|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
posted June 08, 2010 04:02 PM |
|
|
I would gladly contest any claims regarding my remarks above. I just don´t reply anything with Elodin's name on the side. He is easily provoked, easily offended, often wrong and always ready to type.
Results have proven to be unending discussions that bring people to tears of boredom and that end up in religious and nationalist assumptions that have no concrete application.
Yes Elodin, you are right. Your mighty arguments have demolished me to shame and disgrace. You win the discussion I lose. I now crawl my way to humility underneath the piece of cloth and rubble I call home to live with the atheist worms and slugs I call friends.
@Geny
I like your approach to my position Geny. I can recognize an acute pancreatitis but I clearly lack intrinsecate knowledge of Internation laws. You got that perfectly. Still I defend my previous claims with no feeling of guilt. I have friends within the brazilian diplomacy who are quite versed themselves and I read a lot. Last but not least, International laws are everywhere to be read, it doesn't take a universitary career to get their point. Of course there are situational factors and attenuating arguments which can heavily influence a matter, reason why jurists are there in first place. But the words and the numbers contained within those international articles are indubious.
I understand it can be frustrating at times to have the feeling the UN and the world operate against Israel, but I say with absolute no hostility that I don't want Israel to fail. In the world I wish myself and my children I want Israel to succeed. But I want it to succeed under the rules of the UN, like almost everyone else (cough... US). I just want the same laws to apply to everyone.
BTW, when you mean Africa coastal policy I am quite sure you don't mention it as a model to be followed... right? Because thats EXACTLY what you get when you let nations get off unharmed with territorial water violation and piracy.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 04:35 PM |
|
|
While I can't despute your knowledge or the knowledgeof your friends, I believe that you are oversimplifying things when you're saying that the International laws are that easy to understand. Of course, oppression in general is bad, of course killing in general is bad, violating international waters in general is bad, but a state is de facto in a state of war everything gets much more complicated, because war is all about oppression, war is all about killing, war is all about putting pressure on others to make them surrender. You may not want to debate Elodin, that's you choice, but you can't dismiss his quotation of International law anymore than I can yours. And according to what he posted a maritime blockade in general is fine, ensuring that blockade is fine, violating international waters to do so in general is fine. So which is it? Bad or fine? Once again, I have no idea. While we're on the topic, I've read the Israeli news today and it seems that if Israel is going to have its way in the matter the Israeli investigation team will be comprised mostly of people well-versed in such laws whose main task will be to clear up the mess I just described and find out who's right and who's wrong. Hopefully, they will do a thorough job that will be acceptable by Israel as well as the UN.
As for me mentioning Africa, I didn't so much mean the coastal situation as the situation in general. You mentioned that Israel's deeds tend to disappear from the news regardless of their severity because of America's involvement and that in any other place on the globe things like that wouldn't fly. I just wanted to remind you that there are places in the world with much more horrible things going on in them (e.g. the wars and slaughters in Africa) that get less media coverage. Israel is actually getting quite a lot of attention.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 05:37 PM |
|
|
Nice post, Wolfs.
It is, after all, possible to disagree with some of Israel's policies or actions without hating Jews. Some people find that very hard to believe.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 05:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would gladly contest any claims regarding my remarks above. I just don´t reply anything with Elodin's name on the side. He is easily provoked, easily offended, often wrong and always ready to type.
You sir have made false statements about me. Please refrain from making personal attacks against me and address my arguments.
Now, perhaps you could address my quotations of international and explain why your claims don't match what international law ssays.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 05:54 PM |
|
|
Elodin, for crying out loud, stop embarking on such a witchhunt!
Don't you see you're actually confirming Wolfsburg's post, in the process?
It's not worth it.
Sheeesh.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 05:54 PM |
|
|
Hey there Geny,
Dont take me wrong. Its not that I dismiss Elodin's opinions, I just skip them. I know that rhetoric from previous discussions and more frequently than not they are fictional masterpieces very loosely based on the real world.
