I condemned it too, but no one listens to me

Please see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Nobody cares. It's Israel. It's a long time since people accepted that they're allowed to do whatever they want.

>> ^Pprt:

Please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE


Very compelling stuff.

I hope everyone here sees the Muzzas attempt to "kidnap" the heavily armed commando boarding their ship and their deadly offensive with "metal objects" and folk music. Israels' pussy-arse commandos are lucky the ship wasn't carrying weapons, or anything else Israel pretends it's illegal naval blockade of the mediterranian and Gaza is supposed to prevent, otherwise they might have had to gun down some old men and women armed with inflamitory songs and "metal objets". YOU ARE SURELY TAKING THE PISS

The Israeli government disgusts me.

^Fair enough.

Enjoy this next video of "peaceful humanitarian aid workers" that hope for martyrdom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6vqsQoCY0

>> ^Pprt:

^Fair enough.
Enjoy this next video of "peaceful humanitarian aid workers" that hope for martyrdom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc6vqsQoCY0
Very enjoyable, I especially liked the bit from about 0:00 onwards where nothing much happened.



Lucky the text was there otherwise I never would have spotted the terrorists do a terrorist attack with their terrorist ship terrorist maneuvering it terrorist right underneath the israeli commandos as they were attempting a peaceful absail into the mediterranian sea terrorist terrorist.

Got any more videos?

PS Just took a look at your profile and I do belive, although I'm not a qualified doctor, that you are a twat, so don't bother about more terrorist YT clips. Thank you.

I'm not sure how the Israelis can claim self defense when they were the ones that stormed boats outside of their territorial waters.

I've raised the territorial waters issue myself, but honestly, would you have been fine with it if they waited until the ships entered either Israeli waters, or the Gaza closed military zone?

>> ^Samaelsmith:

I'm not sure how the Israelis can claim self defense when they were the ones that stormed boats outside of their territorial waters.

The issue here is that Israel checks incoming cargo through the Ashdod seaport. Goods are then given to go-ahead to be moved into Gaza.

The ship that was boarded was the among the six vessels that chose to disregard the Israeli security protocol and insisted on docking and unloading directly into Gaza without proper clearance.

And this justifies mass murder how? Israel is a dangerous rogue nation that will stop at nothing. Killing political opponents is second nature to these people.

>> ^demon_ix:

I've raised the territorial waters issue myself, but honestly, would you have been fine with it if they waited until the ships entered either Israeli waters, or the Gaza closed military zone?
>> ^Samaelsmith:
I'm not sure how the Israelis can claim self defense when they were the ones that stormed boats outside of their territorial waters.

>> ^Pprt:

The issue here is that Israel checks incoming cargo through the Ashdod seaport. Goods are then given to go-ahead to be moved into Gaza.
The ship that was boarded was the among the six vessels that chose to disregard the Israeli security protocol and insisted on docking and unloading directly into Gaza without proper clearance.


And who gave Israel the right to decide which goods are allowed to go to the Palestinians?

You can no longer buy pasta! Because I will it!
>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^Pprt:
The issue here is that Israel checks incoming cargo through the Ashdod seaport. Goods are then given to go-ahead to be moved into Gaza.
The ship that was boarded was the among the six vessels that chose to disregard the Israeli security protocol and insisted on docking and unloading directly into Gaza without proper clearance.

And who gave Israel the right to decide which goods are allowed to go to the Palestinians?

I didn't say it justifies anything, but raising the international waters point sort of implies that if it was done anywhere else, it would be OK. That's not the case.

I'm not sure how exactly you define "rogue nation", so could you enlighten me?

Killing political opponents is second nature to these people? Seriously? I've yet to see a political figure assassinated during a political campaign, so it seems you don't really know "these people" as well as you think. Unless you mean military assassinations, in which case, what country with an army doesn't?

