BF2S Forums Israelis raid "Aid" Convoy

i just saw on tv that the israeli special forces on one ship were attacked with (iron?) bars. one was even thrown over board

Good old jews at it again

Ioan92 wrote:

Good old jews at it again

And see, it's comments like this which are the reason that this was made.

Last edited by Poseidon (2010-05-31 14:48:24)

Meh, I hate my "friends". One of them posted a sarcastic comment on his Facebook wall that "Israel is sound". At the time, I was reading the first page of this thread and I said that the ship was within Israel's EEZ, so it was techinally legal for them to board the convoy. My comments were swiftly deleted while my friends called me a "Loyalist Sympathiser". They then go on saying that I should support Gaza because "they are like us fenians".

I mean, I can understand where they are coming from, but there is nothing I hate more than people forcing their own opinions on to me while completley ignoring or denouncing my own view as being against my faith. Gaza =/= Northern Ireland. What they can't seem to understand is that it is in a completley different part of the world, where issues are handled differently than here.

Seriously, what the fuck?

By the way, I am a Catholic, and "Loyalist" is a term that describes those who are loyal to the crown i.e Protestants.

Last edited by henno13 (2010-05-31 16:14:41)

Bertster7 wrote:

The individual facts that have come out about this don't make it sound as bad as some people are making out.

But it always seems to be Israel pissing off the rest of the world by behaving in a generally beligerent manner. They are, in general, treated as one of the sensible, grown up countries - but they don't behave in a way that gives them any right to be treated in such a manner. From a foreign relations perspective they are little better than places like Iran and North Korea.

henno13 wrote:

Meh, I hate my "friends". One of them posted a sarcastic comment on his Facebook wall that "Israel is sound". At the time, I was reading the first page of this thread and I said that the ship was within Israel's EEZ, so it was techinally legal for them to board the convoy. My comments were swiftly deleted while my friends called me a "Loyalist Sympathiser". They then go on saying that I should support Gaza because "they are like us fenians".

I mean, I can understand where they are coming from, but there is nothing I hate more than people forcing their own opinions on to me while completley ignoring or denouncing my own view as being against my faith. Gaza =/= Northern Ireland. What they can't seem to understand is that it is in a completley different part of the world, where issues are handled differently than here.

Seriously, what the fuck?

By the way, I am a Catholic, and "Loyalist" is a term that describes those who are loyal to the crown i.e Protestants.

the EEZ argument is BS... a cover up for attacking a foriegn flag vessel.
Here's a rebuttle that you can use on the EEZ argument

Check this site out. apparently Israel hasn't declared an EEZ.
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/376.aspx

First they have to declare one to have it recognized, then the borders of the zone have to be reconciled with the EEZ of their neighbors. There can't be overlap of EEZ zones. That's how these zones got started in the first place. One country decided to declare an EEZ, and other countries thought it was a good idea to declare their own. There's usually some diplomatic back biting between neighbors about offshore resources and the disputes get settled and a border between EEZs gets established.

Now if Egypt and Lebannon exercised their full EEZ then it would overlap and fully envelop Israel's. That means that if either one of those two countries supported the shipment, then Israel is interfering with the EEZ of another country. You see how not declaring an EEZ is a problem.

Anyway, following the logic of the "of course Israel can stop the ships" crowd, then Lebanon or Egypt could stop any ship coming into Israel. But if that happened then we would hear about how a naval blockade of a country is an act of war.

IMO I say screw both sides. They have been fighting for over 5000 years, in one form or another, or under one religion or another. and they will be fighting for another 5000 years unless they get their hands on nukes and do each other in....
and that might not be so bad if that happened because then may be the rest of us will get some peace and quiet.

ruisleipa wrote:

LMFAO dumb dumb. The consensus if you believe an IDF spokesman is that the poor liddle IDF hevily armed commandos did nothing wrong in shooting what ere civilians on an AID boat in international waters.

Merriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsen(t)-səs\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
Date: 1843

1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Meriam Webster definition of Consensus

Consensus, by definition, is "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned".

There is a consensus that there were ships headed towards Gaza, they were boarded by IDF forces, and people on both sides were injured.

Many of the rest of your assumptions are still not agreed on by both parties, nor by a clear majority of outside observers.

ruisleipa wrote:

If you're a twat [...] LMFAO dumb dumb [...] poor liddle IDF [...] the fucking IDF [...] of course not that would mean you would be intelligent [...] personally I don't think the second vid means fuck all but I guess I'm a biased jew hating anti-american liberal bleh blah [...] boohoo [...] dumb reply is dumb reply

Are you quite done throwing a grade-school tantrum?

Can you grow up and debate a topic like an adult?

ruisleipa wrote:

Well, excuse me if I'm a little bit cynical about anything the fucking IDF spokesman reports what the IDF commandos said roll

Wonderful.  I'm a bit cynical about anything the Gaza spokesmen say too.

