RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 3:58:02 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead.
May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war?

Crew and passangers on the Lusitania was slightly under 2000. 128 American citizens died. About a tenth of the total dead.

Did you really think I ment that there were 100,000 americans on the lusitania?
The 100,000 + dead americans refers to the americans who died in ww 1.

(in reply to Aylee)

Profile

Post #: 101

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 4:10:23 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
But the activists didn't "initiate contact" - the IDF did. No warnings were given. There were no shots fired in front of the ship to force it to halt (standard practice in such situations as you ought to know). There were no broadcasts that the ship was going to be boarded. These actions - boarding a ship- would be conducted by the Coast Guard or Police in any civilised country.

I've been ignoring your nonsense but this claim is too much.
Fact: there are recordings of radio traffic between the IDF and the flotilla ships that included directions to heave to and proceed to the inspection port.
Fact: after receiving those warnings the ships did not change course as required by the law of the sea. At that point the IDF could have simply sunk them without further warning as attempted blockade runners.
Fact: No one fires shots across the bow. That sort of thing is very dangerous. If an armed ship orders a civilian craft to heave to for inspection then that verbal command is all that is required.
Fact: Coast Guards do not in general enforce embargoes. Naval vessels enforce embargoes. Coast Guard craft may do general customs inspections but this was not a routine case. Police forces also do not engage in military actions and enforcing an embargo is pretty clearly a military matter.

Also did passengers take over the ship as the crew of the ship claims? If so the ship was in the hands of pirates and suppression of piracy is an area where a naval commander can take any action he deems necessary.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 102

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 4:24:42 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead.
May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war?

You have claimed the above elsewhere to suggest the US inveigled itself into WWI making out its a conaspiracy theory.

Rich and powerful people making money from war is hardly a conspiracy, it is business as usual.
Perhaps you might want to read a book by general smedley butler usmc moh, it is called "war is a racket" it details who made money on that war.

The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US entered the war in April 1917. There was diplomatic trouble over the incident but it actually calmed down til Germany ceased diplomatic relations and tried to encourage Japan and Mexico to make war.

Since you seem to be fairly conversent with the particulars would you hazard a guess as to why they did that?

If you need to blame someone for the entry of the US into the war then look to the British who used propaganda, such as minting a German medal supposedly celebrating the incident which is regarded as turning the mood of the public in the US toward war.

How bout we blame those who profitered from instigating the u.s. entry into that conflilct.

BTW the ship was only carrying munitions for small arms so it was not a legitimate target for Germany.

A british ship carrying munitions is not a legitmate target????
Wern't britian and germany at war?
How is it not a legal target?

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Profile

Post #: 103

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 4:38:45 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

thompson is a fucking liar

Are you going to stomp your feet and hold your breath now?

and has been ignored since the 3rd or 4th post of his that I suffered through.

Getting ones ass spanked purple in public is due cause for suffering. As long as you continue to post jejune drivel I will continue to spank your ass purple in public. You must like public humiliation because you keep comming back for more. You come out and post the most childish jibberish and then turn around, pull your knickers down,bend over and hand me a paddle.
You are lucky I do ths as a public service and not charge you.

He cant find a single cite of mine thats been shown to be less than valid, unless that term means "thompson doesnt like it".

someone wants another spanking.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Profile

Post #: 104

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 4:54:05 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

"Perhaps you might want to read a book by general smedley butler usmc "

You should capitalise that. And he was Major General. Smedley P. Butler. I believe he made Brigadier but may have turned that down, not sure.

And they don't want to hear it. And, take a look at his life span, he was 54 when he wrote that book and died five years later. He was pissed off for fighting for Standard Oil, wonder what he would think now that it has become BP. Men like that would probably either destroy themselves or the world if they lived today.

History lost.

T^T

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 105

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 4:59:37 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Perhaps you might want to read a book by general smedley butler usmc "

You should capitalise that. And he was Major General. Smedley P. Butler. I believe he made Brigadier but may have turned that down, not sure.

And they don't want to hear it. And, take a look at his life span, he was 54 when he wrote that book and died five years later. He was pissed off for fighting for Standard Oil, wonder what he would think now that it has become BP. Men like that would probably either destroy themselves or the world if they lived today.

