You're pretty confused about what the Geneva Convention means and addresses, what a weapon is in that context, and who I share company with. Attacking CIVILIANS BRINGING AID (RED CROSS FOR EXAMPLE) is what happened here. Israel has been doing this crap for decades, although since Bush turned a blind eye for eight years they have gone completely berserk in their genocidal behavior towards Arabs and their allies. No treaty is too strong for them to break, no human being too frail for them to torture.
Give California to Israel. The arabs can have whatever land they want there and we can get rid of California AND THE LAKERS all in one motion. Awesome. I had to edit this to remove a part about the Israelis getting rid of the illegals. Let them deal with them however they want.
Believe me, the Geneva Convention is something I'm pretty familiar with. Anyway, as I said before, I haven't read anything about this yet. I have no idea what the israelis did, who they did it to, etc. I was responding to your post above which said "They boarded, uninvited, and should have expected to be killed for their unprovoked attack on an aid ship." All I wanted to add to the conversation is that, if you are performing an act of war (which, if you're using uniformed members of a government military service, you are--it's not a terrorist act) by illegally boarding an "aid vessel" on the high seas, then you shouldn't have expected to be killed, b/c you're attacking non-combatants. Or if you did, it's not an "aid vessel". Anyone that picks up an arm against you is now a combatant. According to the Protocol One and the Rome Statutes of Geneva Convention you can't attack a civilian...but if they try to fight, they're not civilians. As for the "who you share company with", the following people have announced some form of "Fuck Israel and Everything They Stand For" racial epithets before: the Crusaders, various populaces during the Black Plague who thought it was spread by Jews, not rats; Martin Luther (though only advocating killing those who didn't convert to Christianity); the KKK starting up again in 1915 in the Leo Frank Affair (after being dormant since right after the Civil War); Hitler and a horde of his cronies; Stalin; various Arab leaders like Arafat and Ahmedinejad, the Neo-Nazis, etc. Not a lot of confusion on my part there, unless you were just kidding about the whole "Fuck Israel and Everything They Stand For" thing. Then, my fault. Otherwise... ... YOU MAKE THE CALL!
No offense Brian, but not all of us accept the meme that the *country* of Israel = the *religion* of Judaism.
None taken. Are you saying it's acceptable then to say either of the following (for instance): "Fuck Mexicans and Everything they Stand For" "Fuck Muslims and Everything they Stand For" I mean, one decouples a country from their faith(s) and just wants to wipe out a country. One decouples countries from people of a faith and just wants to wipe out a people group. Which one is right, again? No matter if you take it as "Fuck the Country of Israel, its Inhabitants of any faith (or none) and everything they stand for" or "Fuck the Adherents of the Religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", neither (to me) is acceptable, and both deserve to be called out as bullshit. Unless it was a joke, in which case imho it was poor taste, but hardly the worst thing seen on here.
Civilians aren't allowed to defend themselves from being attacked without losing their civilian status? If, for example, a civilian is attacked in his home by a soldier and defends himself, he stops being a civilian? Either you're incorrect, or the Geneva Conventions are incredibly irrational on this point.
When people say "Fuck Country X", what they almost always mean is "Fuck the government of Country X." People being critical of the actions of the Israeli government, or any other government, doesn't offend me one iota. Now, if someone falsely accused the PM of Israel of being a pedophile - that would be a different matter. Going after him for his actions/policies, seems to me to be fair game.
You subtly but meaningfully changed it in building your examples. MARIS said "Fuck Israel" not "Fuck Israelis." As oldmangrouch noted, criticizing a nation is generally shorthand for their government and international presence, not every person within its borders. It's not being a Nazi sympathizer to criticize Israeli policy.
Or Part Three, it's not generally understood by people who don't have to live it every day. Few points here. First, the Geneva Conventions govern humanitarian treatment of people in time of war. Is this being considered an act of war? I don't know. I'd surmise that since a uniformed group of a country's military attacked another country on the high seas, whether it's Turkish aid workers, Liberian-flagged cruise ships, etc., it's considered war and not piracy or another criminal act. But again, I don't know much about this. Second, a civilian is one who "doesn't take part in hostilities". It's not really tough, or irrational. If the Israeli troops were committing a military act against an "aid vessel" of nurses and missionaries, then they're bound by GC protocol on their new prisoners in the civilian category. They can't just shoot them b/c they took over the ship...that's a War Crime. If you pick up a gun and try to repel boarders, you're now a combatant. Different rules apply to you. So yes, if someone is attacked in their home during war, it's a war crime. It's not supposed to happen. If it does, and you shoot back (b/c you don't want to die at the hands of a war criminal) then you just became a combatant. If someone attacked in their home outside of war, it's a criminal act, not a war act.
