Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

  • News
  • Thread starter Abdelrahman
  • Start date
  • #176
2,985
15
How about the words "International Waters"?
What about it?
 
  • #177
4,239
1
For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.
It was not indiscriminate.

Second, they could have boarded the ship and searched them for weapons.
No. The ship was running.

Third, it is in-humane to block humanitarian aid.
What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None. I find your argument inhumane: you don't seem to care if they were running arms.

You are way too easy. Why?
 
Last edited:
  • #178
107
0
I would like to hear a convincing argument that blocking humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, doesn't amount to collective punishment. And this includes, not only the attack on the dignity, but also the on going blockade all together.
 
  • #179
107
0
For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.
It was not indiscriminate.


No. The ship was running.


What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None.

You are way too easy. Why?
By all first hand accounts of the passengers of the ship, no warning was issued, and they were hit in the night by a ship who had turned it's lights off. Meanwhile the other ships surrounding them had their lights on. Unless the CNN reporter is a lier, then it seams near impossible that they were not intentionally rammed.
 
  • #180
107
0
For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.
It was not indiscriminate.


No. The ship was running.


What evidence did the Isrealis have that the boat did not contain arms? None.

You are way too easy. Why?
That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not.....? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons....
 
  • #181
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,402
I would like to hear a convincing argument that blocking humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, doesn't amount to collective punishment.
Well, assuming in this case the Israelis knew the boat contained humanitarian aid...

Humanitarian aid is often used by dictators and criminal regimes for their own profit and as leverage against their own citizens. Hamas does this:
Jordan says Hamas seizes aid covoy sent to Gaza," by Suleiman al-Khalidi for Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph):

AMMAN, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Jordan said on Saturday the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas has confiscated a convoy of humanitarian aid sent to people living under an Israeli blockade in the Gaza Strip.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019880.php

Hamas is as the Taliban was in 1991. They should be given the same treatment.
 
Last edited:
  • #182
russ_watters
Mentor
19,932
6,402
That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not.....? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons....
Really, this lack of logic you are displaying is mind-boggling to me. How can you not see how absurd your way of thinking is here? *It's a blockade!* <-reread that again until it sinks in. That means no one gets through and it also means that to challenge the blockade is automatically a threat. How are you not getting this?
 
  • #183
4,239
1
For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters.

That is kind of pathetic logic. I suppose this is how attacks can be justified no matter what or who is attacked. Where is the evidence that they were not.....? Please. Where is evidence that they were? I guess they must have thought for a few moments, and decided, they are a ship, and they are in the water, they could be carrying weapons....
I would like to know why you seem to be so inhumane that you don't care whether or not the boat was running arms to kill people (humans, as you may refer to them). Use CNN as a reference. They don't seem to care either.
 
Last edited:
  • #184
107
0
If nothing comes into Gaza, then where will it come from? Whether or not Hamas may or may not profit off of imports, you can't deny the people of the country the possibility of somehow receiving things as simple as band aids.

I could also argue that leaving a civilian alive is a risk because they may be recruited by Hamas.
 
  • #185
2,985
15
I could also argue that leaving a civilian alive is a risk because they may be recruited by Hamas.
And you should just stop posting right............about................now.
 
  • #186
107
0
Please, deny my logic if you can.

I would like to know why you are so inhumane that you don't care whether the boat was running arms to kill others, or not.
I think you know I meant that trying to sink a boat of people smuggling arms would be fine.
 
  • #187
107
0
And you should just stop posting right............about................now.
Before I stop, why don't you address some of my arguments, and let me know where you stand.

1) Is it right to blockade a country (not permitting entry) of Medical Supplies?

how about that one for starters.
 
  • #188
107
0
For one thing, it is wrong to just indiscriminately attack people on international waters. Second, they could have boarded the ship and searched them for weapons. Third, it is in-humane to block humanitarian aid. Fourth, it is sad that for months, people have to try and smuggle medical supplies, food, and fuel into their own land.

It would be fine if they stopped and searched people, arrested weapons smugglers, and confinscated weapons, but to not let people bring in fuel, or medical supplies seams a little harsh.
Where did I imply that I was cool with letting in weapons?

Putting words in other peoples mouths and using deception is a sure sign of a bias.
 
  • #189
107
0
I would like to know why you seem to be so inhumane that you don't care whether or not the boat was running arms to kill people (humans, as you may refer to them). Use CNN as a reference. They don't seem to care either.
You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.
 
  • #190
2,985
15
You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.
This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them.
 
  • #191
4,239
1
You know how else people die, victims of bombings who can't get medical treatment because medical supplies aren't permitted into your country.
I see we have common ground. What would your course of action be? You are on a blockading patrol boat. You have a boat attempting to make port in Gaza. You don't know if it is transporting arms or medicine or wrist watches. What would you do if it won't stop for a search, but bolts?
 
