Zionist piracy

[nirakar]

It makes you civically French, not ethnically French. And ethnicity matters when dealing with claims to land.

Why should ethnicity matter when dealing with claims to land?

Ethnicities are like human art and are enjoyable as cultural treats. Giving power to ethnicity adds nothing useful to the world and often causes suffering.

Land should not be taken by force. One ethnicity should not ethnic cleanse another ethnicity.

What to do after land has been taken by force gets complicated. Israelis have grown up on the land their grandparents took by force. Now it is complicated.

Every piece of land of significant agricultural value has been taken by force repeatedly during the long mostly unrecorded human history. We can't go back to far in history compensating the victims descendants. But the Palestinians loss is recent history.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm not disagreeing with your premise as to the complexity of the situation; rather, I'm simply saying that ethnicity matters when discussing ancestry, and ancestry matters when discussing claims to land.

Thus a person from Algeria does not have more claim to the land of France than person from France that is ethnically French.

 

[pjdude1219]

I blame the Europeans for 90% of the world's problems. Their imperialist policies during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have truly had a lasting, incredibly horrible effect on the world's development, and they continue to be an example of what not to be (socialists).

Well i agree with the first part but reject the last part

 

[pjdude1219]

Why should ethnicity matter when dealing with claims to land?

Ethnicities are like human art and are enjoyable as cultural treats. Giving power to ethnicity adds nothing useful to the world and often causes suffering.

Land should not be taken by force. One ethnicity should not ethnic cleanse another ethnicity.

What to do after land has been taken by force gets complicated. Israelis have grown up on the land their grandparents took by force. Now it is complicated.

Every piece of land of significant agricultural value has been taken by force repeatedly during the long mostly unrecorded human history. We can't go back to far in history compensating the victims descendants. But the Palestinians loss is recent history.

morally it is complicated legally not so much. property law doesn't recognize any claim based on illegiamiate means of gaining it. it would be personally legal to evict every ISraeli living on stolen land so that it could be returnened to its rightful owners and I firmly believe that is what should be done.

 

[GeoffP]

Children or trolls?

I see your as orginal as you are honest.

??? I saw know olive branch. an olive branch would be you you apologizing for being such a dishonest troll.

:yawn: That's it? Anything else?

Coming from you, sir, that is amusing as hell.

Now, show the links where you claim I have said that it was malnourished Palestinian children on those ships who 'attacked the soldiers'. Show the links where you claim I have said the following:

That was comic hyperbole, Bells, meant to call out your shifting attitudes in responsibility. (Yes: you'll claim now that I was lying, or else distract the argument into a tangent on higher-order responsibilities, I know. Okay? Let's just skip that part and pretend we did it.) To wit: first, you claimed that the passengers couldn't possibly have attacked the commandos. Then, you tried to justify the fighting as a response to being boarded. I could extend you more credibility even if the two didn't conflict, if you'd been fair or honest about this thread from the beginning.

The thing about this, Bells, is that your whole argument is essentially nonsensical bollocks: either you're splashing text over the page and then blithely moving on past it, or you focus on a point you take deliberately out of context and latch onto it, or else it's name-calling: "coward", "small hand wringing", etc etc. It's abundant clear what your side is, but not why it makes any sense to you. You go back and forth, like a spoiled child or a rebelling teenager: you know what you're rebelling against, but can't explain it in language. It's blisteringly obvious that "Palestinian children with soft iron bars" is meant as humorous hyperbole, but for some reason you've latched onto that as though I really meant Palestinian versions of Timmy Cratchett were really attacking Israeli commandos. But this is clearly not meant as a completely factual appraisal of the situation. So: why?

Is it meant as a distraction from your own resetting of goal posts (from no resistance to justified resistance)? I notice you don't make any attempt to address it. Is this a lawyer thing? If so, it's not a good tactic, because it's obvious what you're doing, and people are starting to notice. So why bother, really? It's a recurrent theme from other threads: the "genocide vote" thing, "speciesism", and now this crap. At least you've given up on the "justification" angle: hopefully because you recognize that it's actually a little more complex than that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh come off it Sam. You know I have no sympathy for Israel, but this was nothing but a publicity stunt. A bunch of fools challenging one of the world's most unforgiving military forces? The people who won't negotiate with terrorists even to save the lives of their own people?

The activists expected to take casualties and win the sympathy of the media. I'm sure everyone who signed up to board one of those boats was told clearly in advance that they were risking their lives for their cause. There was absolutely no way the Israelis were going to allow those boats to dock, and everyone on both sides knew it. This was all staged for the publicity.

