79 replies to this topic

[Stardrive]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 14 April 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Turkey has no interest whatsoever to invade Syria.  Why would they want to get involved in a conflict?

I don't know if I'd be so sure of that. The Ottomans ruled Syria for 500 years until it was put under French jurisdiction and control as a part of the Treaty Of Versailles. Just sayin...

Syria hasn't seen any kind of real independence until rather recently in it's historical timeline. And upon examining Syria's timeline, I've concluded that the people there deserve better than what history (and up to the present) has handed them. Just my opinion.

[Black Red Devil]

MichaelW, on 14 April 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

So Turkey being reluctant to being involved = totally opposing any involvement in Syria. Right.

Being reluctant to be involved doesn't mean totally opposing to be  involved but definitely goes completely against any rational logic of  someone "itching" to be involved.

[Black Red Devil]

Stardrive, on 14 April 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I don't know if I'd be so sure of that. The Ottomans ruled Syria for 500 years until it was put under French jurisdiction and control as a part of the Treaty Of Versailles. Just sayin...

Ancient history.  Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU.  Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.

Stardrive, on 14 April 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Syria hasn't seen any kind of real independence until rather recently in it's historical timeline. And upon examining Syria's timeline, I've concluded that the people there deserve better than what history (and up to the present) has handed them. Just my opinion.

Couldn't agree more.

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 14 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Ancient history.  Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU.  Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.



Couldn't agree more.

I think the Turks are pissed because the EU have rebuffed their membership for years and now Erdog is looking to the east in hopes of building Turkey into what resembles a new leading country in a Caliphate.  Look at the way he went completely off the deep end over a few deaths of radicals on the Mavi Marmara.  He is playing to the Islamic crowd in Turkey and abroad.  But he also realizes that to attack Syria would be a huge mistake unless he's just a part of NATO.
I actually support his rhetoric about helping the innocents there.  But I think it won't go much farther than rhetoric.  I wonder if the refugees will start bombing and killing Turks in a few years for "stealing" Syrian land?

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 14 April 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

Look at the way he went completely off the deep end over a few deaths of radicals on the Mavi Marmara.

  So, the US sends a flotilla of boats on a peacekeeping mission (none of the people on board were listed as being radical) to assist an oppressed population and their boats get raided and attacked in international waters by a special operations task force unit from the oppressors, armed to their teeth and you're expecting me to believe that Obama would take it on the chin and do nothing?  

How it must hurt to be fair and objective, huh?

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 15 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

  So, the US sends a flotilla of boats on a peacekeeping mission (none of the people on board were listed as being radical) to assist an oppressed population and their boats get raided and attacked in international waters by a special operations task force unit from the oppressors, armed to their teeth and you're expecting me to believe that Obama would take it on the chin and do nothing?  

How it must hurt to be fair and objective, huh?

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.
The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did.  Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck.  Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.
And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.
The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did.  Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck.  Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.
And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

OK, show me a link where A Naval Task Force is allowed to board a private ship, in international waters, armed to their teeth and allowed to do so under International Law,  Usually, naval vessels that carry out these type of attacks are called Pirates.  

But then again, we know the Israeli's are allowed privileges that most other nations in the world aren't and we know they have simple minded americans like yourself hoodwinked, so, yeah I agree, talking objectiveness with you IS probably pointless.

[The New Richard Nixon]

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

If you were being objective I would discuss it with you but you obviously are comfortable with the mischaracterization pressed by the anti Israel crowd so there's no point.
The Marmara was on a mission to do exactly what it did.  Dozens of activists were seen in the video engaging the Navy forces before they could even get on the deck.  Similar intercepts that occurred without violence were insufficient to get world attention so they turned up the heat and got dead for their trouble.
And as to what Oby would or wouldn't do...just check the polls on any given day - that tool is apt to do ANYTHING.....

The UN did condemn the Israeli's and it was against the UN law. But what the hell is this got to do with Syria?

[Stardrive]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 14 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Ancient history.  Turkey's biggest ambition is to become part of the EU.  Invading and repossessing land goes against the basic principles of what the EU is all about.

Old habits die hard. If things worsen and spiral out of control the EU just may give it's blessing for a limited engagement. Or if pushed enough, may go it alone. Although I find that unlikely, it's still a possibility given the regions history. No it's not ancient history silly, the Ottoman's ruled Syria from 1519 till 1920. Oh I know, it was probably just a figure of speech...  

Quote

Couldn't agree more.

At long last,  a point we agree on....   Hey, it's a good start!

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 15 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

OK, show me a link where A Naval Task Force is allowed to board a private ship, in international waters, armed to their teeth and allowed to do so under International Law,  Usually, naval vessels that carry out these type of attacks are called Pirates.  

But then again, we know the Israeli's are allowed privileges that most other nations in the world aren't and we know they have simple minded americans like yourself hoodwinked, so, yeah I agree, talking objectiveness with you IS probably pointless.

