Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship, and beat people on board. Fatalities reported.

[Dandred]

International waters.

 

[agricola]

We're talking about suddenly being waylaid by a man with a knife, versus a situation where you have advance warning that a man with a knife is waiting up a particular street.

Doesnt that mean the Israelis were stupid for jumping into a mob armed with knives, poles and whatnot?

 

[janeb]

Just found out my friend is safe. She was seen on BBC news24, is in detention but wasn't in handcuffs, and she 'looked ok' - am so relieved

 

[DotCommunist]

I would make the important decision when I decided to set sail in spite of warnings; knowing pretty much with a certainty that although I don't have the exact timing, I know that the commandos and the gunfire will be coming.

So you would fanny out in the face of state intimidation?


Vive la revolucion

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I gotta say i'm glad you weren't advising the Montgomery Bus Boycotters.... "Oooooh best not, they might hit you, not to metnion they'll get damn angry".

I haven't said that one shouldn't take the step of proceeding. I've talked about weighing the consequences, and then making a decision. I made an earlier post, my first on the thread today, about how people in our society view those who are willing to risk injury or death in furtherance of a cause.

 

[Fedayn]

We're talking about suddenly being waylaid by a man with a knife, versus a situation where you have advance warning that a man with a knife is waiting up a particular street.

If there's a good reason to go down that street then it's simple, you make that decision, they clearly did. That decision, for all your criticism, was a decision made as a result of demanding humanitarian aid gets to it's desitnation. Neither stupid nor kneejerk.

 

[Fedayn]

Just found out my friend is safe. She was seen on BBC news24, is in detention but wasn't in handcuffs, and she 'looked ok' - am so relieved

Good.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So you would fanny out in the face of state intimidation?

That's pretty broad.

 

[silverfish]

Dropping soldiers individually into that mob is what was the most stupid thing about this whole show, tbh.

not the brightest idea, video looks appaling

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If there's a good reason to go down that street then it's simple, you make that decision, they clearly did. .

I agree that they made that decision. And imo, they made it in spite of the risk of injury or death [or at least some of them did], because they felt that the benefits of proceeding outweighed the fact that death might ensue.

 

[teqniq]

I see that:

The United States has blocked demands at the UN security council for an international inquiry into Israel's assault on the Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza that left nine pro-Palestinian activists dead.......

Well worra surprise.

......But in hours of diplomatic wrangling, the US blocked the move and instead forced a statement that called for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards".

Oh Rly?

The US representative at the security council discussions, Alejandro Wolff, indicated that Washington would be satisfied with Israel investigating itself when he called for it to undertake a credible investigation.

Doctor, my sides. So no more embarrassments like the Goldstone report then.

From The Grauniad

 

[Spymaster]

If your wife was threatened with a knife would you stand there and do nothing?

No, I'd stick it up his arse, but you're accepting that these people were acting in self defence and had no option but to fight or die.

I believe that there's reasonable justification to question this.

 

[discokermit]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

that's a proper cunts trick.

 

[Fedayn]

I agree that they made that decision. And imo, they made it in spite of the risk of injury or death [or at least some of them did], because they felt that the benefits of proceeding outweighed the fact that death might ensue.

So why all the pointless obfuscation? The insinuations that the Israelis acted legally for a start?!

 

[weepiper]

that's a proper cunts trick.

^^^ cross-thread too.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The insinuations that the Israelis acted legally for a start?!

Who insinuated that? It wasn't me. And analysis isn't the same thing as obfuscation.

 

[DotCommunist]

That's pretty broad.

oh it isn't, state violence is documented quite well. So you'd basically treat anyone resisting the state as a suspect. Embrace your r/w attitudes properly. I know unrepentant sorts who do, but they don't speak so forked as you do. Usually cos they are part of the dominant elite, you are not so why defend the actions of a dominant elite? Oh and the 'just asking questions' shtick won't wash with me JC3.

 

[Fedayn]

No, I'd stick it up his arse, but you're accepting that these people were acting in self defence and had no option but to fight or die.

I believe that there's reasonable justification to question this.

They were boarded you fcuking imbecile, that is by definition attacked. We have an Israeli Arab Knesset members making it clear shots were fired before the boarding, they were attacked. They acted in self-defence, you can whine and whinge all you like.

Though they had a third choice, jump into the sea 40 miles from Israeli waters. Which is of course the sensible choice.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

that's a proper cunts trick.

If I try to put my point across, and you respond not to the point but with personal attacks and insults, don't be surprised when I attempt to punch you, hard, below the belt.

 

[Fedayn]

Who insinuated that? It wasn't me. And analysis isn't the same thing as obfuscation.

