[LEEJ]

Lakercapt,

that is the point. You have said it. "Israel is at war with these terrorists". Leaving aside who is the terrorists - if they are at war with each other then Hamas has the right to fight back.It is the principal. If they are not at war then let the aid in. Or even why should they need aid?

For information:
In 10 years the Palestinians have fired 14,000 rockets with 14 Israeli dead.

Israel has fired :
4.2 million cluster bombs
12,000 tank shells
1,200 bombing raids, etc,etc

for 5,000 Palestinian dead...not all who are militants.

Israel is a bully. Who defends bullies?


Coastie,

err? Yes I think you did say Israel was right in what they did. If you did not then could you clarify your position by condemning the attack.

[Coastie]

Originally Posted by LEEJ

Lakercapt,

that is the point. You have said it. "Israel is at war with these terrorists". Leaving aside who is the terrorists - if they are at war with each other then Hamas has the right to fight back.It is the principal. If they are not at war then let the aid in. Or even why should they need aid?

For information:
In 10 years the Palestinians have fired 14,000 rockets with 14 Israeli dead.

Israel has fired :
4.2 million cluster bombs
12,000 tank shells
1,200 bombing raids, etc,etc

for 5,000 Palestinian dead...not all who are militants.

Israel is a bully. Who defends bullies?


Coastie,

err? Yes I think you did say Israel was right in what they did. If you did not then could you clarify your position by condemning the attack.

My personal feeling is that they were right in what they did, however, whether they were legal in what they did is another question, Having said that, I also refer you to my comment about the Ross Revenge earlier.

[LEEJ]

With the best wishes,for the benefit of members who are so pro Israeli I would recommend a book called "The Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky - a Jew- which documents Israels' duplicity with dealing with the Arabs. It tells you, among other things, that the Arabs have been prepared to accept the state of Israel since 1971. The Israelis have continually refused to accept this peace proposal since it would mean they would not be able to expand.

However, to get back to the point, the attack was against a NATO member ship and by NATO rules,an attack on one member is an attack on the organisation.Read Craig Murrays blog for information regarding unease amongst the military about the implications for Nato.

Rgds,
LeeJ

[LEEJ]

As for the case of the USS LIBERTY, the US president at the time, President Johnstone, on being informed that the local commander had launched fighters from an aircraft carrier to defend the ship used presidential powers to recall the planes.This was reported on a recent tv documentary shown on British tv recently.

And it goes on and on and on........

[Coastie]

Leej!

If your house, Family and everything else within it was being threatened with eradication by your neighbours, what would YOU do as regards defence? Wouldn't YOU defend it from whatever position you can?

[stein]

I haven't got "The Fateful Triangle" by Chomsky, but several other books. He's as nutty as the Unabomber.

I consider this Wikipedia article quite moderate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Ch...olitical_views

[LEEJ]

Coastie,

with respect, If the Israelis can defend themselves, then why is it wrong for the Palestinians to do so. I repeat the point - and this is international law - if there is a conflict between two parties then one has the right to defend itself against the other. If there is no conflict then Israel has no right to impose the sanctions it does against the Palestinians.And certainly not to board neutral ships in international waters. Either way Israel is yet again ignoring all forms of civilised behaviour. I dont know what it takes to make rational people see the point.

Stein,
just read the bloody book mate before slagging him off!

[LEEJ]

Coastie,
one further point. Whan you use the analogy about someone threatening your house. In this case the people in the house are squatters.

[Coastie]

Read your Bible, you'll find they aren't!

[Coastie]

Also, I refer you to this!

Originally Posted by Coastie

Copy of an email received Feb 2009

An ingenious example of speech and politics occured recently in the United Nationa Assembly which made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began;'Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses.

When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought , 'What a good oppertunity to take a bath!'

He removed his clothes,put them aside on the rock and entered the water.

When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them.'

The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, 'What are you talking about? The Palestinians wern't there then.'

The Israeli representative smiled and said, 'And now we have made that clear, I will begin my speech.

[LEEJ]

Coastie,
your quoting the bible to justify your point. Our discussion is finished.

Inshallah.

LeeJ

[Coastie]

If you say so, Sir! I'm sorry you see it that way.

Shalom!

[Richie2012]

how can people justify what has happened!!!
These ships were carrying much needed aid to desperate people!!!

[Jacktar1]

USS LIberty, brutal murder of Rachel Corrie in 2003 and now this latest act of brutality, was it justified ? NO

[Ray Mac]

Originally Posted by Coastie

If you say so, Sir! I'm sorry you see it that way.

