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

[butchersapron]

Lol. When was that?

Long time ago

 

[Blagsta]

Well I have, I think. It stops being self-defence when those that aren't directly threatened themselves, prolong the violence by getting more involved. Now whether that's happened here at all and if so to what extent remains to be seen.

But I think it's far from unlikely and worthy of consideration.

It stops being self defence when repelling people from illegally landing on your boat. That's what you're saying?

 

[Blagsta]

Long time ago

In a galaxy far far away

 

[butchersapron]

It stops being self defence when repelling people from illegally landing on your boat. That's what you're saying?

When it becomes self-defence. That's when it stops being self defence. It's self harm after that point.

 

[cesare]

I feel that it's illegal.

OK

But the question still remains as to what Israel considers its jurisdictional water, and how far that extends into international waters.

 

[Citizen66]

Once the ship was boarded by heavily armed commandos there's a point at which not surrendering to ovewhelming odds becomes stupidity.

Not read David and Goliath?

 

[DexterTCN]

I feel that it's illegal.

You feel it, cool.

Anyway...spymaster seems to be saying that if helicopters, gunships, (or whatever, it's boats with guns) commandos attack you...you have to be reasoned with your response...because you can't go too far, you might break the law.

 

[dylans]

We have seen it all the past few days. All the tired old tricks. The Zionist bag of smear tactics has been well and truly emptied.

First we get the best defence is offence tactic. Come in screaming "anti semite or "SS guards". If the outraged person is Jewish we get "self hater" or "Traitor"

Then we get the passive aggressive. "Do you know how many died at Auschwitz" "Poor little old Israel, everyone hates us"

Then we get blame the victim. "It was an Al Qaeda undercover mission, they had nuclear weapons on board. "

Blame the victim can continue in various forms. "They should never have left port"

"They attacked the soldiers"

"They wanted to die so they could discredit Israel"

Then we get the fake appeal for sympathy. "The brave soldiers were attacked by a vicious mob"

"The soldiers had water pistols and feather dusters"
One of them scratched his knee"

Then as attempts to defend the indefensible get more and more absurd, we get incompetence. "They meant well, but fucked up it happens"
"They accidentally shot 20 people oops sorry"

Finally we can expect some admission of guilt but one with conditions and more cynical insulting use of the holocaust as a weapon
Probably tomorrow when the real story leaks past Israeli censors.

" Ok they were wrong, they made a mistake but hey they holocaust happened. What are you a Jew hater?"

 

[Spymaster]

It stops being self defence when repelling people from illegally landing on your boat. That's what you're saying?

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

 

[Blagsta]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

So it's not self defence as soon as you try and defend yourself. Are you on crack?

 

[dylans]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

Would you tell that to the families of passengers on flight 93?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You're surely not suggesting that vested interests may have already been manipulating the news output are you?

Well, it appears that the US have already vetoed any sort of independent inquiry and have thrown their weight behind an Israeli led inquiry ...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You feel it, cool..

It was a direct response to a direct question.

Originally Posted by cesare
So if Israel acts outside its jurisdictional waters i.e the subject matter - how do you feel about that?

 

[butchersapron]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

That is the most confused thing i've ever read. Grow up.

It doesn't even make sense. WTF did you think that you were saying?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...spymaster seems to be saying that if helicopters, gunships, (or whatever, it's boats with guns) commandos attack you...you have to be reasoned with your response...because you can't go to far, you might break the law.

Oh.

 

[Spymaster]

So it's not self defence as soon as you try and defend yourself. Are you on crack?

Ahh, I see what you mean.

Maybe I've misused the term 'self-defence'. My point is therefore about their method of defence.

 

[Citizen66]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't

So following your assumption that the peace activists threw the first stone, that would be the IDF?

 

[Blagsta]

Ahh, I see what you mean.

Maybe I've misused the term 'self-defence'. My point is therefore about their method of defence.

Yes, what about it?

 

[dylans]

Well, it appears that the US have already vetoed any sort of independent inquiry and have thrown their weight behind an Israeli led inquiry ...

So there goes our hopes that Obama was going to be any different then

What is it about US Presidents and Israel? Do you think they take the new President behind an curtain when he becomes Pres and tell him they will rape his wife and kill his children if he doesn't do as he's told?

Or maybe they open a suitcase and bright orange glow appears and the President looks and says "oh"

 

[butchersapron]

You find out who is who don't you?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

You're talking nonsense i'm afraid. Legally, it's generally held that self defence stops when you become conscious of the fact that you may be on the point of murder or serious injury to your aggressor. There is speculation that the Israeli's were even firing on the boat before landing. On that basis, it's not feasible to argue that the boat people acted in any kind of unjustified manner.

 

[cesare]

For me, the case for self defence here expires when anyone who doesn't take the opportunity to put their hands up and end the violence, doesn't.

In this case it's when armed commandos boots hit the deck of your ship.

When was the last time that you were violently attacked? And if you have ever been violently attacked, whilst you were being attacked, did you sit there and consider how best to respond in the midst of that kicking?

 

[butchersapron]

Ahh, I see what you mean.

Maybe I've misused the term 'self-defence'. My point is therefore about their method of defence.

Fuck off an start again you backsliding cunt.

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, what about it?

That once you've got armed commandos aboard and you're unarmed, the best form of defence is surrender.

 

[DotCommunist]

despite knowing how the IDF act and despite it already being a live fire situation. Riiiiighty.

 

[Spymaster]

Fuck off an start again you backsliding cunt.

Get fucked wanker.

 

[8ball]

It's bizarre the kind of desperate pseudo-logic that you get when Israel commits one of it's atrocities.

In this case the argument seems to centre around the idea that when State actors do something then all moral and legal conventions become qualitatively different somehow. So any right to self defence becomes a duty of surrender when confronted by agents of a State, and the responsibility for the consequences of an act of aggression are somehow transferred to the victims.

 

[Spymaster]

despite knowing how the IDF act and despite it already being a live fire situation.

Because of this, not despite it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

despite knowing how the IDF act and despite it already being a live fire situation. Riiiiighty.

You'd think they'd have taken into consideration, knowledge of how the IDF acts, when first deciding about sailing in spite of the warnings.

 

[past caring]

What I'm saying is that it ceased being reasonable self defence once they were boarded.

My position is somewhat different to that of JC's in that I fully support the aid convoy and respect the vast majority of the crews. I just question the motivations of a few that may have been there.

Fucking laughable.

Self defence is "reasonable" only up to the point that - the agressor actually attacks.

Why are people treating this knob job seriously?