Not the trespassers, no. Some Turkish ship soon arrived at the scene and it got a bit hectic, and at some point a Greek helicopter must have been shot down, crew got killed etc.M.O.A.B wrote:
Were they firing on the ships?
ƒ³
Its not raining today in Gaza, do you think they need umbrellas?nukchebi0 wrote:
It doesn't seem like they would constitute essential humanitarian aid to a populace struggling with a lack of food, clean water, and functioning infrastructure otherwise.oug wrote:
Do they have to be happening right now for the vests to be an appropriate aid?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
How does "stockpiling" contingency apparel constitute an attempt to alleviate a non-violent humanitarian crisis?
They were supplying civilian goods embargoed by the Israelis for no reason other than to punish the 1.5m people in Gaza for the actions of Hamas.
These goods have been embargoed for three years now, stockpiling is irrelevant.
These goods have been embargoed for three years now, stockpiling is irrelevant.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
So if you were in charge of what to bring, you wouldn't include the vests and gas masks? Instead you'd go for what, a couple of gallons of water? That would save the day.nukchebi0 wrote:
It doesn't seem like they would constitute essential humanitarian aid to a populace struggling with a lack of food, clean water, and functioning infrastructure otherwise.oug wrote:
Do they have to be happening right now for the vests to be an appropriate aid?
Come on man be serious. We found the explanation for the vests and the masks. Accept it and move on because this is getting ridiculous.
ƒ³
The aid for the Palestinians may have come together at this point because of the Gaza blockade, but surely the things they brought to assist in the situation don't have to be limited to the current "non-violent humanitarian crisis".nukchebi0 wrote:
How does "stockpiling" contingency apparel constitute an attempt to alleviate a non-violent humanitarian crisis?
The Palestinians are living in a constant crisis. One that won't stop if and when the Israelis decide to end the blockade. In that sense I see no reason why the aid should not include valuable stuff that will certainly come in handy at some point - and which are generally hard to come by.
ƒ³
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
With that cleared, you've yet to really show how providing a minimal amount (for a 1.5 million person civilian populace, not for a guerrilla force such as Hamas militants) of bulletproof vests and gas masks for a potential future war constitutes vital humanitarian aid that is attempting to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians in the current crisis. Moreover, you haven't really explained why a civilian population needs gas masks when Israel has no history of utilizing poisonous gas against the Gazan populace (except riot suppression, I'd assume). It's unhinged enough claiming that every civilian in a war zone needs a bullet-proof vest (when is there ever a historical precedent for that?), but I'm willing to pretend that should be the case. The gas masks have absolutely no use for a civilian unless they want to riot unimpinged by tear gas, and that really doesn't make it a vital humanitarian item, does it?
You have found an explanation for neither object, and are yourself being ridiculous. It is absolutely preposterous to claim that vests and gas masks are more important to people suffering from a lack of the basics for human survival than said basics themselves.
With that cleared, you've yet to really show how providing a minimal amount (for a 1.5 million person civilian populace, not for a guerrilla force such as Hamas militants) of bulletproof vests and gas masks for a potential future war constitutes vital humanitarian aid that is attempting to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians in the current crisis. Moreover, you haven't really explained why a civilian population needs gas masks when Israel has no history of utilizing poisonous gas against the Gazan populace (except riot suppression, I'd assume). It's unhinged enough claiming that every civilian in a war zone needs a bullet-proof vest (when is there ever a historical precedent for that?), but I'm willing to pretend that should be the case. The gas masks have absolutely no use for a civilian unless they want to riot unimpinged by tear gas, and that really doesn't make it a vital humanitarian item, does it?
oug wrote:
So if you were in charge of what to bring, you wouldn't include the vests and gas masks? Instead you'd go for what, a couple of gallons of water? That would save the day.
Come on man be serious. We found the explanation for the vests and the masks. Accept it and move on because this is getting ridiculous.
As would fifty bulletproof vests and gas masks distributed randomly to civilians who may or may not actually need them? It seems to me they'd be slightly more effective given to Hamas militants who will have a nearly certain chance of seeing combat. Were I in charge of what to bring, and assuming I wasn't IHH and honestly intended to just help reduce humanitarian suffering, I would have maximized the amount of water and other goods that would have provided the Palestinians with relief, not included some items that are effectively saying "Okay, I'm sorry I didn't get you more food - I decided to sacrifice some of the room I had so I could bring you these shiny vests that might help you avoid a stray bullet at some point in the future).The aid for the Palestinians may have come together at this point because of the Gaza blockade, but surely the things they brought to assist in the situation don't have to be limited to the current "non-violent humanitarian crisis".
