Turkey has announced they will send another flotilla to Gaza escorted by Turk Navy

[Shastafarian]

Why block humanitarian aid?

They're not.

So they would just take their word for it if they went to Ashod. Understood.

Huh? I said so they could inspect them properly.

[ChumpDumper]

They're not.

You just said they were.

Huh? I said so they could inspect them properly.

That's the only place it could be inspected properly?

[ElNono]

Have you looked into any of the facts, or are you just responding in a biased way to what anyone says? They didn't drop-in to kill anyone. They killed in defense, after being attacked with deadly weapons. Free Gaza has sent ships four prior times, and each time, Israel boarded them. This is the first time the soldiers had to defend themselves.

And? That doesn't mean that boarding the ships with commandos was ever done in a lawful way, this time or any other time.

Do you think the Israeli Forced didn't know the flag of each ship? Don't you find it coincidental that the only time the Israeli forced had to protect themselves from "civilians" belonging to Free Gaza, was aboard a ship who's home port is 98% Sunni?

Do you have any information that the captured protesters were not civilians?
I mean, Israel has them all right now. Did Israel follow international laws against a civilian ships or not?

[Shastafarian]

You just said they were.

Nope. I said they were blockading ships. They're not blocking humanitarian aid as far as we know. It gets there eventually and would get there without incident if the activists weren't bent on provocation.

That's the only place it could be inspected properly?

Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?

[Cry Havoc]

Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?

So your position is thus: Ships carrying goods that are en route must be subdued by large transport helicopters carrying the equivalent of SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons?

[ChumpDumper]

Nope. I said they were blockading ships. They're not blocking humanitarian aid as far as we know. It gets there eventually and would get there without incident if the activists weren't bent on provocation.

As far as you know, not all of it gets there.

Maybe. Have you ever inspected a ship?

Have you?

[Wild Cobra]

Stop making me agree with Wild Cobra dammit!

Sorry, but we have to agree on some topics. Just human nature.

[Shastafarian]

So let's be clear here. Every ship that's inspected must be done via a large transport helicopter and armed infantry?

Have you ever inspected a ship? Do you know what happened on the previous occurrences of this group trying to break the blockade?

[Shastafarian]

As far as you know, not all of it gets there.

As far as you know, it does.

Have you?

Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?

[Wild Cobra]

Does the Israeli military have a right to board any boat they want in international waters with armed troops?

Technically, probably not. I'm not going to worry about that however. Maybe they should have waited for them to get within 12 miles. Think anything would have happened differently?

"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed, but I'm not going to bet the bank on that. Maybe they thought the had a missile that could be fired from miles away. At least it's not outside possibilities for such a scenario.

[Shastafarian]

Alright I'm done. I've devoted enough time to this and we're going nowhere. I'm sure as facts come out of this, people will form new opinions and some will stay staunchly where they are. I don't know how many of you are directly effected by this but I am so I don't want to get too worked up about it.

[ChumpDumper]

As far as you know, it does.

Didn't WC just say that ships were turned back in the past?

Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?

So neither of us know.

[ChumpDumper]

"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed

[Wild Cobra]

So your position is thus: Ships carrying goods that are en route must be subdued by large transport helicopters carrying the equivalent of SWAT teams with fully automatic weapons?

When the cry for a holy war is uttered, makes sense to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't WC just say that ships were turned back in the past?

If I did, I misspoke. Ships were diverted to a port of Israels choosing.

Israel always allowed the supplies into Gaza after inspection.

[Wild Cobra]

Nope. Which is why I'm not trying to say taking the ship to a port was unnecessary. Because I don't know. It doesn't make anyone less of a person to say they don't know. You know that right?

The reason is because it is impossible to do a 100% inspection of a ship, in any timely manner. When the supplies are removed, they can be inspected. Israel has then allowed the Free Gaza group to accompany the shipment via road to Gaza.

[Cry Havoc]

When the cry for a holy war is uttered, makes sense to me.

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace, still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response". To me, words should not be answered with a soldier and a gun. There were other, more peaceful, more LAWFUL ways to go about dealing with the situation.

You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with this. As it stands, they violated international laws. There is no debate on this. Now, if you want to absolve Israel of any responsibility they have to follow laws, I'm not sure why you're even bothering to discuss this in a manner of debate. Otherwise, what laws do you think Israel should be exempted from in the future?

[Wild Cobra]

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace,

Hmm...

What weapon did they have at their disposal that would have been proportional?

still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response".

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war? I could see a situation where Israel was afraid they might be carrying missiles on that ship. It was certainly large enough to carry some really big missiles.

Did we only attack Japanese and German vessels in our 12 mile limit?

You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with the situation.

I don't have all the facts, but can see many potential reasons. What will you say if tomorrow, Israel shows the world pictures of large missiles on that ship? Will you change your mind, or become a Jihad apologist?

[ChumpDumper]

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war?

[ElNono]

Technically, probably not. I'm not going to worry about that however. Maybe they should have waited for them to get within 12 miles. Think anything would have happened differently?

Sure. Then they would be breaking Israeli laws by entering Israeli territorial waters, and Israel would actually have had an actual reason to board the ships with commandos. At that point Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.

"Jihad" said 3 times may have been all the probable cause they needed, but I'm not going to bet the bank on that. Maybe they thought the had a missile that could be fired from miles away. At least it's not outside possibilities for such a scenario.

That's why Israel had the recourse to request inspection of the ships while they were in international waters. Are you familiar with the UN Laws of the Sea?

[ElNono]

Then why did they radio "jihad" three times in response to Israels request? Isn't that considered a declaration of war?

What?

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. Then they would be breaking Israeli laws by entering Israeli territorial waters, and Israel would actually have had an actual reason to board the ships with commandos. At that point Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.

So you agree that if anything, matters could have been worse if they waited.

[RandomGuy]

I guess that's where we have fundamental differences. It's my opinion that a ship on a purported mission of peace, still in international waters, displaying no hostile threat at all being boarded by armed commandos and then fired upon with fully automatic weapons could be considered a "disproportionate response". To me, words should not be answered with a soldier and a gun. There were other, more peaceful, more LAWFUL ways to go about dealing with the situation.

You act as if Israel had no alternative methods of dealing with this. As it stands, they violated international laws. There is no debate on this. Now, if you want to absolve Israel of any responsibility they have to follow laws, I'm not sure why you're even bothering to discuss this in a manner of debate. Otherwise, what laws do you think Israel should be exempted from in the future?

It seems that the commandos went in with non-lethal methods until being attacked on a couple of ships, then went "hot".

This was something of a misstep on the part of the boarding parties.

[ChumpDumper]

So you agree that if anything, matters could have been worse if they waited.

If anything, matters could have been exactly the same, but more justifiable.

[RandomGuy]

At that point [when the ships cross into Israeli waters,] Israel has every right to even sink the ships if they so desire.

Hmm Maritime law can be tricky, any good source for the law on sinking of vessels/