Well then, if their intention was to show the world that Israelis will fire at civilians bringing humanitarian aid, they succeeded did they not? Because "the most moral army in the world" clearly has no compunctions about doing so.

I don't believe that the activists who were taking 10,000 pounds of humanitarian aid to Gaza were doing so with the intention of self sacrifice anymore than the truck convoy led by George Galloway that did the same. Perhaps they knew Israelis would not let in the aid, but I don't think there were women, children and elderly people on these ships because they were expecting to die.

 

[GeoffP]

Wow, this thread has gone off tack. Is the "piracy" issue dead then?

 

[pjdude1219]

:yawn: That's it? Anything else?

taking responsibility for ones actions and comments is the first step toward peace but than again like the thug state you defend peace is not your objective.

 

[GeoffP]

taking responsibility for ones actions and comments is the first step toward peace but than again like the thug state you defend peace is not your objective.

Interesting. Tell me more.

 

[nirakar]

I'm not disagreeing with your premise as to the complexity of the situation; rather, I'm simply saying that ethnicity matters when discussing ancestry, and ancestry matters when discussing claims to land.

Thus a person from Algeria does not have more claim to the land of France than person from France that is ethnically French.

Even before recent immigration France was not exactly an ethnically and culturally pure place. France was a synthesis of Latin Celtic and Germanic peoples. Many regions of France spoke languages other than French as recently as a few hundred years ago.

I personally like the American way where every legal immigrant is supposed to have an equal right to the USA as the people who's ancestors were in the nation longer.

If some nation wants to have non-citizen guest workers I guess that is OK but once these guest workers have a child born in the nation I think the child should be granted full citizenship because the child may not be accepted as a citizen anywhere else.

Your a Texan right? You are sort of culturally Texan aren't you? But you, your parents or grand parents came from Syria, right?


I had 500+ ancestors living in what is now the USA during 1690; should I have more rights to the land of the USA than you? I don't think so.

 

[Norsefire]

You're right, but America is not an ethnic country. Its history is not rooted in ethnicity in the same way that the European nations are, and thus, ancestry does play a role. I could not go to Canada and claim the country as mine more so than the Canadians that have been there for ages.

Similarly, an Algerian in France would not have more of a right to the land than, say, a person whose ancestry traces back centuries, and especially if it was a noble lineage.

 

[Bells]

That was comic hyperbole, Bells, meant to call out your shifting attitudes in responsibility. (Yes: you'll claim now that I was lying, or else distract the argument into a tangent on higher-order responsibilities, I know. Okay? Let's just skip that part and pretend we did it.) To wit: first, you claimed that the passengers couldn't possibly have attacked the commandos. Then, you tried to justify the fighting as a response to being boarded. I could extend you more credibility even if the two didn't conflict, if you'd been fair or honest about this thread from the beginning.

The thing about this, Bells, is that your whole argument is essentially nonsensical bollocks: either you're splashing text over the page and then blithely moving on past it, or you focus on a point you take deliberately out of context and latch onto it, or else it's name-calling: "coward", "small hand wringing", etc etc. It's abundant clear what your side is, but not why it makes any sense to you. You go back and forth, like a spoiled child or a rebelling teenager: you know what you're rebelling against, but can't explain it in language. It's blisteringly obvious that "Palestinian children with soft iron bars" is meant as humorous hyperbole, but for some reason you've latched onto that as though I really meant Palestinian versions of Timmy Cratchett were really attacking Israeli commandos. But this is clearly not meant as a completely factual appraisal of the situation. So: why?

Is it meant as a distraction from your own resetting of goal posts (from no resistance to justified resistance)? I notice you don't make any attempt to address it. Is this a lawyer thing? If so, it's not a good tactic, because it's obvious what you're doing, and people are starting to notice. So why bother, really? It's a recurrent theme from other threads: the "genocide vote" thing, "speciesism", and now this crap. At least you've given up on the "justification" angle: hopefully because you recognize that it's actually a little more complex than that.

Show me a link Geoff. I will not address any of your other points until you do.

So either show the link or stop trolling this thread with lies. I believe I have made myself quite clear.

 

[S.A.M.]

I have to say that Geoff's perspective of a commando attack on a ship full of activists carrying humanitarian aid, is quite interesting

As usual he misses the forest for the trees.

 

[GeoffP]

Show me a link Geoff. I will not address any of your other points until you do.

Bells, I won't be repeating myself. It was humorous hyperbole - with a touch of truth. It was meant to generate an introspective response, rather than searching for God knows what.

So either show the link or stop trolling this thread with lies. I believe I have made myself quite clear.