History lost.

T^T

Or be dismissed as another conspiracy theorist. Could you pick someone anyone less relevant to the topic at hand?

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 106

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 5:20:16 PM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture

Well there was that episode with the lusitania which cost more than 100,000 u.s. dead.
May we add your name to those who feel the u.s. was wrong to involve itself in that war?

You have claimed the above elsewhere to suggest the US inveigled itself into WWI making out its a conaspiracy theory.

Rich and powerful people making money from war is hardly a conspiracy, it is business as usual.
Perhaps you might want to read a book by general smedley butler usmc moh, it is called "war is a racket" it details who made money on that war.

I'm not saying certain elements don't profiteer from war the world over. I'm referring to the point that the Lusitania couldn't have been part of a conspiracy to drag the US into war.

quote:

The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US entered the war in April 1917. There was diplomatic trouble over the incident but it actually calmed down til Germany ceased diplomatic relations and tried to encourage Japan and Mexico to make war.

Since you seem to be fairly conversent with the particulars would you hazard a guess as to why they did that?

The issue related to safe passage of ships. For a time the Germans agreed not to target neutral shipping which was a key US demand but then stopped and went on a war footing.

quote:

If you need to blame someone for the entry of the US into the war then look to the British who used propaganda, such as minting a German medal supposedly celebrating the incident which is regarded as turning the mood of the public in the US toward war.

How bout we blame those who profitered from instigating the u.s. entry into that conflilct.

The point I make is that if blame should be placed for bringing the US into the war then a very large portion should be placed with the British for stoking US sentiment, and the Germans for refusing to respect the neutrality of the shipping.

quote:

BTW the ship was only carrying munitions for small arms so it was not a legitimate target for Germany.

A british ship carrying munitions is not a legitmate target????
Wern't britian and germany at war?
How is it not a legal target?

Well that's where it gets controversial. Basically the Germans claimed that the ship carried a large amount of munitions and had turret guns which made it a legitimate target. It only had about four million cartridges that were stocked in a few thousand small cases, representing only a tiny amount of cargo for such a huge ship. They weren't considered to be of military use by the NY port authority and were openly listed as just for personal use. Besides that the Hague conventions stated civilian ships had to be warned before sinking.

< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 9/19/2011 5:42:19 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 107

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 6:01:34 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Perhaps you might want to read a book by general smedley butler usmc "

You should capitalise that.

I capitalize the first leter of the first word of a sentence and the personal pronoun I.
And he was Major General. Smedley P. Butler. I believe he made Brigadier but may have turned that down, not sure.

He was a major general which is two stars. A brigadier general is one star.
It is smedley d (darlington) butler.
He did not turn down the promotion but tried to turn down one of his moh but that did not work. If you would like to hear about his third moh contact me on the other side.

And they don't want to hear it. And, take a look at his life span, he was 54 when he wrote that book and died five years later. He was pissed off for fighting for Standard Oil, wonder what he would think now that it has become BP. Men like that would probably either destroy themselves or the world if they lived today.

Not so, he was a real patriot. When singer and his bankster buds approached him to lead a coup d'etat he ratted them off to congress and stopped the kidnapping of president roosevelt.

History lost.

T^T

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Profile

Post #: 108

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 6:33:12 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I'm not saying certain elements don't profiteer from war the world over. I'm referring to the point that the Lusitania couldn't have been part of a conspiracy to drag the US into war.

Yet we have churchill's own diary stating his desire for a merchant ship to be sunk by the germans in an effort to induce the u.s to join the war on britains side.

The issue related to safe passage of ships. For a time the Germans agreed not to target neutral shipping which was a key US demand but then stopped and went on a war footing.

The lusitania was not a neutral ship she was britt.

Well that's where it gets controversial. Basically the Germans claimed that the ship carried a large amount of munitions and had turret guns which made it a legitimate target. It only had about four million cartridges that were stocked in a few thousand small cases, representing only a tiny amount of cargo for such a huge ship. They weren't considered to be of military use by the NY port authority and were openly listed as just for personal use. Besides that the Hague conventions stated civilian ships had to be warned before sinking.