Shalom!

Shame on you.

Shuckram

[CISK]

Originally Posted by Richie2012

These ships were carrying much needed aid to desperate people!!!

No they were'nt. They were a provocative political demonstration. Israel had already offered to tranship the aid overland through Ashdod and will probably now do so.
Do you really expect them to allow anything into Gaza without searching it?

"The Palestinians weren't there then." They were but were then known as Philistines.

"brutal murder of Rachel Corrie in 2003". Where is your evidence that her death was not an accident?

[Ray Mac]

Originally Posted by CISK

No they were'nt. They were a provocative political demonstration. Israel had already offered to tranship the aid overland through Ashdod and will probably now do so.
Do you really expect them to allow anything into Gaza without searching it?

What World Do live in, Since when have the Israelis been a international police Force, brutal and indiscriminate I find them They want all land at any cost, as long as they have the USA backing them.

[ROBERT HENDERSON]

BURNED TOAST
I am with you all the way on this, an English lad was also purposely shot trying to protect children.
The people inhabiting Israel now are mostly Eastern Europeans and except for religion they have no connection with that part of the world.

Regards Robert

[Jacktar1]

BURNED TOAST

I fully agree with you, what about their continuous building of the settlements, despite even the USA's request to cease ? They will grab the land at ANY cost.......greed, greed followed by more greed.
USA backing them all the way and and supplying them with weapons, millions of dollars etc. But there again, it would strongly appear that Israel controls the USA, and the USA kisses Isreal's butt !

Robert Henderson.......your dead right.

Cheers..........Glan

[Jacktar1]

One further comment:

Even Netanyahu's vaunted propaganda machine can't make an outcry this
big disappear.

[LEEJ]

Cisk,
go to youtube and type in Rachael Corrie and see the pictures of a young girl with a broken back.

[rcraig]

Originally Posted by CISK

No they were'nt. They were a provocative political demonstration. Israel had already offered to tranship the aid overland through Ashdod and will probably now do so.
Do you really expect them to allow anything into Gaza without searching it?

"The Palestinians weren't there then." They were but were then known as Philistines.

"brutal murder of Rachel Corrie in 2003". Where is your evidence that her death was not an accident?

There was such evidence.
Three witnesses spoke about the circumstances of the death and if they had been believed then at the very least the driver would have been guilty of wilful recklessness.

What comes over in this case is another example of an Israeli approach which seems to be that if they are taking a course of action then that, per se, must be complied with and whoever opposes them must suffer the consequences. If they say that they intend boarding and surprise, surprise, they are opposed, then it is the fault of the opposition should they be killed. We gave an order, so it must be obeyed. If it is not then a) you must be a terrorist and b) you must be Hamas.

If they claim that they must bulldoze someone else's property because they allege it covers a tunnel entrance, or whatever, with a vehicle with very limited vision, then anyone who is crushed to death brought about their own demise. In their own evidence in the Corrie case they state that because of limited vision for the bulldozer driver, he would normally have someone assisting with his vision but because of fear of shooting in the area, they were unable to do so. In that case why did they continue? What was the desperate urgency? If it had not been Corrie, who might it have been?

It sometimes seems to me that we are seeing the most ultimate of ironies, the treatment by the Israelis of the Palestinians as if they were simply the untermensch. And the language of some of their supporters goes along with that.

If there is a problem in answering any question regarding justification, then the ultimate answer to justify any action however extreme, is "security". You would hardly believe that the risk of death from terrorism is roughly one quarter that from road accidents in Israel. In 2000, 461 people died on the roads in Israel. I wonder if anyone tried the defence of "limited vision" and got away with it in any of them.

[buddy123]

It is heated discussions like these that start wars in the first place! Both sides have suffered and no side is better than the other -children have been killed.

[Billieboy]

Originally Posted by buddy123

It is heated discussions like these that start wars in the first place! Both sides have suffered and no side is better than the other -children have been killed.

I'm in 100% agreement Buddy!

[jmcg]

During the Vietnam war whilst serving on Alfie Holts ships (the China) it was not unknown for American forces to stop and search in international waters. On one such trip (Antiilochus) we were stopped and boarded by American paras. We were not inconvenienced in any way.

There are occasions when boarding in International waters is perfectly legal and as mentioned in another thread the current incident falls within the schedule of "occasions".

I guess the Rachel Corrie - an Irish owned vessel - will be boarded if she refuses to divert to Ashdod instead of Gaza.

Said to carrying "humanatarian aid".

BW


J