Israeli Navy Raids Gaza Aid Flotilla, 10 Confirmed Dead

[Argus]

Of course.

Canada was intimately invovled in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Aristide of Haiti. We've also approved of the far worse American record of doing so.

The thing I've observed about zealots is that no amount of evidence will convince them that something they want to believe is wrong, and yet, it requires almost no evidence to convince them that something they want to believe is the gospel truth. There have been all sorts of allegations about the various coups against Aristide, but no one has showed the Americans were even involved - much less that Canada had anything whatsoever to do with it.

But don't let that get in your way.

As for supporting terrorists: we materially aided the State terrorists in Indonesia--Suharto and the Generals. And no one, i hope, would dare argue that their record doesn't eclipse that of Hamas. Or of Hamas and Hizbelloah combined. In fact, the comparison is a terrible joke.

We "indirectly " aided the government of Indonesia, by, I suppose, not shunning them as we should any non-democratic nation which violates human rights - like, for example, about 90% of the planet at the time. Even today, just whom are we to have normal bilateral relations with? Not China, not Russia, not India, no one in Africa with one or two possible exceptions. As I said, our governments can't afford to be as pure as you.

[bloodyminded]

I question just how "objective" you are.

Then you should rather focus on your own literacy issues, since I said nothing about my objectivity or lack thereof; what I said, unambiguously, is that the terrorists supported by the powerful Western nations have often been objectively worse than Hamas.

My measure of "objectively" is based on numbers of murders and amount of terror.

Your definition of "objectively worse" would no doubt be comprised solely of whether or not the terrorists were allied to us. As if special pleading is a fair substitute for denotation.

our collective governments have done a lot of things in the midst of war in order to protect their populations. Not all of them were pretty, not all were smart.

This might astonish you, but every time we become militarily involved, whether directly or indirectly, it is not axiomatic that it is performed to protect the populations. We do not have justness and nobility seared into our DNA in a way that others do not.

However, overall our collective western governments have behaved in an admirably lawful way with the overall best interests of their people in mind. Running the world is a complex undertaking and sometimes isn't as pretty as we'd l ike it to be, especially when dealing with evil, violent people.

Yes, the East Timorese were astonishingly evil and violent, which is why we had to turn to the peaceable and noble Indonesian dictatorship to massacre them in their open attempt to take the land by force. We had to help these armed Ghandis murder the Satanic E. Timorese, because....um....the Cold War!

As stated, running the world is complex. Governments can rarely afford to be as noble as the idealistic simpletons who berate them for doing what was necessary.

What you mean, quite explicitly, is that it's extremely complex when our governments are committing astounding acts of criminality and horror; but when an Official Enemy behaves similarly (or even far less egregiously), well, then it becomes crystal clear, and perfectly simple: good versus Evil.

How wonderfully selective you are!

What's especially hilarious is your mocking of "the idealistic simpletons," when you're smack in the middle of a platitudinous fairy-tale about the West flitting about trying to save everybody, in the face of a monstrously ungrateful world.

Some seem to think our government should only have aided "nice" governments which respected human rights. In the cold war era, that pretty much consisted of NATO and damn all else. So the puritans would have had us wash our hands of the rest of the planet and let the Soviets expand their influence undeterred while we stand aloof, wrapped in our own purity. What utter mindless stupidity that would have been.

Ah...ok, since we're on the subject of mindless stupidity, perhaps you can clarify a matter that has stumped nationalist scholars, and on which our governments have remained utterly silent, knowing as they do that they were on the side of murderous, genocidal maniacs...the wrong side of history, as it were:

You see, we didn't "aid" the Indonesian government in a fight agaisnt the Soviets: we materially armed them for the direct purpose of mass murder.

I would enjoy an explanation--how you suppose supporting the attempted genocide of the East Timorese was in any way a step against Soviet expansion and aggression. And how it was justifiable.

And please be precise: your conventional pieties about "the Cold War," as if the phrase is Talismanic and justifies everything through utterance alone, is not a sufficient explanation.

Would you like to recite these evil deeds, so much more worse than "the most fanatical HAMAS member" that we "supported"?

I've offered examples, one of them which sadly amounts to one of the top ten mass murders in the post-WW2 era--no mean achievement, given the competition.

In your, uhm, "objective" way, of course, or at least, as objective as someone on the far fringes of the Left can be.

If it's "fringe left" to think that our direct and knowing support of mass murder is a bad thing, then is it "moderate" or "right-fringe" to be an indoctrinated moral relativist?

