Skyrad 0 #301 September 5, 2011 Quoteand what did the armenians do!? Why? Do you believe that there is any reason that justifies such treatment? Quote the german holocaust is 60yrs back, took them krauts not nearly 100yrs to still be in denial.. That is total nonsense.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #302 September 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteand what did the armenians do!? Why? Do you believe that there is any reason that justifies such treatment? Quote the german holocaust is 60yrs back, took them krauts not nearly 100yrs to still be in denial.. That is total nonsense. the turks still deny it even happened. no, nothing justifies that. just saying both parties have their own shit to grind before they jump at each others throats..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #303 September 5, 2011 The Turks don't deny that it happened, they deny the numbers involved but agreement has been reached over the matter between the Turks and the Armenians in the 2010 accord. But by your argument that time makes no difference then would you have Germany kicked out of the EU?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #304 September 5, 2011 no, my argument is that time does matter; you will hardly find a kraut denying their holocaust, but most turks still deny theirs. even after 100yrs, they still do. i think you missunderstood what i said or i havent been clear enough..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #305 September 5, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjYobyqSkA4When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #306 September 5, 2011 Quotei think you missunderstood what i said or i havent been clear enough.. I think that's exactly it - you two are misunderstanding each other, because (English not being your native language) you goofed-up the syntax in your post, so it was a bit confusing re: what point you were trying to advocate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #307 September 6, 2011 Quote In the USA, if a few hundred illegal Latino's all started a protest at the border, then we intervened with police, and then someone took a swing at a cop, then we sent in the special forces and started shooting people, well I guess that would be 'legal' too. Well, let's get this hypothetical right. A few hundred illegal Latinos pull out knives and start stabbing the unarmed police, and then 9 of them get shot and killed in response. We know this last ship was full of people who were willing to die for the cause. They were not innocent humanitarian aid workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #308 September 6, 2011 we know that those who attacked the ship were willing to murder - which they did.... (they must be really proud of themselves - such warriors)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #309 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe know this last ship was full of people who were willing to die for the cause. They were not innocent humanitarian aid workers. "we know....?" really? you nor I actually have any idea what their motives were. If they wanted to be armed, they would have been. Participating in a escalating violent act or series of acts could be construed as self defense. There is not much excuse for INITIATING the act of violence in the first place. Of course that is up for debate as well. I love these people who emphatically state that they ABSOLUTELY KNOW what happened on a ship 3000 miles away. you have no idea. neither do I. Sending in special forces with overwhelming force to subdue unarmed people ranks right up there with LA tactical forces kicking down doors and executing people over pot. It's inexcusable. But sadly, many Americans seem to be willing that this is an acceptable behavior for their government, but will nto feel so strongly about it when we turn into a military run dictatorship. - we are on that path. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #310 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteWe know this last ship was full of people who were willing to die for the cause. They were not innocent humanitarian aid workers. "we know....?" really? If we're still talking about the original flotilla, they stated that they were ready to martyr themselves for the cause. So, yes... "we know"....really. QuoteIf they wanted to be armed, they would have been. Participating in a escalating violent act or series of acts could be construed as self defense. Like the Israeli troops boarding with pepperball guns and then having to go to real ones to defend themselves from knives, pipes and batons? QuoteThere is not much excuse for INITIATING the act of violence in the first place. That would be the expectant 'martyrs'. QuoteSending in special forces with overwhelming force to subdue unarmed people ranks right up there with LA tactical forces kicking down doors and executing people over pot. They came in with pepperball guns and were met with knives, pipes and batons. The overwhelming force was from the 'martyrs', not the Israelis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #311 September 6, 2011 Quote Quote We know this last ship was full of people who were willing to die for the cause. They were not innocent humanitarian aid workers. "we know....?" really? you nor I actually have any idea what their motives were. If they wanted to be armed, they would have been. Participating in a escalating violent act or series of acts could be construed as self defense. There is not much excuse for INITIATING the act of violence in the first place. Of course that is up for debate as well. I love these people who emphatically state that they ABSOLUTELY KNOW what happened on a ship 3000 miles away. you have no idea. neither do I. Sending in special forces with overwhelming force to subdue unarmed people ranks right up there with LA tactical forces kicking down doors and executing people over pot. It's inexcusable. But sadly, many Americans seem to be willing that this is an acceptable behavior for their government, but will nto feel so strongly about it when we turn into a military run dictatorship. - we are on that path. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #312 September 6, 2011 QuoteThey came in.... yes they did, in international waters, with little or no right to do so. Or arguably, all the right in the world since it was international waters and they can do whatever they want. If the USA attacked a Haitian ship filled with people coming to the USA in international waters (with or without paintball guns) and those people responded with pipes and knives, and we responded with automatic weapons fire and killed a bunch of people, I expect that the world would very much frown on that and I expect the USA would suffer great consequences for it. Legal? As far as the UN in concerned, probably The right thing to do? Not even close..... Israel simply could have blockaded the ship. Eventually they run out of food and go home. Anyone remember David Koresh and Waco? Or have we already forgotten the enormous abuses of a huge government (which you guys so often staunchly argue against) He was a nut-job yes. Armed and dangerous? Absolutely. A threat to anyone? Not really. The ATF could have simply blockaded the site and eventually they would have run out of food and gave up. Give someone a gun and they will figure out a way to use it. Have large standing armies and guess what? We find ways to fight wars. Talking to a wall I think..