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
Squishalot
The Civilians fired first? Yep. But It would be like a schoolyard bully flipping out at some kid for days on end, then pulling out a stick when the kid hits him. Jumping into a ship with a paintball gun in your hands into a crown of people who disagree with you and that are lost in a rage will find any excuse to act against someone.
Assume for a second that the operation was conducted in Israeli waters. Because the issue you're raising is that of reasonable force. So the legality of the IDF to intercede is unquestioned, in our little thought experiment.
Now, you're at an airport, you're a police officer. Someone resists attempts to push past through customs, your police partner pulls out a stun gun and warns them, they pull out metal clubs and start beating the officer. Do you, or do you not, use any force necessary to prevent the officer from losing his life?
Under the events whereby the civillians attacked first, I believe the IDF response to start firing was entirely justified.
Again though, I caveat that with the note that the IDF should have waited until the flotilla hit Israeli waters.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They weren't in Israeli waters. It was well into international waters. Why are we "assuming" anything?
Secondly, as I already said, Israel's claim to Gaza is one-sided.
Third, the Israelis were the one's doing the boarding. Armed. That's called attacking first.
Lastly, no matter what the issue is, you don't shoot civilians from a neutral nation without serious repercussions.
Post by
Orranis
My dad just gave me this link put up by a friend of his that I thought summed up Israel's faults nicely.
Post by
Squishalot
They weren't in Israeli waters. It was well into international waters. Why are we "assuming" anything?
Because the issue I was responding to was about the ethics of the use of lethal force on civillians, not the legality of how it occured in this particular circumstance.
Secondly, as I already said, Israel's claim to Gaza is one-sided.
Then you'll also note that I made no mention about Israel's claim to Gaza. I argued that the response to the attack was fair if it had occured in Israeli waters.
Third, the Israelis were the one's doing the boarding. Armed. That's called attacking first.
Legal point. They didn't 'attack'. If a policeman pulls you over, he's not 'attacking' you. If a policeman draws a weapon and arrests you, he's not 'attacking' you. Don't overdramatise it.
Lastly, no matter what the issue is, you don't shoot civilians from a neutral nation without serious repercussions.
If I, as an Australian, start beating up an American police officer, does the fact that my country has no military issues with your country make a difference? No. Your point is has no logical basis and is only echoing mainstream populist views.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You realize I've been gone for 2 days, right? I responding to everything you've said, not just one post.
If I, as an Australian, start beating up an American police officer, does the fact that my country has no military issues with your country make a difference? No. Your point is has no logical basis and is only echoing mainstream populist views.
Police officers are civilians. Stop making analogies that don't have any relevance.
Legal point. They didn't 'attack'. If a policeman pulls you over, he's not 'attacking' you. If a policeman draws a weapon and arrests you, he's not 'attacking' you. Don't overdramatise it.
The "police officers" had not right "pulling them over" in a place they have no jurisdiction. People have a right to defend they're property from armed incursion.
Post by
Heckler
American Citizen among those Killed
I think this is important, not because he was an American, but because the number of bullets -- four in the head and one in the chest -- seems a bit severe for self-defense.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The ironic part of the incident was Israel no longer has support of the one Arab nation who supported them before, Turkey, whom they shot a number of their citizens on the boat.
Interesting article I just read.
Post by
375923
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
You realize I've been gone for 2 days, right? I responding to everything you've said, not just one post.
Your initial reference was one to me 'assuming' Israeli waters, which I only did in my 'recent' post, which is what I replied in the context of.
Police officers are civilians. Stop making analogies that don't have any relevance.
I don't see that removing 'police officer' and inserting 'military' is any different. You can have armed forces acting in civillian capacities, and vice versa.
The "police officers" had not right "pulling them over" in a place they have no jurisdiction. People have a right to defend they're property from armed incursion.
Again, as I've said, under the assumption that it was Israeli waters (which is questioned, I think the Israelis have extended their sea coverage in their own mind), it would have been a legal and perfectly fair operation. The shooting of the combatants on the boat would have been a legitimate self-defense action by the IDF in response to a hostile and life-threatening attack.
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.
Post by
Dragoonman
I think this is a good time to talk about our feelings.
Post by
TheMediator
I haven't been on these forums in a while so maybe something happened... but holy crap, Mytie has become a radical psychopath. The idea that taking up arms
entitles
you to something... somehow I get the feeling that MyTie would just as likely be fighting against us bombing hospitals and such if it weren't for the fact he was born in the US and with pale skin.
Jeez... its just disgusting to think that myself and others used to have semi-rational discussions with him.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
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.
Post by
MyTie
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. They stop a ship at that blockaide. The people they stop begin to preemptively fire on them with automatic weapons.
Which of the following should the Israeli soldiers do?
A) Stand there uncomfortably, politely asking the palastinians to stop firing.
B) Start crying.
C) Write a letter to the UN asking permission to fire back.
D) Fire back.
E) ZOMG Pokemon
In the event that you choose D, what should the response of the world be?
A) Condemn the Israeli soldiers for defending themselves.
B) Condemn America for Israel being on Israeli land.
C) Abort babies, smoke pot, and demand peace on earth.
D) Use logical reason, and deduce that
ANY SANE HUMAN WOULD PROTECT THEMSELVES BY FIRING BACK
.
