I don't agree that was the original intent, it might have been the orginal pretext.Uzique wrote:
which is why condoleeza and bush made concessions and cutbacks in their role in promoting 'freedom' in egypt.
and is why the western media is now looking at israel with an eye of closer scrutiny.
it DID backfire - but you cannot ignore the original intent.
The ME is predominantly muslim now, it wasn't quite so bad historically but has crept steadily up.MOAB wrote:
Considering the entire ME is already Islamic save for Israel, and was before its creation (which happened in the 1940's).
I'll pretend you didn't just say that and move on.FEOS wrote:
International law is written and agreed to by multiple countries where "powerful interests" do not hold sway.
I think what you're saying applies to the people, not the land itself. If the latter were the case we'd be talking about a seperate country. And Gaza is definitely not that. And sure enough the Palestinian Authority do not have juristiction over a chunk of the sea...FEOS wrote:
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.
You misunderstood, I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually did laugh with the above phraseFEOS wrote:
Funny that you would ignore a perfect example of a legal naval blockade in international waters? Not really funny. Sad. Predictable. But not funny.I can see why you would want to ignore it.
That's nice but you're making a fundamental mistake. There are no laws, just agreements. Think of countries like children playing in the park, only there are no grown ups to enforce the rules of the game, the kids alone have to agree to obey them. And of course you have little Benjamin who insists on cheating because he knows the other kids can't do anything as they're afraid of his bigger brother BarrackFEOS wrote:
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.
What do you mean beforehand? They know it now. So what are they doing about it? As for what more there is to come, it does not concern anyone atm because it's not going to cancel what we already know for sure.FEOS wrote:
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.
Hypothetical question. If Iran and NK hadn't bothered to sign, would you be in favor of an effort - through legal channels - to make them drop their nuclear programs?FEOS wrote:
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
nK was a signatory to the NPT and dropped out. This was all covered a while back in this thread.
I'm talking about the incident with the aid convoy and the Israeli actions.FEOS wrote:
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.
Why? Because it's easier than accepting the truth?oug wrote:
I'll pretend you didn't just say that and move on.FEOS wrote:
International law is written and agreed to by multiple countries where "powerful interests" do not hold sway.
It applies to both the land and the people. It is an autonomous region, not governed by the Israeli government, but by a government elected by the Gazans (Hamas). They receive goods via ship in ports, thus the blockade to prevent shipments that haven't been scrutinized from getting through.oug wrote:
I think what you're saying applies to the people, not the land itself. If the latter were the case we'd be talking about a seperate country. And Gaza is definitely not that. And sure enough the Palestinian Authority do not have juristiction over a chunk of the sea...FEOS wrote:
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.
Research it. Blockades in international waters are most certainly legal, under the right conditions. Think about it for half a second: where else would a naval blockade be? You're not going to be close in to shore. That would make running the blockade easier, as there would be less room to catch ships trying to break through.oug wrote:
You misunderstood, I wasn't being sarcastic. I actually did laugh with the above phrase :PFEOS wrote:
Funny that you would ignore a perfect example of a legal naval blockade in international waters? Not really funny. Sad. Predictable. But not funny.I can see why you would want to ignore it.
As for the blockade itself, I cannot be sure of its legality. The reason I requested another example is because even if said blockade were illegal in some way, nobody would go to the trouble of challenging the US on it, as surely enough a decision against the US would never see the light of day back then.
And you're the one making the fundamental mistake. When countries make formal agreements in the form of treaties, they become law--both international and domestic. That is the key trait of treaties. If it's not a treaty, it's not binding unless the parties formally agree to make it so.oug wrote:
That's nice but you're making a fundamental mistake. There are no laws, just agreements. Think of countries like children playing in the park, only there are no grown ups to enforce the rules of the game, the kids alone have to agree to obey them. And of course you have little Benjamin who insists on cheating because he knows the other kids can't do anything as they're afraid of his bigger brother Barrack :PFEOS wrote:
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.
So if the kids are trying to get everyone to stop playing with sharp sticks before anyone gets hurt, standing in the back and refusing to let go of the stick you got hidden behind your back because supposedly you weren't taking part in the conversation is considered cheating... And of course what matters is the sticks, not who agreed to what.
Who knows definitively that Israel has nuclear weapons? Other than Israel? Nobody, that's who. And since they are not a signatory of the NPT, they don't have to tell anyone dammit if they do.oug wrote:
What do you mean beforehand? They know it now. So what are they doing about it? As for what more there is to come, it does not concern anyone atm because it's not going to cancel what we already know for sure.FEOS wrote:
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.