The manifest that the lusitania left the harbor with did not have the munitions listed. Those were listed on the corrected manifest which was submitted after the ship had left the harbor.
Who has 4,000,000 bullets for personal use?
They are still working the wreck and it is yet to be determined if there were in fact a brace of 6" guns and a supply of high explosives as has been alleged...time will tell.
The fact remains that it was a britt ship carrying 4,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo.
The fact remains that 6 of her 25 boilers were shut down and the speed of the ship was reduced by more than 15%.
The fact remains that the u boat fired only one torpedo but the accounts of the suvivors state that there were two explosions (presumably from the expolsives allegedly on board.)

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Profile

Post #: 109

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 7:03:09 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Fact: No one fires shots across the bow. That sort of thing is very dangerous. If an armed ship orders a civilian craft to heave to for inspection then that verbal command is all that is required.

I'm just picking a random "fact" out of the gibberish for review here.

Fact: Australian ships routinely fire shots across the bows of ships entering our territorial waters without valid authorisation, and who fail to stop when ordered to. It's standard practice. This happens quite a lot as there is a problem here with asylum seekers who try to sail from Indonesia to Australia. Hundreds of ships have been boarded without a single bullet ever being fired at a human being. Any other nation in the world can match this record and will no doubt, use similar non-confrontational tactics as the Australian Navy does.

I'm given to understand that this also standard practice for aerial (airborne) interdictions too.

Again Israel chose to deal with this incident on a military basis. It was an idiotic decision. They did not attempt to use standard measures of interdiction. There was no attempt to use a seaborne boarding party. No shots were fired across the bows.

Israeli hopes that its illegal intervention would be a military fait accompli backfired seriously. Any other nation in the world would have accomplished the routine task of boarding a ship without incident. Israel set out to teach the activists a lesson. The same lesson it routinely dishes out to Palestinians who have the temerity to demand their rights in Occupied Palestine. We all know the outcomes in both cases - dead civilians.

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it?

Alternatively, now that ashjor has effectively trashed your 'terrorist' claims, you might choose to go back on topic and explain why Palestinians don't, in your view, have a right to self determination and UN membership.

As there's no hope of you offering a satisfactory answer to my first questions, I'll be quite happy if you address the last one.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 9/19/2011 7:13:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 110

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 8:22:31 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Fact: No one fires shots across the bow. That sort of thing is very dangerous. If an armed ship orders a civilian craft to heave to for inspection then that verbal command is all that is required.

I'm just picking a random "fact" out of the gibberish for review here.

Fact: Australian ships routinely fire shots across the bows of ships entering our territorial waters without valid authorisation, and who fail to stop when ordered to. It's standard practice. This happens quite a lot as there is a problem here with asylum seekers who try to sail from Indonesia to Australia. Hundreds of ships have been boarded without a single bullet ever being fired at a human being. Any other nation in the world can match this record and will no doubt, use similar non-confrontational tactics as the Australian Navy does.

For something that happens frequently its odd that I can only find mention of a single occurence back in 2001.

quote:

Israeli hopes that its illegal intervention would be a military fait accompli backfired seriously. Any other nation in the world would have accomplished the routine task of boarding a ship without incident. Israel set out to teach the activists a lesson. The same lesson it routinely dishes out to Palestinians who have the temerity to demand their rights in Occupied Palestine. We all know the outcomes in both cases - dead civilians.

As has been explained to you in tedious detail the Israeli action was completely legal and was actually restrained considering that they could have sunk the entire flotilla.

quote:

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Was the ship in the hands of people not its lawful crew? Was the man you claim was executed one of those pirates? If so summary execution is 100% legal.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 111

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 8:36:24 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Was the ship in the hands of people not its lawful crew? Was the man you claim was executed one of those pirates? If so summary execution is 100% legal.

Really DK, this is a new low, even for you on this particular topic.

Please tell me you were under the influence of something mind altering when you dreamt up this gibberish.

_____________________________

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 112

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 8:37:31 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

quote:

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Was the ship in the hands of people not its lawful crew? Was the man you claim was executed one of those pirates? If so summary execution is 100% legal.