Well don't worry. It's clear you need have no guilt. You're far too pure for that. In fact, you'd be a saint except of course, you're too noble to believe in Christianity, which after all, doesn't respect gay rights as it should. The evil, terrorist bastards!

What are you blathering about? you're the one who says there should be no guilt, as the Western nations perpetrate, precipitate, and profoundly support terrible violence, often without decent justification; indeed, maybe we should shed pretty tears the colour of our flags as we kill in the name of resisting the Forces of Communi....oops, I mean the Latin American Narcotraff...er, the Terrorists.

It's a great prayer to the Gods of servility and credulity to Power. (In place of "Amen" we'll say, "Support the Troops.")

Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think I understand what you're getting at. I've never called you a bigot, nor anything like it.

I'm talking about the insults precisely aimed at myself, not which "side" does what.

I wasn't claiming you called me a bigot, but others sure have, and to me your response made it sound as if you think only one side throws about such claims, thus my response; and quite frankly, I haven't seen much objection from 'the other side,' ie: those with opposing views, when it happens.

In other words, in this instance, of course eyeball would agree with you without claiming you love terrorists, but posters such as him are not exactly innocent of calling anyone who doesn't agree with their views a bigot, so I fail to see why he's any better in your eyes than those you accuse of being "moral relativists."

So that's what I was getting at. It just struck a nerve when I read your post, so I responded accordingly; just saying what was on my mind at the time.

[bloodyminded]

The thing I've observed about zealots is that no amount of evidence will convince them that something they want to believe is wrong, and yet, it requires almost no evidence to convince them that something they want to believe is the gospel truth. There have been all sorts of allegations about the various coups against Aristide, but no one has showed the Americans were even involved - much less that Canada had anything whatsoever to do with it.

But don't let that get in your way.

Even if I'm wrong, and I don't think I am, I will gladly concede the point to you in lieu of the evidence I might be able to collect.

Which of course means, by your definition, that I'm no zealot.

The Indonesia/East Timor issue is my primary one anyway, as evidenced by the comparative amount of space I used on it.

We "indirectly " aided the government of Indonesia, by, I suppose, not shunning them as we should any non-democratic nation which violates human rights - like, for example, about 90% of the planet at the time. Even today, just whom are we to have normal bilateral relations with? Not China, not Russia, not India, no one in Africa with one or two possible exceptions. As I said, our governments can't afford to be as pure as you.

Since I was quite clear and purposeful in my choice of words, I now see you're either totally ignorant of the facs, or are wilfully ignoring the inconvenience of shattering your masturbatory fantasies about the noble, freedom-loving Western nations. I will take the assume-the-best option and presume you merely ignorant.

We did not avoid shunning them, or "look the other way" as the apologists, lacking any knowledge of the situation, assert through reflex.

We materially aided them, knowing that our material aid was being used for exactly the purposes that it was being used.

S]

This is not avoiding the issue; it is perpetration. It is direct and intentional support.

Indeed, for decades (decades!) the small number of activists were calling on the interested parties (particularly the US, who was the Godfather in this large-scale gangster action) to cease arming the Indonesian military until they stopped slaughtering innocent people. The activists were comprised of a few leftists like Noam Chomsky, small Catholic groups ignored by the Vatican for their uncomfortable stance on this issue (ie the moral and legal stance); and some very courageous East Timorese activists, scholars, and peasants, many of whom were murdered with American and British and Australian weapons.

Indeed, when the mainstream media finally began to break its virtual silence--after 24 years, while they had been moaning deliriously about our humanitarianism elsewhere, much as you are wont to do--the leaders, notably Clinton, understood that the story was dangerously close to becoming big news.

So, the flow of arms was stopped; and, as predicted, the slaughters stopped too. That was when the UN came in; and that was when people like Clinton, and people like yourself, started rewriting immediately-preceding history, claiming we had "looked the other way," and so on.

Which is the direct, literal opposite of the truth.

[bloodyminded]

I wasn't claiming you called me a bigot, but others sure have, and to me your response made it sound as if you think only one side throws about such claims, thus my response; and quite frankly, I haven't seen much objection from 'the other side,' ie: those with opposing views, when it happens.

In other words, in this instance, of course eyeball would agree with you without claiming you love terrorists, but posters such as him are not exactly innocent of calling anyone who doesn't agree with their views a bigot, so I fail to see why he's any better in your eyes than those you accuse of being "moral relativists."

