|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2010 : 23:30:31 [Permalink]
|
| And we're not just talking about walking past a bully here. We're talking about bringing supplies to one of the bully's victims. There is a crime in progress. Calling people stupid who are trying to help, or blaming them for their own demise is not something I can agree with. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2010 : 00:34:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Gorgo
Again, your need to be insulting doesn't help your case. It just keeps people who don't suck up to you and Kil from joining in. |
If you're going to complain about insults, you should have refrained from being insulting many, many posts ago.
|
My point is that anyone can refute the statements that I made that people take as an insult. I'm not sure what they're insulted about, but they can refute them. Kil is an example. He showed that one can end his part of the discussion, or he can continue. He didn't just stop and say that I was a jackass, or irrational, which would have added nothing to the discussion. That kind of thing stops the conversation, it doesn't add to it. None of us, especially me, does this perfectly, but we can at least attempt to be civil, even though the discussion may be heated. Calling me on it when I'm out of line is fine, and if I added something only for the purpose of insult in this thread, let me know, and I'll try not to do that in the future. Otherwise, show me with reason, and show me with facts, or as Kil did, give up. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 03:07:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
If I walk past the bully with the intention of going to school with all my lunch money, I may arm myself, I may bring 7 friends, but my intention is to go to school with all my lunch money, not to provoke him into taking my lunch money. I do not cause his crime by defying him. He can choose not to commit the crime. All sorts of things can happen. Including my death.
|
And you knew in advance that he feels he is in his full right to try and stop you when you do so. Regardless of what you intent to do, you know this, because he has told you so in no uncertain terms. You know in advance that he will react, regardless of what your intention is. That knowledge is not conditional, Gorgo. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 03:27:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
There are a lot of terms being thrown around here. Talking about someone bringing on (provoke) someone's own murder, or being to blame for one's own murder, is smearing that person, and taking responsibility from the perpetrator. My impression of what Kil was saying was that the protestor's intent was to "provoke a reaction." |
And here the bullshit starts already. Why is saying they provoked a reaction a smear? I think provoking a reaction if you think this will help forward your goals can be a very couragious thing to do.
Just don't pretend that you didn't know what kind of reactions your actions would start. You knew this in advance.
| My intent on defying the bully is not to provoke the bully into beating me, but to get home with my lunch money. Why would I want a reaction like getting hit with a billy club or getting murdered? The only reaction I want is no action, that is, I want to go home with my lunch money. |
Irrelevant. You know there is high chance that you are going to get beaten if you cross the lawn the bully thinks is rightfully his. You cannot pretend you don't know this.
| Some people actually delivered goods to Gaza in the past. |
Not under the same circumstances, by my knowledge. But that is irrelevant. If they did so in the past under the same circumstances, they faced the same risks going in as the flotilla did now. That they either were lukcy or Israel less brutal at that time, doesn't change that they made a calculated risk at the time.
| People defied the sanctions against Iraq by bringing toys and food. They didn't ask to be beaten. Yes, they understood there were penalties, under U.S. law, that they were willing to endure, but they didn't "provoke" the U.S. into applying those penalties. That was the decision of the U.S. government. The protestors weren't to "blame" for the penalties, they were the fault of the U.S. government. |
Just because the US didn't act on the provocation, doesn't mean that it wasn't a provocation. The possible consequences of your actions don't suddenly change afterwards because the other party didn't act on it. If the people defying sanctions went as you say (I don't know the situation, it might be that they cleared this with the US government beforehand), they knew in advance that they faced the risk of penalties. That the US didn't enforce those penalties doesn't change that.
The volunteers on the flotilla went in, knowing that Israel enforced a blockade. You can waffle all you want, nothing detracts from the fact that they acted on a calculated risk going in. Everything from their own documents indicated that they knew this in advance. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 03:28:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
And we're not just talking about walking past a bully here. We're talking about bringing supplies to one of the bully's victims. There is a crime in progress. Calling people stupid who are trying to help, or blaming them for their own demise is not something I can agree with.
|
Again, this is irrelevant to the fact that you are making a calculated risk walking past the bully. Why is this so hard to understand? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 03:34:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Gorgo
If I walk past the bully with the intention of going to school with all my lunch money, I may arm myself, I may bring 7 friends, but my intention is to go to school with all my lunch money, not to provoke him into taking my lunch money. I do not cause his crime by defying him. He can choose not to commit the crime. All sorts of things can happen. Including my death.
|
And you knew in advance that he feels he is in his full right to try and stop you when you do so. Regardless of what you intent to do, you know this, because he has told you so in no uncertain terms. You know in advance that he will react, regardless of what your intention is. That knowledge is not conditional, Gorgo.
|
I am not psychic. I do not know, ultimately, every detail of what will happen in any encounter. I did not provoke him to do anything. In fact, if I am provoking at all, I am provoking him to stop his bullying. To tell me then that I am to "blame" is, at the least, misunderstanding the situation. I have caused no crime in attempting to get to school with all my lunch money.