>> ^hugith:

And this justifies mass murder how? Israel is a dangerous rogue nation that will stop at nothing. Killing political opponents is second nature to these people.
>> ^demon_ix:
I've raised the territorial waters issue myself, but honestly, would you have been fine with it if they waited until the ships entered either Israeli waters, or the Gaza closed military zone?
>> ^Samaelsmith:
I'm not sure how the Israelis can claim self defense when they were the ones that stormed boats outside of their territorial waters.

Well, rogue nations probably have government agents that steal passports, so they can travel around the world assassinating pople they don't like. Yes, I believe that's a fine assessment of a "rogue nation". Or if you don't like to call them that, we can just call them "Israeli government assholes that go around the world killing people". If you like that better.


>> ^demon_ix:

I didn't say it justifies anything, but raising the international waters point sort of implies that if it was done anywhere else, it would be OK. That's not the case.
I'm not sure how exactly you define "rogue nation", so could you enlighten me?
Killing political opponents is second nature to these people? Seriously? I've yet to see a political figure assassinated during a political campaign, so it seems you don't really know "these people" as well as you think. Unless you mean military assassinations, in which case, what country with an army doesn't?
>> ^hugith:
And this justifies mass murder how? Israel is a dangerous rogue nation that will stop at nothing. Killing political opponents is second nature to these people.
>> ^demon_ix:
I've raised the territorial waters issue myself, but honestly, would you have been fine with it if they waited until the ships entered either Israeli waters, or the Gaza closed military zone?
>> ^Samaelsmith:
I'm not sure how the Israelis can claim self defense when they were the ones that stormed boats outside of their territorial waters.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^Pprt:
The issue here is that Israel checks incoming cargo through the Ashdod seaport. Goods are then given to go-ahead to be moved into Gaza.
The ship that was boarded was the among the six vessels that chose to disregard the Israeli security protocol and insisted on docking and unloading directly into Gaza without proper clearance.

And who gave Israel the right to decide which goods are allowed to go to the Palestinians?


The same right any country enjoys: ensuring its security.

Some activists a la Greta Berlin and the IHH were foolishly flaunting their plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza. They got exactly what they were seeking.

Nice wide definition. I guess the CIA never assassinated anyone, right? Or for that matter, MI6, French intelligence and so on.

>> ^hugith:

Well, rogue nations probably have government agents that steal passports, so they can travel around the world assassinating pople they don't like. Yes, I believe that's a fine assessment of a "rogue nation". Or if you don't like to call them that, we can just call them "Israeli government assholes that go around the world killing people". If you like that better.

Boarding civilian vessels in international waters and killing people in the process ... that's going to start one hell of a shitstorm. Any guess on how many newspaper articles in Turkey tomorrow will include the phrase "act of war"?

Was any attempt made to involve the UNIFIL MTF?

/\ @Pprt
Oh go on, I'd be interested to see Greta Berlin "foolishly flaunting... plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza".

And you think wrongdoing justifies more wrongdoing? Sorry. I expect more from people I argue with than "he did it too". What are you, five?

>> ^demon_ix:

Nice wide definition. I guess the CIA never assassinated anyone, right? Or for that matter, MI6, French intelligence and so on.
>> ^hugith:
Well, rogue nations probably have government agents that steal passports, so they can travel around the world assassinating pople they don't like. Yes, I believe that's a fine assessment of a "rogue nation". Or if you don't like to call them that, we can just call them "Israeli government assholes that go around the world killing people". If you like that better.

And I expect sort of more from people than to define stuff by saying "Israeli government assholes". But I guess you sort of dragged me down to that level, huh.

>> ^hugith:

And you think wrongdoing justifies more wrongdoing? Sorry. I expect more from people I argue with than "he did it too". What are you, five?
>> ^demon_ix:
Nice wide definition. I guess the CIA never assassinated anyone, right? Or for that matter, MI6, French intelligence and so on.
>> ^hugith:
Well, rogue nations probably have government agents that steal passports, so they can travel around the world assassinating pople they don't like. Yes, I believe that's a fine assessment of a "rogue nation". Or if you don't like to call them that, we can just call them "Israeli government assholes that go around the world killing people". If you like that better.

