But you focus on muslims, christians and jews are the other corners of the triangle.11 Bravo wrote:
idc about history when it comes to religion. i care about present day and how religion fucks up our world.Beduin wrote:
Read history then... Read how non-muslims lived under Islamic rule.11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno dude. we can play the quote game but i hate all religion so it will just anger me.
the fuck i do. i constantly bash the catholic church.Dilbert_X wrote:
But you focus on muslims, christians and jews are the other corners of the triangle.11 Bravo wrote:
idc about history when it comes to religion. i care about present day and how religion fucks up our world.Beduin wrote:
Read history then... Read how non-muslims lived under Islamic rule.
And you're always assuming it was Israel's fault.oug wrote:
As for reasoning, let's see how yours works. You're always assuming things. You take it for granted for some reason thet the Israeli government is incapable or erring, you seem certain as to how a "normal" activist would act in the given situation, and worst of all you seem certain that these people would easily sacrifice themselves in order to make Israel look bad. All those assumptions you make just seem to me like a desperate attempt to take the blame off the Israeli government and I can't help but ask why.
Fair enough then11 Bravo wrote:
the fuck i do. i constantly bash the catholic church.Dilbert_X wrote:
But you focus on muslims, christians and jews are the other corners of the triangle.11 Bravo wrote:
idc about history when it comes to religion. i care about present day and how religion fucks up our world.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-07 06:26:06)
Makes no sense to me, but what ever makes you happy11 Bravo wrote:
idc about history when it comes to religion. i care about present day and how religion fucks up our world.Beduin wrote:
Read history then... Read how non-muslims lived under Islamic rule.11 Bravo wrote:
i dunno dude. we can play the quote game but i hate all religion so it will just anger me.
It not always so simple, Hamas are a reaction to Israel same as Hezbollah.MOAB wrote:
Blockade is in place because of Hamas, as a means of containing them and preventing them for trying anything worse than what they already do.
And modern AQ is a reaction to the Saudis not letting OBL play in the sandbox 19 years ago, the difference is AQ doesn't get elected.Dilbert_X wrote:
It not always so simple, Hamas are a reaction to Israel same as Hezbollah.MOAB wrote:
Blockade is in place because of Hamas, as a means of containing them and preventing them for trying anything worse than what they already do.
Iran really has no business interveining in this.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Iranians have just as much right to break the blockade as the Israelis do to impose it.
Can't see this ending well, esp with troops in Iraq.
Then a lot of blame can be directed at them for the current situation.Dilbert_X wrote:
So? Palestinian support for Hamas is a reaction to Israel.
So their religious beliefs and their conservatism are evidence enough for you that they had the intention of harming Israel even if that meant losing their lives. Well. As it is I just happened to personally attend an interview of several of the activists yesterday. They spoke at a venue 5 minutes from my house. Of course it was only Greeks - so no conservative religious people, just plain old commie hippie liberals - but they did confirm that they were beaten, imprisoned and generally ill-treated despite the fact that they did not resist in any way. Maybe that wasn't the case in all ships, and sure enough some of the commandos were attacked, but this reaction was only because the IDF stopped them in international waters, where the activists thought at the time that the IDF had no juristiction to board the ships.nukchebi0 wrote:
Honestly? Are we serious right now? You ask other people about a certain person, you consider their background and personal affiliations, and you are able to get a reasonable picture of who they are, in an accurate manner. That is exactly what the reporter did.
Perhaps, if you cared to analyze the reporter's words, you'll see she was trying to minimize the emphasis on their religious beliefs and conservatism throughout the interview, concluding with her subjective statement describing them as just humanitarians. The guy interviewing her had to tease out some of the details regarding their religious views.
That's touching. It's just that the "they're just" completely alters the implicit meaning of the statement, moving it from factual observation regarding their actions to subjective conclusions regarding the entirety of their motives. (In other words, she stops her factual reporting and substitutes a personal opinion intended to minimize the effect of the reality she just presented.)
If you'd bothered to read, you'd understand I'm using their background as factual evidence (which they are, see above for a reread in case you still can't comprehend it) to buttress my belief the activists were looking for a fight, and to use such an incident to malign Israel. I can't know for sure, but my conclusion seems reasonable in light of the facts we know. The pictures released today by IHH seem to confirm Israel's story of the events, lending further credence to my theory.