Now, if I leave money laying around unsupervised, one can say that I am neglectful, but I don't think one can even then "blame" me for the crime. I only bring up this analogy, because I think you're confusing neglect with blame. There was no reason to think that under any circumstances that this would be a dangerous mission. They had had their cargo checked before they left, everyone knew who they were and that they were not on a military mission. There was no need for the Israelis to attack them in the middle of the night. No reason to think they would. So, there was neither neglect nor blame. Especially where they were, again, way out into international waters. It was a clearly one-sided crime, especially at that point, and there is no reason to "blame" anyone other than the Israelis. To do so is to support the aggressor. And I'll say it again, if you are at all aware of what's going on, and you don't take sides, you are taking sides with the aggressor. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 03:39:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Gorgo
And we're not just talking about walking past a bully here. We're talking about bringing supplies to one of the bully's victims. There is a crime in progress. Calling people stupid who are trying to help, or blaming them for their own demise is not something I can agree with.
|
Again, this is irrelevant to the fact that you are making a calculated risk walking past the bully. Why is this so hard to understand?
|
Yes, it is a calculated risk. They risk it for a reason, but they do not, as Kil and Dave and now you, seem to be saying, is that they do not do it to provoke a reaction. They do it to end the blockade, and to bring the supplies. They are not to "blame" for the criminal reaction. The victims did not commit the crime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 04:07:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Just because the US didn't act on the provocation, doesn't mean that it wasn't a provocation. their own documents indicated that they knew this in advance.
|
They did, eventually act, so it was not my point that there was no penalty, my point is that the protestors did not cause the penalty. They are not to blame for the penalty. They did not cause the penalty in any way. That was the decision of the criminal U.S. government. The protestors did not "provoke" the penalty. If they were trying to "provoke" anything, it was the end of the sanctions, and the end of penalties. You can't be accused of causing something just because you worked to end that thing. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 04:25:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Yes, it is a calculated risk. They risk it for a reason, but they do not, as Kil and Dave and now you, seem to be saying, is that they do not do it to provoke a reaction. They do it to end the blockade, and to bring the supplies. They are not to "blame" for the criminal reaction. The victims did not commit the crime.
|
How could they end the blockade without provoking a reaction? They couldn't. The only way to end the blockade would be to provoke Israel to a reaction that would bring international outrage.
Now, probably they thought that their ships would be boarded (at least, their website and communications strongly suggest that they thought this had a high likelihood). Perhaps they thought it wouldn't entail more than that. But come on, no ship owners would lend their ship to the IHH, so they had to purchase their own. The IHH on their own newspage called the flotilla the "greatest protests in history for the palestinian cause". Beforehand Israel threatened to bomb their ships! Not just board them, bomb them!
Sorry, but reading the IHH website, they were thinking in terms of protest and aid, not just aid. And Israel threatened with violence and they took that thread seriously. So claiming they didn't think their would be a violent reaction from Israel just doesn't work.
edited to add:In the words of the IHH: "In the past, 6-7 ships went to Gaza. Israel posed certain hurdles to these ships and shot at some of them. Our flotilla will include 8-10 ships and there will be ships from Turkey and several other countries. We hope Israel will not strike such a large convoy. Even if Israel strikes, it will lose prestige before world countries. Therefore, we are not worried." |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/08/2010 04:30:04 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 04:46:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Gorgo
Yes, it is a calculated risk. They risk it for a reason, but they do not, as Kil and Dave and now you, seem to be saying, is that they do not do it to provoke a reaction. They do it to end the blockade, and to bring the supplies. They are not to "blame" for the criminal reaction. The victims did not commit the crime.
|
How could they end the blockade without provoking a reaction? They couldn't. The only way to end the blockade would be to provoke Israel to a reaction that would bring international outrage.
Now, probably they thought that their ships would be boarded (at least, their website and communications strongly suggest that they thought this had a high likelihood). Perhaps they thought it wouldn't entail more than that. But come on, no ship owners would lend their ship to the IHH, so they had to purchase their own. The IHH on their own newspage called the flotilla the "greatest protests in history for the palestinian cause". Beforehand Israel threatened to bomb their ships! Not just board them, bomb them!
