Israel Strikes Aid Ship

Why hypothetical ?



All blockades are against the international law.
If USA can do it without being at war against USSR and Cuba, why can't Israel do it without being at war against Turkey and only being at war unofficially against terrorists ?

Oh right, I forgot, just because the USA can break international law and not kill anyone must mean that Israel can break international law and kill people at the same time.

Guess that makes it all OK then, hell then, why do we even have an international law, lets just all kill each other because its all good.
 
Öwen;9128439 said:
Oh right, I forgot, just because the USA can break international law and not kill anyone must mean that Israel can break international law and kill people at the same time.

Guess that makes it all OK then, hell then, why do we even have an international law, lets just all kill each other because its all good.

LOL

Well... Russians were SMART enough to NOT TO force any ship through the blockade.

I can guarantee that any such ship would be not only attacked, but torpedoed and sunk.
 
By that logic... whoever started the hate train sent naive humanitarian workers to die.

Remind me, who is the bad guy in this?

There may well be multiple culprits in causing the death of these innocent people. However, the bigger picture is still a state disregarding international law and in the process making things worse for themselves and everyone around them, not better.
 
LOL

Well... Russians were SMART enough to NOT TO force any ship through the blockade.

I can guarantee that any such ship would be not only attacked, but torpedoed and sunk.

A Russian ship would have been torpedoed and sunk. That is because the USA and Russia were effectively at war with each. Israel and Turkey are not.
 
LOL

Well... Russians were SMART enough to NOT TO force any ship through the blockade.

I can guarantee that any such ship would be not only attacked, but torpedoed and sunk.

So what your saying is that "If in a similar scenario which we've already seen this hypothetically occurred then the USA would have hypothetically done worse than Israel has carried out at the present time which makes the current situation OK"

And all these ifs and maybes are meant to be relevant in justifying how current international law should be allowed to be broken.

If the israelis wanted to go onboard that ship they should have waited till it was in their legitimate waters, anything else is just fearmongering and intimidation on their part, regardless of the objectives of the people on the ship.
 
Öwen;9128468 said:
If the israelis wanted to go onboard that ship they should have waited till it was in their legitimate waters

Here i may agree with you.

Maybe it was impossible tactically... we don't know that.
 
I didn't even read the link, but judging from all of your reactions, I gather that Israel warned the ship, and there were standard humanitarian channels that were not being used by said ship. That's the bottom line to me, if it is in fact true.

If there's a huge blackbelt dude on a sidewalk in a fighting stance telling me that I can only pass if shimmy sideways while whistling "Sweet Georgia Brown", I won't be happy about it, but guess what, I'm gonna get to shimmying and whistling! I'm definitely not going to try to walk right through him. If I want him removed I'll look for some sort of diplomatic approach, or perhaps get a bigger, badder blackbelt to remove him (which may be the underlying goal in this incident). I know my lack of fighting skills aren't going to get me anything but my ass handed to me and pity from onlookers.


Another annoying hypothetical situation:

Can you imagine what would have happened on 9/11 if authorities managed to uncover the plot after the planes lifted off but before any hit their targets, and fighter jets had managed to shoot them down? Assuming this would have been possible to do over an area that would cause little collateral damage, such a reaction would be justified in my opinion, but would be condemned the world over. There would be no way to prove that the terrorists would have actually hit the towers if left alone, and the media would turn the entire thing into innocent people being slaughtered by the U.S. military. We would be sitting here talking about how barbaric the U.S. military was, killing all of those innocent passengers without proof that thousands more would die if no action was taken.

I'm not saying that there WERE terrorists on the aid ship, and we may never know the true intentions of those on board. Perhaps they were innocent. Put yourself in Israel's shoes. What if you let them go through, then days later you find out they weren't so innocent, and they unleash havoc and bloodshed in your backyard? It's not like they went out on a Mediterranean cruise strafing random ships without warning.
 
Neither of your hypothetical scenarios deal with the fact that this was outside any territorial jurisdiction.

Which just goes to show in the absence of any legitimate cause for action against the ship we have to turn things into either some sort of moral victory for hamas or some sort of undisclosed potential terrorist threat.

If Israel wasn't sure of the legitimate purpose of the ship it should have searched it in its own waters or continually just denied it entry into those waters. It didn't, which is why this is wrong.
 
I really have to agree with Owen - while in my heart of hearts I always side against radical Islam and in no way condemn Israel for what they did, I'm also rational enough to realize that it was illegal and could definitely have been handled better
 
Öwen;9128399 said:
To quote BBC News:

"Israel says its soldiers boarded the lead ship in the early hours but were attacked with axes, knives, bars and at least two guns."

Yeah what I read was:

"Israel says its soldiers were shot at and attacked with weapons; the activists say Israeli troops came on board shooting."

Who the fuck knows who started it with he said he said bullshit.

Still though:

"The activists were attempting to defy a blockade imposed by Israel after the Islamist movement Hamas took power in Gaza in 2007."

I know it was already said but, what the fuck did they think was going to happen?
 
Again, for about the third time and here's an analogy so that maybe you guys get it.

If you there's a guy standing outside your house on the street and you think he's going to break in, in defiance of your home, then you wait until he attempts that action. Otherwise you are just a cold blooded murderer if you decide to go out and actively attack and kill him.

Do you not understand the distinction, its an easy concept.
 
Öwen;9128596 said:
you wait until he attempts that action
Heh :loco:

You have just lost the whole argument... :)

Have a little imagination !

You can't do much when a terrorist attempts to press the trigger that detonates his explosive vest.

It just takes 1 barrel of NH4NO3 (oh so harmless fertilizer to grow more food and make Palestinian people less hungry ;) ) to make 50 such vests.

What would you do to prevent them from getting raw materials for high explosive manufacturing ?

You would think a little bit and you would block all ships coming to Gaza strip.
 
With fear mongering and paranoia, your argument goes against international law and relies on a hypothetical terrorism.

I've not lost any argument. Yours just goes along the lines of "they were stupid so they got what they deserve", last I checked stupidity wasnt a legitimate reason for murder, although perhaps with people like you we should make an exception, your rules, not mine. :lol:
 
Heh :loco:

You have just lost the whole argument... :)

childish

What would you do to prevent them from getting raw materials for high explosive manufacturing ?

You would think a little bit and you would block all ships coming to Gaza strip.

Israel have no right to do ANYTHING outside of their international waters. If they want access to Gaza to be blocked then they have to convince the UN, no matter what the reason. International law is law and should be treated as such.
 
Öwen;9128650 said:

Any proofs ?

For now we only have 2 sides of the story:

1. Commandos boarded the ship to search it, they were met with "live fire", "knives" and other weapons.

2. Commandos stormed the ship and started killing everyone in sight.

Stay objective.
 
The hypocrisy is tangible, I'm meant to stay objective but you've been parading imaginary situations as legitimate reasons for international law being broken.

Even if they were met with hostility, its still murder because they were committing an act of piracy by being on board that ship in the first place. I am entirely objective.