Israel criticized over Gaza flotilla attack

[quote name='bmulligan']
And what's that intnetion exactly? Could it be that there is no such thing as palestinian ethnicity and it's far easier to group a concentration of people according to their largest ethnic group? Should we be calling them something else? Are they bedouin? Or Philistine ? Because they are not the Philistines that occupied palestine 2000 years ago. Or maybe the Samatitans? I'm sure there are some of them left. How about druze? No, that's not really an ethnic term either.

How about we just call them the subjugated oppressed living in occupied territory? Yeah, that has a ring to it. So does Freedom fighter. Aw, screw it. Arafat call them arabs, so that's good enough for me.[/QUOTE]

Arab = wealth oil Islam
Palestinian = refugee camps, victims, oppression

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?page=1

Your buddy Luntz told me so.

By the way, its kind of interesting to see these anti-government types who are so willing to accept the Israeli gov't explanation of the incident. And they'll willingly believe the edited videos put out by IDF.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']If you have a problem with the gaza leadership, maybe you should be working to remove THEM instead of bashing Israel for their mistreatment of their own people.[/QUOTE]

Funny thing about that, actually... Israel and the US supported Hamas, as Israel/US wanted Arafat out of power.

The US promotes a policy of nation-building and exporting democracy - and then, after Palestine elects Hamas to be its leadership, we... refuse to recognize them? Our inept government can't even be consistent with ass-backwards ideas and policies.

Stop getting your foreign policy views from Ayn Rand, or worse, her insane disciples.

[quote name='The Objectivist Deathcult']
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Peikoff is sorely disappointed by this war, for a number of reasons, first and foremost being that his preferred target, Iran, is not yet in America’s crosshairs. The war in Afghanistan was a letdown for him because we took care not to inflict civilian casualties. This, says Peikoff, is immoral: in Iraq, too, we are far too squeamish about innocent civilians. And I note that Peikoff emphasizes the word "innocent," even as he proclaims that it would be immoral not to condemn these innocents to death. When someone in the audience cried out in horror at this brazen display of naked evil, Peikoff interrupted his talk and imperiously demanded "please throw that man out." A far cry from Ayn Rand herself, who, during the 1930s, took to the stump for Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie, and, when confronted by hecklers – of which there were plenty – gave as good or better than she got. But the thuggish, hectoring Peikoff, whose high-pitched voice is in stark contrast to his stern admonitions, will have none of that. [/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Unlike the neocons, whose foreign policy he faithfully echoes, up to and including their iconization of Israel, Peikoff doesn’t hide behind any beneficent-sounding slogans, like "exporting democracy" and implanting free markets and the rule of law. This, he claims, would be "altruism," the worst sin in the Objectivist theology – although why freedom, in the abstract, and not just one’s own freedom, cannot be a value in and of itself is not at all clear to me. And the clear implication is that the Iraqis, like the Palestinians, are considered "savages" by Peikoff, who wouldn’t appreciate such a gift in any case. No, what we must do, says Peikoff, is kill them – enemy soldiers and innocent civilians alike. [/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This same maniacal bloodthirstiness is expressed by Yaron Brook, the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, in a recent lecture on "The Morality of War," in which he outdoes Peikoff – and also Cuffy Meigs – in the complete thuggishness of his stance, advocating the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in a total war of annihilation against the entire Middle East – except Israel, of course. When one timorous questioner raises the issue of how Mr. Brook reconciles such a view with the central doctrine of individualism, which is that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, Brook brushes this aside with an impatient wave of his hand and declares that all enemy civilians are legitimate targets. The reason is because your government represents you, whether you like it or not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So much for the idea of individualism.[/FONT]​
[/quote]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html
 
6a00d83451c45669e20133e.png
 
I'll just say this:

It's a stupid idea to support palestine or israel. Both parties have done horrible, horrible things to each other, and if you think one is in the right, you don't have an objective understanding of the situation.

That being said, what happened wasn't an act of war as much as it was a badly thought out plan to secure the blockade. If Israel wanted to initiate war on Palestine, it wouldn't be a war. It would be a slaughterhouse. Israel doesn't want that, Islamic countries don't want that, it's something they're trying to avoid.

You may ask then "why have a blockade in the first place? Isn't that an act of aggression?" My response, look at who you're dealing with. To put it politely, Islamic Extremists like hamas are not the most rational people in the world. To put it bluntly, they're fucking psychopaths.