Considering that both are pariah regimes, and there is a weight of international opinion against them having nuclear weapons (regardless of NPT status) based on their behavior--yes. But that's a hypothetical. The real world has that, plus the NPT behind it.oug wrote:
Hypothetical question. If Iran and NK hadn't bothered to sign, would you be in favor of an effort - through legal channels - to make them drop their nuclear programs?FEOS wrote:
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
nK was a signatory to the NPT and dropped out. This was all covered a while back in this thread.
I've already stated that I think the Israelis were too heavy-handed. I agree with the STRATFOR analysis that they played right into the activists' hands with their response. When they saw the mob on the deck, they should've backed off and disabled the ship and towed it into port. But then again, I'm sure they didn't expect to be attacked when they got on deck, either.oug wrote:
I'm talking about the incident with the aid convoy and the Israeli actions.FEOS wrote:
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.
No, the religious views and conservatism of some activists are not evidence enough to convince me, but they help flush out and support my theory regarding the intent of these activists. Please note that not all of the activists were Turkish or radically religious Muslims, but I'm not saying each member of the flotilla was unified in its motivations for sailing. to aid Palestine. All you'll note, though, the only ones who died were. Is there possibly any reason for that?oug wrote:
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.
Your ignorance is beginning to annoy me. Let's try some simple logic. Radical, extremist Muslims have a history of sacrificing themselves to counter western interests/Israel (which are, as previously observed by others, the same thing), even in instances in which their actions cause little in the way of tangible or intangible damage to the target. The nine dead activists, according to the legitimate background checking, were extremely religious Muslims. Thusly, it is possible they would consider sacrificial (or those with such potential) attacks on Israel to be acceptable endeavors they would participate in. Does that make slightly more sense, or you are going to continue your obdurate refusal to accept reality?But it does seem likely to you that the activists would just die as if it's no biggie, just to irritate Israel.
What is a "real" activist? The term 'activist' is meaningless without qualification, honestly. It seems to me peaceful activists legitimately attempting to aid Palestine would accept an offer to ensure the aid was delivered, while those attempting to malign Israel would refuse the offer in order to take advantage of an prime opportunity to achieve their goal."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 terrorists
Once you graduate high school, I'd recommend taking a couple writing classes in college so they can teach you how to properly read arguments and how to avoid making glaring logical fallacies in your own rhetoric. In this case, I never said all activists were of the "attack Israel" type, something likewise covered above. It's just that some were.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...
I said the same thing in the previous post...Btw if you're into history, you might want to look at Israeli gaffes of the past, just to make sure that it is actually very possible for Netaniahu to overreact...
Right. So in your mind we're punishing Iran because they willingly got themselves in an agreement that prevents them from having nukes when it is plainly obvious that having nukes would only be beneficial for their country - more so than anything else they might be given in exchange.FEOS wrote:
And you're the one making the fundamental mistake. When countries make formal agreements in the form of treaties, they become law--both international and domestic. That is the key trait of treaties. If it's not a treaty, it's not binding unless the parties formally agree to make it so.
The entire world that's who. Not to mention that not knowing something for sure didn't stop you in the past...FEOS wrote:
Who knows definitively that Israel has nuclear weapons? Other than Israel? Nobody, that's who.
Weight of international opinion? lol! So the international opinion is ok with Israel having nukes? And what about their behavior? How does it differ from Israel's? You're right, those are hypothetical and flimsy and one-sided. The NPT has been discussed above.FEOS wrote:
Considering that both are pariah regimes, and there is a weight of international opinion against them having nuclear weapons (regardless of NPT status) based on their behavior--yes. But that's a hypothetical. The real world has that, plus the NPT behind it.
And sure enough the activists didn't expect to get shot at either.FEOS wrote:
I've already stated that I think the Israelis were too heavy-handed. I agree with the STRATFOR analysis that they played right into the activists' hands with their response. When they saw the mob on the deck, they should've backed off and disabled the ship and towed it into port. But then again, I'm sure they didn't expect to be attacked when they got on deck, either.
You clearly didn't bother to read it, then.Dilbert_X wrote:
Interesting that, again, the STRATFOR article looks at the event solely from the Israeli perspective.