Really DK, this is a new low, even for you on this particular topic.

Please tell me you were under the influence of something mind altering when you dreamt up this gibberish.

Did the passengers take control of the ship or not? The ship's own crew reports that they did. Are they liars serving an Israeli agenda?

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 113

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 11:25:02 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

quote:

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Was the ship in the hands of people not its lawful crew? Was the man you claim was executed one of those pirates? If so summary execution is 100% legal.

Really DK, this is a new low, even for you on this particular topic.

Please tell me you were under the influence of something mind altering when you dreamt up this gibberish.

Did the passengers take control of the ship or not? The ship's own crew reports that they did. Are they liars serving an Israeli agenda?

My! Whatever you're on it seems pretty powerful DK!

When you have recovered from your piracy delusions (been watching too many Johnny Depp movies lately?) and your feet are firmly planted on the ground, you might like to read the Palmer Report here I find it a great help to actually know what I'm talking about. You might like to try this sometime.

I've kindly copied the relevant findings of the Palmer Report for you :

vi. Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great
distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior
to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:
a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In
particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a
demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the
type of confrontation that occurred;
b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to
the initial boarding attempt became apparent.
vii. Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent
resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara
requiring them to use force for their own protection. Three soldiers were
captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers. Several others
were wounded.
viii. The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces
during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine
passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces.
No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any
of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were
shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been
adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.
ix. There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after
the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their
deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and
intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely
consular assistance.
Palmer Report Summary pp4-5 (all emphasis mine) http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

These findings speak for themselves.

_____________________________

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 114

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/19/2011 11:27:41 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

Your unwillingness to answer a simple yes or no question speaks for itself.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 115

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/20/2011 1:18:28 AM

Anaxagoras

Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not saying certain elements don't profiteer from war the world over. I'm referring to the point that the Lusitania couldn't have been part of a conspiracy to drag the US into war.

Yet we have churchill's own diary stating his desire for a merchant ship to be sunk by the germans in an effort to induce the u.s to join the war on britains side.

I already referred to the British wish to bring the US into the war because they were having a tough time of it. That doesn't mean the Lusitania was part of a conspiracy.

quote:

The issue related to safe passage of ships. For a time the Germans agreed not to target neutral shipping which was a key US demand but then stopped and went on a war footing.

The lusitania was not a neutral ship she was britt.

Indeed but it was a passenger ship coming from a neutral territory. American passengers were killed because the Germans didn't observe the Hague laws on combat and sunk it without giving them the option of allowing the passengers off the ship.

quote:

Well that's where it gets controversial. Basically the Germans claimed that the ship carried a large amount of munitions and had turret guns which made it a legitimate target. It only had about four million cartridges that were stocked in a few thousand small cases, representing only a tiny amount of cargo for such a huge ship. They weren't considered to be of military use by the NY port authority and were openly listed as just for personal use. Besides that the Hague conventions stated civilian ships had to be warned before sinking.

The manifest that the lusitania left the harbor with did not have the munitions listed. Those were listed on the corrected manifest which was submitted after the ship had left the harbor.
Who has 4,000,000 bullets for personal use?
They are still working the wreck and it is yet to be determined if there were in fact a brace of 6" guns and a supply of high explosives as has been alleged...time will tell.
The fact remains that it was a britt ship carrying 4,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo.
The fact remains that 6 of her 25 boilers were shut down and the speed of the ship was reduced by more than 15%.
The fact remains that the u boat fired only one torpedo but the accounts of the suvivors state that there were two explosions (presumably from the expolsives allegedly on board.)

No the divers have found that there was nothing other than the rifle cartridges, some of which have been found. Experts now understand the second blast was a result of the steam engines and none of the witnesses said there were guns on the ship. The ship was running at 18 knots which was a lot faster than any ship that had been hit by a torp at that time.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 116

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/20/2011 2:51:31 AM

StrangerThan

Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Fact: No one fires shots across the bow. That sort of thing is very dangerous. If an armed ship orders a civilian craft to heave to for inspection then that verbal command is all that is required.