I also am intelligent enough to know that both sides tend to play up points that benefit them, and ignore or under-report facts against them.

ruisleipa wrote:

PR& Propaganda? Riiiight.

Considering the number of people that were not simple aid workers on board the vessels, it seemed obvious to me that it was more than a simple aid shipment.  When you  supposedly have members of the press, nobel prize winners, leaders of factions, and other 'not just a simple aid worker or sailor' types on board, I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that there was more going on than just an aid shipment. 

Perhaps they wanted some attention drawn to their cause? 

Not that they wanted automatic gunfire, but they surely expected some sort of Israeli response that they could use for PR & Propaganda purposes.  This would offer a very good explanation for the presence of such non-essential observers on an aid shipment.

ruisleipa wrote:

Well, the Israelis are good at that so maybe they've been taking lessons.

I'd argue that the contra-israeli side is at least as guilty of propaganda.

ruisleipa wrote:

You have proof of that I suppose? Oh of course not that would mean you would be intelligent. And you'd know what a 'real' aid shipment looked like? LOL. Maybe they need the publicity to stop Israel just blowing up the ships...wouldn't be the first time.

Please reread my response after your "PR& Propaganda? Riiiight." retort again.

ruisleipa wrote:

For what it's worth the main things that we DO know are enough to judge it was a major fuck up by the IDF.

Depends on what facts come to light, especially regarding who shot first.

ruisleipa wrote:

Have I said more? No.

Yes, you have

ruisleipa wrote:

Can anyone deny the facts? No.

I can clearly demonstrate where you're mistaking assumption and opinion for fact, and where you are drawing a conclusion or consensus from incomplete information, drawn from one side of the argument.
Reread this post - the demonstrations are hidden within.  Look carefully.

ruisleipa wrote:

It was in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, and ISrael's blockade of Gaza is ILLEGAL.

It was in international waters, yes.
It was also well within Israels 200nm 'Exclusive Economic Zone'.
And there's the pesky little principle of 'Hostis humani generis'

So, the first of your points could be argued for or against.

The second, in particular, I'm sure there's a dozen threads here that touch on that subject.
Again, both for and against.  I really don't care to dig up 'chapter and verse' for you on that, other than that it is currently a disputed conclusion.

ruisleipa wrote:

That's enough to condemn the IDF.

On incomplete information, assumptions, and the total disregard of any contrary assertions by the accused (IDF)? 

ruisleipa wrote:

We don't even need to know more.

YOU don't need to hear more.
Some of the rest of us would like to hear a little more information on what happened before making a sweeping condemnation.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-05-31 18:29:34)

Diesel_dyk wrote:

the EEZ argument is BS... a cover up for attacking a foriegn flag vessel.
Here's a rebuttle that you can use on the EEZ argument

Check this site out. apparently Israel hasn't declared an EEZ.
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/376.aspx

First they have to declare one to have it recognized, then the borders of the zone have to be reconciled with the EEZ of their neighbors. There can't be overlap of EEZ zones. That's how these zones got started in the first place. One country decided to declare an EEZ, and other countries thought it was a good idea to declare their own. There's usually some diplomatic back biting between neighbors about offshore resources and the disputes get settled and a border between EEZs gets established.

Now if Egypt and Lebannon exercised their full EEZ then it would overlap and fully envelop Israel's. That means that if either one of those two countries supported the shipment, then Israel is interfering with the EEZ of another country. You see how not declaring an EEZ is a problem.

Anyway, following the logic of the "of course Israel can stop the ships" crowd, then Lebanon or Egypt could stop any ship coming into Israel. But if that happened then we would hear about how a naval blockade of a country is an act of war.

That's my bad, I wasn't aware Israel hadn't declared one. I'm quite surprised tbh, Israel seems to enjoy claiming as much territory as possible. And I know perfectly well how they work, they tend to meet in the middle where a 200NM radius isn't possible. I'm just not sure what happens in the case where they haven't claimed an EEZ, whether they can do what they want in that area theoretically, or if non of the control provided in the UNCLOS applies.

And as I said, I wasn't defending Israel's actions, merely providing a probably legal loophole they could use to justify the boarding of the ship.

Last edited by ghettoperson (2010-05-31 18:32:41)

Spark wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Spark wrote:

srsly... let's wait for details? not even been a full 24 hours yet.

I thought I saw this on Al Jazeera English a couple days ago. Could be wrong.

The raid was last night

was what I was thinking too. Maybe it was last night.

Could be wrong.

Interesting to hear how Israel claims this spot as Israeli territory.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle … 200351.stm

ghettoperson wrote:

That's because it is Israeli territory. Or at least it would be if they'd bothered to declare an EEZ.

Which they haven't so thats that.

rdx-fx wrote:

It was also well within Israels 200nm 'Exclusive Economic Zone'.

They don't have one.