How is Israel "fucking the world over" with something that nobody knows they even have for sure? Quite the logical leap there, oug.oug wrote:
Right. So in your mind we're punishing Iran because they willingly got themselves in an agreement that prevents them from having nukes when it is plainly obvious that having nukes would only be beneficial for their country - more so than anything else they might be given in exchange.FEOS wrote:
And you're the one making the fundamental mistake. When countries make formal agreements in the form of treaties, they become law--both international and domestic. That is the key trait of treaties. If it's not a treaty, it's not binding unless the parties formally agree to make it so.
And on the other hand, we let Israel do whatever they want because they didn't bother to sign anything so now they can fuck the world over with their nukes.
Only... if signing the NPT was voluntary, how does it make sense to punish someone who just doesn't want to do the right thing any more when you don't punish the one who never did it in the first place?
The "entire world" knows nothing WRT Israel's nuclear capability. The only ones who know for sure are Israel.oug wrote:
The entire world that's who. Not to mention that not knowing something for sure didn't stop you in the past...FEOS wrote:
Who knows definitively that Israel has nuclear weapons? Other than Israel? Nobody, that's who.
If Israel were openly developing or openly possessed nukes, probably not. Hence their ambiguous position. The bottomline is that there is no international law preventing Israel from doing just that. International opinion would be against them, but international law would not.oug wrote:
Weight of international opinion? lol! So the international opinion is ok with Israel having nukes? And what about their behavior? How does it differ from Israel's? You're right, those are hypothetical and flimsy and one-sided. The NPT has been discussed above.FEOS wrote:
Considering that both are pariah regimes, and there is a weight of international opinion against them having nuclear weapons (regardless of NPT status) based on their behavior--yes. But that's a hypothetical. The real world has that, plus the NPT behind it.
Then the activists were supremely stupid and short-sighted. If you attack commandos with anything, you should expect to get hurt, and hurt very, very, badly. Even blinder-wearing, idealist activists should realize that.oug wrote:
And sure enough the activists didn't expect to get shot at either.FEOS wrote:
I've already stated that I think the Israelis were too heavy-handed. I agree with the STRATFOR analysis that they played right into the activists' hands with their response. When they saw the mob on the deck, they should've backed off and disabled the ship and towed it into port. But then again, I'm sure they didn't expect to be attacked when they got on deck, either.
I explained why everybody knows that they do have it for sure. It's not a logical leap. It's a fact. I'm sorry that you refuse to see the obvious.FEOS wrote:
How is Israel "fucking the world over" with something that nobody knows they even have for sure? Quite the logical leap there, oug.
lol, that is true!FEOS wrote:
If they intended to develop nuclear weapons (let's say for the sake of argument that they definitively have them), then they did the right thing by not signing the NPT.
FEOS wrote:
The "entire world" knows nothing WRT Israel's nuclear capability. The only ones who know for sure are Israel.
And I guess that guy Vanunu was working in the orange groves yeah?FEOS wrote:
However, I'm sure that was a ham-fisted attempt on your part to refer to the US and Iraq rather than me personally, so I will address that: 12 years of intel based on (what we know now to be) Saddam's admitted deception campaign directed at making Iran think he had WMD. Compared to one news report and a picture of one document purportedly signed by Israel and South Africa that doesn't even refer to nukes directly. Without more evidence corroborating the latter, it's apples and oranges at this point.
You're the one who brought public opinion up, not me. But if it doesn't matter in the case of Israel, then it is of no value in the cases of Iran and NK either.FEOS wrote:
If Israel were openly developing or openly possessed nukes, probably not. Hence their ambiguous position. The bottomline is that there is no international law preventing Israel from doing just that. International opinion would be against them, but international law would not.
True.FEOS wrote:
Then the activists were supremely stupid and short-sighted. If you attack commandos with anything, you should expect to get hurt, and hurt very, very, badly. Even blinder-wearing, idealist activists should realize that.
"Everybody"? Enough with the hyperbole. It's not a fact. Not "everybody" knows it "for sure". It's a single report. A pretty convincing report of circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but a single report does not make "fact" that "everybody knows".oug wrote:
I explained why everybody knows that they do have it for sure. It's not a logical leap. It's a fact. I'm sorry that you refuse to see the obvious.FEOS wrote:
How is Israel "fucking the world over" with something that nobody knows they even have for sure? Quite the logical leap there, oug.
