Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldiers

[achilles28]

Quote from phenomena:

First of all, there was no force used until the Israelis were attacked with lead pipes and knives. Second, it really makes you look like a desperate crackpot to compare ship boarding to sexual rape. You're a bright guy, you should know that makes you look really stupid.

When a person(s) enters onto sovereign property without the consent of the owner, that constitutes force.

If you, when driving in your car, watch some teenager open your passenger door, GET IN, and brandish a firearm, you have a right to defend yourself and property.

The point, which you missed, is the preceding ships refusal to exercise their right to self-defense in the face of a hostile boarding party did not diminish the last ships right to exercise self-defense in the face of the same hostile, boarding party.

If the ship had been in Israeli territorial waters, then there's no argument. But since it's international waters, Israel has no jurisdiction, which constitutes an illegal act, which is why it's considered hostile, besides the obvious.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Previously all the palestinian supporters were saying "Oh the poor palestinians on the ship were not doing anything. They were just sitting there when the big bad israelis came and started shooting them for no reason"

Now that the footage is out, they change their story but try to say it was self defense? One of you even equate it to the same as a woman trying to defend herself if she was raped.

I have another one for you. Suppose the police stopped 5 different cars because of suspected DUI. When he stopped the 6th car, all the passengers got out, ran to the patrol car and started beating the police officer before he even got out of the car. Is that self defense too?

When a person(s) enters onto sovereign property without the consent of the owner, that constitutes force.

If you, when driving in your car, watch some teenager open your passenger door, GET IN, and brandish a firearm, you have a right to defend yourself and property.

The point, which you missed, is the preceding ships refusal to exercise their right to self-defense in the face of a hostile boarding party did not diminish the last ships right to exercise self-defense in the face of the same hostile, boarding party.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Haroki:

What force was used, prior to them boarding the 6th ship?

None, from what I can tell. If you have other info, please present it.

Boarding a sovereign ship in international waters, without the permission of that ship, is a hostile act.

If, when driving your car, at a stop light, a black man decides to open your car door, GETS IN the passenger seat, and brandishes a firearm, that constitutes force. Even though you weren't physically touched.

Is that rational enough for you, Haroki?

Quote from Haroki:

Otherwise, your hypothetical question is stupid, since it may not have happened. A better scenario for you to be asking is whether or not a woman has the right to defend herself against.... whatever particular group you choose to single out...... cuz it has happened in some past, unrelated incident.

There was nothing stupid about it. You insinuated since the other 6 ships never exercised their right to self-defense, the 7th ship had no right to self-defense. That's totally illogical and dumb.

Quote from Haroki:

Rational people realize that these activists have a reason to be uneasy, especially since I'm quite sure that they were aware of the "blockade", but those same rational people also realize that since violence didn't seem to be presen t on the other ships, then they were acting pre-emptively with the mindset that it was gonna happen anyways.

Try to be rational, eh?

Rational observes the rule of law with the expectation of repercussion if it acts outside it.

If I walk up to a man on the street, take out my firearm, and point it at his face, should I also expect him to just "take it"?

People retain a right to defend themselves from unauthorized force, be it military, state-sponsored, or otherwise.

Israel fucked up in this case by intercepting the ship in international waters.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Haroki:

\
The same goes for the Israelis. They have reason to be suspicious of any aid shipments.

But to lie like Achilles does is morally bankrupt.

I never lied anywhere. Don't act like a bitch, Haroki.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from Ivanovich:

Without trying to wade into what is obviously a flame war in progress, even if a ship were 160 miles outside the US territorial waters, yet the Navy or Coast Guard suspected the ship were delivering some sort of weapons etc, to a hostile force, don't you think they would board the ship as well? Hell, the US has boarded ships around the world, and those are certainly not US waters.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just "sayin".

There was no legitimate threat. Nor were weapons found. That's the first problem.

Second, even a sovereign vessel boarded by the US military in international waters has a right to defend itself from the US military. Yes, that probably means everyone dies and the ship gets sunk. But they still retain that lawful right to self defense. That's maritime law.

Two wrongs don't make a right, here. The US (or Israel) could sink a ship repelling their unlawful boarding party, but that would still be an illegal act (sinking the ship) preceded by another illegal act (boarding the ship without permission).

Of course, who holds Israel or America to account? Nobody. So they win. But it's still illegal and totally hypocritical when Israel holds up the victims as the aggressors, when it was the Israelis who basically hijacked the ship first and passengers, acted in self-defense, after.

 

[phenomena]

Well you irrelevant and hypothetical speculation doesn't really matter.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the roles were reversed, what would the Israelis do?

Just stand their peacefully while they were boarded against their will?

 

[phenomena]

No dumbass, that would be the Oslo accords. Also international maritime law. Both support Israel's action, and that does count. Sorry. LOL!!!!

Quote from achilles28:

What legal authority gives Israel the right to board ships in international waters?

Israels own declaration that it retains the right to do so, doesn't count. Sorry.

 

[TGregg]

I'm curious. Suppose Israel decided to kill every palestinian tomorrow? They wake up and say "screw this, let's mow them down and get this over with."

There's no question they could if they wanted to. They have the ability.

What would be next? A strongly worded memo from the UN? Maybe two? Sanctions? Of course, the MSM would be screaming from the rooftops and colleges would have plenty of demonstrations, but then what?

We already know that the moose limbs would do it if the sandal were on the other foot. Most clear headed folks already know this, anyway. Perhaps it's just a matter of time until this:

<p><a href="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/">
<img border="0" alt="Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11" src="http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg"> </a></p>

gets stopped.

 

[achilles28]

Quote fr
om Optional777:

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If the roles were reversed, what would the Israelis do?

Just stand their peacefully while they were boarded against their will?

Good point.

The Israelis would defend themselves and claim the sovereign right to do so.

Again, Phenomena is being a total hypocrite on the issue.

 

[phenomena]

Israel did have the right, according to international maritime law and the Oslo accords. The ships were also warned multiple times to redirect to an alternative port.

Quote from achilles28:

When a person(s) enters onto sovereign property without the consent of the owner, that constitutes force.

If you, when driving in your car, watch some teenager open your passenger door, GET IN, and brandish a firearm, you have a right to defend yourself and property.

The point, which you missed, is the preceding ships refusal to exercise their right to self-defense in the face of a hostile boarding party did not diminish the last ships right to exercise self-defense in the face of the same hostile, boarding party.

If the ship had been in Israeli territorial waters, then there's no argument. But since it's international waters, Israel has no jurisdiction, which constitutes an illegal act, which is why it's considered hostile, besides the obvious.