This blockade is a horrible, horrible thing, but you're dealing with an enemy who wants to commit genocide on anyone who isn't muslim. Israel doesn't want to commit genocide on them, if they wanted to do that they would have done it already, but they need to show that they're not going to put up with hamas's bullshit. If that means horrible crimes against humanity, so be it.

Again, I don't support Israel, and I don't support Palestine. But I do see Israel's viewpoint in dealing with the situation, and while I don't agree with it, they have to do something. It's a horrible situation, but what else can you do?
 
A naval blockade is already an act of war. Though it certainly is the case that they arent in a full scale war.

The two state solution is supposedly the only solution. A single state solution would involve either Jews being a minority in their own country (not much of a Jewish state) or the obliteration of one side.

I dont go around thinking that all problems have solutions. It might just go on like this forever until one side really is wiped out. Would a war really involve just the two nations? Would none of their neighbors who probably dont care much for Israel anyway not join in?

I'm sure of one thing: No progress can be made while basic goods arent allowed into Palestine. Things like concrete and building materials, on the grounds that they can also be used for things like bombs. A lot of the offending material is just going to get smuggled in from Egyptian tunnels anyway.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
6a00d83451c45669e20133e.png
[/QUOTE]

Im trying to figure out if you are kidding, or you are saying Israel should have known not to drop their people in a mob of people.

In all reality doesn't this prove that Israel did not come for a fight, but to secure 6 ships that were trying to get past the blockade? If they knew the ship was going to be hostile would they of dropped their people like that? Would they have been carrying minor group dispersion weapons instead of live fire ones?

I just do not see how the world is making Israel out to be these vicious people who raided and killed humanitarians when in reality the "humanitarians" were being exponentially more vicious.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, the fact that they cocked it up shouldn't be taken as proof of their good intentions.[/QUOTE]

Wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying is the facts do not all add up to what the majority of the world is screaming about. Israel was not out to kill a bunch of "humanitarians" solely trying to get aid to Gaza.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Supposedly the Israelis were firing on the boats before they landed.

While it might not be true no one can just dismiss it out of hand.

docvinh

A bunch of soldiers were injured, none died.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, I apologize then, it makes my argument a little different then.:) I guess while perhaps while the protesters were a bit aggressive, the Israelis handled this terribly. Anyone know why they just didn't shoot tear gas first, or disable the ship?
 
[quote name='docvinh']Ahhh, I apologize then, it makes my argument a little different then.:) I guess while perhaps while the protesters were a bit aggressive, the Israelis handled this terribly. Anyone know why they just didn't shoot tear gas first, or disable the ship?[/QUOTE]

From what I read, they did not expect to be attacked right off the bat or they would have.
 
This is totally just spit balling here, but if I were about to forcefully drop onto a ship and begin taking over, I would expect at least some resistance. I mean they were attacking the soldiers with pipes and the couple of guns they grabbed off the soldiers. If they really wanted to be aggressive they would have been armed to the teeth in expectation of being attacked by Israel.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Ahhh, I apologize then, it makes my argument a little different then.:) I guess while perhaps while the protesters were a bit aggressive, the Israelis handled this terribly. Anyone know why they just didn't shoot tear gas first, or disable the ship?[/QUOTE]

They were firing shots off before landing (apparently rubber bullets mixed with warning shots) and setting off flashbangs and smoke grenades.

Of course those on the ships were angry and thought they were under attack what else did they expect to happen?
 
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said naval forces involved in Saturday's operation had followed exactly the same procedures as they had done earlier in the week, but the difference lay in the attitude of the activists on board the vessel.

"We saw today the difference between a ship of peace activists, with whom we don't agree but respect their right to a different opinion from ours, and between a ship of hate organised by violent Turkish terror extremists ... waiting for our soldiers on the deck with axes and knives," Netanyahu's office cited him as saying.
Click to expand...

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201065133056870600.html

Yeah, look at those violent Turkish terror extremists that were killed on board a few days ago.

1. Ibrahim Bilgen, 61, an electrical engineer from Siirt. Member of the Chamber of Electrical Engineers of Turkey. Ran as a Saadet (Felicity) Party candidate in the Turkish general election of 2007 and the Siirt mayoral election of 2009. Married with 6 children.