I'm just picking a random "fact" out of the gibberish for review here.

Fact: Australian ships routinely fire shots across the bows of ships entering our territorial waters without valid authorisation, and who fail to stop when ordered to. It's standard practice. This happens quite a lot as there is a problem here with asylum seekers who try to sail from Indonesia to Australia. Hundreds of ships have been boarded without a single bullet ever being fired at a human being. Any other nation in the world can match this record and will no doubt, use similar non-confrontational tactics as the Australian Navy does.

I'm given to understand that this also standard practice for aerial (airborne) interdictions too.

Again Israel chose to deal with this incident on a military basis. It was an idiotic decision. They did not attempt to use standard measures of interdiction. There was no attempt to use a seaborne boarding party. No shots were fired across the bows.

Israeli hopes that its illegal intervention would be a military fait accompli backfired seriously. Any other nation in the world would have accomplished the routine task of boarding a ship without incident. Israel set out to teach the activists a lesson. The same lesson it routinely dishes out to Palestinians who have the temerity to demand their rights in Occupied Palestine. We all know the outcomes in both cases - dead civilians.

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it?

Alternatively, now that ashjor has effectively trashed your 'terrorist' claims, you might choose to go back on topic and explain why Palestinians don't, in your view, have a right to self determination and UN membership.

As there's no hope of you offering a satisfactory answer to my first questions, I'll be quite happy if you address the last one.

You're either misinformed or a liar. Which is it?

"They did not attempt to use standard measures of interdiction."

The first method of interdiction at sea is not a shot fired across the bow, nor a sea borne boarding party. In this case, the first method of interdiction wasn't even at sea. It was in diplomatic circles for nearly a month prior to the incident. The flotilla was well publicized. Turkey repeatedly rebuffed Israel's requests to help stop the incident before it ever occurred.

At sea, contact with the flotilla first occurred 4 and half hours before the boarding took place. Over the course of that time, the flotilla repeatedly ignored instructions to divert from Gaza and dock at the Port of Ashdod where Israel agreed to transfer the aid under the eyes of the activists.

The first attempts to board occurred from small boats, in which 4 of the 5 vessels were successfully and non-violently boarded. The seaborne boarding party was repelled by objects thrown at them from the deck of the ship on their approach. Only then was a helicopter borne boarding authorized.

Since Australia evidently censors its news, a couple of other "facts" for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/02/flotilla-raid-turkish-jihadis-troops-israel-claims

A hardcore of 40 Turkish jihadis on board the Mavi Marmara was responsible for the violence that led to nine deaths and dozens of injuries on the flotilla taking aid to Gaza, the Israeli government claimed today.

The allegation came as Turkish newspapers reported that three of the four Turks killed in the onslaught had declared their readiness to become martyrs.

"I am going to be a martyr. I dreamed about it," Ali Haider Banjinin, 39, from Kurdistan, told his family before leaving to join the flotilla, according to one report.

The brother-in-law of retired engineer Ibrahim Bilgen, 61, told another paper that "martyrdom suited him very much. Allah gave him a death he desired."

A third Turkish casualty, Ali Akbar Yertilmis, a father of four from Ankara, had "dreamt of becoming a martyr", a friend was quoted as saying.

"Roughly 40 people on board were jihadis who came for violence," a government official said. "They were preparing to attack, to kill and to be killed." The boat was carrying more than 600 passengers, around half of them Turkish nationals.

A member of the Muslim Brotherhood who took part in the flotilla, was later castigated for his comments regarding capturing and beating Israeli soldiers, and taking their weapons. The censure didn't occur because of the actions. Nooooooo, not that. Rather, it arose because the admission "helped Israel"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3902389,00.html

In the lead up to the next flotilla, originally planned for May of this year but apparently they didn't make it, diplomatic efforts have been underway for some time. Isn't Turkey's reaction interesting given they see last year's raid as a provocation to war.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2011/April/Turkey-to-Israel-Flotilla-Not-Our-Concern/

Turkey rebuffed Israel's request to help stop another provocative flotilla planning to breach the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.
"We listened to the message given by the Israeli side and told them this is an initiative by civil society," Reuters quoted an anonymous Turkish official as having said.

http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2011-04-12/israel-to-turkey-help-us-thwart-upcoming-gaza-flotilla/

Israel’s ambassador to Turkey reiterates Jerusalem’s opposition to the naval ‘provocation,’ says Israel would allow the pass of humanitarian aid through other channels

Israel contacted Turkey concerning a Gaza aid flotilla planned for May of this year, an Israeli official said on Tuesday, reiterating Israel’s objection to a breaking of Gaza’s naval blockade and its willingness to transfer aid to the Strip via legal channels.