Yes, accidentally. Save your faux outrage; it seems like fatuous hand-wringing, if you know what I mean. Tell me though: when the other team scores a goal in footie, do you register the point, or move the goalposts back further and ignore it?

 

[S.A.M.]

Naomi Klein at a pro-Palestinian rally in Toronto:

We will not let this carnage stand... The only response to illegal collective punishment is collective solidarity and action. That is what the humanitarian boats embodied.... Gazans live in an open-air prison sealed off from the world. These boats, these messages, they're like the messages passed between the prison bars. In addition to desperately needed aid and supplies, they are also messages of hope and solidarity that are saying, You are not alone, we are all connected.

Those boats and the movement they represent are unsinkable..

Israel is the clear and indisputable aggressor in this situation, having sent armed soldiers on to boats in international waters...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh3endvHoGk

If they were in the West Bank, they would be greeted with tear gas grenades and live ammunition

US activist loses eye after being shot in face with tear gas canister
31 May 2010: An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel’s murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.
http://palsolidarity.org/2010/05/12...olidarity+(International+Solidarity+Movement)

 

[GeoffP]

I have to say that Geoff's perspective of a commando attack on a ship full of activists carrying humanitarian aid, is quite interesting

And yours, madam. On this thread, I've heard first that there was no resistance, and then that iron bars are apparently "iron sticks" (a kinder, gentler lethal bludgeon). This thread has also apparently unraveled the entire concept of premeditation, which was perhaps just too legalistic. (Or at least when somebody does it.) I forget specifically what you did to muddie the record, except general pretense at strict humanitarianism.

 

[nirakar]

Wow, this thread has gone off tack. Is the "piracy" issue dead then?

No.

I am a thread pirate. I am probably most responsible for this thread hijacking.


I think the Israeli military could be called pirates for what they did. I think concentration camp guards is more accurate. That flotilla was attempting to defy the concentration camp guards control of the concentration camp and the guards were not going to tolerate that.

I don't think it matters much whether the boarding of the ships happened in international or Gazan waters since the legitimacy of the Israeli action depends on the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of their right to imprison Gazans and their right to use collective punishment to try to influence Gazans.

The flotilla would not have happened had Israel not deprived Gazans. Weapon smugglers don't film themselves and openly challenge the prison guards.

 

[GeoffP]

No.

I am a thread pirate. I am probably most responsible for this thread hijacking.

No, no: not at all.

I think the Israeli military could be called pirates for what they did. I think concentration camp guards is more accurate. That flotilla was attempting to defy the concentration camp guards control of the concentration camp and the guards were not going to tolerate that.

I agree at least in part. I think the objective was the media, which has worked.

 

[S.A.M.]

And yours, madam. On this thread, I've heard first that there was no resistance, and then that iron bars are apparently "iron sticks" (a kinder, gentler lethal bludgeon). This thread has also apparently unraveled the entire concept of premeditation, which was perhaps just too legalistic. (Or at least when somebody does it.) I forget specifically what you did to muddie the record, except general pretense at strict humanitarianism.

I don't think one guy waving what looks like the handle of mike and another with glass marbles or a pocket knife constitutes "resistance". Not against trained commando soldiers utilising stun grenades, tear gas and machine guns. I also do not believe waking up to a pre-dawn attack by commnados on a civilian ship constitutes "premeditation" anymore than Poles taking food to Warsaw constitutes premeditation that justifies the holocaust. My God, these are trained combat soldiers against unarmed civilians. Is the Israeli army populated by fools and cowards?

 

[Bells]

Bells, I won't be repeating myself. It was humorous hyperbole - with a touch of truth. It was meant to generate an introspective response, rather than searching for God knows what.



Yes, accidentally. Save your faux outrage; it seems like fatuous hand-wringing, if you know what I mean. Tell me though: when the other team scores a goal in footie, do you register the point, or move the goalposts back further and ignore it?

You, sir, are nothing but a troll. You have no qualms in trying to excuse the behaviour of those commandoes. Your excuses have been tantamount to grasping at straws, and yes, hand wringing. I found nothing amusing about your attempts at "humorous hyperbole". I find nothing humorous about using malnourished children as a butt of a joke. But I suppose I cannot expect better from you. You see fit to make jokes about attempted rapes, just as you see fit to use malnourished children in what you term "humorous hyperbole". You'll excuse me if I don't laugh with you or at you.

You are more obsessed with the supposed singing than shooting peace activists and killing them. But again, that says more about you than me.

I have to say that Geoff's perspective of a commando attack on a ship full of activists carrying humanitarian aid, is quite interesting

As usual he misses the forest for the trees.

Are you surprised? I'm not.

His actions and reactions is predictable. And it is deplorable.