2. Ali Haydar Bengi, 39, ran a telephone repair shop in Diyarbakir. Graduate of Al-Azhar University, Cairo (Department of Arabic Literature). Married to Saniye Bengi; four children - Mehunur (15), Semanur (10) and twins Mohammed and Senanur (5, pictured below).

3. Cevdet Kiliçlar, 38, from Kayseri. A graduate of Marmara University's Faculty of Communications; formerly a newspaper journalist for the National Gazette and the Anatolia Times. For the past year he was a reporter and webmaster for the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). Married to Derya Kiliçlar; one daughter, Gülhan, and one son, Erdem.

4. Çetin Topçuoglu, 54, from Adana. Former amateur soccer player and taekwondo champion, who coached Turkey's national taekwondo team. Married to with one son, Aytek.

5. Necdet Yildirim, 32, an IHH aid worker from Malatya. Married to Refika Yıldırım; one daughter, Melek, aged three.

6. Fahri Yaldiz, 43, a firefighter who worked for the Municipality of Adiyaman. Married with four sons.

7. Cengiz Songür, 47, from Izmir. Married to Nurcan Songür; six daughters and one son.

8. Cengiz Akyüz, 41, from Iskenderun. Married to Nimet Akyüz ; three children - Furkan (14), Beyza (12) and Erva Kardelen (nine).

9. Furkan Dogan, 19, in his senior year at Kayseri High School where he was awaiting the results of his university entrance exams; hoped to become a doctor. Loved chess. Son of Dr. Ahmet Dogan, Assoc Prof at Erciyes University. A Turkish-American dual national, with two siblings.
Click to expand...

That's ok because I'm sure the IDF used the appropriate amount of force with these TERRORISTS

Israel was tonight under pressure to allow an independent inquiry into its assault on the Gaza aid flotilla after autopsy results on the bodies of those killed, obtained by the Guardian, revealed they were peppered with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range.

Nine Turkish men on board the Mavi Marmara were shot a total of 30 times and five were killed by gunshot wounds to the head, according to the vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine, which carried out the autopsies for the Turkish ministry of justice today.

The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-activists-autopsy-results

Well, I'm sure that they had their reasons. :whistle2:#
 
Yeah from what I've heard they dropped some grenades and were firing before they got on the ship (dunno what they were firing, not live rounds at the people or anything, but probably shit like msut was saying).
 
[quote name='Msut77']They were firing shots off before landing (apparently rubber bullets mixed with warning shots) and setting off flashbangs and smoke grenades.

Of course those on the ships were angry and thought they were under attack what else did they expect to happen?[/QUOTE]

Israel did not surprise them. They did not just jump aboard at first sight. There was warning, and Israel even told the Captains of those ships they could divert to a port called Ashdod, and the captains denied it knowing full well that they would be trying to break the blockade.

You cannot deny that the people on those ships attacked the boarding Israeli soldiers, and Israel probably did screw it up by not using flashbangs and tear gas, but the sole reason that the Israeli soldiers were boarding the ships was because "humanitarians" were trying to break the blockade.

So unless you think that Israel had no right to enforce their blockade then (which very well could be your opinion), how do you believe Israel wrongly boarded the ships? and the evidence proves that Israel did not go there to kill a bunch of people, the end result of death was solely because the people resisted being boarded, not Israel "going in shooting".

Lets just stop the demonizing charade, and go one way or the other.

Did Israel have a right to enforce their blockade?

If they did, then the resulting incident was not because of Israeli soldiers slaughtering people but because the people resisted being boarded. That is far different than the soldiers "going in shooting"

If they didn't then Israel is responsible for the resulting incident because they did not have a right to board those ships, and the people aboard had a right to defend themselves albeit, it wasn't the smartest recourse..

My money is on the blockade being legal.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im trying to figure out if you are kidding, or you are saying Israel should have known not to drop their people in a mob of people.[/QUOTE]
Either this was a vicious and brutal attack or it was executed with complete incompetence. I'm willing to believe they were incompetent, humiliatingly incompetent. I think if they had just wanted to kill a bunch of them they could've done that without exposing themselves to that kind of danger.

Israel dropped armed commandos on the Mavi Marmara at night by helicopter, one by one down a rope, who likely fired warning shots (with rubber bullets or paintballs) before they set foot on the deck. The Rachel Corrie was boarded by boat after dawn, while surrounded by ships and without a single shot fired. Do you see the difference?

Why launch a night time raid with helicopters? It doesn't seem necessary, justified, or very wise when you could easily board the ship during the day. How does it make it safer or easier for Israel to board the ship at night?