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #313 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteThey came in.... yes they did, in international waters, with little or no right to do so. Incorrect - seach SC for "San Remo" and get some education. QuoteIf the USA attacked a Haitian ship filled with people coming to the USA in international waters (with or without paintball guns) and those people responded with pipes and knives, and we responded with automatic weapons fire and killed a bunch of people, I expect that the world would very much frown on that and I expect the USA would suffer great consequences for it. Enforcement of a legal blockade is an 'attack'? For your little example to match reality, it would have been full of narco-terrorists carrying drugs and guns for their buddies. When the Coasties came on board with beanbag rounds, they would have attacked them with knives, pipes and batons. Of course, this all would have been AFTER the narcos forced away a normal inspection boarding via small boat. Anyone that would denigrate the Coasties for defending themselves should be publicly labeled the idiots that they prove themselves to be with the statement. QuoteIsrael simply could have blockaded the ship. Eventually they run out of food and go home. And just *how* do they force the ship away, pray tell? QuoteGive someone a gun and they will figure out a way to use it. Have large standing armies and guess what? We find ways to fight wars. I believe they're called 'kinetic military actions', now...keeps from having to go to Congress and get approval, don't you know.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #314 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe know this last ship was full of people who were willing to die for the cause. They were not innocent humanitarian aid workers. "we know....?" really? If we're still talking about the original flotilla, they stated that they were ready to martyr themselves for the cause. no they didn't...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #315 September 6, 2011 QuoteAnd just *how* do they force the ship away, pray tell? Like i said, they run out of food and go home, if they run out of fuel too, we have towboats, don't you know. Or you just leave them there adrift and someone will probably end up coming to get them. The rest of my arguments stand. 'kinetic military what?' So the military can act any time it wants independently of Congress? Great, - so we ARE actually in a military dictatorship, just fucking great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #316 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd just *how* do they force the ship away, pray tell? Like i said, they run out of food and go home, if they run out of fuel too, we have towboats, don't you know. Or you just leave them there adrift and someone will probably end up coming to get them. The rest of my arguments stand. 'kinetic military what?' So the military can act any time it wants independently of Congress? Great, - so we ARE actually in a military dictatorship, just fucking great! Hey, watch it with the ThoughtCrime, buddy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #317 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteIf we're still talking about the original flotilla, they stated that they were ready to martyr themselves for the cause. no they didn't... Yes, they did. QuoteYesterday the wife of one of the men, Ali Haydar Bengi, said he “constantly prayed to become a martyr”. Mr Bengi, 39, who had four children, had studied at al-Azhar University in Cairo, a leading seat of Islamic learning. “Before embarking on the journey, he said he desired to become a martyr,” his friend, Sabir Ceylan, said. You were saying?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #318 September 6, 2011 Quote...one of the men... I am doing homework as we speak for my Statistics class. 'one' is such a great sample to standardize an entire population. And funny how there are only snippets of what was said in any article that I can find - and your link does not work. I cannot seem to find the entire conversation anywhere where 'martyr' was used. You could be using a word like martyr for many reasons, not just dying. A lot of people on that ship wanted to make a statement. Again if they wanted to all die, they would have come with heavy weapons. They did not. Israel attacked and provoked a confrontation with 'incredible violence' hence the title of the thread and the context which we are discussing. Show me the full context of the conversation from the 'so-called' extremist and I will comment on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #319 September 6, 2011 one man 'is reported to' is not enough evidence... (ball is now back to you)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #320 September 6, 2011 One man certainly seems to be enough when it's talking about how terrible the Israelis are. I don't know why the link is broken - feel free to right click it and copy. Or just search for the story on the telegraph.co.uk site - I'm sure you can find it. Google "Gaza flotilla shahid" and watch the youtube vid that's the first result - I can't access it but I'm told it confirms what I've said. If you're as clueless as to what they mean when they use the word 'martyr' as you are about the laws of the sea, why do you keep trying to participate in these threads?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #321 September 6, 2011 QuoteIf you're as clueless as you!stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #322 September 6, 2011 You're the one that's been caught out in lie after lie, skippy...you must have been looking in your mirror.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #323 September 6, 2011 no you're the liar... (ball back to you)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #324 September 6, 2011 Am I the only one that, when I see this thread title, thinks "Well good for them". ?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #325 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd just *how* do they force the ship away, pray tell? Like i said, they run out of food and go home, if they run out of fuel too, we have towboats, don't you know. Or you just leave them there adrift and someone will probably end up coming to get them. No, you still haven't answered how you stop the ship from continuing to Gaza. Physically trying to block a ship is like a giant game of chicken. If the big bad military ship actually collides with it, the number of 'innocents' killed is likely to be much higher. Shooting guns across the bow is another bluff that willing martyrs will ignore. Actually shooting the ship (ie, try to disable the rudder) again runs the risk of sinking the ship and killing many more. The UN report clearly supported the legality of the blockade, so you'll need to move on to a new argument there. And boarding with soldiers carrying non lethal weapons seems like quite a compromise already. One that cost those soldiers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