Dude, if you don't think people that steal passports and then proceed to KILL other people are assholes, we'll probably never agree on anything . So we might as well stop arguing.

>> ^demon_ix:

And I expect sort of more from people than to define stuff by saying "Israeli government assholes". But I guess you sort of dragged me down to that level, huh.
>> ^hugith:
And you think wrongdoing justifies more wrongdoing? Sorry. I expect more from people I argue with than "he did it too". What are you, five?
>> ^demon_ix:
Nice wide definition. I guess the CIA never assassinated anyone, right? Or for that matter, MI6, French intelligence and so on.
>> ^hugith:
Well, rogue nations probably have government agents that steal passports, so they can travel around the world assassinating pople they don't like. Yes, I believe that's a fine assessment of a "rogue nation". Or if you don't like to call them that, we can just call them "Israeli government assholes that go around the world killing people". If you like that better.

My main point wasn't the territorial waters issue. That just makes what they did somewhat worse than if it was within their jurisdiction. What I think is ridiculous is that they were the aggressors, storming the boat with guns drawn, and then have the chutzpah to claim self defense.

>> ^Pprt:

The same right any country enjoys: ensuring its security.
Some activists a la Greta Berlin and the IHH were foolishly flaunting their plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza. They got exactly what they were seeking.


And where in the world do you live where such an extremely limited source of information exists that would allow you to keep such an ignorant and misinformed opinion? Probably in the only nation on this planet that has yet to condemn the actions reported on in this video.

Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.

Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.

Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

I'm not exactly Pro-Israel....but I'm not going to let my disapproval of Israeli politics cloud my vision and lead me to make a snap-judgment...

...someone else can sift it....

>> ^Pprt:

Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

I won't question the translation but I would like a clarification of what you think shahada means. All I can find is that it is a religious declaration saying basically "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his messenger."

>> ^Samaelsmith:

My main point wasn't the territorial waters issue. That just makes what they did somewhat worse than if it was within their jurisdiction. What I think is ridiculous is that they were the aggressors, storming the boat with guns drawn, and then have the chutzpah to claim self defense.

Ok. After seein bleedmegood's video, I take back the phrase "guns drawn" but I still think they instigated it and could have handled it better. Both sides behaved badly.

>> ^Samaelsmith:

>> ^Pprt:
Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

I won't question the translation but I would like a clarification of what you think shahada means. All I can find is that it is a religious declaration saying basically "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his messenger."


Correct. The Shahada is a declaration of Islamic faith. If you repeat it three times you're considered a Muslim.

Its meaning has been twisted to represent being the act of "martyrdom" (read suicide bombing) by hardline Islamists. I used the quotes because a martyr is someone who would lay down his/her life for a cause. A martyr doesn't intend to take someone else's life.

Someone who has done the Shahada in the latter sense is called a Shahid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid

Good on you for looking into it, Samaelsmith!

Like I said earlier, I'd be interested to see Greta Berlin "foolishly flaunting... plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza".

Also what has ancient history got to do with commandos raiding a ship? Apart from diverting the disscusion.

>> ^Pprt:

Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

>> ^moodonia:

Like I said earlier, I'd be interested to see Greta Berlin "foolishly flaunting... plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza".
Also what has ancient history got to do with commandos raiding a ship? Apart from diverting the disscusion.
>> ^Pprt:
Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html



It was on the radio.. afraid I can't find a copy online.

Do you think the Khaibar chant was just a little ditty to pass the time?

^ Oh, yeah. Let's kill people for chanting.

That makes it all okay.

"We will crush their bones!"

Light 'em up.

And what exactly do you expect from desperate people surrounded by military boats? Especially knowing how Israeli forces act. I'm not an expert, but I can only assume that they were preparing for the worst and probably getting ready to resist the boarding. So I don't see the point of your argument.