Sorry, but reading the IHH website, they were thinking in terms of protest and aid, not just aid. And Israel threatened with violence and they took that thread seriously. So claiming they didn't think their would be a violent reaction from Israel just doesn't work.
edited to add:In the words of the IHH: "In the past, 6-7 ships went to Gaza. Israel posed certain hurdles to these ships and shot at some of them. Our flotilla will include 8-10 ships and there will be ships from Turkey and several other countries. We hope Israel will not strike such a large convoy. Even if Israel strikes, it will lose prestige before world countries. Therefore, we are not worried."
|
What is your point here? Again, I do not want the bully to kill me when I walk past him. If he kills me and causes international protests, that is his fault, not mine. The best scenario is that he leaves me alone with my lunch money. The fact that I am defying him does not mean I want him to beat me. I am in no way causing him to beat me. I am not to blame for him beating me in any way because I defy him. I may know without a doubt that he will beat me, but it is not me that is beating, it is him. I am not provoking him to beat me, to get international outrage. I am risking his beating, knowing that if he beats me, and my friends take pictures of it, there will be international protests. That makes me in no way responsible for criminal act of the beating. To say otherwise would be to smear me. To say you're neutral on the matter, is to take his side. To say that I'm not blameless, or that I am a provocateur is only a way to take the bully's side and excuse his behavior. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 04:47:23 [Permalink]
|
Look, nobody here diminishes the responsibility of Israel for it's own actions. But Israel threatened to attack the flotilla in advance, even threatened to bomb the ships if they would try to breach the barrier. And the IHH took these threats seriously.
I don't know about the people on the flotilla themselves, but at least the organizers were aware of the risks of the flotilla. They knew in advance that Israel threatened to use deadly force in case they tried to breach the barrier. According to their own websites, they bought extra ships to be able to ensure that they would be able to breach the barrier, which indicates to me that they considered the possibility that they might lose some ships. They stated themselves that the flotilla was not just a means to get aid to Gaza, but also a protest of the blockade. At least the organizers carried the responsibility to the volunteers to inform them fully and sending their volunteers to a potentially life-threatening situation. At least the protesters themselves carried their own responsibility in going into a situation that might have a fatal outcome. Nobody forced them into this, this was a risk that (assuming the organization informed the volunteers fully) they knew of and were willing to take.
Yes, Israel alone carries the responsibility of it's own reaction. Israel carries the responsibility of carrying out the threats they made when they started. But the volunteers knowingly entered into a situation that might have a fatal outcome and their is every indication that they were aware of this risk. And that was their own decision and thus their own responsibility, they cannot pass that of as someone elses. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 05:00:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
And that was their own decision and thus their own responsibility, they cannot pass that of as someone elses.
|
Brilliant up until this sentence. Israel is the criminal here. No one else is responsible for their crimes, especially not their victims. Please give me some evidence to show that that is not true, otherwise, we're just going around and around. You cannot in any way blame the victims of these attacks.
The amount of risk that they took and that they knew about is irrelevant to this point. They did not in any way provoke a crime against them, that is Israel's responsiblity entirely. If you're saying there is some reason to think that the Israeli ship was attacked and the Israeli ship was defending itself, that's another matter and requires different evidence. I don't think anyone is suggesting that, and in that case, Israel would not be committing a crime in defending itself from an immediate attack.
If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that this ship provoked that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that anyone else is to blame for that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that saying otherwise is not smearing the victim, and supporting Israel by at least mitigating their crimes. If Israel committed a crime and you know about it and you are not against that crime, then you are supporting that crime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 05:09:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
What is your point here? Again, I do not want the bully to kill me when I walk past him. |
Where do you get the idea that you have to want the outcome you provoke?
| If he kills me and causes international protests, that is his fault, not mine. |
But the taking of the risk is your responsibility. Doing what you did instead of trying to find a different way is your responsibility.
| The best scenario is that he leaves me alone with my lunch money. |
The responsibility for your own actions does not depend on the best scenario, it extends to all likely scenarios. In the case of the bully, getting punched in the nose is the more likely scenario.
| The fact that I am defying him does not mean I want him to beat me. |
But it does mean that you know their is a high likelihood that he might. It does mean that you actively chose for the route with a high likelihood of getting punched in the nose, instead of a different scenario where you might have had a higher likelihood of getting past unharmed, for example by sneaking past him when he isn't looking or taking a different route.
| I am in no way causing him to beat me. |
But you are causing him to feel provoked.
| I am not to blame for him beating me in any way because I defy him. |
But you cannot absolve yourself of your own responsibility in choosing for a scenario that has a high likelihood of ending in your nose bleeding.
| I may know without a doubt that he will beat me, but it is not me that is beating, it is him. I am not provoking him to beat me, to get international outrage. I am risking his beating, knowing that if he beats me, and my friends take pictures of it, there will be international protests. |
Ie, you are choosing a course of action that you are very sure will have a counterreaction. It may be language barriers, but as far as I know that is the textbook definition of provocation.
