By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Turkey's prime minister determined to have a war with Israel.

These provocations make a confrontation inevitable. Luckily the aid organization who sent the last ships has stated they have no intention on sending ships in the near future. If Turkish naval ships do indeed violate the blockade then Nato should pull Turkey's membership. Turkey can't go around attacking one of Nato's biggest allies.

If I was Israel I would try to mend things as much as possible. But we all know that the blockade will not end until the threat of Hamas is over, which will not happen anytime soon.

I was watching the news today and they said that in a confrontation Turkey had a vastly superior navy, however they said the Israeli air force would be capable of taking it out and doing heavy damage to any Turkish units which attacked Israel. They also had a statement from Nato saying Nato would not intervene as a Nato intervention requires all member states to agree , since Turkey is a Nato state confronting them would be out of the question.

I think the US and other Nato countries should contact Turkey and threaten to drop their Nato membership if they pursue hostilities against Israel and destabalize the region. The last thing we need in the middle east is Turkey and Israel going at it. Nato has more to gain from Israel then they do Turkey.

Turkey needs to show Nato and the world that they are a force of peace and not confrontation!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network
Zlejedi said:
scottie said:
@ MrBubbles - I suggest you reread my previous post. All I can do is repeat myself. Israel is entitled to use reasonable force to enforce their blockade. If Turkish warships fire upon they, they are legally allowed to fire back. If Turkish soldiers shoot at them with small arms, they are entitled to fire back with small arms. They are not entitled to fire back with their ship's weapons - this would be disproportionate force.

In the example where the 9 died, the soldiers were being attacked with primitive melee weapons, and thus firing back with small arms is legally disproportionate - it is illegal. As I said above, it is enough of a grey area that the law will almost never be applied in such a situation, particularly being as the Israeli soldiers didn't have enough time to return to shore, and come back with riot shields + nightsticks. I am making no comments on whether or not I believe it to be immoral, but, it is illegal.

Israel used reasonable force - they put their commando teams in danger and risked life of their soldiers while they could have used anti-ship missiles or ship artillery guns  to stop the movement of ship when it refused to stop.

I'd like to know which UN law says fire arms can't be used when your life is threatened? I know in Canada and such the laws make it illegal and I think similar laws are in place in the US. But I have never heard of an interpol or UN law that says you can't use a fire arm to defend your life if it is in self defense?

In fact in certain states in the United States Police are allowed to fire on someone at anytime if they have cause to believe their life is in jeopardy. Sure police have tasers and such but if a crowd of a hundred criminals charges a small group of officers those officers have every right to use their fire arms for self defense.

Legally it would be very hard to call the Israeli actions illegal. I mean the commandos tried using non-lethal force but were attacked by huge numbers of armed terrorists. Using bats and crow bars and other weapons those terrorist scum bags tried to kill the Israeli soldiers. The soldiers had no choice but to defend themselves using lethal force. I doubt anybody would expect a soldier surrounded by ten angry terrorists attacking with crow bars and baseball bats to pull out a night stick and use that to defend himself.

Fact is if the Israeli's didn't use their side arms they would all be dead. These terrorists were not just trying to disable them their intent was to kill them. This was per-meditated those weapons were stored and the terrorists intended to take lives. The Israeli commandos had every legal right to use lethal force in response to lethal force.

As for me calling the activists terrorists. They entered the area knowing full well they were violating a blockade. They had stashed weapons on board for the purpose of killing Israeli military personnel. They intended to cause terror and chaos as such I do not deem them activists but terrorists who per-meditated murder and intended to create chaos and spread terror!



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

you Dont F*** with Israel.
they will rape your shit.

also screw UN rules