BF2S Forums Israelis raid "Aid" Convoy

oug wrote:

That's a nice link there... That were you get all your news? From that lady who apparently never leaves her office? lol

Anyway on a serious note, I'm having a hard time believing that any foreigner would want to be a martyr for the Palestinians, and that includes Turks. Let alone becoming a martyr in such a dumb and uncertain way, risking the lives of others who are just there to help, risking the stuff that was in the boats etc etc. If one wants to be a martyr there are safer, simpler and far more effective ways than trying to get rid of commandos with broomsticks and cuttlery.

They don't care about being a martyr for the Palestinians, they care about being a martyr against Israel. As noted previously, Palestine provides a perfect medium through to which to do that - they not only satisfy their hatred of Israel, but can do it in a manner that appears more beneficent than it really is. And honestly? You don't go on an "peaceful" aid mission armed with assault rifles, because then it makes you look like you wre intending to get into a fight. Does Israel get lambasted in the court of public opinion if their commando land and get instantly mowed down by AK-47s? Not at all.

And, because I'm nice, here is another link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =127411099

That one may be a bit more credible.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-05 19:01:56)

Read the link I posted and then try again.

oug wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

They don't care about being a martyr for the Palestinians, they care about being a martyr against Israel. As noted previously, Palestine provides a perfect medium through to which to do that - they not only satisfy their hatred of Israel, but can do it in a manner that appears more beneficent than it really is. And honestly? You don't go on an "peaceful" aid mission armed with assault rifles, because then it makes you look like you wre intending to get into a fight. Does Israel get lambasted in the court of public opinion if their commando land and get instantly mowed down by AK-47s? Not at all.

And, because I'm nice, here is another link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =127411099

That one may be a bit more credible.

Ok so how do you know they went there with the intention of dying? Because it says nothing of the sort in that article you posted. Instead after having stressed as much as possible their religious beliefs and their conservatism (lol) as if that alone was a crime, it says: "But, of course, the people on the boat, they're not radical Islamists at all, they're just people providing humanitarian aid to those in need on the Gaza Strip."

Someone here needs a lesson in differentiating objectively reported facts from inserted personal opinions. Describing their background as "extremely religious" and "conservative" based on reality is factual reporting. Trying to defend them as simple people providing humanitarian aid is subjective and wishful thinking, no different than what you are doing. Discussion gets very dangerous when you start using subjective interpretations as facts on which to base you own.

Which leads me to wonder why the fuck would you suppose they were trying to be martyrs.

Why do people suicide bomb? Stupid question.

And why the fuck are you so sure of that when it cannot even be inferred by anything you've posted as evidence so far.

I've posted evidence and reasoned analysis, you've posted substanceless doubting clearly swayed by your irrational biases. Please disprove me, rather than merely saying I'm wrong.

And the only answer I can give is that for some reason you're trying too hard to take the blame off the Israeli government for this obvious fuckup.

No, I'm trying to approach the situation impartially, which you'll notice I noted in the first post. I don't think logically Israel would "fuckup" like that, because they absolutely no incentive to. I'm sorry you don't understand the reasoning, but I can't make it any simpler for you.

As noted, activists intending to just help Palestine would accept the offer of Israel unloading the goods and transporting them to Palestine. Activists intending to injure Israel's international image (that is, fight against Israel as a country) would try to goad the IDF into fighting, because any bloodshed makes Israel look bad, regardless of how justified such violence was.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-05 20:08:31)

rdx-fx wrote:

They seem to care, only so far as they can use the Palestinians as a proxy pawn to poke at Israel.

You're swallowing the bogus line that the arabs poke Israel - because they hate the jews - because they're 'anti-semitic'.

Its simply not true, they object to the Zionists stealing Arab land and displacing the Palestinians.
Prior to the foundation of Israel all the neigbouring countries had significant jewish populations which had lived without trouble for thousands of years.

The idea that arabs 'hate the jews' is simply propaganda and incitement of race hate.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-05 21:05:58)

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

They seem to care, only so far as they can use the Palestinians as a proxy pawn to poke at Israel.