Please allow me to defend my position and show you how:
"The law regulating force at sea is found in several sources updating the eight conventions on the law of naval warfare adopted at the Second International Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907. These include the U.S. Naval Handbook, an equivalent U.K. publication, and Germany’s 1992 manual, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts.A consolidated set of rules was issued in 1994 by the San Remo Institute of International Law in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross and several national humanitarian law societies"
As found in the Article 7.71 of the U.S. Naval Handbook
"A maritime blockade is for security purposes only, and must allow humanitarian assistance to the civilian population."
Since the ships sailing for Gaza were on a declared humanitarian mission, those on board had the right to expect that any humanitarian goods would ultimately find their way to their intended recipients.
On the other hand the blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted. The International rules of San Remo specify that this inspection should include supervision by a neutral party to prevent the unwarranted seizure of humanitarian supplies and the abuse of humanitarian assistance by the blockaded party.
Have you seen any of this foreseen procedures happening?
Saying the UN is biased would translate the world is biased against Israel. Which is in best case a very suspicious claim. Denying an international research and allowing only an israeli team, under the command of Israel state is the very DEFINITION of bias (conflict of interest).
Within medicine the first thing you are expected to expose in an scientifical article prior to publishing it are the so called "conflicts of interest" (for instance saying you work for Roche before you make a huge paper saying Tamiflu is the best medicine there is), which are for obvious reasons one of the most significant sources of bias known to man.
I expect nothing less from a serious state.
@Elodin Im not contesting you. You win.
@Corribus and Minion - Thanks for the appreciation
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Have you seen any of this foreseen procedures happening?
As a matter of fact I did... at least something close to it. It was reported many times and is documented that ever since the flotilla left in the direction of Gaza strip the Israeli government has tried to propose an alternative. I believe that one of them was that the flotilla comes to the Ashdod port and disembark all it's cargo which would have been transported to Gaza via land after a thorough inspection. The flotilla organizers denied all propositions and stated clearly several times that they're goal is to breach the blockade. Btw, after everything is said and done that is exactly what's happening. The media doesn't seem to be interested in the fate of the goods themselves but from what little news I saw (from an Israeli source) the goods were checked and most (all) of them were approved. Last I heard about it, the HAMAS were in some way holding up the transportation of the goods into Gaza.
As for "conflict of interest", I agree it seems to be a problem. However, the people who are supposed to be a part of the committee are well-respected professionals in their field and aside of Israel's interests they also have to watch out for their own reputation. And considering that there will be outside watchers should help things go correctly. Considering that in such a well known conflicted there hardly is a truly neutral state, I believe that this solution is not too problematic.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 08, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
|
Oh...dear...gods...of...banana's...on...unicylces...
where do I even begin.
from where I'm standing (being the dirty, liberal, lefty, commie, atheist, heathen, limey, who obviously is into gay-dead-baby-and-kitten-molestation-whilst-W**king-on-jesus's-face), Isreal has done an Illegal action. they boarded boats flying the turkish flag in international waters. Just by that, Turkey could go to war with Isreal and be morally justified, it was an act of war.
not only that, but they killed 9 people on board. that is 9 dead people, not hamas trained badasses, but 9 dead activists who were protesting this inhumane blockade around Gaza. That is 9 families who had lost their loved ones. some of them were british, some where american, some were turkish, a whole international group of people were just killed by Isreali commandos.
some of them looking very suspicious. one of the victims was aparently shot in the chest, and then 5 bullets to the head, at close range. I don't know about you guys, but that spells summary execution on it to me. also, there were gunshots heard when the captain had already raised the white flag, and whilst people might not have been killed then, that shows a certain amount of callousness that is highly questionable.
right. now I have stated the facts as I see them, what to do from here.
an enquiry has to be done, a completely independent enquiry, where Isreal must allow all the footage to be released. That little bit with the activists beating the people to death? yeah, that's 1-2 minutes of footage, with one survivor, an indian journalist for Al-jazera, saying he shot about 50 minutes of footage alone. they must release it un-doctored and un-editted, the complete footage.