E) ZOMG Pokemon
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
F) Leave, because they aren't supposed to be there. Unless of course they are willing to break international law. In which case they should be punished by the powers that be.
Also, if you want to claim that the Palestinians are terrorists then you better be ready to admit that the American revolutionaries were too.
Squish, ultimately both the fact that they killed civilians and the fact that they killed them where they had no business policing are issues. The thing is, this blockade has been up for two years. America has just been standing by with it's thumb up its ass because it doesn't want to jeopardize its relationship with one of our few Middle Eastern Allies. So, the real issue that is going to decide policy, and maybe convince Americans that Israel being our ally doesn't automatically make them the good guys, is the fact that Israel is killing civilians which makes them very similar to the image of the "terrorists" that they are fighting.
Post by
MyTie
F) Leave, because they aren't supposed to be there. Unless of course they are willing to break international law. In which case they should be punished by the powers that be.
Also, if you want to claim that the Palestinians are terrorists then you better be ready to admit that the American revolutionaries were too.You would like to compare American revolutionaries to Hamas? As if somehow an organization that straps bombs to people is somehow comparable to Thomas Payne, and George Washington?
Hyperspacerebel, if we were to actually debate that, you would redefine any word I used in the debate. We would be in an arguement about semantics within 3 posts, completely abandoning the actual argument. I think it is cowardly of you to make radical claims like the one you did. I know from your past history of debates that you would NOT be willing to back up your assertion with rational debate, as I've never seen you present rational arguments about anything.
Most of the time, your debates look like this:
Radical Assertion by HSR:
American revolutionaries were terrorists, like Hamas is now.
Well thought out Rebuttle by opponent:
Actually, the willingness of the American revolutionaries to negotiate, participate in accepted rules of combat, and avoiding targeting civilians, gives them credability not had by Hamas.
Argument Route and Restructure by HSR:
Looking at the psychological aspects of the definition of terrorism as pertaining to a international understanding thereof, taken in the context of culture, no application can be made on the latter without also being attributed to the former.
Appeal to logic by opponent:
The accepted definition of terrorism doesn't apply to American Revolutionaries, but does apply to Hamas. In fact, Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization by the UN, and America isn't.
Argument Route and Restructure by HSR:
When taken in the context of individuals, one must recognize the application of the term 'terrorist', as defined by international law, and a legitimate claim can be made that any individual, when made someone elseafraid, is therefore a terrorist.
Unless of course they are willing to break international law.Also, cite the law specifically. You are going to be hard pressed to explain what law, and why they shouldn't ignore it. Why should they allow countries that say they want their destruction to import weaponry onto their borders? That is an act of war! I should expect them to defend themselves.
Apparantly, a country defending itself is crazy.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
MyTie, your lack of knowledge about the Israel-Palestine situation is surprising, even though it probably shouldn't be at this point.
Radical Assertion by HSR: American revolutionaries were terrorists, like Hamas is now.
Umm....you should also work on your reading comprehension. I said
if you're going to call Palestinians terrorists, then you should be ready to call Americans terrorists too
. Where in that does it say that I'm asserting that either is a terrorist? If you actually sat down a read my arguments you'd see that I'm saying
neither of them are terrorists
. They're freedom fighters.
Well thought out Rebuttle by opponent: Actually, the willingness of the American revolutionaries to negotiate, participate in accepted rules of combat, and avoiding targeting civilians, gives them credability not had by Hamas.
Hamas has been trying to get a cease fire for quite a long time. It keeps breaking down because Isreal refuses to acknowledge them as a political entity....and how can you sign a ceasefire with something that doesn't exist? Do your research.
Looking at the psychological aspects of the definition of terrorism as pertaining to a international understanding thereof, taken in the context of culture, no application can be made on the latter without also being attributed to the former.
I never defined terrorism. You're the one who used the term. I just took the term, as you used it, and said you'd be a hypocrite to no apply it to Americans.
The accepted definition of terrorism doesn't apply to American Revolutionaries, but does apply to Hamas. In fact, Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization by the UN, and America isn't.
I think you have the UN mixed up with the EU.
Also, cite the law specifically. You are going to be hard pressed to explain what law, and why they shouldn't ignore it.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm
Specifically
Part 2
.
Post by
MyTie
Wow. You certainly taught me a lession. I now see that I know nothing about the Palastinian-Israeli conflict. Now that I see the error of my ways, I too think the blockade should be lifted, and imports of all sorts of weaponry brought wherever.
Now that that is out of the way, lets talk about this terrorist George Washington, that targeted civilians for mass destruction. Or, perhaps we can talk about the Freedom Fighter Yassir Arafat, who wrote the book on suicide bombings.
HSR, you are the pope. Yes, you are. You see, the pope and you are both cathoic, which makes you the same thing. Just like George Washington and Hamas both fight for freedom. They are both the same thing.
HSR, we can dance with crazy all night long, if you like. In the end, I will never approve of a terrorist organization being allowed to import nukes onto the border of Israel. Call me ignorant of the facts, insult my reading comprension. Insult anything about me that you like. That blockade needs to be there. End of story.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And lastly, 'cause I completely forgot to mention this: make sure you understand the difference between The PLO and Hamas.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.