So that's what I was getting at. It just struck a nerve when I read your post, so I responded accordingly; just saying what was on my mind at the time.

Sure, I understand. I just don't think you take my silence as agreement with someone calling you a bigot, which simply does not seem to me to be your style; you haven't stepped up to defend me from insults...and this isn't even faintly a criticism: I don't see why you should think it necessary.

[Argus]

Then you should rather focus on your own literacy issues, since I said nothing about my objectivity or lack thereof; what I said, unambiguously, is that the terrorists supported by the powerful Western nations have often been objectively worse than Hamas.

Clearly, being as divorced from basic logic as you are from anything even approaching reality, you fail to grasp that when you say "objective" you are, in fact, speaking of yourself. In your opinion, it would be "objective" to consider western governments the most evil in the history of the world, probably the universe for all I know. However, that is entirely on you. Most everyone else (ask one of the gentlemen in the white coats who you occasionally interact with) would disagree.

Your definition of "objectively worse" would no doubt be comprised solely of whether or not the terrorists were allied to us. As if special pleading is a fair substitute for denotation.

Hardly. Actions are good or evil on the face of it, regardless of who perpetrates them. I simply have difficulty coping with your bizzaroland chain of logic which says terrorists who hack children to death are "objectively" on the same moral plateau as governments which form strategic alliances with governments which which abuse human rights. especially given almost all governments violate human rights. I also have difficulty with you then using this to excuse the behaviour of those terrorists with the suggestion they're no worse than we are.

Yes, the East Timorese were astonishingly evil and violent, which is why we had to turn to the peaceable and noble Indonesian dictatorship to massacre them in their open attempt to take the land by force. We had to help these armed Ghandis murder the Satanic E. Timorese, because....um....the Cold War!

There was a lot of confusion about what was going on in East Timor at the start. Contrary to what you seem to believe, western governments are not always intimately familiar with the underlying causes of everything which happens in the world. But i've seen no evidence to suggest anything which happened in East Timor would have been different if we had opposed the Indonesian government.

What you mean, quite explicitly, is that it's extremely complex when our governments are committing astounding acts of criminality and horror; but when an Official Enemy behaves similarly (or even far less egregiously), well, then it becomes crystal clear, and perfectly simple: good versus Evil.

No, I mean that having bilateral relations with other countries does not make us guilty of "ASTOUNDING acts of criminality and horror", despite how your feverish mind seems to feel about it. Nor does it excuse, however much you seem to feel it should, the barbarous murder committed by terrorist like Hamas.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, I understand. I just don't think you take my silence as agreement with someone calling you a bigot, which simply does not seem to me to be your style; you haven't stepped up to defend me from insults...and this isn't even faintly a criticism: I don't see why you should think it necessary.

It's not about "defending from insults;" it's about only recognizing what's happening when one side is doing it. I just didn't understand your singling out of eyeball for not calling you a "terrorist supporter" when he agrees with your stance as opposed to "the moral relativists" calling you a "terrorist supporter."

I'm just wondering how it's any different to accuse someone of being a bigot than to accuse them of being a terrorist supporter, or a "moral relativist," for that matter. Who are these 'moral relativists?' I'm reading it as anyone who understands where Israel is coming from in this incident and isn't automatically siding with Palestine. That would include me. So what makes me more of a "moral relativist" than eyeball or you?

[Argus]

Indeed, when the mainstream media finally began to break its virtual silence--after 24 years, while they had been moaning deliriously about our humanitarianism elsewhere, much as you are wont to do--the leaders, notably Clinton, understood that the story was dangerously close to becoming big news.

So, the flow of arms was stopped; and, as predicted, the slaughters stopped too. That was when the UN came in; and that was when people like Clinton, and people like yourself, started rewriting immediately-preceding history, claiming we had "looked the other way," and so on.

Interesting view of history. But hopelessly silly, as is your habit. Leave aside the fact that if Rwanda taught us anything it was that you don't need a lot of arms to slaughter people, refusing to sell or even give arms to a large, national entity, particularly one the size of Indonesia, merely causes them to turn to another arms supplier, of which there are a great number, most especially the Soviets and Chinese, neither of which were particularly fastidious about what their arms were used for. So turning against the Indonesians would have done precisely nothing but have them turn to the Soviets for support and weapons.

[Argus]

A very good account of what went wrong with the Israeli raid.