I suggest the UN does the enquiry. a large body of people who are able to look at the situation objectively, and able to pass judgement accordingly. America's only action will be to take the appropriate actions to make sure that Isreal's government learns from it's mistakes and makes sure that they don't do anything like this again.
naturally, none of this will happen. the Isreali government will release no more footage, America will strong-arm it's way to have an Isreali lead investigation over it's action, the whole situation will decend into farce, Isreal will continue to behave like the spoilt child that it is, and that's 9 deaths wasted and disgraced over a pig-headed blockade and some f**king textbooks.
I met with a fried of mine the other day, his grandma was a holocaust survivor, and keeps up with the news about Isreal, and with what's happened, she's said to her grandson.
"It makes me ashamed to call the people who cause those deaths my people."
Thanks a f**king lot, america and isreal, thank's a f**king lot.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 01:28 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:30, 09 Jun 2010.
|
Below is an article written by the American Center for Law and Judtice, an association of American lawyers.
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_Memo-GazaFlotilla_20100603.pdf
Quote:
Israel's detractors both here in the United States and abroad have been quick to accuse Israel of violating international law in its handling of the Gaza flotilla. In fact, Israel has taken pains to ensure that the actions of its military at sea are on solid ground. Here are some of the allegations leveled against Israel along with the responses controverting the claims:
Israel had no right to intercept the flotilla that was on a "peaceful humanitarian aid" mission.
Israel had every right to intercept the flotilla, regardless of its purpose. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and has complied with all internationally accepted procedures for doing so, including communicating the details of the blockade to the international community through the recognized channels.1 A blockade applies to all shipping, military and civilian alike. Naval blockades are a well established practice in armed conflicts and are expressly recognized in international covenants, including the UN Charter.2 The conditions for imposing a legal blockade are reflected in the San Remo Manual of 1994. Not only is Israel entitled to blockade the Gaza Strip due the existence of a state of armed conflict between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization, which is the de facto ruler of the Gaza Strip, but it is required to enforce the blockade impartially in practice.
There is no armed conflict since Hamas is not a state.
The idea that armed conflicts can exist only between states is antiquated and divorced from reality. Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist armies, the latter with military capabilities that exceed those of many UN member states. The fact that they are not states does
Quote:
Page1 footnotes:
1 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, ¶¶ 93-101 (1994).
2 Article 42 of the UN Charter states: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41
would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade,
and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
not detract from their status as parties to armed conflicts. Similarly, no one disputes the authority of the United States to engage in armed conflict with organizations like al-Qaeda that
are deemed a threat to the security of the nation.3
Even if the blockade is legal, Israel is obliged to allow humanitarian aid ships through the
blockade.
Israel is obliged to allow the passage of essential humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, but only to the extent and in a manner that does not interfere with its military operations.4 Israel has
established channels for the passage of humanitarian aid through the land crossings between Israel and Gaza. Allowing ships to approach Gaza by sea would enable the smuggling of weapons into Gaza for use by Hamas in its armed conflict with Israel. Israel has in the past
intercepted several major arms smuggling attempts via the sea.
Israel had no right to board the ships.
Israel had the right to enforce its legally imposed blockade by employing the amount of force necessary to stop the ships from breaching the blockade. This could include boarding the ships
after they had ignored repeated warnings to stop or change course. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea specifies that “Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.”5 Given the convoy’s explicit pronouncements about its intentions to breach the blockade and its refusal to dock at the Ashdod port as instructed, Israel had more than reasonable grounds to intercept the vessels as they made their way towards the Gaza coast.
Even if Israel was entitled to board the ships, it was prohibited from doing so in international
waters.
Israel was entitled to intercept the ships in international waters since the convoy's intention to breach the blockade was clearly evidenced. International law requires a reasonable belief that the vessels intended to breach the blockade. This requirement was easily satisfied in the circumstances since the organizers of the flotilla had made their intentions abundantly clear. The
U.S. Navy "Commander's Handbook" elucidates this point: "Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the
Quote:
Page 2 Footnotes:
3 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23], 107th Congress (2001) which states in
Section 2(a) “IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against
those nations, organizations(.)”