The Palestinians are living in a constant crisis. One that won't stop if and when the Israelis decide to end the blockade. In that sense I see no reason why the aid should not include valuable stuff that will certainly come in handy at some point - and which are generally hard to come by.
You have found an explanation for neither object, and are yourself being ridiculous. It is absolutely preposterous to claim that vests and gas masks are more important to people suffering from a lack of the basics for human survival than said basics themselves.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-16 02:19:33)
They need a range of products, not just water.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It's for the bloody paramedics! What the fuck are you on about!nukchebi0 wrote:
rant
And I'm not even going to address the fact that you just blamed Hamas for everything - as if they're the only ones to blame for the Palestinians' situation! Honestly if you trully believe that then I'm done wasting my time with you.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
ƒ³
Not knowing the circumstances for SA being pressured, or even if it actually occurred (no references were provided in the wiki article for the statement), neither of us can really say at this point. Regardless, the geopolitical issues surrounding SA in the late eighties/early nineties and Israel/Iran today are different, so no...not a case of double standards. Each case is its own situation, to be looked at through the prism of precedent, to be sure, but individually.oug wrote:
So from a legal perspective all Iran has to do to get rid of all that international pressure for its alledged nuclear weapons program is to give 90 days notice and then leave the NPT. Is that correct? And then according to you there is no reason why anyone should have a problem with Iran developing whatever the fuck they want right?
Well apparently not though. It seems, from the article you provided, that countries such as SA have been pressured into signing the NPT. So let's go back to my initial point. Why is it that Israel has had no pressure whatsoever to become a signatory to the NPT and allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities?
Is there a chance this is a case of double standards?
To say that Israel has received "no pressure whatsoever" to become a signatory or to allow the IAEA to inspect its facilities is a misstatement, as well.
I see. So proof is meaningless if it is proof against your position, but if it is in line with your position, it's OK. I get it now.oug wrote:
You don't get it do you. Call what you will - defensive, offensive, I don't care. The fact of the matter is that if Israel were to use nuclear weapons in its wars of existence with Egypt and its other neighbors it would effectively sign its own death wish by polluting the area covered by Israel for the following century. These wars are indicative of nothing.FEOS wrote:
those wars were wars of existence for Israel.
See the highlighted portion.
That would be the prime instance for a nuclear power to threaten to use or actually use nuclear weapons (even in a demonstration) in order to secure its existence--defensive vice offensive use.
Good to know the ruleset.
Oh wait. It's not like they would drop those nukes on the fielded forces encroaching on Israel. That's not how nuclear weapons are employed--for the very reason you point out. It endangers one's own forces/positions. That's why they aren't tactical weapons, but strategic weapons.
So I guess it's you who doesn't "get it", oug.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
True, this is after all a wiki - we can't be sure of anything. We're largely speculating here. But the fact that we cannot establish for sure whether there was pressure or not doesn't mean it's not a case of double standards.FEOS wrote:
Not knowing the circumstances for SA being pressured, or even if it actually occurred (no references were provided in the wiki article for the statement), neither of us can really say at this point.oug wrote:
So from a legal perspective all Iran has to do to get rid of all that international pressure for its alledged nuclear weapons program is to give 90 days notice and then leave the NPT. Is that correct? And then according to you there is no reason why anyone should have a problem with Iran developing whatever the fuck they want right?
Well apparently not though. It seems, from the article you provided, that countries such as SA have been pressured into signing the NPT. So let's go back to my initial point. Why is it that Israel has had no pressure whatsoever to become a signatory to the NPT and allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities?
Is there a chance this is a case of double standards?
My opinion on the matter is that all countries must have had some incentive in order to sign the NPT. Whether it was something they stood to gain, or whether it was just a case of succumbing to international pressure, we can be sure that no country would agree to limit its capabilities just like that. I'm also convinced that in the cases of countries with enemies, there definitely must have been some form of pressure involved.
Israel should have been pressured back then as well. Surely each case must be examined alone, but again that doesn't explain the lack of pressure on Israel all these years.FEOS wrote:
Regardless, the geopolitical issues surrounding SA in the late eighties/early nineties and Israel/Iran today are different, so no...not a case of double standards. Each case is its own situation, to be looked at through the prism of precedent, to be sure, but individually.
Well the article says that the IAEA asked to inspect its nuclear facilities and they refused. If that's your idea of pressure then yes, the above is a misstatement. Unless of course there are other attempts that I don't know of. But again generally speaking I get the feeling that Israel is not handled the same way as other countries are on this matter.FEOS wrote:
To say that Israel has received "no pressure whatsoever" to become a signatory or to allow the IAEA to inspect its facilities is a misstatement, as well.