You're swallowing the bogus line that the arabs poke Israel - because they hate the jews - because they're 'anti-semitic'.

Its simply not true, they object to the Zionists stealing Arab land and displacing the Palestinians.
Prior to the foundation of Israel all the neigbouring countries had significant jewish populations which had lived without trouble for thousands of years.

The idea that arabs 'hate the jews' is simply propaganda and incitement of race hate.

Someone should tell these protesters that, Dilbert - they appear to be off-message then.
They also apparently didn't get the official party line memo that threats of genocide don't go over very well with the Hebrews.


And you've missed all of my main points, in favor of a conjecture that was nowhere to be found in what I wrote.

I really don't care to get into a discussion on why the Hebrews and Muslims don't get along.  There was bad blood between them long before they were even properly considered Hebrews or Muslims.  And, as an atheist, I personally think they're both a bit off in their religious basis for their political and social excuses to kill each other off.

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

They seem to care, only so far as they can use the Palestinians as a proxy pawn to poke at Israel.

You're swallowing the bogus line that the arabs poke Israel - because they hate the jews - because they're 'anti-semitic'.

Its simply not true, they object to the Zionists stealing Arab land and displacing the Palestinians.
Prior to the foundation of Israel all the neigbouring countries had significant jewish populations which had lived without trouble for thousands of years.

The idea that arabs 'hate the jews' is simply propaganda and incitement of race hate.

Someone should tell these protesters that, Dilbert - they appear to be off-message then.
They also apparently didn't get the official party line memo that threats of genocide don't go over very well with the Hebrews.


And you've missed all of my main points, in favor of a conjecture that was nowhere to be found in what I wrote.

I really don't care to get into a discussion on why the Hebrews and Muslims don't get along.  There was bad blood between them long before they were even properly considered Hebrews or Muslims.  And, as an atheist, I personally think they're both a bit off in their religious basis for their political and social excuses to kill each other off.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla … rally1.jpg

http://www.islamicmovement.org/index_files/qudskn07.JPG

http://terrortrendsbulletin.files.wordp … el_lg1.jpg

I see 'Israel' in all those signs, 'jew' not once.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Time to pull out the Quran lines?

Go for it, then we'll see whats in the Torah.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you are deluding yourself.

ORLY?

India.

Pakistan.

QED.

iran's nuclear program is not why it gets so much heat, it's just a convenient excuse.

Of course that's not the ONLY reason. There's also the fact that they signed the NNPT and they aren't cooperating fully with the IAEA on their nuclear program, as they are supposed to under the NNPT.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

no it's not. it is only that way according to those who use it to push their own agenda.

No. It's that way according to how this thing called "international law" works. Look it up.

that "thing" doesn't work at all.

Of course it does, when the international community wants it to.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's the thing about the law: all countries use it to their advantage. Who would ever use it to their own disadvantage?

The bottomline is that, just like those who scream about the Geneva Conventions, it would appear there are plenty who scream "illegal" WRT this blockade who apparently haven't bothered to actually, I don't know, read the applicable law involved.

Who cares what governments do? I thought we were debating based on what's right and what's wrong. Not whose arse is covered by some fucked up law. Sure Israel may have found a bloody loophole or some shit, but that sure as hell don't make the people of Gaza suffer any less now does it? The question FEOS is where do you stand in all this. Because were it not for people like you Israel would not be in a postition to mock us all.

Just what the fuck do you mean "people like you"? I suggest you check your fucking generalizations. Now. Or would you rather be lumped in with those who apologize for terrorists who strap bombs to kids with Down Syndrome and blow up cafes full of innocent women and children? I thought not. Remove your emotions from the equation and try some critical thinking, oug.

We are talking about the actions of governments here. It is all about what governments do. Nothing else. What's right and what's wrong is determined by the applicable laws. Everything else is subjective and relative. Law is not. That's why it's there.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the blockade zone has been defined, it doesn't matter if it's international waters (see Cuban Missile Crisis).

Could you elaborate on that? On first glance it just doesn't sound right... I mean I don't know but it iiis international waters still is it not?