BBC - What Went Wrong

[dre]

Not sure why anyone is suprised about this. Collective punishment doesnt work if you cant control the flow of goods to an area.

Because Israel makes it virtually impossible for moderate elements to gain political traction in the occupied territories. People dont vote for doves when a foreign invader is building new settlements on their land and pumping out their resources.

[M.Dancer]

A very good account of what went wrong with the Israeli raid.

BBC - What Went Wrong

Interesting analysis....basically, by showing restraint initially where none was warranted, they made fatalities inevitable.

[M.Dancer]

Yes. Thank you for correcting the typo.

You didn't answer me. Why are you championing international water laws while continuously justifying violations of other international laws?

What are international water laws? How or when did I champion them? Do the need championing?

[dre]

Interesting analysis....basically, by showing restraint initially where none was warranted, they made fatalities inevitable.

No, basically the policy of collective punishment, coupled with idiotic mismanagment of the raid itself caused them yet more publish relations issues, and damaged relations with one of the only neihbors that can stomach them.

No reports so far of any illegal weapons being smuggled in... looks like Israel just shot up a ship full of medicine and food. Brilliant!

[bloodyminded]

Clearly, being as divorced from basic logic as you are from anything even approaching reality, you fail to grasp that when you say "objective" you are, in fact, speaking of yourself. In your opinion, it would be "objective" to consider western governments the most evil in the history of the world, probably the universe for all I know. However, that is entirely on you. Most everyone else (ask one of the gentlemen in the white coats who you occasionally interact with) would disagree.

OK, Argus: one more time. Read carefully: By "objectively worse" I was referring only and specifically to the amount of murders that were taking place; to the amount of terror sowed, in other words.

It is not debatable that the Indonesian military and its proxy militias--using arms from the US, Canada, UK, and others--terrorized and killed more innocent people than Hamas has.

By an order of magnitude. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. This is state terrorism, consciously abetted by the West.

If you have a superior metric for what constitutes "objectively worse" acts of terrorism, please feel free to explain it. Qassam rockets? Please.

Hardly. Actions are good or evil on the face of it, regardless of who perpetrates them. I simply have difficulty coping with your bizzaroland chain of logic which says terrorists who hack children to death are "objectively" on the same moral plateau as governments which form strategic alliances with governments which which abuse human rights. especially given almost all governments violate human rights.

First of all, Indonesia's proxy militias DID hack people to death, with machetes.

However, almost all the terror was in fact carried out with Western weapons, beginning with Ford and Kissinger openly giving Suharto the green light for invasion and mass terrorism in December 1975 (with Kissinger's proviso that Suharto wait till he and Ford were back in the United States, for PR purpsoes).

We're not talking, here specifically, about a government that "abuse human rights--though Suharto was worse than Saddam Hussein in this respect. We're talking about an openly terrorist war against the civilian populaiton of a neighbouring state, with mass slaughters continuing from (at least) 1975 right up until the late '90s.

With Western support.

Not Western inaction. Not politics as usual. Support for outright murder and terrorism on a staggering scale.

I also have difficulty with you then using this to excuse the behaviour of those terrorists with the suggestion they're no worse than we are.

I'm not excusing terrorism, Argus. Your responses in their entirety on this subject is your excusing terrorism.

Christ on a cracker, you're accusing me of what you're doing. Amazing.

There was a lot of confusion about what was going on in East Timor at the start. Contrary to what you seem to believe, western governments are not always intimately familiar with the underlying causes of everything which happens in the world.

Yes, Ford was terribly confused when he explicitly gave the green light for Suharto's invasion; and confused when he continued to arm it. Carter was then blissfully unaware of the situation on the ground, as he increased military aid in direct proportion to an increased body count of innocent peasants. Reagan similarly couldn't comprehend the complex subject of arming state terror with tis predictable deaths and misery. Bush senior? How was he to know why the US and its allies were arming one of the worst slaughters of the 20th century. And Clinton was so very confused,, that he accidentally avoided Congressional orders to cease aiding the genocidal maniacs by doing a legal end-run around the whole mess and sending Special forces to train the Indonesian militayr in counterinsurgency techniques and close-quarter combat. (The machete-wielding militias were not producing sufficient results.)

The US Ambassador to the UN, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was instructed by his bosses to undermine any UN efforts to deal with the issue of Indonesian atrocities. In case you think this some "fringe-left" theory, you can read it in his own words:

"The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to the invasion of East Timor]. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with not inconsiderable success."