Last edited:
  • #192
107
0
This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them.
Look, I'm part Jewish myself. I don't wish harm to Israelis, I don't wish harm to the people of Gaza. I do feel Israel has the right to try and stop Hamas from attacking them. I do think that a blockade is ok if necessary, but only to try and keep weapons out, not to keep food, fuel, and medicine out. If anything, jewish people should be speaking up when Israel does things that give them as a people a bad name. It is not in the interest of Jewish people for Israel to do things that bring about so much racism against them.
 
  • #193
drankin
Last night I watched a PBS interview with the Isreali-American Ambassador, and he said that they have been sending ambulances and medical supplies into Gaza in between strikes. Bringing Palistinian wounded into Isreal for treatment. Of course, this isn't on the news channels, it's doesn't exploit the choas needed for ratings.
 
  • #194
107
0
I see we have common ground. What would your course of action be? You are on a blockading patrol boat. You have a boat attempting to make port in Gaza. You don't know if it is transporting arms or medicine or wrist watches. What would you do if it won't stop for a search, but bolts?
You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies. If they had boarded it and discovered it was aid, they still would not have let the supplies enter.
 
  • #195
4,239
1
You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies. If they had boarded it and discovered it was aid, they still would not have let the supplies enter.
Gaza has a common boarder with Egypt. Is Egypt embargoing the west bank too? You don't get it. So called Humanitarians are in love with feeling good about their humanitarianism. People are a vehicle. They didn't need a boat to deliver drugs; they needed a boat so they could be embargoed and get indignately self-rightious abou it. These are some nasty-*ss folks.
 
Last edited:
  • #197
4,239
1
The following in {} is an honest misquote by jreelawg:

{Originally Posted by Phrak:
"This is bad argument to make. They are in need of medical supplies as a result of their own actions. The blockade didn't injure them."}

In the frantic sparing between us, she/he mixed up some quotation marks.
 
  • #199
4,239
1
I'm coming up empty on "Gaza embargo medial", "Gaza embargo full", and stuff like it. See you Dec 31, maybe."
 
  • #200
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
"I should apologise?"

How about the words "International Waters"?
Blockades, either military, or economic, are recognised and legitimate under international law.

Blockade (provided sufficient humanitarian supplies are allowed) is a non-lethal method of warfare, to be used either instead of lethal force or in addition to it.

Maritime blockades almost always take place in international waters … why do you expect Israel to follow a different rule?
Is it right to blockade a country (not permitting entry) of Medical Supplies?

how about that one for starters.
You still haven't addressed the fact that Gaza, is, and has been, for months, deprived of medical supplies.
That's simply not true. :frown:

Israel has been continuously allowing sufficient supplies of both medical aid (and food and power supplies) throughout the blockade.

Israel (and Egypt, remember) has kept Gaza short of these items … sometimes supplies have almost run out … but has never allowed them to actually run out.

And yes, a blockading country is perfectly entitled to stop medical aid … it can insist that all imports (including medical aid) go through only when and where and in the amounts that it allows … provided of course that it does allow enough.

Also …
Last night I watched a PBS interview with the Isreali-American Ambassador, and he said that they have been sending ambulances and medical supplies into Gaza in between strikes. Bringing Palistinian wounded into Isreal for treatment. Of course, this isn't on the news channels, it's doesn't exploit the choas needed for ratings.
… and Egypt has done the same. :smile:
I never tried to deny the existence of any racism, I only think that the term anti-semitism only applying to certain semites and not others doesn't make sense. I demand you say your sorry for accusing me of racism for simply posting a definition of a word from the dictionary.
"I should apologise?" :biggrin:

I did not actually accuse you of racism … I accused you of helping to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism …
To say "both sides are semites" (meaning both Arabs and Jews) is to deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism. :frown:
You're still doing it …

insisting on a general definition of "semite" so as to help deny the existence of anti-semitism as a form of racism
And my accusation was not "for simply posting a definition of a word from the dictionary" …

it was for posting a definition of a word ("semite") when nobody had used it

while not posting a definition of the word which had been used ("anti-semitic"), which would have completely demolished your argument.

"anti-semitism" (and "anti-semitic") has always only referred to Jews (and still does) … "semite" is a later word whose meaning has broadened …

this is an tactic of anti-semitic racists who, when accused of anti-semitism, re-define it to include all "descendants of Shem", thereby including the Ishmaelites who of course are the modern Arabs, so that they can say "Well, I'm certainly not anti-Arab, so by definition I can't be anti-semitic". :frown:

"I should apologise?" :biggrin:
 

Related Threads on Hundreds die in Israel raid on Gaza

  • Last Post
6
Replies
128
Views
17K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • Last Post
12
Replies
287
Views
19K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
126
Views
13K
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
79
Views
9K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
120
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top