I guess it is. So please explain how Israel would deploy nukes in such a way that its own population would not be affected. For the record my experience is very limited - back when the Chernobyl leak occured, I remember that for many months afterwards we were told to refrain from buying milk and other dairy products as well as fruit and vegetables because they had radiation. And that's down here in Greece... I would imagine it must have been a lot worse for areas closer to the incident.FEOS wrote:
I see. So proof is meaningless if it is proof against your position, but if it is in line with your position, it's OK. I get it now.oug wrote:
You don't get it do you. Call what you will - defensive, offensive, I don't care. The fact of the matter is that if Israel were to use nuclear weapons in its wars of existence with Egypt and its other neighbors it would effectively sign its own death wish by polluting the area covered by Israel for the following century. These wars are indicative of nothing.FEOS wrote:
those wars were wars of existence for Israel.
See the highlighted portion.
That would be the prime instance for a nuclear power to threaten to use or actually use nuclear weapons (even in a demonstration) in order to secure its existence--defensive vice offensive use.
Good to know the ruleset. :rolleyes:
Oh wait. It's not like they would drop those nukes on the fielded forces encroaching on Israel. That's not how nuclear weapons are employed--for the very reason you point out. It endangers one's own forces/positions. That's why they aren't tactical weapons, but strategic weapons.
So I guess it's you who doesn't "get it", oug.
ƒ³
Obviously, but you've yet to show how gas masks and bullet proof vests are objects they desperately need, especially the gas masks.Dilbert_X wrote:
They need a range of products, not just water.
But why do the paramedics need it when there is no war in Gaza? I tried to communicate this earlier, but you apparently ignored it.oug wrote:
It's for the bloody paramedics! What the fuck are you on about!nukchebi0 wrote:
well-reasoned post that doesn't agree with oug's biased perspective
I didn't blame Hamas for everything, if you'd bother to read what I wrote rather than jump to conclusions that have no basis in reality. I asked questions to get you to think about the Palestinian people's responsibility for their government's actions. I did not say "Hamas is the reason why there is conflict in the Middle East". Honestly, it's impossible to see how you arrived at that interpretation from what I said in those inquiries.oug wrote:
And I'm not even going to address the fact that you just blamed Hamas for everything - as if they're the only ones to blame for the Palestinians' situation! Honestly if you trully believe that then I'm done wasting my time with you.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-16 05:27:15)
As much as I hate to admit it, he almost has a point. Wouldn't strategic targets in the Middle East still be close enough to affect Israel with the fallout (in the figurative sense, not just the literal fallout)?FEOS wrote:
Oh wait. It's not like they would drop those nukes on the fielded forces encroaching on Israel. That's not how nuclear weapons are employed--for the very reason you point out. It endangers one's own forces/positions. That's why they aren't tactical weapons, but strategic weapons.
I addressed that part. I asked you whether there had to be a violent conflict going on right now for the vests to be a legitimate aid for the region. Dilbert asked you whether it had to be rainning for you to carry an umbrella - or whether it's legitimate to carry one when it's just cloudynukchebi0 wrote:
But why do the paramedics need it when there is no war in Gaza? I tried to communicate this earlier, but you apparently ignored it.
nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
Impossible to see? You just said the Palestinians asked for all this shit they're being put through by the Israeli government by voting for Hamas. That's how. The current blockade is a direct result of voting for Hamas. Israel had nothing to do with it. lolnukchebi0 wrote:
I didn't blame Hamas for everything, if you'd bother to read what I wrote rather than jump to conclusions that have no basis in reality. I asked questions to get you to think about the Palestinian people's responsibility for their government's actions. I did not say "Hamas is the reason why there is conflict in the Middle East". Honestly, it's impossible to see how you arrived at that interpretation from what I said in those inquiries.
ƒ³
They aren't legitimate aid for the region, not when they need essentials for human survival. Giving minimal amounts (for a civilian populace) during peacetime for a future occupation that may or may not happen and may or may not effect civilians and medics treating does not constitute a "humanitarian aid mission".oug wrote:
I addressed that part. I asked you whether there had to be a violent conflict going on right now for the vests to be a legitimate aid for the region. Dilbert asked you whether it had to be rainning for you to carry an umbrella - or whether it's legitimate to carry one when it's just cloudynukchebi0 wrote:
But why do the paramedics need it when there is no war in Gaza? I tried to communicate this earlier, but you apparently ignored it.