Why do you keep personalizing this discussion, oug? I personally couldn't care less.oug wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The "entire world" knows nothing WRT Israel's nuclear capability. The only ones who know for sure are Israel.And I guess that guy Vanunu was working in the orange groves yeah?FEOS wrote:
However, I'm sure that was a ham-fisted attempt on your part to refer to the US and Iraq rather than me personally, so I will address that: 12 years of intel based on (what we know now to be) Saddam's admitted deception campaign directed at making Iran think he had WMD. Compared to one news report and a picture of one document purportedly signed by Israel and South Africa that doesn't even refer to nukes directly. Without more evidence corroborating the latter, it's apples and oranges at this point.
He must have stolen quite a lot of oranges to be locked up since 1986... If it's more evidence you seek, get the Israelis to set him free and allow him to talk to foreigners!
I didn't say it doesn't matter in the case of Israel, did I? Of course it matters (as is obvious in the case of the aid ship). What I did say is that the rationale or the basis for public opinion is different in the three cases, based on the reality of the NPT.oug wrote:
You're the one who brought public opinion up, not me. But if it doesn't matter in the case of Israel, then it is of no value in the cases of Iran and NK either.FEOS wrote:
If Israel were openly developing or openly possessed nukes, probably not. Hence their ambiguous position. The bottomline is that there is no international law preventing Israel from doing just that. International opinion would be against them, but international law would not.
What a coincidence, your ignorance is beginning to annoy me too. But I sympathise. The ME is a long way from New Haven and surely that explains your lack of understanding as regards the mentality of the peoples down here. Well that and the crap and lies you've been fed by your media for well over 50 years now. So just one comment: Suicide bombers and the like don't come by the dozen as the western propaganda machine has been eagerly trying to convince us since 2001. Actually they are quite few and hard to find.nukchebi0 wrote:
No, the religious views and conservatism of some activists are not evidence enough to convince me, but they help flush out and support my theory regarding the intent of these activists. Please note that not all of the activists were Turkish or radically religious Muslims, but I'm not saying each member of the flotilla was unified in its motivations for sailing. to aid Palestine. All you'll note, though, the only ones who died were. Is there possibly any reason for that?oug wrote:
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.Your ignorance is beginning to annoy me. Let's try some simple logic. Radical, extremist Muslims have a history of sacrificing themselves to counter western interests/Israel (which are, as previously observed by others, the same thing), even in instances in which their actions cause little in the way of tangible or intangible damage to the target. The nine dead activists, according to the legitimate background checking, were extremely religious Muslims. Thusly, it is possible they would consider sacrificial (or those with such potential) attacks on Israel to be acceptable endeavors they would participate in. Does that make slightly more sense, or you are going to continue your obdurate refusal to accept reality?But it does seem likely to you that the activists would just die as if it's no biggie, just to irritate Israel.
For the record, it's not irritate Israel, it's damage Israel's perception internationally. It wouldn't be couched in terms of being a nuisance to Israel, but rather contributing to the fight against them.What is a "real" activist? The term 'activist' is meaningless without qualification, honestly. It seems to me peaceful activists legitimately attempting to aid Palestine would accept an offer to ensure the aid was delivered, while those attempting to malign Israel would refuse the offer in order to take advantage of an prime opportunity to achieve their goal."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 terroristsOnce you graduate high school, I'd recommend taking a couple writing classes in college so they can teach you how to properly read arguments and how to avoid making glaring logical fallacies in your own rhetoric. In this case, I never said all activists were of the "attack Israel" type, something likewise covered above. It's just that some were.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...I said the same thing in the previous post...Btw if you're into history, you might want to look at Israeli gaffes of the past, just to make sure that it is actually very possible for Netaniahu to overreact...
I was referring to the Marmara incident, not the larger war, as I don't think our debate ever reached that scale. With that said, you are spouting standard unsophisticated anti-Israeli sentiments, so I don't feel inclined to respond to them in full. Many posters here have already covered the legality of the blockade, as well as delved further into the nuances of the larger Gaza situation. It would be redundant to repeat their arguments here.
Well not everybody, just those who follow stories like thatFEOS wrote:
"Everybody"? Enough with the hyperbole. It's not a fact. Not "everybody" knows it "for sure". It's a single report. A pretty convincing report of circumstantial evidence, to be sure, but a single report does not make "fact" that "everybody knows".
