Fuck its silent in here.......

[Quality Start Machine]

so when you asked this morning whether anyone thought this was justfied, you just did it as a setup for this whole riff, right?

[Oleg]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

[Gilgamesh]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Hikers = environmentally friendly = liberal = not-American.

Natch.

[CBStew]

I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

[MikeC]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?

[powen01]

I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

[Gilgamesh]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?

Why even have an investigation or a judicial system if MikeC knows all the "facts" already?

God, life is not an episode of 24, Comar.

[CBStew]

I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.

[powen01]

I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.

Wow, I didn't know there was a federal sentence for that type of thing.  What's the potential length?  Do they use it on habitual offenders or just to hold suspects even longer to build cases for other reasons?

[CBStew]

I would like to pile on.  After all, he is Mike C.  However, assuming that the hikers were in Iran, Iran has a right to enforce its borders.  Execution would be somewhat extreme, but imprisonment is consistent with what the United States has done with illegal aliens. 

<smarmy dick>No, mowing Iranian lawns, washing dishes dirtied with shawarma and using MY tax payer funded roads to drive around without insurance would be more like what we have done with illegals...  Kidding, sort of, but is there actually a federal punishment for being in this country illegally beyond just getting deported back after your hearings?  I know Mexico imprisons people for up to ten years for their second offense.

As for Mike C., can we hook him up with some type of <rhetorical question> or <oversimplification of the issues> tags?

</smarmy dick>

Yes, one can be imprisoned, but we couldn't afford to build all of the prisons that it would take to hold them so we simply deport them.

Wow, I didn't know there was a federal sentence for that type of thing.  What's the potential length?  Do they use it on habitual offenders or just to hold suspects even longer to build cases for other reasons?

On a first offense the unlawful entrant is deportable.  If he re-enters it is two years in prison.

[Canadouche]

Reading MikeC's rants makes me want to go hiking in Iran.

[CBStew]

It seems to me that this is the thread where we should be talking about the Cubs.  But if we did then I guess it wouldn't be silent.

[Gilgamesh]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Ok what we do know is that the commandos had no clue of any of the nationalities on the ship. Am i right? So i don't know how they could pick an American out of the group and intentionally "execute" them as some of you would assume. What purpose that would serve i don't know.

Does it really matter if it was an American attacking Israeli soldiers or an American attacking American soldiers, they are still going to drop you with bullets. Its a really bad fucking idea to attack Israeli commandos unless your sole purpose in life is to be a dead body. The fact that he is an American citizen among the dead means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He was on board a ship meant to run a naval blockade, that was warned it was going to be stopped, and the passengers some 600 of them wanted to fight what 20-30 commandos?  They provoked a confrontation, the blood is on the hands of the people who instigated the fight on the ship, and participated in the attacks.

He was involved in an illegal act, being funded by known terrorist organizations, and he gets some kinda of special free pass because of his citizenship? Thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. Maybe not go on terrorist funded voyage and maybe not attack soldiers would = alive American citizen. But apparently its cool to attack and try and kill the soldiers and give a free pass to the violent terrorists who were the ones who instigated it. Naw that would be to sensible to condemn the terrorists who organized this, much better to just bitch at Israel for defending its nation.

Your defending a terrorist, who was funded by terrorists, who was attacking soldiers on a ship. Why can't he be shot again?

Hey, about that terrorist boat cruise...

[Yeti]

The Cubs need to be good again

[R-V]

I am just trying to understand why it matters if he was American or not? Turkish citizens were killed also, but who cares they weren't Americans and they were funded by Terrorists anyways right? But ohhhhhhhh if an American was shot doing the same thing, it changes the whole thing, its now state funded EXECUTION!

Uhhhh no its not, it doesn't matter what his nationality was/is, he boarded a terrorist cruise with a mission of confrontation and he got killed in the process. He doesn't get any extra rights or privileges, or protected status simply because of his citizenship. It's even more silly to feign outrage at the American killed for being part of this whole shame knowing full well what the intended consequences could very well be.

All your saying is, the American could do whatever he wanted, simply because he was American, and the Israeli soldiers could not stop him because he was American. Thats a ridiculous stance to take. But that goes back to the original point, you would then need to stop people in the midst of the attack to check citizenship before you could deal with them in the proper "American" way.

I am sorry but your looking it from a after the fact point of view, and assuming that every single passenger on the ship was identified and full background checks were performed before the raid. It wasn't like a video game where he had a shiny american flag avatar over his head to let everyone know that he was American. And even if he did, it doesn't save him from getting shot if he was attacking soldiers. He could be painted red white and blue and the commandos would still drop him in a heartbeat.

Again, as long as you're cool with foreign governments killing American citizens, fine.  Because that's all you're saying here.

It's totally cool that you take something as complicated as national sovereignty and reduce it to three paragraphs of rambling nonsense.

Perhaps, then, it's fine that those American hikers are eventually executed by the Iranians?  I'm sure you'd have no problem with that, right?

Expanding on that line of thought:

For the last few days, the various reactions to the flotilla attack have reminded me of reactions to the short war escalated by Georgia in August 2008. Then as now, there is a U.S. ally that embarks on a military action that is certainly stupid and most likely illegal in pursuit of an unwise and unsustainable policy, the initial assumption that the ally bears the bulk of the blame for the disaster that follows is later proven to be mostly correct, and Washington predictably and reliably takes the side of the attacker. We then hear endlessly about Russian/Turkish perfidy when their citizens are the ones who were attacked first. Not only do many Americans automatically sympathize with the wrong side in these situations, but many of them cannot seem to fathom that there can be any good reason to take a different view.

"Pro-Israel" hawks often complain that others are in the habit of blaming the victim. As they see it, this is what most of the world always does to Israel, whose vulnerability and weakness they exaggerate on a regular basis to make their arguments seem more credible. Most of the people excusing or justifying the flotilla raid and the blockade have been doing nothing but blaming victims since the attack occurred.

Were the positions somehow reversed, we would likely be hearing something very different from Pollock. Had these been ships filled mostly with Americans en route to provide aid to members the Green movement as part of a Free Iran Flotilla and the attackers were from the Iranian navy, Americans would expect and demand the support of our allies against the state that attacked our citizens. If most Americans cannot understand why Turks expect the same, we really are more clueless as a nation than I had thought possible.