I asked three normal questions. Do you know what a normal question is? Do you know it's grammatical function? It certainly isn't to make assertions.oug wrote:
nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?Impossible to see? You just said the Palestinians asked for all this shit they're being put through by the Israeli government by voting for Hamas. That's how. The current blockade is a direct result of voting for Hamas. Israel had nothing to do with it. lolnukchebi0 wrote:
I didn't blame Hamas for everything, if you'd bother to read what I wrote rather than jump to conclusions that have no basis in reality. I asked questions to get you to think about the Palestinian people's responsibility for their government's actions. I did not say "Hamas is the reason why there is conflict in the Middle East". Honestly, it's impossible to see how you arrived at that interpretation from what I said in those inquiries.
Moreover, Dilbert said that the Palestinians deserve no blame for their plight, something I was questioning given their responsibility in electing Hamas. Unless you think Israel is entirely responsible for the crisis, then the question has merit. I wasn't attempting to argue that it is Hamas' exclusive fault, and the words make that quite clear, hence why I deemed it impossible for the interpretation to be made for a realing reading of what I had composed in the post.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-16 16:21:05)
Right. Make sure to tell them to bring more next time - now some poor paramedics are gonna have to do without!nukchebi0 wrote:
They aren't legitimate aid for the region, not when they need essentials for human survival. Giving minimal amounts (for a civilian populace) during peacetime for a future occupation that may or may not happen and may or may not effect civilians and medics treating does not constitute a "humanitarian aid mission".
srsly stop you're embarassing yourself...
nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
You clearly stated that the current blockade is a direct result of the vote for Hamas. Not only is this utterly untrue, it's offensive to logic. Hamas is not running this blockade, the Israelis are. Unless of course you're implying that Hamas' actions lead Israel to block the area, in which case you've come to the conclusion that whatever these actions were (I'm sure you ignore them btw), they merit a blockade of 2 million people - something that I and the entire international community along with me don't agree with.nukchebi0 wrote:
I asked three normal questions. Do you know what a normal question is? Do you know it's grammatical function? It certainly isn't to make assertions.
Moreover, Dilbert said that the Palestinians deserve no blame for their plight, something I was questioning given their responsibility in electing Hamas. Unless you think Israel is entirely responsible for the crisis, then the question has merit. I wasn't attempting to argue that it is Hamas' exclusive fault, and the words make that quite clear, hence why I deemed it impossible for the interpretation to be made for a realing reading of what I had composed in the post.
As for what Dilbert said about the Palestinians' share of the blame, we can go through who was there first and who the land belongs to for the hundredth time and nothing will come of it. Besides it's off topic and I don't care to discuss it again. As far as I'm concerned it's all there in other threads, go and knock yourself out.
ƒ³
You just don't understand, do you? I asked you to explain why providing a relative luxury for a future possiblity constitutes vital humanitarian aid" when the Palestinian people are suffering from an immediate lack of water and power, and you have completely neglected to. Moreover, you've yet to explain why any civilian needs a gas mask when Israel doesn't attack them with poison gases. You are going to look like a delusional fool until you furnish adequate reasoning.oug wrote:
Right. Make sure to tell them to bring more next time - now some poor paramedics are gonna have to do without! :roll:
srsly stop you're embarassing yourself...
No, I didn't. I said nothing of the sort. Please refrain from making baseless allegations, as it gets increasingly aggravating to counter blatant mistruths of such nature. I did try to dispel the notion that Palestinians are blameless in their current plight, but did not say the vote for Hamas directly lead to the blockade. I was implying Hamas is at least partially responsible for the blockade through their actions. I wasn't arguing the merits of the blockade, which is quite clear, only to who the blame can be ascribed. Even if Israel is overreacting, there were actions by Hamas to initiate and sustain the blockade (firing the rockets) and thus blame cannot be given entirely to Israel. It's simple logic, and should be acceptable to anyone.You clearly stated that the current blockade is a direct result of the vote for Hamas. Not only is this utterly untrue, it's offensive to logic. Hamas is not running this blockade, the Israelis are. Unless of course you're implying that Hamas' actions lead Israel to block the area, in which case you've come to the conclusion that whatever these actions were (I'm sure you ignore them btw), they merit a blockade of 2 million people - something that I and the entire international community along with me don't agree with.