Whoever made that decision really let down the soldiers who had to carry out the mission. They were sent into an impossible situation in the least effective way with non-lethal weapons. They're some of the best trained soldiers in the world, and they were made to look like fools by their government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']Either this was a vicious and brutal attack or it was executed with complete incompetence. I'm willing to believe they were incompetent.

Israel dropped armed commandos on the Mavi Marmara at night by helicopter, who likely fired warning shots before they set foot on the deck. The Rachel Corrie was boarded by boat after dawn, while surrounded by ships and without a single shot fired. Do you see the difference?

Why launch a night time raid with helicopters? It doesn't seem necessary or justified when you could easily board the ship during the day.[/QUOTE]

I agree it was most likely incompetence, but that does not justify the resistance aboard the ship.

Also the Rachel Corrie was following the incident that has sparked this entire mess, of course it is going to be handled with kid gloves. Also the Rachel Corrie has 11 people on it, while the other ships had hundreds.
 
What would you do if you were on a ship that was being boarded by commandos dropping down from a helicopter? Lay down in the fetal position and hope they leave you alone?

Also, I like how Israel seems to care not for the few Allies they have. Calling the Turks on board terrorists is sure to make the Turkish public feel more sympathy for the cause of the Israelis. I wonder if there were more Americans on board if they would say the same about them? The Israeli government can keep running it's mouth and find themselves without many sympathetic allies.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I agree it was most likely incompetence, but that does not justify the resistance aboard the ship.[/QUOTE]
As a passenger aboard the ship, how do you know what the commandos are armed with? All you know is that, in the dead of night, people are coming in off helicopters and that they're firing their weapons. Their reaction is a natural reaction.

Compare that to boarding the ship during the daytime, not by surprise, where everyone can see what your intentions are. If you go in at night dropping stun grenades and firing rubber bullets, people aren't going to know what the hell is going on and they'll assume their lives are in danger. This was completely botched.
 
[quote name='Clak']What would you do if you were on a ship that was being boarded by commandos dropping down from a helicopter? Lay down in the fetal position and hope they leave you alone?

Also, I like how Israel seems to care not for the few Allies they have. Calling the Turks on board terrorists is sure to make the Turkish public feel more sympathy for the cause of the Israelis. I wonder if there were more Americans on board if they would say the same about them? The Israeli government can keep running it's mouth and find themselves without many sympathetic allies.[/QUOTE]

You are forgetting the fact that these people were not solely on a mission to bring humanitarian aid, they were on a mission to break the blockade. They knew the risks, they knew Israel would most likely board them. The entire thing was a bait, and Israel fell for it, the aid was secondary to their cause.

Why are you being ignorant of these facts? The damn people admitted it themselves. Again, if the Israel blockade of Gaza is legal, then Israel has every right to inspect what goes into it, the ships were asked to go to a different port, they declined. What should Israel have done? Asked them nicely? The mission itself was handled poorly, but that is not to say there should not have been a mission to board those ships.

Also the people behind the movement stated themselves they picked Turks and Turkish ships for the mission because they believed Israel would not take action against people of a close ally.
 
[quote name='Knoell']...if the Israel blockade of Gaza is legal, then Israel has every right to inspect what goes into it...[/QUOTE]

If the blockade is not legal, does Israel have any right to inspect the ship?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If the blockade is not legal, does Israel have any right to inspect the ship?[/QUOTE]

made me think of this.......

180px-Nutegunraygeonosis.jpg


As you know, our blockade is perfectly legal
 
Yes, the spin is interesting, isn't it?

It's the humanitarians who were using stun grenades and firebombs against the soldiers, yet some have HEARD that it was the IDF using them against the passengers.

Before the helicopter repelling, the IDF attempted a ship to ship boarding and was attacked from the higher deck of the flotilla with stun grenades, firebombs, large chains, and fire hoses. Then, during the aerial insertion, firebombs and stun grenades were again used along with pipes, metal rods, knives, chairs, and far greater numbers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&feature=channel


There's no way a rational person can believe these people were humanitarians on an "aid" mission. The truth is that they are "aid" workers who hate israel. They were not laying down their lives for the sanctity of gaza. They were sent to instigate a world war with Israel. They are already at war with them by proxy. Their mission was to recruit fresh meat - meaning you - and to fortify anti-israeli sentiment.

