This isn’t a gun fight, it’s an internet discussion forum. Might makes right is a logical fallacy.
“This isn’t a gun fight, it’s an internet discussion forum. Might makes right is a logical fallacy.”
Might makes moral right is a logical fallacy. Might makes legal right is a self evident truth. You’re the one who needs to learn something here.
Sovereignty has everything to do with everything. Were it not, and only examined economically, Israel’s actions cannot be viewed as anything other than unabashed coersion, lethal piracy, and extorition. Politically, it would have to recognize Palestinian sovereignty and legitimacy as a state for it to be a declared war and blockaid; this is not the case. Israel does not recognize Palestinian…anything. There is no formality of war. Without such a formalities, recognized conventional war tactics cannot have legitimacy.
Washington D.C. continually produces organized crime and gangs which result in violence and theft. Does this mean it would be moral or legal to lift and iron curtain around the entire city and forcibly cripple and subjugate all of its inhabitants for permitting such terrors to live within their midst? How does indescriminant violence give lisence to permit indescriminate violence, let alone one of many magnitudes greater?
“Who knew your closet was a place of business, or that your car becomes a freighter when you carry groceries home?”
This post, I think, reveals your lack of anything relevant to say but If you’re talking about American law as it relates to the regulation of commerce, any and all activity that can be shown to have a substantive effect on interstate commerce can be regulated by Congress. I haven’t really researched this but I think individual states have their own internal regulations as well.
Right. Some lawers convinced the Supreme court that a man deciding to grow wheat strickly for his personal use and consumption altered interstate commerce and as such permitted The State is apply and grossly abuse the commerce clause beyond anything it was intended…that’s your evidence that non-commerical property is still commercial?
Your total subservience to legal lettering was already a positive indication of being a Statist schill, and that statement only confirms it.
Might makes moral right is a logical fallacy.
Yup, your nonsense is on par with racist polylogism.
Might makes legal right is a self evident truth. You’re the one who needs to learn something here.
By your line of reasoning, every armed robber is enforcing a “legal right”.
“Politically, it would have to recognize Palestinian sovereignty and legitimacy as a state for it to be a declared war and blockaid; this is not the case. Israel does not recognize Palestinian…anything. There is no formality of war. Without such a formalities, recognized conventional war tactics cannot have legitimacy.”
You’re wrong. The only thing that has to be established is that Hamas and Israel are in a state of armed conflict. If it is held that Hamas and Israel are in an armed conflict and that the military advantage to be gained from blocking resources from Hamas does not outweigh the damage that’s being done to the civilian population in Gaza, I hardly see how the blockade will be found to be illegal under international law. Understand, Israel is not at war with Gaza but at war with Hamas, it just so happens that Hamas is based in Gaza. Israel is also held to certain humanitarian legal standards which it claims it has met with utmost consistency. If they can show that they do adhere to these standards, I don’t think they’ll have a problem.
There is a second question, which you almost touched on, about whether or not Israel is formally occupying Gaza. They claim that they’re not. But if it’s found that they are, they’ll be subject to the Geneva Conventions.
The second part of your post, and your attempt to draw an analogy are at best incoherent. You are confusing American law as it relates to counter terrorism and international law as it relates to naval warfare.
“Yup, your nonsense is on par with racist polylogism.”
I know you’ll morally condemn me, but I don’t really care. You’re absolutely irrelevant to me, I need nothing from you.
“By your line of reasoning, every armed robber is enforcing a “legal right”.”
They’re certainly trying to. The only thing that can rebuff their legal claim is a stronger force. This is why the US government is able to do things that ordinary individuals are not: no one has the power to stop it.
[INFLAMMATORY IMAGE DELETED]
Hitler had a “legal right” to direct his murder of Jews. Let’s all hope that the Israelis responsible for this are, some day, given the same sort of ex post facto justice that Hitler’s goons got in Nuremberg.
If the Muslims take over the world, I imagine you’ll get just what you’re asking for. Until then, the law does not side with them on this. Even if the UN condemns Israel, the only real question is: what will Obama do? I wish I could kick Obama out and put Bush back in, he’d support Israel no matter what.
“Hitler had a “legal right” to direct his murder of Jews.”
According to his law, yes he did.
MOVED TO ISSUES FORUM
MOVED TO ISSUES FORUM
I don’t think you can arrive at any useful conclusions by assuming away the key issue at hand.