>> ^Pprt:

>> ^moodonia:
Like I said earlier, I'd be interested to see Greta Berlin "foolishly flaunting... plans to smuggle ordnance and weapons into Gaza".
Also what has ancient history got to do with commandos raiding a ship? Apart from diverting the disscusion.
>> ^Pprt:
Strange that everyone is ignoring the first video I referenced, as if what they were chanting has no bearing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk
They are chanting a traditional song about Muhamad's massacre on Khaibar, the Jewish settlement that he raided in 628~9. Ten thousand Jews were killed and Muhamad ordered the leader be tortured before he appropriated the widow. As a matter of course, he helped himself to the coffers.
Since Wikepedia is liked by the liberal persuasion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar
You can contest the translation if you wish, but please pay attention to a word the lady uses: Shahada.
Listen for the same words in these clips http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html


It was on the radio.. afraid I can't find a copy online.
Do you think the Khaibar chant was just a little ditty to pass the time?

Right, cause if armed men stormed your boat you'd politely ask if they wouldn't mind halting their search-and-seizure-at-gunpoint?

>> ^bleedmegood:

I'm not exactly Pro-Israel....but I'm not going to let my disapproval of Israeli politics cloud my vision and lead me to make a snap-judgment...

Here is a good article on what this event means to Israel, the Palestinians, and the rest of the world.

Lots of comments...I'd like to bring something up. Remember when Iran supposedly caught British sailors in their waters (allegedly can't trust anyone really). Does anyone remember what Iran did with them? Fed and clothed them was real nice and then eventually gave them back to Britain.

Now Iran is treated one way by the United States and it's very few allies on this matter than Israel. Yet we're told constantly that Iran is evil and wants us all to die a painful horrible death. I don't get it...it's really very simple, their both governments, take the emotion out of it and deal with them on an even level. If you're a bastard we'll sanction you and not be very nice to you. However if you're nice to us and others we'll give you candy...whats the big issue everyone has with common-fucking-sense?

>> ^geo321:

The Israeli government disgusts me.


me too
and i'm an Israeli
right wing extremests assholes are running this country

also
Hamas rules in gaza, voted by the people by democratic elections.
This is absurd, hamas was, and still targets civilians, and refuses to even recognize Israel, it's prepared to fight forever, until it dies in honor, so said the fucking Koran.

when over 80% of the population is religious,on both sides, (even more on the palestinian side) there isn't really a chance for peace.
Men will fight to death for false gods, and this will probably will never end, since this area is holy,
Holy my ass.

simple men\woman want peace, but it's getting worst every day.
I think it's about to get real bad soon.
I wish i could get the fuck out of here.

News report and video from Canada's CTV:
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStoriesV2/20100530/israelis-turkey-avoid-100531/

>> ^Pprt:

The issue here is that Israel checks incoming cargo through the Ashdod seaport. Goods are then given to go-ahead to be moved into Gaza.
The ship that was boarded was the among the six vessels that chose to disregard the Israeli security protocol and insisted on docking and unloading directly into Gaza without proper clearance.


Oh, the issue is that a sovereign nation isn't allowed to ship materials in without Israeli's permission?

Who gives Israel the fucking right to do that shi... oh yeah, the rest of the world sitting around with their thumbs up their ass while the right wing does what it wants.

As for your ancient history bullshit, here's some ancient history for you... Joshua killing every man, woman and child in Jericho on God's say so... Yep, the jews are rooted firmly in the same ridiculous god excused bullshit as the muslims, congrats.

Here's some modern history for you, Etzel (the Israeli extremist organisation) which killed quite a few civilians in it's terrorist campaign during the creation of the state... The creation of the state which, in turn, created the hezbollah and hamas (you know, to resist occupation and fight back). I guess terrorist tactics are okay if they are working for you?

How about the assassination of a hamas figure using stolen Australian (and other nationalities) passports in the last year? In an Arab country no less...