But it does seem likely to you that the activists would just die as if it's no biggie, just to irritate Israel.nukchebi0 wrote:
No. It just doesn't seem likely given the obvious ability to analyze outcomes of the situation.As for reasoning, let's see how yours works. You're always assuming things. You take it for granted for some reason thet the Israeli government is incapable or erring,
"Normal" was ironical and it was refferring to your idea of docile activists. As if only the Rachel Corrie reaction is indicative of real activists. The rest are war-mongering terroristsnukchebi0 wrote:
What is a normal activist? It certainly seems people more concerned with aiding the Palestinians would assent to the offer of berthing in an Israeli port in order to undergo cargo inspections. The MV Rachel Corrie is a nice contrast, isn't it?you seem certain as to how a "normal" activist would act in the given situation,
Wow, nice generalization there. I did explain what kind of people these activists were. But then again if you think that they're all suicide bombers then what can I say...nukchebi0 wrote:
Again, honestly? Do we lack the historical basis for the plausibility of such a concept?and worst of all you seem certain that these people would easily sacrifice themselves in order to make Israel look bad.
I'm curious. Name one. If the imprisonment of 2 million people in Gaza and the illegal effort to detter even aid ships to reach them doesn't deserve to be criticized, then I urge you to name one that does.nukchebi0 wrote:
I'll happily blame Israel for things they deserve to be criticized for, and those certainly exist, but it doesn't seem as if this current "crisis" is cause for the zealous vilification so ubiquitous in the Israel and Palestine debate.
Powerful interests use the law to wipe their ass. That is when they're not busy writing it.FEOS wrote:
And laws outlast governments and "powerful interests". And they are not subjective.
Since Gaza is not a seperate country and it still belongs to Israel, how is it legal to perform a sea blockade due to internal problems? If that is legal as you say, then it's a huge loophole. It could be used by anyone as a pretext to control more than their share of sea would it not?Gaza is an autonomous entity, ruled by its own government. They are not, in effect, part of Israel any longer, but part of the Palestinian Authority. The Israelis are not blockading their own population, but the region governed by Hamas, due to the actions of Hamas. And that is legal under international law.oug wrote:
So any nation can define any blockzone it wants under the pretext that it is engaged in hostile action with a percentage of its population? I don't think so. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is no example I can take under consideration seriously because who would go up against the US over a matter such as this? (Again let me say I have no idea what exactly the law says about this, it just doesn't sound right at all...)FEOS wrote:
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.
That was genuinely funny FEOS! I lold hardFEOS wrote:
As to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is a perfect example of a legal naval blockade of one entity of another in international waters. I can see why you would want to ignore it.
How's so? Honestly I don't get it.FEOS wrote:
Um, no. When it comes down to it, the fuss is about agreements made WRT nuclear weapons, not the weapons themselves.oug wrote:
Um, no. The fuss is about nuclear weapons FEOS.FEOS wrote:
The "fuss" is about agreements. And living up to them. That means actions, not just signatures.
Yes well... South Africa apparently didn't see any harm in letting everyone know about the transaction. So despite the fact that Israel keep their mouth shut about it... You know it, I know it and sure enough the US govt know it.FEOS wrote:
Suspicion =/= knowledge.
Oh I don't know FEOS, you tell me. Why is Iran being pressured to drop their nuclear program? Why is the NK?FEOS wrote:
Why should any country be pressured into signing and ratifying a treaty except under terms to end a war? I'm not talking about Israel here, I'm talking about sovereign nations in general.
But I forget...different rulesets apply when it comes to Israel.
forget it...FEOS wrote:
Where do I stand on what from a moral viewpoint?
That was sarcasm, Dilbert.Dilbert_X wrote:
Calling for a country to be bombed =/= genocide.
If they're calling for the Israelis to leave first it certainly isn't.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-06-07 12:18:09)
it will not escalate until a arab country gets cocky and decides to do a repeat of the 6 day war.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Lulz. Ehud said that Israel isn't Finland or Canada ergo they can't let in every sailing ship becuase they have Hamas Hummus ETA DDT whatever AT&T doing naughty things there. Too bad. If they were, they wouldn't have atleast such idiots controlling their country ordering attacks on aid vessels. They'd just have a bunch of sheep going baa-baa when big bad neighbours raise their voices. Meh. Idc what happens to that region unless it escalates into a bigger war.
he's rightUltrafunkula wrote:
Ehud said that Israel isn't Finland or Canada ergo they can't let in every sailing ship becuase they have Hamas
International law is written and agreed to by multiple countries where "powerful interests" do not hold sway.oug wrote:
Powerful interests use the law to wipe their ass. That is when they're not busy writing it.FEOS wrote:
And laws outlast governments and "powerful interests". And they are not subjective.