And to all those feel-good leftists who think Egypt is just caught in the middle of this ghastly conflict and really has no ill will towards Israel:

Egypt to strip men married to Israelis of citizenship

Think again. All of this is a lead up to a final conflict that will have deadly repercussions for all of us. All because of a people no one really cares about. The palestinian issue is secondary to the issue of the existence of Israel. All sides have already agreed that the only way to end the conflict is to erase it from the map. Just ask Helen Thomas, spokesperson for American freedom.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's no way a rational person can believe these people were humanitarians on an "aid" mission. The truth is that they are "aid" workers who hate israel. They were not laying down their lives for the sanctity of gaza. They were sent to instigate a world war with Israel. They are already at war with them by proxy. Their mission was to recruit fresh meat - meaning you - and to fortify anti-israeli sentiment.[/quote]
That paragraph made me laugh out loud. Spoken in a LOTR female elf voice: "They were not laying down their lives for the sanctity of Gaza, for their hearts were unpure."

Aid workers with an agenda. Truly ground breaking stuff bmull. Will your next revelation be that soldiers have agendas? OH MY fuckING GOD THAT MEANS WE CANT TRUST ANYTHING THEY DO EITHER.

From the Economist:
But the impression received yet again by the watching world is that Israel resorts to violence too readily. More worryingly for Israel, the episode is accelerating a slide towards its own isolation. Once admired as a plucky David facing down an array of Arab Goliaths, Israel is now seen as the clumsy bully on the block.

Israel’s desire to stop the flotilla reaching Gaza was understandable, given its determination to maintain the blockade. Yet the Israelis also had a responsibility to conduct the operation safely. The campaigners knew that either way they would win. If they had got through, it would have been a triumphant breaching of the blockade. If forcibly stopped, with their cargo of medical equipment and humanitarian aid, they would be portrayed as victims—even if some, as the Israelis contend, brought clubs, knives and poles. As it was, disastrous planning by Israel’s soldiers led to a needless loss of life.

For anyone who cares about Israel, this tragedy should be the starting point for deeper questions—about the blockade, about the Jewish state’s increasing loneliness and the route to peace. A policy of trying to imprison the Palestinians has left their jailer strangely besieged.

...

Israel is caught in a vicious circle. The more its hawks think the outside world will always hate it, the more it tends to shoot opponents first and ask questions later, and the more it finds that the world is indeed full of enemies. Though Mr Netanyahu has reluctantly agreed to freeze settlement-building and is negotiating indirectly with Palestinians, he does not give the impression of being willing to give ground in the interests of peace.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Knoell']You are forgetting the fact that these people were not solely on a mission to bring humanitarian aid, they were on a mission to break the blockade. They knew the risks, they knew Israel would most likely board them. The entire thing was a bait, and Israel fell for it, the aid was secondary to their cause.

Why are you being ignorant of these facts? The damn people admitted it themselves. Again, if the Israel blockade of Gaza is legal, then Israel has every right to inspect what goes into it, the ships were asked to go to a different port, they declined. What should Israel have done? Asked them nicely? The mission itself was handled poorly, but that is not to say there should not have been a mission to board those ships.

Also the people behind the movement stated themselves they picked Turks and Turkish ships for the mission because they believed Israel would not take action against people of a close ally.[/QUOTE]
I don't care what their goal was, that's immaterial. What I'm saying is that they were totally justified in their reaction to being boarded. Like I said before they could have been well armed in anticipation of being boarded, but all they had were makeshift weapons and a couple of guns they grabbed off the commandos. You think the people on the ship knew what weapons the commandos had, you think they asked them first before trying to defend themselves? If I were boarded in the middle of the night by commandos repelling from a helicopter, I'd assume they meant me harm.

It was a peaceful operation regardless of what their goal was, the Israeli's escalated things into a deadly conflict.
 
So they were using what improvised weapons they could find on the ship, against a force that very well could have been carrying automatic assault weapons for all the passengers on the ship knew. Can you seriously say that in the chaos and dark they should have known the commandos were using paintballs?
 
I don't care what their goal was, that's immaterial. What I'm saying is that they were totally justified in their reaction to being boarded. Like I said before they could have been well armed in anticipation of being boarded, but all they had were makeshift weapons and a couple of guns they grabbed off the commandos. You think the people on the ship knew what weapons the commandos had, you think they asked them first before trying to defend themselves? If I were boarded in the middle of the night by commandos repelling from a helicopter, I'd assume they meant me harm.