It was pretty clearly explained a couple of pages back. A defined blockade zone doesn't have to be in the blockading country's territorial waters. In fact, that makes no sense whatsoever. The blockade zone must be where the blockade needs to be in order to be effective (again, see the Cuban Missile Crisis). The blockade zone is defined and clearly announced. Anyone who enters it knows they are entering a blockade zone and what the rules are. Even in international waters.

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So there is wrongdoing and blame to go around...but unfortunately, all the reporting has been one-sided. At least all the reporting I've seen, anyway.

I have to admit this whole story reeks of Israeli blame so much, it seems kinda hard to shift the blame or create ambiguity. After all many Israelis have said that the biggest mistake they made was that they didn't destroy the whole convoy so there would be no witnesses!

But the biggest problem imo is that despite the global disapproval of the incident, nothing has yet been done about it. Israel atm is walking away untouched. It will be interesting to see if indeed it will remain so.

So there should be punishment without investigation, proof beyond reasonable doubt, etc? Doesn't sound like a biased position at all...

oug wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If Iran hadn't signed the NPT, I don't think they would be under the same sort of pressure they are under today. The "problem" for them is, they did. Just as with North Korea, they did. Then they withdrew from it. Israel never signed it, so were never bound by it. It's a different dynamic and a different standard.

So your argument is that all this fuss is about a signature and not the actual nukes? Come on FEOS you know better than that. Let's not kid ourselves here shall we?

The "fuss" is about agreements. And living up to them. That means actions, not just signatures.

oug wrote:

The US knows Israel has nukes and they also know that they tried to sell it to the Apartheid gov of South Africa in exchange for all the uranium they got for their own nuclear program. What did the US govt do about that? Nothing. So how is that not double standards?

The US doesn't know that Israel has nukes any more than any other country knows that Israel has nukes. Of course, we suspect it just as much as anyone else does, but that is a state secret--it's not like they share it with others.

Again, why should anything be done about it? There is no reason to do anything about it at all. There is no statutory reason or limitation on Israel developing or proliferating nuclear weapons--because they didn't sign/agree to the NNPT. I'm not saying that they should from a moral standpoint. I'm saying that there is no legal foundation to stop them or say dammit to them about it.

rdx-fx wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I see 'Israel' in all those signs, 'jew' not once.

Again with the irrelevant minutia...

You do notice the invocation of religion in 4/6ths of the posters, yes?


I'm sure I could go to a shooting range with you.
I'm also sure we couldn't have lunch together, as we'd never agree on a restaurant.
Hell, I'm pretty sure it would devolve into a 'debate' as to whether it was actually lunch, brunch, supper, or dinner time.
And end up in a discussion regarding the exploitation of indiginous peoples in the mining of silver for cutlery used by the nobility.

You knocked out your own point.

We can have lunch no problem, almost every restaurant has one or two vego dishes, and cutlery is steel these days.

nukchebi0 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Time to pull out the Quran lines?

Go for it, then we'll see whats in the Torah.

Should we go delve any deeper than the enlightened verse describing the trees revealing Jews hiding so Muslims can kill them?

Chapter/Verse?

nukchebi0 wrote:

Technically it's in the Hadith, but it seems that is kind of a corollary to the Quran.  I am uncertain of the verse, but I trust you know it (or to use google) well enough to find it.

So technically it is not in the Quran.

What is your point now anyway?

nukchebi0 wrote:

You're religion regards them as the the word of Allah, just like the Quran.

Hadith are narrations originating from the words and deeds of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Hadith are regarded by traditional schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Qur'an and in matters of jurisprudence.[1] Hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections mostly during the reign of Umar bin Abdul Aziz during the 8th and 9th centuries. These works are referred to in matters of Islamic law and history to this day.

It is NOT the Quran, not the words of Allah, just to get it clear.

nukchebi0 wrote:

The point was to illustrate how a desire to kill the Jews is ingrained in the teaching of Islam.

The hadith is about one of the signs of judgment day, hence the end of the world/life we know. I am pretty sure Christians and Jews have their own theory about non-Jews and non-Christians on judgement day.

The Muslims however have sharia law to obey in this life, and there is nothing about killing non-muslims in sharia.

Thats why I fail to see your point.