If it's that part you're talking about, "you" was a figure of speech. I was referring to all those who like yourself may not find the evidence up to now entirely convincing. Wasn't trying to make it any more personal than it already is, sorry if it came out that way.FEOS wrote:
Why do you keep personalizing this discussion, oug? I personally couldn't care less.oug wrote:
If it's more evidence you seek, get the Israelis to set him free and allow him to talk to foreigners!
Vanunu violated Israeli law and they locked him up.
Right ok. Personally though I don't think that the NPT matters so much in the eyes of public opinion. I think it has more to do with which of the three governments seem more trustworthy.FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it doesn't matter in the case of Israel, did I? Of course it matters (as is obvious in the case of the aid ship). What I did say is that the rationale or the basis for public opinion is different in the three cases, based on the reality of the NPT.
That means absolutely nothing. Most Muslims aren't extremely religious and conservative, I know. That doesn't preclude the subset that is (as we know the nine casualties were) fromWhat a coincidence, your ignorance is beginning to annoy me too. But I sympathise. The ME is a long way from New Haven and surely that explains your lack of understanding as regards the mentality of the peoples down here. Well that and the crap and lies you've been fed by your media for well over 50 years now. So just one comment: Suicide bombers and the like don't come by the dozen as the western propaganda machine has been eagerly trying to convince us since 2001. Actually they are quite few and hard to find.
Your lack of reading comprehension is embarrassing. It said nothing more than "the nine men who died were radicals". Nothing more. Anything else you read into it is your own biased mind attempting to contrive meaning that doesn't exist.Now, your article there tried to make us believe that the majority of people on the ships were in fact radicals of that rare breed who are willing to die as easy as you and I will eat an icecream, by painting a profile of extreme religiousness and conservatism.
No, it doesn't. Being in high school seems to make you unable to understand a nuanced argument, though. I've already told you how their background isn't the sole determinant behind me concluding they were intending to facilitate a confrontation, and I'm not going to repeat it here.Fortunately for all of us though, being an extremely conservative Muslim doesn't make you a martyr.
And you know that how? From the biased depiction of the incident you received from your compatriots? The same ones who have no idea what the hidden motives of other "activists" are?Those activists died because they underestimated the Israeli response to the beating of the first soldiers who had the misfortune to board the ships.
Obviously fighting the IDF is a mistake. You seem quite set, without proof or any evidence leading to a logical conclusion, that the resistance was simple activists defending their ship, rather than anti-Israel elements seizing an opportunity to injure Israel image internationally.Now imo it was a mistake to try to repell the IDF,
Probably, considering they played right into the hands of the people who wanted a fight. Perhaps they didn't expect a violent resistance with clubs, knives, and bulletproof vests from a bunch of ostensibly peaceful activists, though.but it was an even bigger mistake for the IDF to try to board the ships in the first place,
Yes, they should have distinguished between the activists who did resist and those who didn't better than they did, but that is hardly the biggest mistake they made. To be honest, it seems you entire perspective in the matter is skewed significantly by your reaction to an emotional speech given by a biased source. That isn't the basis for a constructive debate, nor you conmposing arguments founded strongly in rational thought.with the biggest mistake of all being the heavy-handedness with which they dealt with the activists afterwards.
You know nothing about the men who died, let alone whether they were ready to die. Next time refrain from characterizing and classifying people without proof.nukchebi0 wrote:
That means absolutely nothing. Most Muslims aren't extremely religious and conservative, I know. That doesn't preclude the subset that is (as we know the nine casualties were) from
So what did lead you to that conclusion then?nukchebi0 wrote:
I've already told you how their background isn't the sole determinant behind me concluding they were intending to facilitate a confrontation, and I'm not going to repeat it here.
Yet again you proceed to assume things regarding people you know nothing about.nukchebi0 wrote:
And you know that how? From the biased depiction of the incident you received from your compatriots? The same ones who have no idea what the hidden motives of other "activists" are?
And you seem quite set on the latter so I guess that makes us even? Oh but surely not! You have proof from that lady who never leaves her office, riiight.nukchebi0 wrote:
Obviously fighting the IDF is a mistake. You seem quite set, without proof or any evidence leading to a logical conclusion, that the resistance was simple activists defending their ship, rather than anti-Israel elements seizing an opportunity to injure Israel image internationally.
Again assumptions everywhere... The speech was emotional apparently, and the people who spoke surely were biased, how else can they have a different opinion than yours. But hey! At least your arguments are products of rational thought!nukchebi0 wrote:
To be honest, it seems you entire perspective in the matter is skewed significantly by your reaction to an emotional speech given by a biased source. That isn't the basis for a constructive debate, nor you conmposing arguments founded strongly in rational thought.
