Mayonaise wrote:
Aestu wrote:
The video is from the Israelis and they have a long history of falsifying evidence and lying about events. They have zero credibility and there's no reason to even believe the video is real.
And the Palestinians are all of a sudden more credible? I watched some rebuttal to this where reporters were supposedly already on the ship and there are gunshots in the background (supposedly as the fight was breaking out), but this was horseshit.
What was "horseshit"? About what assertion are they not credible?
Mayonaise wrote:
Aestu wrote:
The Israelis have said they refuse to allow basically innocuous materials necessary for life into Gaza because they may be used in weapons, never mind that you can't actually turn cement or sugar into weapons without many, many other reagents and equipment.
I'm not discussing whether or not what Israel is doing is right, but rather those trying to defy Israel are just as stupid as they are and are only gonna get themselves shot.
That is what it takes to change things.
Mayonaise wrote:
In the article I posted, this new ship trying to dodge the blockade is named after some American that got killed protesting by staying in a house as it was being bulldozed. Israelis are going to do what they want regardless of what a bunch of activists say. Fighting with the israelis when you're trying to dodge their blockade is just BEGGING for trouble. I mean hell, they probably would've been justified to sink the ship if they really wanted to.
How would they be justified in sinking an unarmed ship full of consumer goods and building materials?
The point is to challenge the unjust. That is the nature of courage. To do what is right, not what is easy. To do what must be done.
Mayonaise wrote:
Aestu wrote:
But really the first point is sufficient. It's a blockade. A blockade is an act of war and therefore fundamentally aggressive. Whatever may happen, it is the party maintaining the blockade that is the aggressor. Of course aggression will involve violence; saying that people doing what they ought to have a right to do is "provocation" is a shill for the Israelis oppressing and exploiting these people.
They have a right to get supplies to Gaza, but I'm sure that there are ways that don't involve trying to break through a military blockade and attacking special ops soldiers when they board your boat.
...such as....?
Mayonaise wrote:
I'm not trying to justify the Iraq war, but if we were blockading a port there and some ship tried to break through our blockade and attacked our troops that boarded it, wouldn't we have done the same thing? There wouldn't be nearly as much of an international outcry if this exact situation happened in a different theater.
No, we would not, and we never did. In fact, you can go read Schwarzkopf's autobiography,
It Doesn't Take A Hero, in which he
explicitly states that a blockade is an act of war, was reluctant to impose one, and asked Washington to proceed carefully. Consumer goods flowed into Iraq all before, during, and after the wars.
Mayonaise wrote:
Zaryi wrote:
Because spears and arrows can fend off disease and guns.
Much like how rocks and homemade hand grenades can fend off tanks and bomber strikes?
Not really, no. During WWII, armed civilians would sometimes use Molotov cocktails to destroy tanks by impacting their ventilation ducts or exposed gears, but modern tanks are fully self-contained and do not have that weakness. Go read
Is Paris Burning?
Modern bombers fly at an altitude of 1-5 miles, are not susceptible to small arms fire or even cannon, and it's completely impossible to shoot them down with anything that can be produced at home.