The more the extremists (and their patsy apologists) try to defend this bullshit, the more obvious it's becoming that Israel is a rogue state, mostly because of it's leadership (no point in tarring all Israeli's /tips hat to DemonIX), and is eventually going to run itself out of friends.

hurr hurr, my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend! ALLAH AKBAR! PRAISE JESUS! SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

If it was so important to stop the ships why didn't they just do that? Jam the props, tow them back to port, drop supplies on deck and wait it out. Seems like boarding the ship not only put the ships people in danger, but Israli soldiers as well. Why would you lower guys one at a time to an obvious hostile situation? This smells on both ends.

I just dont understand how the Israeli's didn't see this as a probable if not likely scenario and plan accordingly. Boarding the ships via helicopter one at a time, I mean come on, that is obviously stupid. And frankly they should have boarded guns draw in a much large force to avoid confrontation like the one that they had... seriously, what is this military strategy for noobs? This is Israel. What the hell were they thinking?

I don't understand why they didn't just wait until they were out of international waters and inside israeli waters and simply torpedo the whole thing. Or, like slightly more normal people, just wait to raid it until they were in their own water, then it could be justified unlike now when IDF is the aggressor.

Like I mentioned earlier, they could have requested the UNIFIL task force to intercept the flotilla if they had any reasonable suspicion of weapons aboard.

Then again, Turkish officials say each and every person aboard was checked before they set sail, just like the vessels themselves. And now even the UN security council legitimized the convoy in their presidential statement:

The council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.

[edit] deleting comment.

@Pprt The ships were running a blockade, they were surely expecting to be boarded. The Israelis had to board the ships or else the blockade would be moot. Whether the blockade is just is another (bigger) argument. The issue here is that the IDF fucked up. They should have been expecting resistance like they experienced and prepared as such. They didn't and people died. That is the fuck up and regardless of all others issues surrounding the incident and the IDF should be ashamed.

Aside from the profanity, that's about the most sensible summation I've seen so far on this whole kerfuffle lamp. The blockade is there to prevent arms smuggling to terrorists. Would it be nice if Isreal didn't do this? Sure, but wake me up when the Palestinians start abhorring violence and the need for Isreal's security precautions goes away. Isreal sets up the blockade and a bunch of hippies run it. It doesn't take rocket science to predict that there are going to be morons on these boats who are looking for trouble. Isreal should have been better prepared for this. So far I've seen nothing that required firing on these boatniks, aside from their own stupidity for deliberately provoking one of the most no-nonsense military organizations on the planet.

This thread has gone Epic! Also Piracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

Most often, the only line between criminal and innocent is the distinction in law.

There was no such thing as a "palestinian" before 1948. Who should give a sh*t about a fictional people on permanent welfare other arab nations use as pawns to antagonize Jews?

The "world" aka UN is made up mostly of tinpot dictators, warlords, crony capitalists and socialist poltroons. Thank goodness at least one country will still put a finger in the eye of the one-worlder tyrants.

Can someone seriously explain how this was not a likely scenario?

The sponsors of this so-called 'aid flotilla' freely admit the whole thing was a political effort designed to provoke a response. They may not have expected the severity of the Isreali response. But after having viewed the videos, it must be said that they had it coming. When you are brandishing knives and charging at soliders you have no right to whine when you get shot at.

The 'aid convoy' was filled with bunches of known militants and other activists with histories of anti-Isreali sentiment. And many of them were armed. They KNEW they were going to be boarded. They also refused several offers to deliver their so-called 'humanitarian aid' at a port to be trucked to the supposed destination. They deliberately refused any offer of a solution that would have resulted in a safe outcome.

This outcome was more than likely. It went down as designed, and somewhere there are a bunch of these smug bastards who are secretly GLAD their own people were killed so as to generate a strongly negative story and get more PR. There's a special circle of Hades reserved for sleazeballs that sponsored the flotilla. The blood is on their hands as much or more than on Isreal's.

Can the two sides just fight to the death already?

That way I can swoop in and establish Otisburg. (In honor of Ned Beatty.)

OTISburg?