In the very same memoirs, Moynihan points out that 60 000 people were slaughtered in the first two months: the height of the atrocity, considering the time-frame, and directly related to Washington's approval. Eventually, the death-toll reached over two hundred thousand...perhaps a third of the population. Mass rapes too, a common weapon of war in such circumstances.

All with Western support, though there were Official evasions, which Executives managed to circumvent.

But of course, Hamas is far more horrific, for...some reason, unstated.

Paul Wolfowitz stood by Suharto right to the end...you know, the bleeding-heart Wolfowitz whom we're informed, by Christopher Hitchens and others, loves democracy so very much.

Oh, which reminds me, the Bush 1 and Clinton support for mass terrorism sort of punctures your "Cold War" theory, doesn't it? Not that you have yet managed to explain the necessity to National Security for mass extermination of the East Timorese anyway.

But i've seen no evidence to suggest anything which happened in East Timor would have been different if we had opposed the Indonesian government.

They couldn't have continued without the continual flow of arms and ammunition; the training of their military thugs was crucial; and, finally, what's with the go-ahead from President Ford?

And in fact, the slaughters were stopped precisely because the arms stopped, the UN stepped in, and Western leaders suddenly reversed decades of policy by opposing Indonesia's actions. So, by definition, we know that things would have been different. Because finally, they were different, because of non-military intervention to stop the genocide.

No, I mean that having bilateral relations with other countries does not make us guilty of "ASTOUNDING acts of criminality and horror",

I agree. But when we directly support, materially and diplomatically, the acts of criminality and horror, we are incontestably guilty of criminality and horror. And yes, the numbers of dead and oppressed certainly is "astounding."

Nor does it excuse, however much you seem to feel it should, the barbarous murder committed by terrorist like Hamas.

It doesn't excuse Hamas in any way. Of the two of us, I'm the only one opposing such horrific acts of violence and terror. You're justifying them. Not me.

[M.Dancer]

What is the legality of Israel’s blockade of Gaza?

That's very simple...

A legal blockade is:

CHAPTER I

BLOCKADE IN TIME OF WAR

Article 1. A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy.

Art. 2. In accordance with the Declaration of Paris of 1856, a blockade, in order to be binding, must be effective -- that is to say, it must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy coastline.

Art. 3. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

Art. 4. A blockade is not regarded as raised if the blockading force is temporarily withdrawn on account of stress of weather.

Art. 5. A blockade must be applied impartially to the ships of all nations.

Art. 6. The commander of a blockading force may give permission to a warship to enter, and subsequently to leave, a blockaded port.

Art. 7. In circumstances of distress, acknowledged by an officer of the blockading force, a neutral vessel may enter a place under blockade and subsequently leave it, provided that she has neither discharged nor shipped any cargo there.

Art. 8. A blockade, in order to be binding, must be declared in accordance with Article 9, and notified in accordance with Articles 11 and 16.

Art. 9. A declaration of blockade is made either by the blockading Power or by the naval authorities acting in its name.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

[bloodyminded]

Interesting view of history. But hopelessly silly, as is your habit. Leave aside the fact that if Rwanda taught us anything it was that you don't need a lot of arms to slaughter people, refusing to sell or even give arms to a large, national entity, particularly one the size of Indonesia, merely causes them to turn to another arms supplier, of which there are a great number, most especially the Soviets and Chinese, neither of which were particularly fastidious about what their arms were used for. So turning against the Indonesians would have done precisely nothing but have them turn to the Soviets for support and weapons.

Again: we did stop the atrocities...quite easily, in fact. After 24 years of supporting them.

[bloodyminded]

It's not about "defending from insults;" it's about only recognizing what's happening when one side is doing it. I just didn't understand your singling out of eyeball for not calling you a "terrorist supporter" when he agrees with your stance as opposed to "the moral relativists" calling you a "terrorist supporter."

I'm just wondering how it's any different to accuse someone of being a bigot than to accuse them of being a terrorist supporter, or a "moral relativist," for that matter. Who are these 'moral relativists?' I'm reading it as anyone who understands where Israel is coming from in this incident and isn't automatically siding with Palestine. That would include me. So what makes me more of a "moral relativist" than eyeball or you?

You assume a stance, and then conclude I"m referring to you.

I was talking about those who refuse to recognize the fact that Western governments have long been involved with terrorism, and that we have supported terrorism far worse than Hamas or Hezbollah has ever committed.

