QUOTE said:Israel's ministry of foreign affairs has updated its account of the clash on its website. The ministry says pistols were found on two activists.
"According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was seeking to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. The violent activists took these pistols from IDF forces and apparently opened fire on the soldiers as evident by the empty pistol magazines."
OmerMe said:K.
I still don't really get what happened there, but I don't really care.. Why do you?
QUOTE said:K.I still don't really get what happened there, but I don't really care.. Why do you?
clownb said:OmerMe said:K.
I still don't really get what happened there, but I don't really care.. Why do you?
*looks at your location, sighs*
OmerMe said:I can understand why they took control of the ships, people aren't allowed to enter Gaza, and they could be trading weapons or something.
QUOTE said:I have anything to say about this issue.
I don't even want to hear about it until it's all over.
It's stupid how everyone makes demons of Israelis whenever something happens.
I can understand why they took control of the ships, people aren't allowed to enter Gaza, and they could be trading weapons or something.
mad567 - So, because I'm Israeli I should care about every little thing Israel is involved iny? Ok, there were ships there for a good cause. Ok, we're suspicous. Move on.
QUOTE said:Israel's attack on the MV Blue Mamara, a Turkish vessel, means they just attacked a member of NATO. According to the NATO Charter, Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
If you think there is wiggle room in that definition, you would be mistaken. Article 6 is explicit about where attacks will trigger responses. Vessels in the Mediterranean Sea are mentioned explicitly.
Could be, I believe it was there to help.mad567 said:QUOTE said:I have anything to say about this issue.
I don't even want to hear about it until it's all over.
It's stupid how everyone makes demons of Israelis whenever something happens.
I can understand why they took control of the ships, people aren't allowed to enter Gaza, and they could be trading weapons or something.
mad567 - So, because I'm Israeli I should care about every little thing Israel is involved iny? Ok, there were ships there for a good cause. Ok, we're suspicous. Move on.
I thinks it was clear that the ship was only for help.........
But wait a sec........It's no good to not be informed about what happened in your own country.......
That means you don't care and you follow every thing that some poeple order......
pitman said:Israel offered the ships to dock at our port and help deliver any humanitarian goods to Gaza
Israel offered to confiscate the cargo and distribute it the way IT wanted. If its previous "aid" is anything to go by, that means keeping the whole place locked down and only allowing a quarter of the food and medicine needed in.
QUOTEWhen the soldiers boarded the ship, there was great hostility towards the soldiers and they attacked the soldiers with knives and metal-rods and they even managed to steal a rifle from one of the soldiers (while almost lynching him to death) and using it against the soldiers, there was no choice but retaliating in self defense.
Many people on the ship were people involved with terrorist group, seemed like they wanted to create an incident...
But of course this could have ended in less bloodshed.