling down from helicopters armed with guns are not attacking anyone...

And that no-one was killed onboard, or indeed that the soldiers did nothing but blow kisses in the direction of the people on those ships...

you really are a clueless numpty!

This is like talking to a 5 year old. The fact that you are calling "inconsistency" when comparing two completely unrelated opinions is nonsense. I point this out and you come back with more nonsense about not being spartacus.
If for example I accused you of NOT being a Thracian and asked you to be consistent in future, then you would have good cause to point out that you never claimed to be Spartacus.

You are accusing me of changing my story, as if Israel's story was my own..it is not, as i have said i am not Israel.

Secondly the straw man fallacy is not too complicated, if you can't work it out i suggest you go look it up instead of showing yourself up.

Lastly, If you honestly believe that israeli soldiers decided on a whim to board the other ships peacefully but then for no reason on this ship decided to start shooting at it before even trying to board it, then why haven't you said so before. Obviously I would expect you to back up this claim.

 

[JohnD]

I haven't heard about the other incidents but if you want to post a link i'll peruse it.

I am astonished that you claim your knowledge of Middle East and the Israeli/Palistinian conflict extends only to things you blame the Palestininas for

On second thoughts, I see you have added some (unconvincing) excuses, so I expect are aware of these other matters.



example: you say: "this was a mistake. They mistook them for enemy combatants." but the UN says "In his statement, Mr. Annan said that the “coordinated artillery and air attack” occurred despite personal assurances given to him by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared fire. The Secretary-General said the post, near the Lebanese town of Khiyam, was “long established and clearly marked.”"
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19306&Cr=leban&Cr1

also "Israeli forces shot aid worker in the back, UN finds"
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=5480&Cr=unrwa&Cr1=

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1083525.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/10/israel

also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7831424.stm ("The head of the UN aid agency in Gaza has accused the Israeli military of firing what was believed to be white phosphorus shells at its compound. ")
and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece ("The Israeli military last night denied using phosphorus")
but
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7010851.ece ("Israeli officers get 'slap on wrist' for white phosphorus use in Gaza")


I wonder if you'll deny knowledge of http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6954009.ece

 

[ellal]

This is like talking to a 5 year old.

My 5 year old makes infinitely more sense that you - and has better morals too...

If for example I accused you of NOT being a Thracian and asked you to be consistent in future, then you would have good cause to point out that you never claimed to be Spartacus.

See, you've lost it and are just about to plunge into your own brown stuff..

Secondly the straw man fallacy is not too complicated, if you can't work it out i suggest you go look it up instead of showing yourself up.

As opposed to being 'up yourself'...

Lastly, If you honestly believe that israeli soldiers decided on a whim to board the other ships peacefully but then for no reason on this ship decided to start shooting at it before even trying to board it, then why haven't you said so before. Obviously I would expect you to back up this claim.

Or maybe those in the other ships saw the Israeli thugs/terrorists in action first?

 

[skitzee2k]

This is like talking to a 5 year old.

My 5 year old makes infinitely more sense that you - and has better morals too...

If for example I accused you of NOT being a Thracian and asked you to be consistent in future, then you would have good cause to point out that you never claimed to be Spartacus.

See, you've lost it and are just about to plunge into your own brown stuff..

Secondly the straw man fallacy is not too complicated, if you can't work it out i suggest you go look it up instead of showing yourself up.

As opposed to being 'up yourself'...

Lastly, If you honestly believe that israeli soldiers decided on a whim to board the other ships peacefully but then for no reason on this ship decided to start shooting at it before even trying to board it, then why haven't you said so before. Obviously I would expect you to back up this claim.

Or maybe those in the other ships saw the Israeli thugs/terrorists in action first?

A large part of this is ad hominem fallacy, basically means you realised you can't really come up with a decent comeback so you try and change it to become personal. If you want to start making silly comments like 'I am not spartacus' it is ridiculous to then start saying someone has lost it when they respond in a similar vein.

If you want to talk abstractly, do so, but don't then attack a responder for also talking abstractly.

And lastly, no, the other ships were taken first. What is the back up to your claim that israel fired upon the last ship without provocation?

Do try to actually answer the comments made here and not seek to make up easier to answer ones like you have done for the last few posts,

 

[ellal]

If you want to start making silly comments like 'I am not spartacus' it is ridiculous to then start saying someone has lost it when they respond in a similar vein.

err, who said... I ...AM....NOT....ISRAEL before spartacus was mentioned?
numpty

A large part of this is ad hominem fallacy, basically means you realised you can't really come up with a decent comeback

you havn't posted anything 'decent' right from page 1...

And lastly, no, the other ships were taken first. What is the back up to your claim that israel fired upon the last ship without provocation?

You KNOW that they attacked this ship first then?...What are you basing this 'fact' on? - Israeli accounts?

Do try to actually answer the comments made here and not seek to make up easier to answer ones like you have done for the last few posts,

Since you're the one who has side-stepped so many questions here, I'll treat that with the contempt it/you deserve!