The message came amid a Channel 2 report claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was mulling the possibility of allowing the flotilla to reach Gaza if flotilla organizers agreed their vessels be checked by an international force.

You want to know how long some of us will stand with Israel? Until you quit trying to kill them, until you quit lying, until you quit fabricating absolute bullshit, until you pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand, there is more than one dog in this fight and the other side carries not only its share of blame but also its share of unwillingness to negotiate.

You know what's just as funny? You list the Palmer report as something you like to read to support your stance. That same report has been declared null and void by the very people you use it to defend.

http://witnessgaza.com/

You fuck-twits can't even keep your own stories, sources, or arguments straight.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 9/20/2011 2:53:39 AM >

_____________________________

--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 117

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/20/2011 6:03:05 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

quote:

Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence".

Was the ship in the hands of people not its lawful crew? Was the man you claim was executed one of those pirates? If so summary execution is 100% legal.

Really DK, this is a new low, even for you on this particular topic.

Please tell me you were under the influence of something mind altering when you dreamt up this gibberish.

Did the passengers take control of the ship or not? The ship's own crew reports that they did. Are they liars serving an Israeli agenda?

My! Whatever you're on it seems pretty powerful DK!

When you have recovered from your piracy delusions (been watching too many Johnny Depp movies lately?) and your feet are firmly planted on the ground, you might like to read the Palmer Report here I find it a great help to actually know what I'm talking about. You might like to try this sometime.

I have read the Palmer report and it dances around some very simple issues. They acknowledge the Israelis could do anything they wanted to that flotilla quite legally but whine that the IDF wasn't nice.

So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship?

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 118

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/20/2011 7:01:55 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

No the divers have found that there was nothing other than the rifle cartridges, some of which have been found. Experts now understand the second blast was a result of the steam engines and none of the witnesses said there were guns on the ship. The ship was running at 18 knots which was a lot faster than any ship that had been hit by a torp at that time.

I was not aware that the divers had finished their exploration of the wreckage. Do you have a cite concerning this?
"Experts" at the time of the sinking claimed the secondary explosion was from an accumulation of coal dust in the foreward fuel bunker.
The allegation of 6" guns being on board has been bantied about pretty much since day one of the sinking...only circumstancial evidence points to their existence thus my scepticism until the divers have compleated their survey of the wreckage.
At the time of the sinking of the lusitania,if memory serves me correctly, their had only been two other non millitary ships sunk by u boats. Eighteen knots is dramatically slower than her normal speed of 26 kts. due to 6 of her 25 turbines being shut down...ostensibly to save on fuel.
British shipbuilders still had not learned the concept of "watertight integrity" at the time of the building of the lusitania. I believe that this is a major factor in the rapidty of her sinking. Whether the secondary explosion was coal dust,boiler explosion or munitions explosion does not change the fact that she was carrying 4,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo made by remington for the british army which is contraband.
That this incident was contributory to the "whipping up the enthusiam" of the populace for u.s. involvement in ww1 is pretty well documented as are the zimmerman letter and other incidents but we must also consider that if britain lost the war with germany u.s. business interest stood to loose money by the ton.
The only reason anyone goes to war is so we can fuck their women and steal their dope...there has never been a war fought for any other reason.

(in reply to Anaxagoras)

Profile

Post #: 119

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid - 9/20/2011 7:05:54 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I have read the Palmer report and it dances around some very simple issues. They acknowledge the Israelis could do anything they wanted to that flotilla quite legally but whine that the IDF wasn't nice.

Whine?????

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 120