Israel attacks Turkish humanitarian ship in international waters

ResearchMonkey said:
I'm not as familiar with stormfaggots as you are, I know they hate Jews/blacks and they adore the national socialist thing..
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to see you distance yourself from those people even if you felt the need to throw out some bigotry towards gay people in the process. They don't like homosexuals either so you still have that....and the Tea Party....and a bunch of other stuff.

Anyway, congrats.
 
Saw the comment about the circumcised weenie and had to comment. I've had both, but the majority of men in the US are circumcised. The one I had that wasn't was a guy in the Netherlands. Circumcised doesn't mean you're Jewish, it's just a cleanliness thing that U.S. doctors adopted a long time ago. I knew a guy who's dad wasn't circumcised and he grew scar tissue and had to be circumcised in his 50's. Apparently it was quite painful. Also knew a guy in Sweden who's foreskin was so tight that when he had an erection it was painful and had to have a circumcision in his late teens. Also painful, both the pre-circumcision erection as well as the circumcision itself. Both that had the circumcisions were happier after the procedure healed.

From a woman's perspective, sex with either can be pleasant or boring depending on the guy and his abilities. Sex with the guy in The Netherlands was enjoyable, as was sex with most of the guys who had been circumcised in the U.S., but like I said, it depends on the guy and his abilities as to whether sex will be enjoyable or not.

OK, you may continue to abuse each other.
 
spike said:
Hey jim, I don't think you've been reading this thread too well....

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=662829&postcount=52
Click to expand...

I don't buy into "Well, they did it too!" arguments. I posted first and you should be able to answer the evidence I posted and THEN counter with your own contentions. Countering a contention with another contention is like answering a question with another question.

Did the "activists" have weapons or not?

Did they use those weapons?

Did Reuters crop the combat bladed knife out of the picture?

Did they do so, in your opinion, as a purposeful act?

If not, why; and how did you come to that conclusion?

Now AFTER you have challenged or agreed with my contentions it is totally acceptable to make a counter contention like:

Even worse the Israeli IDF has been caught editing tapes for propaganda...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/idf...-must-retract/

What are your thoughts on those accusations against the Israelis?
Click to expand...

To which I would then investigate the sites, do further independent investigation, make an informed decision, and then post back to you.

Ya wanna try this one again? Start with the questions posed above.
 
Every woman I have ever had breach the subject of circumcision has stated that the circumcised penis is far more attractive. Women do not particularly like uncircumcised penises because of the smegma problem. Women say that uncircumcised penises can have a bad odor, that would be smegma. Who would want to put that in their mouth or anywhere else?
 
spike said:
Some people will believe israeli propaganda and ignore facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4&feature=related

The criminals would be the ones attacking a humanitarian ship in international waters.
Click to expand...

Yet you dismiss the criminality of an entity, any entity, trying to run a lawfully erected blockade which is an act of war. You consider the goods on board the ship as justification for the ship, regardless of load or manifest, to run a military blockade. By your standard, there should be nuclear armed missiles in Cuba to this day because the United States should not have erected the Cuban blockade.

You also seem to believe that the borders of a country are not sacrosanct; and anyone who damned well pleases should be able to simply violate that border with impunity based on good intentions.

The fact is that the blockade was erected because there were 4,000 rockets fired from Gaza in a one year period which rained down on Israeli towns. To this there were but three choices:

A forward defense;

An active defense;

A passive defense.

Charles Krauthammer explains these defenses quite well in THIS ARTICLE where he also shows why the ships were not humanitarian aid but simply blockade runners. The Israelis offered to accept the aid at an Israeli port. If the goods were truly humanitarian aid the blockade runners would have anchored at the Israeli port and allowed the Israelis to get the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza.

Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Click to expand...

Here is what Berlin said from alarabiya.net:

SOURCE

Gal suggested the organizers should voluntarily head to Ashdod to unload the supplies so Israel or humanitarian agencies can deliver them to Gaza overland.

Flotilla organizers rejected the offer.

"We are taking 10,000 tons of material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza," Berlin said, adding the cargo includes water filtration units, pre-fabricated homes and crayons for children.

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians," she said.
Click to expand...

So the people you so fervently defend admit that their mission is not to deliver humanitarian supplies. Their mission, in their own words, is the criminal running of a legal blockade which is an act of war.
 
jimpeel said:
I don't buy into "Well, they did it too!" arguments. I posted first and you should be able to answer the evidence I posted and THEN counter with your own contentions. Countering a contention with another contention is like answering a question with another question.
Click to expand...

Jim, the link showed that you're video "Listen to the "activists" in their own words" was edited and highly dubious. The IDF says that it doesn't know where those words came from. It's seems likely after seeing the other video where they say something like "our destination is Gaza" that Israel may have produced it as propaganda.

Did the "activists" have weapons or not?

Did they use those weapons?
Click to expand...

They did not have any illegal weapons. They grabbed whatever they could to defend their ship.

Did Reuters crop the combat bladed knife out of the picture?

Did they do so, in your opinion, as a purposeful act?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what Reuters was doing or why. It certainly doesn't matter because everyone already knew that many of the passengers had grabbed knives.

Yet you dismiss the criminality of an entity, any entity, trying to run a lawfully erected blockade which is an act of war.
Click to expand...

Israel has been warned a couple times by the UN that the blockade is illegal. The criminality is on Israel's part.

The fact is that the blockade was erected because there were 4,000 rockets fired from Gaza in a one year period which rained down on Israeli towns. To this there were but three choices:

A forward defense;

An active defense;

A passive defense.
Click to expand...

The rockets are in response to Israeli attacks, random killings of civilians, and illegal settlements built by Israel. Both sides are at fault and in a constant state of retaliation. The correct choice is peaceful diplomacy.

Charles Krauthammer explains these defenses quite well in THIS ARTICLE where he also shows why the ships were not humanitarian aid but simply blockade runners. The Israelis offered to accept the aid at an Israeli port. If the goods were truly humanitarian aid the blockade runners would have anchored at the Israeli port and allowed the Israelis to get the humanitarian aid to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Click to expand...

No, the blockade is illegal and Israel steals much of the aid headed for Gaza (notice all the ridiculous items and basic needs).

The humanitarian ships were either going to take the aid to Gaza or draw attention to the illegal blockade. The wrong answer would be to go along with the blockade and let Israel steal half of the aid.

So the people you so fervently defend admit that their mission is not to deliver humanitarian supplies. Their mission, in their own words, is the criminal running of a legal blockade which is an act of war.
Click to expand...

As I said either take aid to Gaza or draw attention to Israel's illegal siege. The crimes are on the part of Israel.
 
The reason that the blockade was set up was because terrorists were shooting off rockets at Israeli border towns from Gaza. I believe Israel has the right to keep its citizens safe. No one bothers to look at the reason for the blockade, just that it's wrong.

I agree that some of the items blocked are outrageous, but I understand the reason behind some of them.
 
valkyrie said:
The reason that the blockade was set up was because terrorists were shooting off rockets at Israeli border towns from Gaza. I believe Israel has the right to keep its citizens safe. No one bothers to look at the reason for the blockade, just that it's wrong.
Click to expand...

And the reason for the rocket attacks was because Israel kills Palestinians at random. An endless cycle.

Regardless, the blockade is illegal and starving the people of Gaza.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top