It was a peaceful operation regardless of what their goal was, the Israeli's escalated things into a deadly conflict.
Click to expand...

[quote name='Clak']So they were using what improvised weapons they could find on the ship, against a force that very well could have been carrying automatic assault weapons for all the passengers on the ship knew. Can you seriously say that in the chaos and dark they should have known the commandos were using paintballs?[/QUOTE]

I direct you to Bmulligans post.

It was not a peaceful operation. If it was a peaceful operation, they would have made it as far as they could until the Israelis boarded them, and then peacefully surrendered. However cowardly you may think that is, that would have been the peaceful way to do it, but they attacked the soldiers before they even boarded. How is that at all peaceful?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dE2StbDL_Q&feature=player_embedded

sounds like the israelis really surprised them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lol thats some O'Keefe style shit right there. Gee I don't really understand what a pimp is so let me use my preconceived notions of pimps to dress up as one.
 
Being peaceful doesn't mean you lay down when someone attacks you. I ask again, if they weren't peaceful then why weren't they better armed? If they intended to fight the Israelis they would have had actual weapons, not a bunch of mostly non lethal, improvised stuff laying around the ship.

I know they wanted to break through the blockade, but that doesn't mean they weren't peaceful. If they had approached and started firing at the naval ships, then I'd believe you, but they didn't. They didn't have anything with which to fire at them to begin with.

I'm not accepting a bunch of questionable audio clips as evidence either.
 
[quote name='Clak']Being peaceful doesn't mean you lay down when someone attacks you. I ask again, if they weren't peaceful then why weren't they better armed? If they intended to fight the Israelis they would have had actual weapons, not a bunch of mostly non lethal, improvised stuff laying around the ship.[/QUOTE]

IDF has got you covered brother

The IDF’s understanding is that the mercenaries mainly chose dual-purpose items of this sort rather than guns, since opening fire would have made it blatantly clear that they were terrorists and not so-called peace activists.
Click to expand...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445

:rofl:
 
Good thing they didn't have any butyric acid, Israel would have sent a destroyer or something after them.
 
[quote name='Clak']Being peaceful doesn't mean you lay down when someone attacks you. I ask again, if they weren't peaceful then why weren't they better armed?[/quote]

Yes, it does. It means when approached by a millitary force when attempting to illegally sail toward a blockaded port, you submit to the authority. No one would have died at all had they not set upon the Israelis with "improvised" weapons like pipes that just lay around on ship decks, along with flash grenades.


If they intended to fight the Israelis they would have had actual weapons, not a bunch of mostly non lethal, improvised stuff laying around the ship.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they weren't in a propaganda and public perception war, they would have just opened fire and hid behind civilian shields like the freedom fighters in gaza. And since you think Jews must be invincible, and being cracked on the head with a pipe can be shrugged off because it's not a real weapon, I suggest you stop your political dabbling and change the channel back to the WWF where chairs to the face don't really hurt people either.


I know they wanted to break through the blockade, but that doesn't mean they weren't peaceful. If they had approached and started firing at the naval ships, then I'd believe you, but they didn't. They didn't have anything with which to fire at them to begin with.

I'm not accepting a bunch of questionable audio clips as evidence either.
Click to expand...


Yes. "Doctored audio". According to another jew hater's post, the article in question stated:
the audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. We have now uploaded the entire segment of 5 minutes and 58 seconds in which the exchange took place and the comments were made.

This transmission had originally cited the Mavi Marmara ship as being the source of these remarks, however, due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the “Freedom Flotilla” responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified. During radio transmissions between Israeli Navy and the ships of the “Free Gaza” Flotilla on 31 May 2010, the Israeli Navy ship attempts to make contact with the ‘Defne Y’ on channel 1-6. Other ships from the flotilla respond on the channel, without identifying themselves. At some point during the radio exchange the Israeli Navy is told by one of the ships to “shut up, go back to Auschwitz” (2:05) and “don’t forget 9-11? (5:42).
Click to expand...

So, the audio was not in it's original form and may not have come from the flotilla in question, but some of the jew hating terrorists DID communicate their anti-semitic, anti-american opinions. They just came from other ships in the convoy. It still exemplifies the intent of the group as a whole. Claiming they were humanitarians is a lie, no matter how many diaries are written. The video trumps the written word.

People who accept the personal propaganda diary of a self confessed Jew hater neesd to do some soul searching. Had he not decided to put himself in harms way, he wouldn't have been able to write a scathing attack against Israel. He knows how his bread is buttered. Since no one can win an all out war with Israel, he knows the media is the only arena in which he has any chance for victory. The blockade is only brutal to those who wish to provoke and commit violence against the IDF. All evidence proves none of this was improvised, it was planned, and executed with a perfect result.

The only travesty here is that the IDF didn't just lay down and let their commandos be murdered. That would have been the right thing to do. The humanitarians could have broken the blockade and rode victory across world newspapers for weeks. No one would have even cared about a couple dozen dead Jews.
 
I thought Max Blumenthal was Jewish? How does that make him a jew hater?

If this was so clear cut I don't know why IDF doesn't release the unedited videos. I don't know why they confiscated all video/pictures taken by people on the flotillas. I don't know why IDF felt the need to falsely attribute communications received by the flotilla.
 
Answer my question please, if they had violent intentions, why weren't they armed with real weapons? Please note, flash grenades are about as non lethal as you can get, so having them proves all of jack and shit. I'll give you the fire bomb, someone must have grabbed a bottle and some fuel and made a fire bomb.

These violent extremists went up against what is supposed to be a professional military, armed with pipes, flash grenades, and a molotov cocktail. Those monsters.

mullgian is right though, we're all a bunch of anti-semtic bastards. The Israelis are a peaceful people who just want to get along with their neighbors.
 
[quote name='Clak']Answer my question please, if they had violent intentions, why weren't they armed with real weapons? Please note, flash grenades are about as non lethal as you can get, so having them proves all of jack and shit. I'll give you the fire bomb, someone must have grabbed a bottle and some fuel and made a fire bomb.

These violent extremists went up against what is supposed to be a professional military, armed with pipes, flash grenades, and a molotov cocktail. Those monsters.

mullgian is right though, we're all a bunch of anti-semtic bastards. The Israelis are a peaceful people who just want to get along with their neighbors.[/QUOTE]

The videos clearly show that the israelis were attacked when they attempted to board by boat or by helicoptor. Sigh now flash grenades aren't weapons, and a fire bomb was an exception. They were not there to kill Israeli soldiers but they were there to break the blockade, and knew theyd be boarded to stop them from breaking it. Again it was a win-win situation for them. If Israel lets them go they broke the blockade, and if Israel stops them and raids them, then Israel is a big meanie for raiding a humanitarian aid effort.

If you want to play this logic game then we can.

Israeli must be completely innocent because what would they have to gain by murdering a bunch of humanitarians unless the soldiers were violent extremists themselves. All things considered they could have just blown the 6 ships out of the water with their naval destroyers, but they didn't so they must be the peaceful bunch just trying to defend themselves.

Sounds logical but it isn't factual. Look at the facts, and stop thinking that because it was illogical to attack trained soldiers with pipes and chairs, and stun grenades that they had to of been just peacefully defending themselves.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If this was so clear cut I don't know why IDF doesn't release the unedited videos. I don't know why they confiscated all video/pictures taken by people on the flotillas. I don't know why IDF felt the need to falsely attribute communications received by the flotilla.[/QUOTE]

Because they are fighting a PR battle now. It is much easier for them to call the people on the flotilla "murderous mercenaries" "terrorists" "ex-military", release false facts and false audio while media attention is at it's highest while slowly issuing retractions in the weeks/months to come when nobody is paying attention and the media is barely reporting.

That's why I brought up James Miller earlier. He was filming a documentary in Gaza when he was murdered by a soldier from the IDF.

First the IDF tried to say that he was shot in the back in a crossfire of bullets while pressuring Daniel Edge (his assistant producer) behind the scenes to say that a Palestinian shot him. After it became clear that it was an Israeli bullet that hit him in the neck, they tried to say that a tunnel was found under the house where he was and that somebody actually fired an anti-tank missile from the house and that is when they opened fire, killing James by accident.

Do you know what the video showed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIOaCUhFk8

No firefight, no anti-tank missiles, nothing. The IDF were lying through their fucking teeth about the whole thing. They expertly shot him seconds after firing the warning shot despite the fact they were calling out in English, wearing body armor marked TV and carrying a white flag with their passport in front of it.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Because they are fighting a PR battle now. It is much easier for them to call the people on the flotilla "murderous mercenaries" "terrorists" "ex-military", release false facts and false audio while media attention is at it's highest while slowly issuing retractions in the weeks/months to come when nobody is paying attention and the media is barely reporting.

That's why I brought up James Miller earlier. He was filming a documentary in Gaza when he was murdered by a soldier from the IDF.

First the IDF tried to say that he was shot in the back in a crossfire of bullets while pressuring Daniel Edge (his assistant producer) behind the scenes to say that a Palestinian shot him. After it became clear that it was an Israeli bullet that hit him in the neck, they tried to say that a tunnel was found under the house where he was and that somebody actually fired an anti-tank missile from the house and that is when they opened fire, killing James by accident.

Do you know what the video showed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DIOaCUhFk8

No firefight, no anti-tank missiles, nothing. The IDF were lying through their fucking teeth about the whole thing. They expertly shot him seconds after firing the warning shot despite the fact they were calling out in English, wearing body armor marked TV and carrying a white flag with their passport in front of it.[/QUOTE]

Im not trying to be an ass or anything, I am seriously asking if that is what you are supposed to do in that situation? Walk up to an apc with a white flag? Were they not supposed to be in that house or what? What would of happened if they stayed there? By all accounts they should not of shot him but Im just curious what they were trying to do walking up to it in the middle of the night.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The videos clearly show that the israelis were attacked when they attempted to board by boat or by helicoptor. Sigh now flash grenades aren't weapons, and a fire bomb was an exception. They were not there to kill Israeli soldiers but they were there to break the blockade, and knew theyd be boarded to stop them from breaking it. Again it was a win-win situation for them. If Israel lets them go they broke the blockade, and if Israel stops them and raids them, then Israel is a big meanie for raiding a humanitarian aid effort.

If you want to play this logic game then we can.

Israeli must be completely innocent because what would they have to gain by murdering a bunch of humanitarians unless the soldiers were violent extremists themselves. All things considered they could have just blown the 6 ships out of the water with their naval destroyers, but they didn't so they must be the peaceful bunch just trying to defend themselves.

Sounds logical but it isn't factual. Look at the facts, and stop thinking that because it was illogical to attack trained soldiers with pipes and chairs, and stun grenades that they had to of been just peacefully defending themselves.[/QUOTE]
....and what facts would those be? The tapes from the IDF? I trust that source as much as I do Fox News. Damn logic, why do you tempt me with probable ideas and theories? When shall I learn to believe what I'm told and accept it without question?

DAMN YOU LOGIC!!!!!
 
[quote name='Knoell']...if the Israel blockade of Gaza is legal, then Israel has every right to inspect what goes into it...[/quote]
If the blockade is not legal, does Israel have any right to inspect the ship?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Im not trying to be an ass or anything, I am seriously asking if that is what you are supposed to do in that situation? Walk up to an apc with a white flag? Were they not supposed to be in that house or what? What would of happened if they stayed there? By all accounts they should not of shot him but Im just curious what they were trying to do walking up to it in the middle of the night.[/QUOTE]

James was trying to get footage of the Israelis dynamiting one of the abandoned homes on the edge of the death strip. He thought they were done for the night and decided that it was best for them to get back to the flat they were staying at in the centre of Rafah. Instead of doing something stupid like trying to sneak out of the area, they decided to approach one of the APCs (that was playing music and yelling things at them in Arabic like "Do you like Fairuz?" earlier in the evening) that was parked near by to ask for safe passage.

That's when what went down, went down.

If you can get your hands on that documentary, I highly recommend it. It shows how truly fucked up the whole situation is on both sides and it was a shame that James was killed before he was able to do the Israeli side of the documentary.
 
They really shouldn't have continued to approach the APC after the warning shot, but they were at the very least negligent to open fire in that situation.

It was a pretty good documentary.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, it does. It means when approached by a millitary force when attempting to illegally sail toward a blockaded port, you submit to the authority.[/quote]
There is nothing illegal about attempting to break a blockade, which is why they deport those that try instead of try them for crimes. How bout you stop making shit up as you go?

Israel has no authority in international water. You have every right to defend yourself with deadly force in international water. If you want to pretend to go the strictly legal route, then according to international law the Israelis murdered people in international water and its soldiers were legally attacked and killed.

It speaks to the strength of your position that you have to lie to support it.

You should give up, FoC. They can't get their heads around international water, much less the legality of a blockade this complex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top