I wasn't trying to argue about that, and again its unclear how you discerned such intent from my arguments. As noted above, please stop with the fallacious representation of my arguments.As for what Dilbert said about the Palestinians' share of the blame, we can go through who was there first and who the land belongs to for the hundredth time and nothing will come of it. Besides it's off topic and I don't care to discuss it again. As far as I'm concerned it's all there in other threads, go and knock yourself out.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-16 21:51:36)
Right, I'll explain the obvious. The aid is largely symbolical. It's like charity. It might help aleviate some immediate problems momentarily, but it doesn't change the situation. Thus the few ships that sailed from Cyprus are not to be expected to contain food, water, medicine, clothes, shelter and other necessities for the 2 million people suffering from the blockade. What this is basically is a sign of support from other nations. That is also why there are flags on a lot of things that are being transported.nukchebi0 wrote:
You just don't understand, do you? I asked you to explain why providing a relative luxury for a future possiblity constitutes vital humanitarian aid" when the Palestinian people are suffering from an immediate lack of water and power, and you have completely neglected to. Moreover, you've yet to explain why any civilian needs a gas mask when Israel doesn't attack them with poison gases. You are going to look like a delusional fool until you furnish adequate reasoning.
The vests in particular had Turkish flags on them. Sure it's ten vests, so not every paramedic in Palestine is going to receive one, but the few that will, will be essentially carrying around an advertisement saying "hey, Turkey is on our side". And the next time there's street clashes and the news agencies will be filming the events, a paramedic will appear on tv wearing the Turkish flag on his vest.
I hope this clarifies the thinking behind the aid and what the latter entails.
nukchebi0 wrote:
No, I didn't. I said nothing of the sort. Please refrain from making baseless allegations, as it gets increasingly aggravating to counter blatant mistruths of such nature. I did try to dispel the notion that Palestinians are blameless in their current plight, but did not say the vote for Hamas directly lead to the blockade.p
That's what this sounded like to me. And every time I read it - still sounds the same.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
I know you weren't trying, but that's what this conversation is gonna lead to. And I'm not interested in steering it that way. So I suggest you drop the "that's what they asked for" routine.nukchebi0 wrote:
I wasn't trying to argue about that, and again its unclear how you discerned such intent from my arguments. As noted above, please stop with the fallacious representation of my arguments.
ƒ³
What message does it send saying "Were supporting you; here's some stuff that might help you in the future"? That doesn't seem like a "humanitarian aid" mission.oug wrote:
Right, I'll explain the obvious. The aid is largely symbolical. It's like charity. It might help aleviate some immediate problems momentarily, but it doesn't change the situation. Thus the few ships that sailed from Cyprus are not to be expected to contain food, water, medicine, clothes, shelter and other necessities for the 2 million people suffering from the blockade.nukchebi0 wrote:
You just don't understand, do you? I asked you to explain why providing a relative luxury for a future possiblity constitutes vital humanitarian aid" when the Palestinian people are suffering from an immediate lack of water and power, and you have completely neglected to. Moreover, you've yet to explain why any civilian needs a gas mask when Israel doesn't attack them with poison gases. You are going to look like a delusional fool until you furnish adequate reasoning.
Are you serious? And no, it doesn't. You haven't convinced me of the need for bulletproof vests at all, nor even hinted at why gas masks would be needed.What this is basically is a sign of support from other nations. That is also why there are flags on a lot of things that are being transported.
The vests in particular had Turkish flags on them. Sure it's ten vests, so not every paramedic in Palestine is going to receive one, but the few that will, will be essentially carrying around an advertisement saying "hey, Turkey is on our side". And the next time there's street clashes and the news agencies will be filming the events, a paramedic will appear on tv wearing the Turkish flag on his vest.
I hope this clarifies the thinking behind the aid and what the latter entails.
Its just suggesting they deserve some culpability for the actions of Hamas.nukchebi0 wrote:
No, I didn't. I said nothing of the sort. Please refrain from making baseless allegations, as it gets increasingly aggravating to counter blatant mistruths of such nature. I did try to dispel the notion that Palestinians are blameless in their current plight, but did not say the vote for Hamas directly lead to the blockade.pThat's what this sounded like to me. And every time I read it - still sounds the same.nukchebi0 wrote:
Didn't the Gazans vote for Hamas? Isn't that the government they wanted? Shouldn't they thus received what they asked for?
It shouldn't lead that way unless you misinterpret what I write and direct it there yourself.I know you weren't trying, but that's what this conversation is gonna lead to. And I'm not interested in steering it that way. So I suggest you drop the "that's what they asked for" routine.nukchebi0 wrote:
I wasn't trying to argue about that, and again its unclear how you discerned such intent from my arguments. As noted above, please stop with the fallacious representation of my arguments.
Grasping from straws again are we? Admit you were wrong and stop embarassing yourself. This is getting ridiculous.nukchebi0 wrote:
What message does it send saying "Were supporting you; here's some stuff that might help you in the future"? That doesn't seem like a "humanitarian aid" mission.