No, analysis isn't stomping into a thread on an issue you readily admitted you knew very little about, but hey you carried on.... Nothing of which I have argued has been found untrue or incorrect. And yet funnily enough I managed to understand what happened 24 hours before you did, why is that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

oh it isn't, state violence is documented quite well. So you'd basically treat anyone resisting the state as a suspect. Embrace your r/w attitudes properly. I know unrepentant sorts who do, but they don't speak so forked as you do. Usually cos they are part of the dominant elite, you are not so why defend the actions of a dominant elite? Oh and the 'just asking questions' shtick won't wash with me JC3.

If a cop gives me a ticket for going 1 km over the speed limit, I'll think it's unjustified, but I won't risk making a disturbance that sees him drawing his gun.

If that same cop comes to arrest my neighbor because he's chinese for instance, as a result of some totalitarian turn to the right, I'll make a disturbance that might see the cop drawing his gun.

 

[discokermit]

If that same cop comes to arrest my neighbor because he's chinese for instance, as a result of some totalitarian turn to the right, I'll make a disturbance that might see the cop drawing his gun.

and if the cop shoots you, it's your own fault?

 

[where to]

that's a proper cunts trick.

aye, thats it. total abuse of the spirit of that other thread (and the boards in general probably).

i'll be interested to see if the poster will have some decency and apologise for that one.

 

[Fedayn]

If a cop gives me a ticket for going 1 km over the speed limit, I'll think it's unjustified, but I won't risk making a disturbance that sees him drawing his gun.

Yes, because that's a really good analogy with the campaign to break an illegal blockade which is causing a humanitarian crisis....

 

[Fedayn]

that's a proper cunts trick.

Shows up his utter paucity of argument, after all a picture of someone drunk 2 weeks ago means they have no valid argument to make this evening on an entirely unrelated issue....

 

[cesare]

Go reread it without the emotive reading-in. It was about a person authorized to carry a weapon, making demands of you, whether those demands are authorized by law or not.

I already reread it a few times in the early hours. I don't think I've been particularly emotive. I've pointed out where what you said might have conveyed something different to what you intended, and why. I haven't called you a cunt or similar.

So (again) ... how far out into international waters do you think that it's fine for Israel to pre-emptively take action?

 

[quimcunx]

The theoretical choice gets made in advance. Do we proceed or not, even though the Israelis are issuing warnings. Obv, yes, they proceeded.

They could reasonably expect Israel to carry out their threats. Did they expect Israel to carry out their threats in international waters ... possibly. I'm still not sure where that expectation could reasonably kick in as a possibility. I asked Sas and I'm now asking you ... where can you reasonably expect Israel to start their (illegal) 'defensive' manouevres in international waters? 20 miles out? 40 miles out? 100 miles out?

At what point in international waters should these aid workers have been setting watch against being boarded, to buy themselves thinking time?

Good post. I'm on that ship I have certain ideas about what is going to happen when I leave port. I have certain ideas about what is going to happen when Israel say they are not letting us through, I have certain ideas in my head about what could happen when I hear helicopters overhead, I have certain ideas about what might happen when IDF armed with what look like big fuckin' guns to me land on the deck at 4.30am.

They're probably going to be different ideas. I didn't leave the port at Turkey thinking I'd be scrabbling around for a stick to defend myself a week later.

We're internationals. We are internationals delivering aid. We have some pretty prominent people onboard, they will let us through. They will let us through. Even Israel won't have the gall to attack us delivering aid. The blockade has been breeched before. They will let us through.

They won't really attack the ship. They're just threats. They might bump the ship. We'll stand firm. We're doing nothing wrong. Their blockade is illegal. We are not in the wrong. We will stand firm. It's just intimidation. They will let us through.


Oh fuck. Oh fuckohfuckohfuck.

one possible scenario in someone's head.

 

[Blagsta]

Assuming it was self defence of course. But even if so, the best defence against armed commandos is not to hit them with sticks.

How could it not have been self defence?

 

[Spymaster]

They were boarded you fcuking imbecile, that is by definition attacked. We have an Israeli Arab Knesset members making it clear shots were fired before the boarding, they were attacked. They acted in self-defence ...

Fuck me you're a thick cunt.

At the point where shots were fired they could have dropped their tools and offered no resistance. The ship was going to be taken the moment the helicopter was overhead.

That bloke on the news reckoned they had been followed by "4 boats and a (presumeably very noisy) helicopter for several hours", so no fucker was sleeping on the deck. It's not like the assault came as a surprise.

 

[rioted]

I have about as much desire to do that, as I would of rolling down a hill in a sack filled with half-melted fudge brownies.

The only desire you're showing on here is for the Three Billy Goats Gruff.