Gaza is, in effect, a separate autonomous entity. It does not belong to Israel, as it is not governed by the Knesset in any way, shape, form, or fashion. It is governed by Hamas and Hamas only. The only "internal problems" WRT Gaza are with the Palestinian Authority, not the Israeli government. The Israeli government has no authority over Gaza, period.oug wrote:
Since Gaza is not a seperate country and it still belongs to Israel, how is it legal to perform a sea blockade due to internal problems? If that is legal as you say, then it's a huge loophole. It could be used by anyone as a pretext to control more than their share of sea would it not?Gaza is an autonomous entity, ruled by its own government. They are not, in effect, part of Israel any longer, but part of the Palestinian Authority. The Israelis are not blockading their own population, but the region governed by Hamas, due to the actions of Hamas. And that is legal under international law.oug wrote:
So any nation can define any blockzone it wants under the pretext that it is engaged in hostile action with a percentage of its population? I don't think so. And the Cuban Missile Crisis is no example I can take under consideration seriously because who would go up against the US over a matter such as this? (Again let me say I have no idea what exactly the law says about this, it just doesn't sound right at all...)FEOS wrote:
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.
Funny that you would ignore a perfect example of a legal naval blockade in international waters? Not really funny. Sad. Predictable. But not funny.oug wrote:
That was genuinely funny FEOS! I lold hardFEOS wrote:
As to the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is a perfect example of a legal naval blockade of one entity of another in international waters. I can see why you would want to ignore it.
Obviously. What countries are held to are their agreements, their treaties. Those become international and domestic law. When they violate those treaties, they violate the law. If it isn't a treaty, it isn't anything other than a good idea and doesn't bind them in any way. Just like you or I, the fuss when you violate the law is the violation of the law itself--the action you took.oug wrote:
How's so? Honestly I don't get it.FEOS wrote:
Um, no. When it comes down to it, the fuss is about agreements made WRT nuclear weapons, not the weapons themselves.oug wrote:
Um, no. The fuss is about nuclear weapons FEOS.
Now. That doesn't mean that the US knew about it definitively beforehand. There's still more to come out in the wash on that, I'm sure.oug wrote:
Yes well... South Africa apparently didn't see any harm in letting everyone know about the transaction. So despite the fact that Israel keep their mouth shut about it... You know it, I know it and sure enough the US govt know it.FEOS wrote:
Suspicion =/= knowledge.
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.oug wrote:
Oh I don't know FEOS, you tell me. Why is Iran being pressured to drop their nuclear program? Why is the NK?FEOS wrote:
Why should any country be pressured into signing and ratifying a treaty except under terms to end a war? I'm not talking about Israel here, I'm talking about sovereign nations in general.
But I forget...different rulesets apply when it comes to Israel.
No...seriously. There are a couple of issues here, the aid convoy and Israeli actions and nuclear weapons (nice derail, btw). I don't know which one you're talking about.oug wrote:
forget it...FEOS wrote:
Where do I stand on what from a moral viewpoint?
Last edited by Uzique (2010-06-08 05:14:51)
The holocaust guilt thing is still running - not surprisingly, and much of the west is thoroughly complicit in many horrible messes besides Israel.Uzique wrote:
the thing that amuses me is the shit that western-puppet governments can get away with, in the eyes of the western world- their governments and their press. israel is a fucking crime against humanity (i don't care what your reasoning is, it was a blundering democratic mistake and most jews will denounce all that zionist bullshit). other leaders in the arab world are conveniently let off for being equal bastards, e.g. hosni mubarak and his crooked, nepotist regime in egypt- allowed to operate and fuck with human liberties to sell out to corporate western liberalism.
im not sure how 'informed' or entitled to argue any of us, as westerners, can be to this situation. we part created it, and we endorse and finance it every fucking day. even when obvious humanitarian crimes are committed, we can do little other than just this - to gripe and moan in public channels of communication. at the end of the day, their lobbies and their governments are still getting support to continue in their fucked-up ways.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-08 05:59:17)