4This follows a decision by Israel's Supreme Court. Note that even Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention,
which is not germane since it applies only to occupied territory, which Gaza is not, qualifies the obligation to allow
the passage of humanitarian aid by the condition “that there are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the
consignments may be diverted from their destination, (b) that the control may not be effective, or (c) that a definite
advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy . . .”. Given Hamas’s historic practice of
diverting humanitarian aid, including for military use, Israel has every right to limit and closely monitor what is
delivered to the Gaza Strip.
5 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, ¶ 98 (1994).
blockade… It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area."6
The amount of force employed by Israel was clearly out of proportion to what was required to stop the ships.
Israel set out to employ minimal force in its efforts to stop the boats. The Israelis succeeded in stopping five of the six boats by using troops with crowd control equipment. Upon approaching
the sixth boat using the same methods, "peace activists" wielding knives, axes and metal rods immediately attacked the soldiers. At some stage, shots were also fired at the soldiers. Facing
these life threatening attacks, the soldiers were compelled to deploy the firearms they had been carrying for emergencies. It is obvious that the disastrous outcome of the operation was far from
what the Israelis intended. In addition to stopping the ships, the object of the operation was to avoid handing a propaganda victory to Hamas and its supporters. It is absurd to impute to the Israelis a pre-existing intention to use lethal force against the occupants of the ships.
The blockade constitutes a prohibited form of collective punishment on the people of Gaza.
Naval blockades have nothing to do with collective punishment. They are a legitimate practice in armed conflicts. Israel's blockade of Gaza is aimed at preventing the smuggling of arms to Hamas to be used against Israel. The unfortunate fact that ordinary people in Gaza endure hardships as a result of the blockade does not make it a form of "collective punishment". The limitations imposed by Israel on movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza through
Israeli sovereign territory also have nothing to do with collective punishment. These measures are primarily aimed at depriving Hamas of materials necessary for its war effort but are also
designed to put economic pressure on the Hamas regime to stop its attacks on Israel. It goes without saying that economic sanctions are a legitimate means of pressuring an enemy to desist
from hostilities and are always preferable to the use of military force. Despite the obvious axiom that no state is obliged to supply its enemies, let alone trade with them, Israel makes provision
for the entry of huge quantities of humanitarian aid, as well as additional goods, foodstuffs, fuel, and electricity, considerably in excess of the bare essentials that Israel is required to allow,
subject to security considerations under International Humanitarian Law.
Quote:
Page3 Footnotes:
6 U.S. Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, art. 7.7.4.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 01:43 AM |
|
|
I have several french lawyers articles who says exactly the opposite, and also testimonies from the three french activists present on board. They are in no way muslims or terrorist, nevertheless they affirm that israelian soldiers started firing as soon as they boarded, often at close range
(who are you to affirm they did not? Were you there? Nope, you were here as always to get us on nerves. Those people WERE on board)
I am tempted, as most people around, to skip conclusions from USA lawyers because we all know why they are made in this way.
Also, here in France, which is not an antisemitic country, the opinion that the Hamas is a democratic government is well established. It does take out its responsibility from past or future actions, but we can not ignore he achieved its status on a democratic choice and vote, which you have absolutely no right to put under question, even if you don't like it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 01:43 AM |
|
|
HAMAS refuses to allow aid to be brought through land channels.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3901662,00.html
Quote:
Despite international criticism against Israel following a calamitous IDF raid on an aid flotilla to Gaza, it appeared Monday that Hamas was the one preventing the goods brought by the flotilla from entering the Strip.
The army announced Monday that the humanitarian aid brought by the ships had been mostly unloaded, and estimated that the task would be completed in the next few days.
However Hamas continues to insist that the shipment not be brought in through the land crossings, and in the meantime the goods continue to pile up in the army's warehouses
Quote:
However it remains unclear whether Hamas will allow the materials to enter. Last week the group kept out eight trucks carrying humanitarian supplies, which were attempting to enter through the Kerem Shalom crossing.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 02:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Below is an article written by the American Center for Law and Judtice, an association of American lawyers.
And founded by Pat Robertson...
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 02:49 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:57, 09 Jun 2010.
|
@Salamandre
Wasn't Hitler democratically elected too?