I'm suprised. Why would this vid be taken down. It's a public event of over 1000 people. I conciser this area within the realm of my homeland. There will be videos coming. wtf.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by geo321.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, May 31st, 2010 8:51am PDT - promote requested by geo321.

Fighting holy wars is bad, m'kay.

It's amazing to me how so many people here can have the in-depth understanding and knowledge of the historical and cultural situation to make strong, definite statements of justification or condemnation of Israel's actions, and then reach two diametrically opposed conclusions. Seems like there are far too many people here who wish only to speak and care nothing for listening.

^To me this is an issue of basic human rights. If countries have a basic low level of how to treat people and that is gone beyond, and is accepted then that becomes a new norm. I don't want what israel is doing to Palestinians to be a norm. I also protested against US "enhanced" interrogation methods because I don't want those to be the norm.

There are not two sides to this story or any. Good PR campaigns frame things as a false dichotomy of believe me or the terrorist, nazi like communist like, etc. whatever. Look at the multifaceted history and the truth between agreements and motives.

What if Israel sponsored an "aid convoy" to the pro-democracy factions inside of Iran? And when stopped at the border by the Iranian military the activists ran at the soldiers with knives, screamed anti-Muslim slogans, threw flash grenades, and assaulted the soldiers? The resulting news that "Iranian soldiers shoot 9 Isreali militants posing as aid workers for violating thier borders..." wouldn't get so much as a mention on page 50 behind the classifieds. Isreal shooting 9 militants posing as aid workers who violated their borders gets international attention. Its bull crap.

Countries have borders for reasons. If groups of people (Mexican illegals, Muslim activists, whoever) choose to violate and disrespect those borders then they subject themselves to justified retaliation. Don't want problems? Don't violate borders. And don't try and justify the dumb@$$es who disrespect borders. They're criminals.

When I travel I have a passport that has to go through a verification process 6-ways from Sunday. Yes - in EVERY civilized nation I've been to I am asked the question, "Undt do you haff your PAPERS?!" I have no problem whatsoever showing my passport because I have nothing to hide and I've FOLLOWED THE RULES. I expect (and respect) every nation to vigorously enforce their laws. If I ran screaming into a port of duty waving a knife I would fully expect to be either shot or locked up forever. But I'll never do that because I'm not a stupid moron idiot like these boatniks.

If Turkey was looking for a Casus belli, they sure as hell have one now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What if Israel sponsored an "aid convoy" to the pro-democracy factions inside of Iran? And when stopped at the border by the Iranian military the activists ran at the soldiers with knives, screamed anti-Muslim slogans, threw flash grenades, and assaulted the soldiers? The resulting news that "Iranian soldiers shoot 9 Isreali militants posing as aid workers for violating thier borders..." wouldn't get so much as a mention on page 50 behind the classifieds. Isreal shooting 9 militants posing as aid workers who violated their borders gets international attention. Its bull crap.
Countries have borders for reasons. If groups of people (Mexican illegals, Muslim activists, whoever) choose to violate and disrespect those borders then they subject themselves to justified retaliation. Don't want problems? Don't violate borders. And don't try and justify the dumb@$$es who disrespect borders. They're criminals.
When I travel I have a passport that has to go through a verification process 6-ways from Sunday. Yes - in EVERY civilized nation I've been to I am asked the question, "Undt do you haff your PAPERS?!" I have no problem whatsoever showing my passport because I have nothing to hide and I've FOLLOWED THE RULES. I expect (and respect) every nation to vigorously enforce their laws. If I ran screaming into a port of duty waving a knife I would fully expect to be either shot or locked up forever. But I'll never do that because I'm not a stupid moron idiot like these boatniks.


Not sure what you're on about. The attack happened in international waters, no one violated any borders.

Es ist "Und haben Sie ihre papiere". Nicht das Kuhscheiße Sie schrieb.

