Terrorists attack aid ship in International waters...Follow

I take the position I do in this particular case because it is the most sensible explanation of the events, and it is what all the evidence supports.

No. You take that position because you are under the misapprehension that *Israel* is on your *side*. Even the average Israeli doesn't believe in their own governments statementsas can be read here and here and here and here.


It may surprise you to learn that Israel has one of the most open and vocal journalistic traditions in the world. Its one of the (many)things that I really admire about Israel. They say whatvthey think, and they say it loudly and often, wich is possibly why they can't keep a government intact for more than a few months at a time. The average Israeli is extremely well informed and opinionated. Unlike you, who is just opinionated from a position of ignorance and misinformation.

Your position seems to be based on an assumption that since Israel has done things in the past you don't agree with, that they must therefore be at fault every time, and for everything.

No, its based upon an awareness that Israel is at the centre of a political and cultural and religeous shitstorm that has been aided and abbetted by many western powers, most notably and offensivly by the US for their own selfish purposes. This shitstorm is for the benefit of the likes of Netanyahu and his ilk who see their purpose in life to ensure that Israel becomes the regional power at ALL COSTS. The people paying the price for this has inevitably been the 'people' of Israel and the palestinians the absolute majority of whom want to get on with life living in peace with their neighbours.

Its cOcksuckers like you who believe anything your spoonfed by your emasculated media and those dropkick dimwits who beieve that Israel is the Holy Land promised to the Jews by God because they are his *speshul* people who are the enablers of this travesty.

This attack on the aid ships has shown Israels policies towards its neighbours for what they are. Selfish, callous violent and disrespectful. Anyone who has spent any time in the ME knows that that is not a natural trait for the people of the region whose whole culture is centred upon hospitality and respect, especially of and for, strangers.

This sort of behaviour is not the type of behaviour of the ordinary people. It is the actions of the seriously fUcked up few who are in power and are supported and financed by those who see Israel as a means to an end in their own pursuit of regional domination.

You keep on with your support of Israels government and its charge down the road of violence and misery. But I will join with the sane people of the region in the hope that one day before its too late they can all come together and refuse to be used as disposable 'pieces' in the sick games of the crazy fUcks who you, and those like you continue to apologise for.

Your love of blind bias and bigotry has been evident for all to see for longer than I've been wasting my time on this board.

Please share some of these well cataloged incidents. I'd be very interested to see to what you are referring. I know of several off hand, but they have typically involved people not listening to instructions from heavily armed men trained to kill people who don't follow instructions.

I don't know about you, but my dad taught me that it's better to respect the hollow point than to challenge its right to enter your body and create odd-sized shred patterns in your soft tissue.

So you have no details of specific incidents that might tell either why civilians were fired on or what they did that led soldiers to perceive them as a threat? Got it.

Again, you're really not giving specifics. You're using friendly media generalizations and your own perception to justify belittling men and women who sign up to safeguard an ideal. You don't include the deaths of soldiers at the hands of "unarmed" people approaching checkpoints in a car loaded with explosives, or a bomb disguised as a baby, or the suicide bombers who carry no gun but have a vest wired with explosives on underneath their robes.

Maybe we do misunderstand the point you're trying to make. If we do it is because you failed to make the point, however. When you say things like accusing soldiers of firing "indiscriminately" on civilians you make the point, intentional or not, of calling soldiers knuckle-dragging simpletons who have no grasp on the gravity of the situation. When you call tarv a fascist you make the point, intentional or not, of calling the men and women who serve their countries proudly so that people like you can spout your misinformed and naive propaganda without fear of reprisals.

No one can make the argument that in armed conflict accidents don't happen and that tragic incidents occur. No one who has ever served in uniform can make the argument that situations don't arise where tough decisions have to be made. No one who has never served in the military can even begin to claim that they understand what goes in to the thought process behind the choice to fire or not to fire. Attempting to classify the incidents, the participants (on only one side, as you have done) or the outcomes with zero perspective simply shows you to be the chimp that you really are.

Ah, but they're US personnel preventing access to US ports.

My understanding of the legal debate is whether it's valid when stopping people taking stuff to a foreign country.

If British Naval ships want to stop stuff coming into British ports, they can and do board to inspect.

If we did the same to vessels heading for French or Spanish ports, that's a different kettle of fish.

Most of the "legal experts" I've heard interviewed say the blockade is at best, highly questionable.

You really are a ******* imbecile.

Among other errata, he fails to notice that Muslims, at least the Arab ones, are also Semites.

And that a significant number of Palestinians are Christians.

****.

I see no specific incidents linked by you, just more generalities. The one story you did link was loaded with them and just happened to have a mention of a specific incident with no detail included.


And yet, by the wording, you are.


I'd be happy to hone in on a specific example if you cared to submit one. As it is all you have is "ZOMG THEY INDISCRIMINATELY SHOOT UNARMED CIVILIANS!!!"


True enough. You simply fail to take it in to account when castigating soldiers.


Any firing in to a crowd of civilians is indiscriminate? There are innumerable situations that I can envision where that's patently false even if the civilians are unarmed. Hell, all it takes to be discriminate is aiming.


Even if we limit the scope of your responses to what tarv said, you're arguing from a house built on a sandy beach. That is to say you have no foundation. You allude to situations for which you have no detail to base your assertions. Your entire argument boils down to "nuh uh!"


I would never suggest that soldiers make no mistakes because I know they happen, even when following rules of engagement. We call that collateral damage. People like you would hang a man for a mistake where people like me would be happy to say "next time a man with a gun tells you to stop, stop dumbass."

You're Bob damned right I am, and no.

So would I, if I were a ****** who didn't know what the word indiscriminate meant.

Sorry, expanding the argument doesn't really work.

Example, please. You know, with details.

These are the types of things you aren't allowed to google in China.

Besides the fact that you got the line wrong, and completely out of context, yeah.

They didn't chose to impose an illegal blockade on Gaza or to drop marines on the deck of the ship from an helicopter.