No. I refuse to be the first to bring H. into the discussion.
Still, it's kind of a valid point and I'd appreciate it if someone else would raise it for me. 
Anyway this looks like an interesting read.
Didn't read it through, though, so I can't draw any conclusions.
Anyone has any idea about the authenticity of this?
EDIT
I read a few articles. Kind of creepy.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 03:19 AM |
|
|
1988....I wonder why you don't bring in some articles from the inquisition too, early in the 1400 and then tell that church is a fascist state. Many things and behaviors changed over time. And I stated that the democratic elections do not give the right to Hamas to be not responsible about his past or future acts.
It is weird that the jews call firing rockets over them a terrorist act, while on the other side clearly affirming they are at war with Palestina (blockade, repression, illegal colonies, assassinates). If there is war, there is no terrorism when firing rockets, but a legal response. Now choose.
About your Hitler comparison, it is fun, as most of the news papers here are comparing now Israel to a fascist state. Works in the other direction too.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 03:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Below is an article written by the American Center for Law and Judtice, an association of American lawyers.
And founded by Pat Robertson...
Oh no, it was not founded by an atheist!!!!!! It is a non-profit group of lawyers who defend religious liberty. They defend Christians, Muslims, Jews, anyone whoses religious liberties are being oppressed. Yes, I can see how that would make them quite unpopular with you.
About Chief Council Jay Sekulow:
Quote:
Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law. He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ).
Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice. As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity.
An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms.
Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities. In McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. And, most recently, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, Sekulow secured an unanimous First Amendment decision clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing - including Ten Commandments monuments - in public parks.
A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation. Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.
In 2009, Townhall Magazine named Sekulow to its "Townhall of Fame" and recognized him as "one of the top lawyers for religious freedom in the United States." Sekulow was named one of "The 90 Greatest Washington Lawyers of the Last 30 Years" by Legal Times in 2008 and recognized for "fighting to expand liberties and protect civil rights." In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has "led the way" in Christian legal advocacy. In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals" in America and called the ACLJ "a powerful counterweight" to the ACLU. Business Week said the ACLJ is "the leading advocacy group for religious freedom." Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal. In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in the United States (1994, 1997). He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as "The Public Sector 45" named by The American Lawyer (January/February 1997). The magazine said the designation represents "45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives."
Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations. Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet. Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS. He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times.
A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member. Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service. In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court.
He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles.
Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC
Quote:
I am tempted, as most people around, to skip conclusions from USA lawyers because we all know why they are made in this way.
Also, here in France, which is not an antisemitic country, the opinion that the Hamas is a democratic government is well established. It does take out its responsibility from past or future actions, but we can not ignore he achieved its status on a democratic choice and vote, which you have absolutely no right to put under question, even if you don't like it.
Yes, teh monstrous Juifs and ther Américain puppets are conspiring to take over the world. The peaceful and democratic HAMAS will be saviour of us all, no doubt.
Quote:
It is weird that the jews call firing rockets over them a terrorist act, while on the other side clearly affirming they are at war with Palestina (blockade, repression, illegal colonies, assassinates). If there is war, there is no terrorism when firing rockets, but a legal response. Now choose.
You seem to have be living your life in some sort of delusional imagination and fantasy. There is no nation of Palestina to be at war with. Israel is at war with the terrorist organization HAMAS, wich seized control of Gaza from Fatah by military force. Since you seem to be ignorant of hte history of the region, perhaps you should read the post I made about the region's history so you can converse intelligently about the topic.
The cowardly HAMAS hides amoungst the population of Gaza and fires rockets fom hospitals and schools so when Israel counterattacks civilians will be killed. Then the coratdly HAMAS (and other Jew haters) point their fingers at Israel and say "Oh, what an evil people, those Joooows."
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 08:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Below is an article written by the American Center for Law and Judtice, an association of American lawyers.
And founded by Pat Robertson...
Oh no, it was not founded by an atheist!!!!!! It is a non-profit group of lawyers who defend religious liberty. They defend Christians, Muslims, Jews, anyone whoses religious liberties are being oppressed. Yes, I can see how that would make them quite unpopular with you.