With all due respect, there are alot of feelings and opinions being expressed here. I sought facts and found this that may be read in its entirety at

<http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/05/31/was-israels-boarding-of-the-gaza-flotilla-a-violation-of-international-law/>

I like facts, especially when legality is at issue.

<According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law.

Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.

Here’s the bottom Line:

* A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.

* Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.

* A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.

* The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.

* In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.

* Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.

* Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

* A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

* Note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

* Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel’s intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.

* Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.

* Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the “protesters” and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.>

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]

The above collegiate hand-wringing is based on the as yet unestablished position that the Isreali blockade is not legal. As that assertion is not established, the enforcement of the blockade is therefore legal. Ergo, the stopping of vessels that are clearly intending to ignore the blockade is justified. The activists were offered the chance to unload and truck the goods in. They refused. This is established fact. In fact, the Palestinians are REFUSING to accept the goods from the flotilla. This was never about providing aid. This was a political stunt for PR purposes. Mission accomplished I guess as far as these sleazeballs is concerned. Too bad some of their idiot pawns had to pay with their lives.

It's not legal until proven illegal, though, is it? I mean, if it's contested whether it's a legal blockade or not, it's neither legal nor illegal until it's been established either way, isn't it?

Krauthammer - no lockstep conservative - nails it this way...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html

Basically the only people trying to claim the blockade is 'illegal' are the Turks - who sponsored the flotilla. Everyone else recognizes that Hamas (Gaza) and Isreal are in a state of armed conflict (kind of hard to deny with 4000+ rocket attacks) and that the blockade is a legal effort by Isreal to prevent the re-arming of Hamas. Ships flying neutral flags in international waters can be legally stopped, searched, diverted, and even attacked if there is reasonable cause.

In this case, the cause was far more than reasonable for many many reasons. Isreal offered to have the goods unloaded at Ashdod, but the offer was refused. Very suspicious if the 'intent' is to provide relief... Greta Berlin (flotilla doyanne) plainly stated the flotilla was not about delivering aid... Videos of the flotilla participants as they left port showed them brandishing weapons and shouting anti-semitic death threats. Radio communications and warnings were ignored or got responses of arabic curses & threats.

I know that the far-left really Really REALLY wanted this to be all Isreal's fault - but those darn pesky facts just keep cutting the legs out from under the lies. The facts are clear. The deaths were primarily the fault of (in order of culpability...)

#1: The flotilla sponsors for deliberately putting their people in danger when they had numerous other options...
#2: The boatniks for behaving like a bunch of stupid moron idiots...
#3: The IDF for not going in with a lot more force so as to cow an obviously hostile mob... Dropping those guys in 1 at a time by helicopter was just not smart & this would have all gone down different if they'd just shot the propeller out and towed the thing to Ashdod.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with>

Cut and paste, yes, to prevent inaccuracy, and thank you.

To an ante of coin based in fact you raise in fiat of opinion. I addressed
opinion already. Don't like facts? How about polls? Opinions were all you laid down.
.
As such, and from the website of the International Committee of the Red
Cross at:

<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/560?OpenDocument>

<Forum of adoption International lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Livorno (Italy)>

<The San Remo Manual was prepared during the period 1988-1994 by a group of legal and naval experts participating in their personal capacity in a series of Round Tables convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law. The purpose of the Manual is to provide a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. The Manual includes a few provisions which might be considered progressive developments in the law but most of its provisions are considered to state the law which is currently applicable. The Manual is viewed by the participants of the Round Tables as being in many respects a modern equivalent to the Oxford Manual on the Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations Between Belligerents adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1913. A contemporary manual was considered necessary because of developments in the law since 1913 which for the most part have not been incorporated into recent treaty law, the Second Geneva Convention of 1949 being essentially limited to the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea.>

Good enough for the Red Cross.

Israel had and has an extant blockade...Simply, there was no attack. Termed
a Visit within the language of the manual and is evidently reflective of Maritime
Law. Israel was within their proper bounds per the above.

All the harangue amounts to posturing. Mission(s) accomplished. This, by the
way, is the only opinion I have offered.