Three whole months? Wow. The Israelis must be really pissed at the guy.oug wrote:
As for the law Vanunu broke, it's quite convenient isn't it? Let's see what else that guy is going to do when his present 3-month imprisonment is over to end up in jail again.FEOS wrote:
Vanunu violated Israeli law and they locked him up.
And out of the three, Israel is clearly the more trustworthy in the eyes of public opinion. Seriously. You're comparing Iran, North Korea, and Israel...and you're saying one of the first two is somehow more trustworthy than the last one with nuclear weapons--particularly if you consider the fact that it's assumed they've had them for decades now already and have not used, proliferated or threatened to use them yet? NK is 2/3 (I think) in just testing nukes and they threaten SK regularly and have already proliferated nuclear technology to Syria. Iran threatens Israel (and others) regularly--and they don't have the ability to do anything about it yet.oug wrote:
Right ok. Personally though I don't think that the NPT matters so much in the eyes of public opinion. I think it has more to do with which of the three governments seem more trustworthy.FEOS wrote:
I didn't say it doesn't matter in the case of Israel, did I? Of course it matters (as is obvious in the case of the aid ship). What I did say is that the rationale or the basis for public opinion is different in the three cases, based on the reality of the NPT.
Actually, Israel is behind Iran, and North KoreaFEOS wrote:
And out of the three, Israel is clearly the more trustworthy in the eyes of public opinion.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-09 21:38:15)
They also have a low level of education.Spark wrote:
Hey, Nigeria and Kenya like them too!
Firstly, I know they are extremely religious and conservative Muslims. I also know that extremely religious and conservative Muslims have illustrated a historical willingness to sacrifice themselves for causes which oppose Israel/other Western interests. Therefore, while I don't know for sure that the nine dead activists were ready to die, I know there is a plausible chance that they would be inclined to do that. Moreover, I know that Israel isn't run by morons, and consequently wouldn't attempt to fight activists unless they absolutely had to (that is, were being attacked themselves), because they know regardless of the justification for doing so, they will be maligned by groups and media opposed to them as well. This phenomenon, is, in fact, well known by basically everyone, including radical groups in Islam. Therefore, I think it is likely such groups, using men such as the nine that died, intended for the flotilla to engage the Israeli commandos (as some passengers did), rather than simply deliver aid into Gaza through the easiest channel. Does this make any more sense to you? Notice the lack of assumptions; rather they are reasonable conclusions based on probabilities. I don't purport to know what happened, but given the facts of the case, I can establish what most likely transpired aboard the vessel.oug wrote:
You know nothing about the men who died, let alone whether they were ready to die. Next time refrain from characterizing and classifying people without proof.nukchebi0 wrote:
That means absolutely nothing. Most Muslims aren't extremely religious and conservative, I know. That doesn't preclude the subset that is (as we know the nine casualties were) from
See above for the answer stated nice and plainly for you to understand.So what did lead you to that conclusion then?
Again, reasonable speculation, not assumptions. The only thing I'm assuming is you received a depiction favorable to the activists and anti-Israeli side, which seems warranted given the circumstances of their treatment. I'd expect the their emotions to skew reality a bit in their ortrayal of the incident.Yet again you proceed to assume things regarding people you know nothing about.
No, I am quite set on using reason, not blindly jumping to the conclusion which supports my biases. It's just that I'm lead inescapably to believing some of the "activists" were intending to fight Israel, not deliver aid to Gaza. And honestly, please don't be a idiot regarding sources. NPR is a legitimate reporting entity. You criticized the initial site, I responded with something trustworthy, and you think I'm still using the older source. Please learn other ways to attack my arguments than futile and unbased strawman attacks. As should be rather apparent, it is exceedingly poor form.And you seem quite set on the latter so I guess that makes us even? Oh but surely not! You have proof from that lady who never leaves her office, riiight.
Same as above, though I was merely providing you an interpretation of what your rants appear like to someone not enraptured by your bias. Even if that wasn't the case, it certainly sounds like it to someone with a slightly freer mind.Again assumptions everywhere... The speech was emotional apparently, and the people who spoke surely were biased, how else can they have a different opinion than yours. But hey! At least your arguments are products of rational thought!
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-09 22:25:07)
is, but still amusingeleven bravo wrote:
bullshit poll
How can they have Britain, France and the EU as three separate options?