I'm sorry, but that post contains an incredible amount of fail
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 08:49 AM |
|
|
Not having full knowledge on everything that happened, I must say I find Israel's lack of openness on the issue disturbing. I don't contest the fact that they had both rights and reason to want to search those ships, and it is also likely to be true that whoever made the decisions onboard went again international law when they refused to go into Israeli ports to allow a search.
That being said, ending up with 9 dead people looks like things went out of control, and even if the demonstrants did attack the soldiers with funiture or whatever like the soldiers clame, it seems like there must have been - ought to have been - other options than gunning them down.
And no matter what, insistance on having national searches, national investigations, etc. etc. on Israel's account is an epic diplomatical fail of dimensions. Even if they are in fact completely guilt free, nobody's gotta believe that before the conclusion comes from an unrelated third party.
Just my 5 cents.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 10:07 AM |
|
|
@Salamandre
Quote:
If there is war, there is no terrorism when firing rockets, but a legal response.
Depends on where those rockets are launched to. If they would hit a military base - fine, but when they explode in/near a civilian town with no military presence whatsoever it's either terrorism or war crime. Either way it's not legal.
@alc
What kind of openness would you want?
And I doubt there can be a truly 3rd party in this conflict, except maybe some backwater country that haven't heard about the conflict at all.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 11:01 AM |
|
|
@Sal
First you need to understand that I'm not- no, first you need to change that tone because seriously, what's with all the aggressiveness?
Secondly, you need to understand that I'm not picking any sides.
From a personal point of view, if Israel didn't have such problems of its own, it would gladly stand on American side and accept Kosovo's independence. Now that they have a similar situation, they are justifying their own tactics and getting away with it, while my country got bombed by the entire NATO for arguably less. On the other hand, radical Muslims from all over the Middle East supported radical Muslim separatists here so I can't possibly support them, either. I support civilians who are getting starved and blown up on a daily basis, that's who I support, and thus favor peaceful solutions, which the Hamas charter (and beside your ingenious parallel with the Inquisition, that will remain the Hamas charter until proven otherwise) clearly states are against their religion.
@Geny
That's war. The USA bombed a lot of things which weren't anywhere near military, such as a bridge with a column of civilian cars crossing it or the TV headquarters, here in '99, killing quite a few civilians, and no one was ever held responsible for it. Everyone's doing it, the idea is to have a stronger propaganda machine than the other guy and convince everyone that HE'S the sole war criminal.
Also everyone pretty much agrees that boarding those ships was illegal too, yet Israeli soldiers did it.
Still, that doesn't change the fact that rockets were fired on your cities and you had to make them stop.
We can discuss this for ages, there's enough arguments for both sides for this to last a while.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 09, 2010 11:21 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:54, 09 Jun 2010.
|
Lets try to add a little logic to the mix. NONE of us know what actually happened. We were not there. We don't know what was going through the minds of anybody. So everything so far is just opinion on what happened.
Both sides make .. questionable choices. It's war, so that is understandable.
For what it is worth, here is my two cents worth (which since I am a 'foreigner' to the situation that = no value at all) on the matter.
Whichever side refuses to negotiate or even consider negotiating..is the one in the wrong. Regardless of their religious beliefs, what happened in the past, etc. The negotiations have to be in good faith, forgiving (even if not forgetting) what happened in the past. Lets not play the blame game "They did this!", "Well they did that first!", "No they did this other thing first!" etc.
Edit : Actually..scratch that..here is how most wars should be fought. Take the five highest ranking politicians from each side. Separate the two groups by a steel door, and give everybody a knife. Tell them that when the door opens, they are going to fight OR they can come to a mutually beneficial peace treaty. IF they decide to fight instead of make a peace treaty..whoever wins their side is declared the winner. If they refuse to fight OR make a peace treaty, shoot them..pick five more from each side and repeat until you have a winner . Note : Must be highest ranking non-military bureaucrat.
Edit 2 : There are only three ways out. Win, death, or a mutually beneficial peace treaty. Yes...yes I am evil.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