I told you what the gas masks are for. Easier access to wounded people amidst chemicals - you know, the ones the IDF usually uses to disperse protesters.nukchebi0 wrote:
Are you serious? And no, it doesn't. You haven't convinced me of the need for bulletproof vests at all, nor even hinted at why gas masks would be needed.
I don't care if you're not convinced. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just telling you how it is. If you want to believe something else that's your business. But if you want others to share your opinion you have to prove it first. Simply refusing to acknowledge the validity of my explanation makes you look stupid and biased.
"receiving what they asked for" is not deserving "some" culpability and you know it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Its just suggesting they deserve some culpability for the actions of Hamas.
ƒ³
Read what you wrote again. You're essentially saying that because a negative condition cannot be proven, that means there is greater evidence a positive condition exists. That is a logical fallacy.oug wrote:
True, this is after all a wiki - we can't be sure of anything. We're largely speculating here. But the fact that we cannot establish for sure whether there was pressure or not doesn't mean it's not a case of double standards.FEOS wrote:
Not knowing the circumstances for SA being pressured, or even if it actually occurred (no references were provided in the wiki article for the statement), neither of us can really say at this point.
Just where do the "double standards" lie again?
Of course all countries have some incentive to either participate in the NPT or not. It's called "national interests". If they deem it in their strategic interests to participate--for whatever reason--then they do so. And vice versa. And those reasons are based on innumerable factors, to include deeply-seated cultural biases (biases not being a negative term here), convictions, agreements, etc. Your assumption of pressure implies that countries don't make their own decisions and is quite frankly insulting to those sovereign nations.oug wrote:
My opinion on the matter is that all countries must have had some incentive in order to sign the NPT. Whether it was something they stood to gain, or whether it was just a case of succumbing to international pressure, we can be sure that no country would agree to limit its capabilities just like that. I'm also convinced that in the cases of countries with enemies, there definitely must have been some form of pressure involved.
Why? Simply because they are Israel and you don't agree with their existence/domestic policies?oug wrote:
Israel should have been pressured back then as well. Surely each case must be examined alone, but again that doesn't explain the lack of pressure on Israel all these years.FEOS wrote:
Regardless, the geopolitical issues surrounding SA in the late eighties/early nineties and Israel/Iran today are different, so no...not a case of double standards. Each case is its own situation, to be looked at through the prism of precedent, to be sure, but individually.
I've read of multiple attempts/"pressures" by the international community--largely led by the Arab nations in the UN--to get Israel to be more transparent about their nuclear program. And you're right, Israel isn't handled the same way other countries are handled--other countries don't have blocs of their Arab neighbors driving UN inspections of their non-NPT-governed programs (a la Pakistan)oug wrote:
Well the article says that the IAEA asked to inspect its nuclear facilities and they refused. If that's your idea of pressure then yes, the above is a misstatement. Unless of course there are other attempts that I don't know of. But again generally speaking I get the feeling that Israel is not handled the same way as other countries are on this matter.FEOS wrote:
To say that Israel has received "no pressure whatsoever" to become a signatory or to allow the IAEA to inspect its facilities is a misstatement, as well.
Chernobyl was an industrial nuclear accident--a completely different paradigm to a weaponized nuclear detonation. Much dirtier, much less localized.oug wrote:
I guess it is. So please explain how Israel would deploy nukes in such a way that its own population would not be affected. For the record my experience is very limited - back when the Chernobyl leak occured, I remember that for many months afterwards we were told to refrain from buying milk and other dairy products as well as fruit and vegetables because they had radiation. And that's down here in Greece... I would imagine it must have been a lot worse for areas closer to the incident.FEOS wrote:
I see. So proof is meaningless if it is proof against your position, but if it is in line with your position, it's OK. I get it now.oug wrote:
You don't get it do you. Call what you will - defensive, offensive, I don't care. The fact of the matter is that if Israel were to use nuclear weapons in its wars of existence with Egypt and its other neighbors it would effectively sign its own death wish by polluting the area covered by Israel for the following century. These wars are indicative of nothing.
Good to know the ruleset.
Oh wait. It's not like they would drop those nukes on the fielded forces encroaching on Israel. That's not how nuclear weapons are employed--for the very reason you point out. It endangers one's own forces/positions. That's why they aren't tactical weapons, but strategic weapons.
So I guess it's you who doesn't "get it", oug.
The value of nukes are as a strategic deterrent, not as a tactical field weapon. They cannot keep the adversary from gaining his tactical objective (generally speaking), but they can make the gaining of that objective so costly as to make it not worthwhile by holding high-value strategic targets in the adversary's homeland at risk.