The blockade is legal since Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel and they actively fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis.  The UN agrees with this.
It is legal to use force in boarding a vessel anywhere, if that vessel is headed to a port which would break the blockade.

http://www.reuters.c...E65133D20100602

If they did not blockade the Pali's then Hamas would acquire even more massive stockpiles of arms with which to attack Israel.  Try not to confuse your deeply held bias against Israel with an actual knowledge of the law.  The truth is that those who weep for the plight of the Arab stepchildren are just anti semites wrapping themselves in the noble cloth of human rights.  Hamas never met a human right that it didn't abuse, mostly against it's own.
When Israel is pushed to the breaking point by useful idiots in the world community they are going to scorch the ground in the surrounding countries.  And folks like you can scream about it until you turn blue but nothing is going to change the outcome.  If the Arab stepchildren really wanted peace instead of the annihilation of Israel, they could have peace tomorrow.  But there will never be negotiated peace because the hatred is too ingrained.  Israel will have peace when her enemies are scattered and destroyed.  And that day may not be so far away.

Edited by and then, 15 April 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

The blockade is legal since Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel and they actively fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis.

Ha, the expected answer.

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

The UN agrees with this.

No it doesn't.  Just because the Pick & Choose (Palmer) Report from an independent group of 4 individuals, with clear political motives, suggest the blockade is legal, doesn't necessarily mean this is Law and encrypted in stone.  My link
Together with the UNHRC opinion in the link, you can add the UN Secretary General opinion My link & My link, every other Human Rights Groups opinion and most world leaders opinion and they all come up with the same conclusion, the blockade is inhumane and/or illegal.  If you ever bothered to look up the information on one of the HR sites, before shooting off your Media brainwashed parrot repeating opinions, you'll also understand why.

Sticking to the Report.  It also suggests that the Israeli's used excessive force, should compensate the nine victims and apologise to Turkey.  Yet nothing!!??  Have you got an objective view on this or you're only interested in the part of the Report favorable to Isreali interests?

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

It is legal to use force in boarding a vessel anywhere, if that vessel is headed to a port which would break the blockade.

According to the San Remo Manual, Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral  countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds" to be carrying  contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they  intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, which the Isreali's claim happened, BUT, Paragraph 102b of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade" which is what the UN, UNHRC and all HR groups acknowledge is happening.  So, if the naval blockade is illegal on these grounds, the flotilla raid was illegal. FULLSTOP.  But, I'm sure you'll never read this on your Christian/Zionist media channels.

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Israel will have peace when her enemies are scattered and destroyed.  And that day may not be so far away.

Go get em Rambo.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 17 April 2012 - 05:55 AM.

[Black Red Devil]

Just to add, apologies to the mods and Erix for taking the thread a bit off course.

[The New Richard Nixon]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 17 April 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

Just to add, apologies to the mods and Erix for taking the thread a bit off course.

That's ok but when there is an Israel debate it goes on and on lol.

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 17 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Ha, the expected answer.



No it doesn't.  Just because the Pick & Choose (Palmer) Report from an independent group of 4 individuals, with clear political motives, suggest the blockade is legal, doesn't necessarily mean this is Law and encrypted in stone.  My link
Together with the UNHRC opinion in the link, you can add the UN Secretary General opinion My link & My link, every other Human Rights Groups opinion and most world leaders opinion and they all come up with the same conclusion, the blockade is inhumane and/or illegal.  If you ever bothered to look up the information on one of the HR sites, before shooting off your Media brainwashed parrot repeating opinions, you'll also understand why.

Sticking to the Report.  It also suggests that the Israeli's used excessive force, should compensate the nine victims and apologise to Turkey.  Yet nothing!!??  Have you got an objective view on this or you're only interested in the part of the Report favorable to Isreali interests?



According to the San Remo Manual, Paragraph 67(a) only permits attacks on the merchant vessels of neutral  countries where they "are believed on reasonable grounds" to be carrying  contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they  intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, which the Isreali's claim happened, BUT, Paragraph 102b of the Manual prohibits a blockade if "the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade" which is what the UN, UNHRC and all HR groups acknowledge is happening.  So, if the naval blockade is illegal on these grounds, the flotilla raid was illegal. FULLSTOP.  But, I'm sure you'll never read this on your Christian/Zionist media channels.



Go get em Rambo.

Cute and thanks, I've never been called Rambo before   
If the actions of Israel were/are so far out of line with international legal precedence then why are no further actions taken against them?  The truth is that the blockade is completely legal and while I'm sure it causes problems for the Gazans, they bring it on themselves by consenting to terrorist activity being projected from their soil.  Quoting propaganda from a UN organization that is negative toward Israel is silly.  Everything from the UN is anti Israel - the UN is a farce in this respect.

[Black Red Devil]

Whatever suits your argument....

and then, on 15 April 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

The UN agrees with this.

and then, on 18 April 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Everything from the UN is anti Israel - the UN is a farce in this respect.