• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where did I say they need to end the blockade or surrender control of the border to independent observers? I was simply saying that having The Red Cross (say) observing what aid goes in and what then becomes available would prove Israel's case if it was all the fault of Hamas. It ain't happening.

And I do think Hamas are bastards.

My mistake then. I thought that when you wrote

all Israel has to do is to have neutral observers checking the stuff into Gaza and showing Hamas up for the bastards they are.

you meant they shouldn't be doing anything else. Now that you've explained it, I wouldn't be adverse to them adding red cross volunteers observing the aid shipments.
 
As long the IDF will not publish a list about what items Hamas is blocking we wouldn't have any credible source for that anyway...

Why should Israel publish a list when the UN managed to blockade Iraq for 13 years without publishing a complete one either? The UN Sanctions Committee made determinations on whether something was banned based on a case by case basis, just like Israel does. The list I gave eariler was based on the commonly rejected items from 1990-1997. Why is it alright for the UN to "collectively punish" the people of Iraq for 13 years for the actions of their dictator, but when Israel do the same for the actions of an elected government is considered evil and medieval?
 
Woah. 12 pages since I last looked!

Can someone summarize for me ? Did we finally decide on who was the bad guy, here ?

No, but favoured sides have been uncritically and without scepticism cheer led with graceful aplomb and daring pirouettes.

Pretty much a standard ME thread really.
 
I'm speechless...I have no speech.
JihadJane has become a joke. After 2335 posts this is what you learned about the Marmara incident? really?
I think now you're arguing just for the sake of arguing making stuff up as you go.
You're like a child putting your hands on your ears and screaming: "La La La....I can't hear you".

Earlier in the thread you wrote:

I know perfectly well that the terrorists were on board the Marmara.

What is this professed “knowledge” of yours based on?
 
Last edited:
Piracy seems like a fair description of violently attacking a boat in international waters under cover of darkness, killing and injuring people on the boat, abusing them, kidnapping them, imprisoning them, abusing them some more, stealing their belongings and trying to get them to sign statements that they have entered Israel illegally. If you like, you can call them gangsters instead.
Indeed, that would be pretty horrible. Can we get back to discussing the Gaza flotilla clash now;)?
 
Why should Israel publish a list when the UN managed to blockade Iraq for 13 years without publishing a complete one either? The UN Sanctions Committee made determinations on whether something was banned based on a case by case basis, just like Israel does. The list I gave eariler was based on the commonly rejected items from 1990-1997. Why is it alright for the UN to "collectively punish" the people of Iraq for 13 years for the actions of their dictator, but when Israel do the same for the actions of an elected government is considered evil and medieval?

Have you ever seen me supporting the sanctions against the Iraqi people?
but anyway
you have no credible source for the list you provided?
so why should we accept your claims? when Gisha's list is rejected?

btw back then i actually called the sanctions a collective punishment, because here, that is commonly used term when we talk about many get punished for the deeds of one or few. without the "".
 
I doubt the purpose was to inflame, but I do think it's indicative of the mind-set of many from that end of the political spectrum, as well as the tolerance on the far left for that particular form of ugliness.

Far be it from me to project my own thoughts and feelings onto someone else, but if I tell you that you and your friends and family should be gassed to death in a concentration camp, I'm trying to piss you off.

Other than that, I agree with you. Anyone who isn't the US or Israel gets carte blanche from the left to follow their most savage impulses.
 
Piracy seems like a fair description of violently attacking a boat in international waters under cover of darkness, killing and injuring people on the boat, abusing them, kidnapping them, imprisoning them, abusing them some more, stealing their belongings and trying to get them to sign statements that they have entered Israel illegally. If you like, you can call them gangsters instead.

Which is fine, if what they did was actual piracy. At least according to one of your sources, an ex British Ambassador, it is not.

They were completely unsuited to the mission they were sent on - intercepting a politically sensitive, civilian aid convoy with paintball guns.

Who among the IDF would be used in maritime operations such as this? Also, the wikipedia source gives a very broad 'definition' of what S'13 is trained for.

In the days before the attack the Israeli government and military talked up the probability of their being "terrorists" on board. That's what the leader of the commando mob said he saw so he shot them.

Is it unreasonable to include the possibility of terrorists being on board a ship attempting to break a blockade? And he did not shoot the man because 'he was a 'terrorist', he shot him because he was wielding a knife.

Do you think that's an acceptable length of time in which to present their case to the world and while they are under fire?

That's not the point. The claim was that they were silenced, when they were still able to broadcast images and possibly audio/video.

That's their job. They are trained assassins.

A police officer is trained to use deadly force. Would the Israeli police have been any more qualified for this situation? Who in the IDF would you say is qualified for something like this, regardless if you think it is immoral in the first place.
 