For example, nukes were never going to stop the USSR from rolling through Europe if the Fulda Gap scenario were ever to unfold. The only thing that would stop them would be to make the taking of Europe cost more in strategic loss than they would gain in tactical/operational victory--that was the value of the nuclear deterrent.
That is why Israel's ambiguity WRT nukes is a double-edged sword. Deterrence works best if the other side knows you have them and you have stated that you will use them under certain conditions. On the other hand, having the other side think you have them and not be sure if/when you would use them would act as a deterrent, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, I'm not grasping at straws. I'm pointing out a hole in your already flimsy explanation for the inclusion of defensive weaponry in the shipments. Your little paragraph about symbolism does nothing to address the incongruity between purporting to provide vital humanitarian aid (whether as an actual attempt at alleviating conditions or a gesture of solidarity) and including in the shipments items which only have use in potential scenarios in the future. I'm not contesting the usefulness of bulletproof vests for paramedics during the instances where Israel has ground forces in Gaza, but rather why a group claiming to address the current humanitarian crisis includes something which has no applicationoug wrote:
Grasping from straws again are we? Admit you were wrong and stop embarassing yourself. This is getting ridiculous.nukchebi0 wrote:
What message does it send saying "Were supporting you; here's some stuff that might help you in the future"? That doesn't seem like a "humanitarian aid" mission.
It's not being ridiculous, but rather applying some critical thinking in lieu of parroting myopic and ignorant biases. The only logical explanation for your undying hatred of Israel must be that they personally impacted you, either directly or through a family member/close friend, in which case the emotional trauma is a reasonable cause for your mentality. Otherwise, you are simply being irrational.
The tear gas lingers long enough in the area to prevent paramedics from accessing it without gas masks? The burden of proof rests firmly with you.I told you what the gas masks are for. Easier access to wounded people amidst chemicals - you know, the ones the IDF usually uses to disperse protesters.nukchebi0 wrote:
Are you serious? And no, it doesn't. You haven't convinced me of the need for bulletproof vests at all, nor even hinted at why gas masks would be needed.
It's an expression indicating the inadequacy of your explanation. You are telling me how it is (kind of - see above for exceptions) but are completely failing to actually address the questions I asked. You've repeated this error multiple times, and it seems by now the question should be rather obvious.I don't care if you're not convinced. I'm not here to convince you, I'm just telling you how it is. If you want to believe something else that's your business. But if you want others to share your opinion you have to prove it first. Simply refusing to acknowledge the validity of my explanation makes you look stupid and biased.
It's also touching you tell me that I need to prove my opinion prior to having them share it, because all you've done is attempt to pretend your biased hatred for Israel is a realistic perspective without actually providing proof of it or attempting to answer any serious challenges posed to it. Unless you have a language barrier inhibiting your interpretation of my posts, as is beginning to seem the case, there is absolutely no acceptable explanation for the exhibited debating style. It's not that complicated, if you are competent at the English language, to discern what I am saying and when applicable, what I am asking you to prove. Your consistent lack of doing so indicates English skills inadequate for our discourse, a willful ignorance of reality in order to maintain your irrational bias, or some pernicious combination of both. I'd recommend asking for clarification if it is the former, as I can phrase things in a simple manner that an ESL speaker may better understand. If the latter two, You should simply stop posting before you embarrass yourself to the point you lose all credibility in DST.
Yes it is."receiving what they asked for" is not deserving "some" culpability and you know it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Its just suggesting they deserve some culpability for the actions of Hamas.
I said that a case of double standards cannot be excluded, not that it actually exists. We're saying the same thing I think.FEOS wrote:
Read what you wrote again. You're essentially saying that because a negative condition cannot be proven, that means there is greater evidence a positive condition exists. That is a logical fallacy.
Just where do the "double standards" lie again?
I think you're deluding yourself if you think that all sovereign nations have the luxury of acting only according to their national interests.FEOS wrote:
Your assumption of pressure implies that countries don't make their own decisions and is quite frankly insulting to those sovereign nations.
Because you know... I get the feeling that having a nuclear arsenal would be vastly beneficial for any nation's interests (at least those that have enemies) - more so that anything else. Would you agree? And if that is the case, then I beg to question why almost all nations in the world agreed to sign the NPT...? What did they get in return that was better than having nukes?
I actually agree with their existence - just not today's boarders. I side with the UN position on that one. As a matter of fact I side with the UN on their domestic policies as well.FEOS wrote:
Why? Simply because they are Israel and you don't agree with their existence/domestic policies?
I just find it weird that Israel was the only nation in the world smart enough not to fall for that NPT trap...