MOVED TO ISSUES FORUM
MOVED TO ISSUES FORUM
Right, you’d just be spraying into the crowd on the way down, the back of the head shots would be to the wounded lying on their stomachs once you’re on deck.
They surley didn’t fire comming down that would be utterly insane and not something anyone with any kind of military training would do, even firing from inside the helicopters without mounting you can hit anything in the sea or fall out…
They could have used mounted machine-guns on the helicoters for covering fire during the decent, but they didn’t … any other form of shooting before they land is just out not viable.
Israel knew that this pack of ships of protestors along with aid packages was coming and publicly announced beforehand that they would block it. When the protestors got close they lined them up and executed them.
You also seem to be confusing naval warfare with unarmed humanitarians being looted and murdered by a State, and State illegitimacy outside of its territorial borders with State legitimacy within its territorial borders.
The flotilla was not commercial in any faculty; it was purely humanitarian. It resided within international waters when it was raided and commandeered. It was in-fact, pirated. There is absolutely no way to classify what Israel did without redefining piracy–or murder for that matter. The crime occured in a place where Israeli law is not soveriegn and violated international law which held proper jurisdiction. Even refusal to be “inspected” as a premise for pirating propery and murdering innocents is illegitimate because Israel had no legal authority over the territory in which the assault occured.
Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be considered counter terrorism, as they easily fall within the definition of terrorism itself.
Terrorism (n) Tthe calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
The major fallicy with your arguments is pivoted on what is “established” and or “official”. However, within this circumstance, you only recognize what is established or official as directed by Israel itself. You claim this circular logic that Israel is not wrong because Israel says it has done no wrong. What Israel has one is objectively wrong, and any clauses that could possibly exclude their actions from anything out-right illegal are not applicable because the premises under which these clauses can be invoked were not met.
- International waters.
- No declaration of war.
- Unarmed humanitarian civilians.
- No violence initiated
Israel has nothing to stand on morally or legally under any entity other than their own claim that Israel can commit no wrong.
Shot Australian says Israelis left him to bleed
By Norman Hermant
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/07/2919698.htm
The Australian shot during last week’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla says Israeli soldiers left him to bleed on the deck after a bullet hit an artery in his leg.
Ahmed Luqman was shot twice during the raid and lost so much blood he nearly died. His condition meant he was one of the last activists deported from Israel.
He is now in an Istanbul hospital, from where he gave an interview to the ABC.
Mr Luqman said he was on the back deck of the flotilla flagship the Mavi Marmara, running to get inside, when he saw a laser sight settle on his leg.
Then he was down.
“I obviously knew that I’d been shot when I could see a bullet on the floor and a puddle of blood,” he said.
“Blood just pissing out of my leg, from two holes. You put two and two together, and it looks like you’ve been shot.”
The first bullet tore through his leg, partially severing his femoral artery. Another shot hit near his knee.
Israel says its troops were justified in opening fire after being attacked by a small band of violent activists, but Mr Luqman says that is simply fiction.
“None of us know anything about fighting and none of us intended to fight. [We’re] peaceful people,” he said.
He denied any of the activists were looking for a confrontation and said some simply responded defensively when the Israelis opened fire.
“Me for one, I’m not part of that. I was just trying to get into the cabin and [was] just shot, like most of the other people who were just shot for nothing,” he said.
As bad as the assault was, the aftermath, says Mr Luqman, was worse.
“I’ve just been left there to lay down on the ground and just friggin’ bleed, and I can’t believe it,” he said.
“Many of the soldiers that came up, picked up my passport because it was a different colour, looked at it, chucked it on the ground next to me and said, ‘Ah, you’re Australian’.”
Mr Luqman says Israeli soldiers refused him any sort of medical attention.
“They made me walk, without a stretcher, and climb all the stairs on my own without any assistance, and I passed out like three or four times just getting up the stairs on my own,” he said.
Mr Luqman’s wife Jerry was with him. The nursing student helped keep him alive as his blood drained out…
Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla
Israeli government press office distributed video link featuring Arabs and activists singing
-
-
-
Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem
(423)The Israeli government has been forced to apologise for circulating aspoof video mocking activists aboard the Gaza flotilla, nine of who were shot dead by Israeli forces last week.
The YouTube clip, set to the tune of the 1985 charity single We Are the World, features Israelis dressed as Arabs and activists, waving weapons while singing: “We con the world, we con the people. We’ll make them all believe the IDF (Israel Defence Force) is Jack the Ripper.”…