Again, where does it say that to provoke something you must be wrong and he right? By my knowledge, nowhere.
| That makes me in no way responsible for criminal act of the beating. |
No, but it does make you responsible for entering into a high risk situation.
| To say otherwise would be to smear me. |
Why is pointing out your own responsibility in a situation a smear? Since when do you not have your own responsibility when entering in a high risk situation.
| To say you're neutral on the matter, is to take his side. |
Now your venturing in a whole different territory, which is not just this blockade. The palestinians have been bombing innocent Israeli civilians as well. They have their own repsonsibility their. Yes, you may be weaker than your bully and therefore only punched his five-year old sister in the face after he punched you. And he may have retaliated to that by calling some friends who punched your mother and father in the face. After which you and your weaker friends retaliated by going after his other, 7-year old sister. In the whole conflict the palestinians have continuously acted out their own terroristic attacks, just as the Israelis have. Just because the Israelis are stronger, doesn't mean that the Palestinians are suddenly absolved of the responsibility for their own actions in shooting missiles and placing bombs.
To say that I'm not blameless, or that I am a provocateur is only a way to take the bully's side and excuse his behavior.
|
No, it is a way to recognize the different responsibilities that different sides have in this conflict. You somehow think that pointing out the responsibilities of the flotilla organizers is a smear, which is ludicrous. Nobody here is saying the provocation wasn't justified. Nobody is saying that the flotilla was wrong in provoking Israel. Nobody is taking away responsibility from Israel in pointing out that the flotilla provoked a reaction. But we have to recognize that the flotilla organizers went in, expecting a possibly violent reaction from Isreal, because that is what happened. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 05:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Brilliant up until this sentence. Israel is the criminal here. No one else is responsible for their crimes, especially not their victims. Please give me some evidence to show that that is not true, otherwise, we're just going around and around. You cannot in any way blame the victims of these attacks. |
But their victims are responsible for entering themselves in a possibly dangerous situation. How is this not true? I am not saying that they are to blame for Israels actions. I am saying that they are to blame for their own.
| The amount of risk that they took and that they knew about is irrelevant to this point. They did not in any way provoke a crime against them, that is Israel's responsiblity entirely. If you're saying there is some reason to think that the Israeli ship was attacked and the Israeli ship was defending itself, that's another matter and requires different evidence. I don't think anyone is suggesting that, and in that case, Israel would not be committing a crime in defending itself from an immediate attack. |
Israel said, if you try to get in, we'll shoot you. They went in anyway. Sorry, where is that not a provocation? Sure, the provocation was justified. But provocation is was.
If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that this ship provoked that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that anyone else is to blame for that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that saying otherwise is not smearing the victim, and supporting Israel by at least mitigating their crimes. If Israel committed a crime and you know about it and you are not against that crime, then you are supporting that crime.
|
Sorry, no. The ship provoked the actions of Israel by going in. They knew this in advance. How is saying this a smear? What did they expect. To be welcomed by the Israelis with roses, pies and a nice, pink, fluffy thing?
The problem is that you seem to think that saying that they provoked Israel shifts the blame for Israels actions away from Israel to the victims. This isn't the case. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 05:41:08 [Permalink]
|
I really have no idea what kind of thing you're arguing here, Tom. Are you saying that if these people were saying they were just on a vacation to Gaza, and they had just pulled into the shores of Gaza and some Israeli yelled something about inspecting their ships, and you saw on their web site that they knew exactly what they were getting into, but they were complaining they didn't know, then yes, I guess what you're saying would have some relevance. Otherwise, it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what they knew, Israel committed a major international crime. No one else is to blame for that. No. One. Smearing the victims by saying it's their responsiblity only supports the crimes of the Israelis.
And no one, I mean no one, should suspect that Israel would attack a ship so far into international waters. But even if they were prepared for that attack, even thought it likely that it might happen, then that puts none of the blame or the responsiblity for the attack on the victims, and you cannot say that the victims "provoked" the attack.
I've said it just about every way that I can think of saying it, and of course I'm now more convinced that the Israelis have won. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Israeli blockade incident