Those who refuse to recgognize this are acting as moral relativists. "Some terrorism is bad; some is...well, NOT terrorism."

Depending not on the acts, but on the actors.

[BCMan]

No,NO, thats unacceptable. I didnt ask you to help me search Google. I asked you to tell me its legality in your own words, try again. Bad BAD.

That's very simple...

A legal blockade is:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1909b.htm

Edited June 1, 2010 by BCMan

[M.Dancer]

No,NO, thats unacceptable. I didnt ask you to help me search Google. I asked you to tell me its legality in your own words, try again. Bad BAD.

Gee...i figured someone with a least a high school diploma would already know...

okay...a blockade to be legal must have a reason (to deny aid to the enemy, Hamas), it must be declared, (israel has and as published the coordinates in accordance to maritime law) it must be inforceble...

What more do you yearn to know?

Edited June 1, 2010 by M.Dancer

[bloodyminded]

Gee...i fihured someone with a least a high school diploma would already know...

okay...a blockade to be legal must have a reason (to deny aid to the nenmy, Hamas), it must be declared, (israel has and as published the coordinates in accordance to maritime law) it must be inforceble...

What more do you yearn to know?

Then any country with an ability to any enforcement could claim any blockade legal, based on (any) "reason," "declaration," and "enforceability."

Edited June 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[dre]

You assume a stance, and then conclude I"m referring to you.

I was talking about those who refuse to recognize the fact that Western governments have long been involved with terrorism, and that we have supported terrorism far worse than Hamas or Hezbollah has ever committed.

Those who refuse to recgognize this are acting as moral relativists. "Some terrorism is bad; some is...well, NOT terrorism."

Depending not on the acts, but on the actors.

I think its really more a sports fan mentality than anything else. Most people have picked a side in this thing log ago, and are willing to engage in a lot of intellectual gymnastics in order to justify their support for their team... much like a hockey fan that thinks all the calls against his team are terrible and all the ones against the other team are good calls.

I cant cheer for either side in this. I see two gangs of moronic religious zealots that have scuttled the chances of peace in the region in every way possible at every juncture, and a dysfunctional global community and system of international law that has been unable to play a constructive part in forcing those two retard-children to share their piece of shit sandbox and play nice.

[dre]

Then any country with an ability to any enforcement could claim any blockade legal, based on (any) "reason," "declaration," and "enforceability."

Thats pretty much the case with all international actions because theres no enforcement unless a possee is willing to act against you. And all you need is one friend with a veto on the UNSC and youre basically completely exempt from international law.

[Black Dog]

Untrue. Unlike yourself, I retain the ability to judge situations on their own merits.

An analytical approach that no doubt includes a step "how can I shape this to conform with my preexisting beliefs and prejudices?"

I think I've expressed my opinions on numerous occasions with regard to the sanctity of the letter of the law. I'm far more interested in right and wrong. The vessels were headed for Israeli controlled territory. They'd announced that to all and sundry. They were only a little ways outside the Israeli exclusion zone. Those who care more about the technical aspects of law than reality will whine about this but it really doesn't concern me whether they stopped them where they did or waited another ten or twenty kilometers. They probably wanted to go in at night thinking most of them would be below decks asleep. it was a tactical move and quite logical.

Right or wrong inasmuch as right is defined as "whatever Israel does." For example, your hilarious claim that the Israeli assault team was entitled to defend themselves, a right which you do not extend to those under attack by a group of heavily armed belligerents.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Black Dog

[dre]

An analytical approach that no doubt includes a step "how can I shape this to conform with my preexisting beliefs and prejudices?"

Right or wrong inasmuch as right is defined as "whatever Israel does." For example, your hilarious claim that the Israeli assault team was entitled to defend themselves, a right which you do not extend to those under attack by a group of heavily armed belligerents.

Youre expecting objectivity from a sports fan... thats just not how it works. Almost everyone on both sides has made up their mind and picked a side a long time ago, and thats why virtually every discussion on the those idiots over there and their pathetic struggle is about as pointless as this one.

[M.Dancer]

a right which you do not extend to those under attack by a group of heavily armed belligerents.

If by heavily armed, you mean paint ball guns....

They had been ordered to take control of the flotilla peacefully. A senior military official said the navy had been preparing to deal with the passengers as "peace activists, not to fight." As commandos rappelled down they carried paintball guns to disperse any crowds.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3094749#ixzz0pcW5IsxD

I am sure paintball guns are banned under international law...