Why not take a moment and read an article or two instead of qualifying all of your posts by telling people you haven't read anything about this? I even posed an entire article and included a link when I started this thread.
his quote was To me, at least, it seemed to indicate that those Israelis present should've been slaughtered, as well as that they were "the most aggressively racist country in the world". If this just meant the Israeli government, no worries and I agree that that doesn't offend me one iota. I took it to mean the collective inhabitants of the country, whether "racial" Israelis or "religious" Israelis, and that is very much in line with the thinking of all of those groups and people I mentioned above.
B/c I'm not talking about the action...they were specifically in response to another poster. I'm talking about Geneva conventions, aid workers and racism. I'll get to the other stuff. My qualifications were to keep my conversation apart from the general topic.
Seems like you were directly talking about the action. You didn't say you had to read up about the Geneva convention, you said the Geneva convention was something you knew about. It's what Israel did (the action) that you said you haven't read about.
Ok, I've read the LA Times article. First, I don't see a way that the Israelis can say that they were able to board the ship 80 miles out in international waters. Second, bats and knives are weapons that you can use Deadly Force against in a proportional response. So if these soldiers were ordered to board the ship and do whatever (search for weapons, seize the "aid", take the captain prisoner, whatever) and were attacked with bats and knives and fired upon, Rules for the Use of Force in the US would allow Deadly Force in response. I don't know the Israeli rules. Third, if the Turkish guys on the ship would've let the commandos come aboard and then filed an international protest, in all likelihood no one would've died and the Israelis would've been up shit creek for violating neutrality. As it is, their troops are justified in shooting people attacking them if Israel claims this is a military or police action.
Nope, and I don't see the confusion, honestly. I was talking about the inability to say that one can expect to be killed attacking an aid ship. I'm confused again. I do know about the Geneva Convention. And until 10 minutes ago, I hadn't read anything about this Israeli action. My responses were about Maris's opinions on how one should expect to be killed attacking an aid ship (something I regard as wrong and illogical) and about the racism I felt coming out about Israel, and comparing it to others who've spouted that stuff over the centuries.
First you say you haven't read an article, then you say no that's not what you were talking about then you say you finally read the article. OK, I think I get it now.
Oh, yes, the Israelis would have suffered so. Someone might have touched their wrists with a feather. Meanwhile they would have accomplished their aims. If you were on your submarine out in international waters, would you surrender if attacked by a hostile force, in hopes of filing an international protest later? Somehow I'm guessing not. barfo
I don't think you do, so I'll explain in small words. In Post 12, I hadn't read your article, and was responding to Maris's post 11. And qualified in post 13 that it was ONLY in response to Maris's post. OK so far? My next post (20) was in response to Barfo and Maris's posts...again about what I'd written in Post 12, not post 13 or any part of your article. Still with me? My next post (23) was in response to Maris saying I was confused about Geneva Conventions. I don't really think I am, and said so. I REITERATED THAT I DIDN"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE ARTICLE, having not read it. I even stated EXACTLY what I was referring to, which was post 12. I then wrote about how I thought his posts sounded very anti-Semitic, and refuted that I didn't know who was on his list by showing some members of that list. So far, not a single word about your article. Post 25 was my next one, in response to OldManGrouch and his thought about the diff b/w Judaism and Israel. Again, not a peep about your article. Post 29 was in response to Minstrel's Post 26 about how he thought that the Geneva Conventions were illogical or I didn't understand them. There's another option to that, and I wrote about it. Still, not a word about your article. Post 31 (I hadn't seen your post 30 yet) was in response to OldManGrouch and Minstrel's posts 27 and 28. More explanation about the racism/anti-semitism thing. Still, nothing about your article. Post 30 you ask me to read your article, even though I'd gone to multiple pains to state how I wasn't AND STILL HADN'T talked about the specifics of your article, b/c I hadn't read it. I even responded to you in Post 32 to say that I wasn't talking about the specifics of your article, and wrote out in detail what I WAS talking about. But you asked, and so I did. Post 33 you seemingly felt the need to misinterpret what I wrote...for what reason I don't get. But I let you know that you were wrong about it in Post 35. Meanwhile in Post 34 I wrote my first thoughts in the entire thread about your article. In 36 you choose not to respond to it, and start in with making shit up, and assigning the crazy emoticon to it. I don't get that. But well done, I guess.
Of course not. I'm a combatant. If I was on a pleasure cruise that got boarded by the Thailand Coast Guard or something, I don't get to steal a gun and fire on the people who boarded me, whether or not they're in the right. You wait for the authorities to do their job. Or if I do fight back, b/c it's "wartime", then I lose civilian status. This isn't that tough, guys.