I assume we can both agree in our dislike and fear of the Pakistani approach to the matter.FEOS wrote:
I've read of multiple attempts/"pressures" by the international community--largely led by the Arab nations in the UN--to get Israel to be more transparent about their nuclear program. And you're right, Israel isn't handled the same way other countries are handled--other countries don't have blocs of their Arab neighbors driving UN inspections of their non-NPT-governed programs (a la Pakistan)
Other than that I see nothing wrong with the attempt at transparency - despite maybe the irony... But I don't know if that qualifies as pressure - since there's nothing to detter Israel from simply ignoring those requests.
So you're saying Chernobyl was worse than a nuclear bomb exploding? If that's indeed the case then ok. Like I said, I really don't know how it works - I just assumed that radiation would have a heavy impact on the entire region in the event of a nuke going off. And to be fair I will continue to believe that until someone can prove otherwise. Which brings us back to the topic, namely that I don't trust Israel with nukes - and the wars it's been involved cannot serve as proof of their reliability.FEOS wrote:
Chernobyl was an industrial nuclear accident--a completely different paradigm to a weaponized nuclear detonation. Much dirtier, much less localized.
The value of nukes are as a strategic deterrent, not as a tactical field weapon. They cannot keep the adversary from gaining his tactical objective (generally speaking), but they can make the gaining of that objective so costly as to make it not worthwhile by holding high-value strategic targets in the adversary's homeland at risk.
For example, nukes were never going to stop the USSR from rolling through Europe if the Fulda Gap scenario were ever to unfold. The only thing that would stop them would be to make the taking of Europe cost more in strategic loss than they would gain in tactical/operational victory--that was the value of the nuclear deterrent.
That is why Israel's ambiguity WRT nukes is a double-edged sword. Deterrence works best if the other side knows you have them and you have stated that you will use them under certain conditions. On the other hand, having the other side think you have them and not be sure if/when you would use them would act as a deterrent, as well.
One could argue in fact, that the massive punishment of 2 million Gazans for the actions of a few extremists could steer us in the other direction - namely that the Israeli government has no regrets about punishing innocent civilians in order to achieve its goal.
ƒ³
Radioactive byproducts contaminate more material when the nuclear device is a detonated near or at the ground, which is exactly what Chernobyl simulated.
Can't believe I'm actually responding to this, but here goes.
The group did not claim to address only the "current" humanitarian crisis. Again you are assuming things.
Where is it written that you can't provide these people with usefull stuff because they will not come in handy but for some time in the future? Where does it say that the stuff on the ships must be strictly relevant to the current situation?
Here's how the aid works. The organizers announce the assembly of a fleet, and they call upon people, organizations and so forth to donate whatever they can. During the gathering process, as an organizer you might refuse to include my collection of Playboys, but sure enough you cannot refuse a few vests and masks.
Now if we both accept that the vests constitute a legitimate "offering", in the sense that they are intended for use by paramedics, the only reason why they should not be included at this time, is if they take up space where something of greater value to the current events could be placed. But given that we are talking about a number of ships, I see no reason why 10 or so vests and a box full of masks should not find a spot on board. How much space do they take up anyway? If it's that much of a burden the ships could take in less people.
The current crisis is the main reason why this aid was organized at this point in time. That much is true.nukchebi0 wrote:
why a group claiming to address the current humanitarian crisis includes something which has no application
The group did not claim to address only the "current" humanitarian crisis. Again you are assuming things.
Where is it written that you can't provide these people with usefull stuff because they will not come in handy but for some time in the future? Where does it say that the stuff on the ships must be strictly relevant to the current situation?
Here's how the aid works. The organizers announce the assembly of a fleet, and they call upon people, organizations and so forth to donate whatever they can. During the gathering process, as an organizer you might refuse to include my collection of Playboys, but sure enough you cannot refuse a few vests and masks.
Now if we both accept that the vests constitute a legitimate "offering", in the sense that they are intended for use by paramedics, the only reason why they should not be included at this time, is if they take up space where something of greater value to the current events could be placed. But given that we are talking about a number of ships, I see no reason why 10 or so vests and a box full of masks should not find a spot on board. How much space do they take up anyway? If it's that much of a burden the ships could take in less people.
Have you ever had tear gas thrown at you?nukchebi0 wrote:
The tear gas lingers long enough in the area to prevent paramedics from accessing it without gas masks? The burden of proof rests firmly with you.
No, it isn't.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes it is."receiving what they asked for" is not deserving "some" culpability and you know it.nukchebi0 wrote:
Its just suggesting they deserve some culpability for the actions of Hamas.
ƒ³