For the sake of my curiosity and me being unable to come up with the actual search terms: Anyone got an idea which laws actually pertain to international waters? I have a hard time finding out if the action by Israeli forces was actually illegal.
 
Both are true, at least in words.
The thing is, Erdogan said he will be on board the next acivist ship escorted by some of The Turkish military fleet. - I see this on the same scale as pronouncing war on Israel.
The Turkish military is already suspicious of Erdogan's ties to Islamists, their confrontation might not be with Israel if Erdogan attempts this...
 
An interesting find by bloggers:

First, Reuters are at it again. They apparently edited pictures from the Turkish ship to crop out knife wielding activists, as well as blood, presumably from the Israeli soldiers. See here. (Warning, original includes some blood, so do not view if that would bother you.)

Then, another blogger notices that the knife used is a combat knife, and furthermore, it does not appear in the pictures of knives captured by the IDF. The blogger than speculate that the Turkish activists may have thrown some weapons overboard.

As always, with bloggers investigating from afar, it is hard to be sure. However, it seems to me they got it right in this case.

Unbelievable. Seriously. Un@#$!ingbelievable. It's like Reuters, al jazeera, et al literally can not restrain themselves...like a kid stealing a cookie from the cookie jar knowing full well they're going to get busted but doing it anyway. Integrity goes out the window and anything and everything goes in a desperate attempt to make Israel look as bad as possible. And what's worse, didn't wee have the Hamas apologists here make the absurd claim that the weapons were likely planted/staged by the IDF after the raid?
 
Last edited:
Why should Israel publish a list when the UN managed to blockade Iraq for 13 years without publishing a complete one either? The UN Sanctions Committee made determinations on whether something was banned based on a case by case basis, just like Israel does. The list I gave eariler was based on the commonly rejected items from 1990-1997. Why is it alright for the UN to "collectively punish" the people of Iraq for 13 years for the actions of their dictator, but when Israel do the same for the actions of an elected government is considered evil and medieval?
Because they're Jews, of course.

As Krauthammer put it in his latest column:
Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.
One of Krauthammer's best columns.
 
Captain of the Mavi Marmara talks to Al Jazeera :

"When they first came down on the top deck the passengers formed a human shield. Without any warning, the soldiers were shooting as they came down on the ropes.

The passengers weren’t warned at all. I was on the bridge and I saw them very clearly firing gunshots. They came down also throwing gas bombs.

Only after the soldiers started attacking the passengers did they take away the soldiers guns. The passengers on the boat in no way attacked the soldiers
."

Captain’s View:

 
Hitchens take on this issue, as always interesting.

http://www.slate.com/id/2256168/?from=rss

Incidentally, in a little-noticed statement last week, U.N. special regional coordinator Robert Serry denounced a series of raids and lootings mounted by Hamas supporters on the offices of genuinely humanitarian operations in Gaza City and Rafah.

The near-incredible stupidity of the Israeli airborne descent on the good ship Mavi Marmara, by troops well-enough equipped to shoot when panicked but not well-enough prepared to contain or subdue a preplanned riot, has now generated much more coverage and comment than Erdogan's cynical recent decision to become a partner in the nuclear maneuvers of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It has also generated much more coverage and comment than Erdogan's long-term design to de-secularize Turkey, a design in which his recent big-mouth grandstanding on Gaza is a mere theatrical detail. What on earth are self-proclaimed humanitarian activists—as they will soon enough be called at this rate—doing in such an open alliance between one cruel and bankrupt Iranian theocracy, one religio-nationalist Turkish demagogue, and Hamas?
 
Captain of the Mavi Marmara talks to Al Jazeera :

"When they first came down on the top deck the passengers formed a human shield. Without any warning, the soldiers were shooting as they came down on the ropes.


What does he mean by 'human shield' in this context? Is a human shield meant to detain people? I don't understand.

The passengers weren’t warned at all. I was on the bridge and I saw them very clearly firing gunshots. They came down also throwing gas bombs.

In the video I posted earlier, which I will link to you again, you can clearly see S'13 Commandos rappelling down onto the deck of the MM. They are not firing any kind of weapons, nor are they throwing any kind of projectiles.

Only after the soldiers started attacking the passengers did they take away the soldiers guns. The passengers on the boat in no way attacked the soldiers

This statement is contradicted by visual evidence.



Were is the shooting in this video? OR any other video. You have Commandos rappelling down into a hostile mob, yet, despite the claims of the ship's captain, they are not firing their weapons, nor are the activists acting in a way that would denote live ammunition being used, unless they are completely unfazed by gunfire.
 
Last edited:
Visual evidence is not important for Jihad. You'd show her the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon and she still wouldn't believe you.
 
Jihad Jane has just made up his or her own version of what happened so evidence is meaningless. If they are Jews, then they brutally murdered people for sport.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom