Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[lionking]

I never once consented to be deported.”

Hilarious. He sounds just like a Freeman on the Land. "Oh I don't contract to this deportation. I'm being oppressed".

 

[WildCat]

Released Irish activist hails the integrity of the IDF:

"We had been taken, at gun point, in a metal box to Ben Gurion Airport, Tel Aviv. I was insisting on staying so I refused to sign any documentation that would be used to deport me. The Isreali Defence Forces baton charged us. They brutalised us in full view of CCTV cameras.

"I saw Ken through a curtain of his blood just before he was taken away from us. I was then asked to sign more papers and when I refused I was set on by 15/20 members of Israeli security forces. They tried to break my fingers, knelt on my back and punched me to the head. I never once consented to be deported.”


Flotilla attack 'Bloody Sunday on the high seas' - O'Luain

It's funny how all of your witnesses are obvious liars, as shown by the video evidence including the pics taken by the "peace activists" themselves.

Is it OK to lie for jihad Jane?

 

[The Fool]

As I said earlier, the Turkish military is not at all a fan of Erdogan and his cozying up to Islamists.

If Erdogan trys to involove the Turkish military they may well turn their guns towards him and say "you talkin' to me?"

oh great...we have one member thinking conflict with Turkey deserves a smiley and you are relying on A belief in the likelyhood of a turkish military coup to counter the fairly obvious suggestion that military conflict with turkey is not high up the list of brilliant Ideas.

Nope...I doubt if even Bibi would go for it even if he took your sagacious advice about the Turkish Military's likelihood of revolting.

 

[The Fool]

It's funny how all of your witnesses are obvious liars, as shown by the video evidence including the pics taken by the "peace activists" themselves.

Is it OK to lie for jihad Jane?

quite possibly both sides are not telling the whole truth...that would be unusual wouldn't it.

 

[The Fool]

The chances of an armed conflict with Turkey are immeasurably miniscule.

Israeli ships forcing passage into turkish waters would not lead to conflict with Turkey? Would the IDF just watch turks doing the same thing to Israeli vessels?

Unfortunately armed conflict with Turkey is an ever present danger especially when so many supporters of Israel and so many Israelis seem to think its such a great Idea....

 

[WildCat]

oh great...we have one member thinking conflict with Turkey deserves a smiley and you are relying on A belief in the likelyhood of a turkish military coup to counter the fairly obvious suggestion that military conflict with turkey is not high up the list of brilliant Ideas.

Nope...I doubt if even Bibi would go for it even if he took your sagacious advice about the Turkish Military's likelihood of revolting.

Bibi has nothing to do with it. The Turkish military is not about to go along with Erdogan's stunt to increase the power of Turkish Islamists.

quite possibly both sides are not telling the whole truth...that would be unusual wouldn't it.

I know one side has been caught in multiple lies, and it isn't the Israelis.

 

[IDB87]

Earlier you wrote:

Then we will wait for more information to come out.

That was in regards to the Turkish activist that was denying Israel's electronic warfare by maintaining an open signal with the world. His death has no corroborating story. So for anyone to say what he was doing (or what he did) upon his death is a bit strange, so we have to wait for more information. How does this relate to the Captains statement that a human shield was formed and how clarification is needed?

Perhaps there is a need for an independent inquiry to address contradictory evidence and examine all the withheld evidence.

Well, lets go on what the Captain himself says, and your own theory of progression of events(Please interject any corrections you find/have):

Boats are driven off rather violently. They fail to board.

The first helicopter assault is met with peaceful resistance, and the soldiers (how many rappelled down or were in the bird?) are taken captive by a 'human shield'.

The next assault comes in, according to the Captain and your theory, firing live ammunition. Yet, in the videos they released (the videos used to justify using lethal force) they are not firing live ammunition (that we can see) as they rappel in, nor are the activists responding to it if they did. As we can see, they are standing around or attacking the soldiers.

I assume he means the that passengers didn't attack the commandos as portrayed by Israeli selective documentation i.e. without initial, violent provocation.

How were soldiers (armed, armored commandos) detained peacefully and without force?

Where is the video evidence that the Israelis shot anybody at all during this attack?

The dead activists are good enough for me.

Where is the rest of the mountain of video evidence?

Source for a 'mountain' of evidence? I know several cameras were smashed and some are being held.

Why do you refer to the passengers with the derogatory word “mob”?

It is my contention that the Commandos were not firing live ammunition in the videos they released (the ones used to justify lethal force), and are being attacked with force by an angry mob.

Do you ever ask yourself why the Israelis have withheld virtually all footage of the attacks? Israel has already admitted selectively editing and manipulating its released "evidence".

Are you speaking of the 'Go back to Auswitch' audio or something else?

Doesn't that make you even a little cautious about accepting their accounts at face value? Why not follow your own advice and “wait for more information to come out” though, admittedly, that may be a very long wait?

There are certain things we should wait for - the story of the Turkish techy being murdered at his computer, the idea that the MM was retreating, the concept of what a human shield means in this context.

There are several things that I feel comfortable with enough to say at this point that Israel was in the right, and that is based on the visual evidence they released. One of them is that the activists did not use 'peaceful resistance', and that is based on the preparation of weapons before the boarding. Another is the use of lethal forced -based- on the context of the videos, and the conflicting reports made the Captain and other activists.

Why is Israel so keen to prevent an independent, international inquiry if it has nothing to hide? This incident occurred, after all, in International Waters, in territory outside Israeli jurisdiction.

International waters amounts to both ships being their own sovereign power. The U.N. does not control international waters. There is no legal demand for an independent inquiry, although it wouldn't hurt.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When was the last time that Israel was "alone"?

June 5th - June 10th 1967

US public opinion is very easily manipulated.

Yes, Jane, we know. 95% of the US doesn't know 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Kotatsu]

Really? So that psychotic murderer about to chop up a little kid - you don't want to be right in having a gun and shooting him? You're weird

And you want to be right in being allowed to shoot babies and feed them to your herd of mutated carnivorous beavers? You're weird!

Really, hyperbole does not actually contribute very much.

Fine. So all a blockade runner has to do is arm himself and Israel must then do what exactly if it wants to enforce its blockade? (I'm open to the possibility there are better solutions)

Well, as has been pointed out, I know nothing about what the capabilities and tonnages of the Israeli fleet is, but I would imagine that actually blockading the blockade runners by placing your ships (or dummy ships with no crew) in its direct path, thereby forcing the blockade runner to either swerve or crash into them, could be one option. Failing that, they could perhaps shoot in the water directly in the blockade runner's path, thereby forcing it either to voluntarily place itself in harms way, or change direction. Eventually, they would run out of gas and/or food and water, and would either need to surrender or return to some other port.

Whether or not this is actually practicable, I have no idea. But then again, I am not paid for coming up with these plans for the Israeli defense forces.

One side chose to drop onto a boat, after warnings etc etc - without action from other parties, there would have been no injuries

Well, then it is as true to say that the activists were busying themselves with beating the air and the sides of their own ships, and without action from other parties, there would have been no injuries.

Then clearly you have a basic misunderstanding of the term self-defense.

Or just don't accept your definition.

Also, generally, when you have guns, and the other side doesn't, you shouldn't expect them to be stupid enough to attack you. However I don't think stupidity was the issue, and that was Israel's biggest mistake, not realising their hand was going to be forced into what you foolishly call murder.

I would have guessed that Israeli would have learned by now that some people will do anything, regardless of how stupid it may seem to an observer. The Israeli have suffered attacks by idiots for year, and just being armed doesn't seem to deter all kinds of idiots.

Ok - again we're having problems on a more basic level of agreement. I think you really need to accept there are times when it is morally acceptable to kill someone.

If that is so, then I will never agree that this is one of those cases.

How do you think unarmed inspectors would have been greeted by these armed and prepared activists? Australian (and I'm certain every other nation's) customs inspectors have weapons available to them.

I have no idea how they would have acted if the ship instead had been approached in daytime by people who were not wearing combat gear and had surrounded their ships. Perhaps they would have done as the people of the other ships did, and been satisfied with non-violent resistance methods. I have no idea. I do believe that there is a clear difference between sending a few officials with no obvious weapons aboard, and to send a group of soldiers down with a helicopter. I also believe there is a difference between doing it in the middle of the night, and doing it during light hours.

Kotatsu, it's clear as day light that you have never been in any immediate threat in your life nor a threat to any of your close family.

This is incorrect, though I have never been in an immediate threat by guns. Guns are not the only way in which to kill someone, though.

You live in a fantasy world where you say don't want to see any human being raising a gun on another human being, as you said. That's childish thinking and does not correlate with the real world.
It may be comfortable to live in such a fantasy world but unfortunately I and all other Israelis don't have that luxury.

And I find it detestable that you cannot live in my fantasy world -- indeed that not everyone lives in my fantasy world.

Anyway - I'm arguing the commanding officers did no such thing. They placed soldiers in a situation where 'if the activists acted like insane idiots trying to martyr themselves, their soldiers would have no option than to KILL IN SELF DEFENSE (caps for clarity - important concept and distinct from murder - look it up)

And when the probability for that "if" to be true seemingly approaches 1, then your statement turns into them having placed soldiers in a situation where they would be beset by insane idiots trying to martyr themselves and feeling they had no option but to MURDER (caps for clarity, as the killing of man by man is virtually always murder (1)). I know there is a difference legally, but that does not in any way change my conviction.

Never did justify it.

You did, however, imply -- actually, you did say it right out -- that I did, which I never did.

Is this a claim that Israel's judicial system is colluding with the IDF and couldn't possibly fairly assess the incident?

This is a claim that governments tend to protect their own.

A change of 'z' to an 's' doesn't make it different. Explain how it is.

Certainly:

You wrote: "'Sympathized murder', that's a new one." The built-in dictionary of my Mac provides the following two definitions of "symphatize":

"1 feel or express sympathy : it is easy to understand and sympathize with his predicament.
2 agree with a sentiment or opinion : they sympathize with critiques of traditional theory."

Meanwhile, I used the term "systematised murder". The same dictionary provides the following definition of the word "systamatise":

"arrange according to an organized system; make systematic"

I hope this clear up your misunderstanding.

Not really. The issue I have is your attempts to rewrite legal definitions and somehow mask it behind a 'right' and by making the activists lethal actions towards the IDF with such innocuous words such as 'behavior'.

Whereas you attempt to hide the murder by Israeli soldiers of idiots by the weasel-word "self-defense".

You keep dancing around this issue. The intent to murder by the activists existed when these activists stabbed, beat and shot at the boarding IDF with their own weaponry (ie knives, metal poles, and pistols) and the confirmed 2 guns that were taken from the IDF. One does not 'subdue' people by stabbing, beating and shooting them.

I've posted a more recent video of IDF soldiers being stabbed repeatedly, clearly, and the IDF soldier not using lethal force in return. This is clear-cut, this is straight-forward. Stop being so utterly disingenuous.

Again, I agree with you 100% when you write that people who stabbed or shot Israeli soldiers were doing it with the express intent to murder them. I do not know how I can make this more clear.

Sorry that you're confusing the term 'right' with 'legal' in that it somehow supercedes Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade, with a properly declared exclusion zone, gave proper warning that this flotilla was using entering said zone, and that Israel has the right to board and detain based on this right.

I don't know what you are talking about, nor what post you have been reading. I have not stated that anything supersedes Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade. I have even stated in the very post you quote that I believe it was right of the Israeli to attempt to enforce their blockade in this very case.

As I've noticed over several posts, you have this innate need to have a long-winded, redundant responses of issues that have already been responded to and this need to ask for definitions that were already given and linked (ie self-defense).

Yet long-winded and redundant as they may be, this still does not seem to be enough to get you to understand my standpoint. You seem to find it easier to assume that I argue the same as everyone else on the political left, and try to argue against that. You accuse me of trying to justify the attacking activists' actions by quoting a passage where I write that there is no way in which their idiotic attack can be justified. You accuse me of thinking that some undefined right supercedes Israel's right to enforce their naval blockade and quote parts of a section where I explicitly state that it was right of Israel to enforce their blockade. I have no idea what, other than repetition, I can fall back on in my attempts to get through to you.

I have not 'ascribed the exact opposite' when I have directly responded to your responses in full.

... all the while interpreting my posts as if they contained statements which are in exact opposition to what they actually contain. You have, indeed, responded to my responses in full, but you haven't read them.

There is no basis to make this claim that the boarding would be as violent as it turned out to be on the Mavi Marmara. Neither is the crystal ball defense working here that the IDF should not have boarded with the knowledge they had prior to the boarding.

How fortunate, then, that I claimed nothing of the sort.

Again, answered this already, applying restrospective reasoning to this situation does not negate the argument for self-defense on the part of the IDF. Show me on a legal basis that the IDF knew that there was going to be a bunch of 'mercenaries' on board with intent to kill them and that self-defense is off the table. Until you answer this, you cannot make this claim endlessly and present it as true on any legal term.

Again, I have no idea whom you are talking to, because your response has nothing to do with my posts.

Self-defense is off the table, because the soldiers voluntarily put themselves in that position despite knowing that the probability that they would be attacked was overwhelmingly large. This, as I have made clear, is not a legal standpoint of mine, and I have never presented it as such.

The mercenaries they hired had agreed to that?

It is the general agreement between all parties involved, I am told. I was not present when they boarded the ships, nor at any other stage of this journey, so I have no idea who actually agreed to do so or not. Nevertheless, whether or not they agreed to do it makes no difference: they were not right in attacking the Israeli soldiers.

To the Westerners posting here, something to consider. In the Arab world in particular, the concept of "face" is much more powerful than the concept of "truth." This is why blaming the Jews works, and why people believe in conspiracy theories at a higher rate over there. Just a thought.

To the Easterners posting here, something to consider. In the Conservative world in particular, the concept of "loudness" is much more powerful than the concept of "truth". This is why screaming at the top of your voice while not reading what your opposition writes works, and why people believe in conspiracy theories at a high rate over there. Just a thought.

I apologize if this has already been posted but I find this pretty inspiring. A lone Jewish high school student goes to an anti Israel protest with an Israeli flag.

In contrast, at the protest meeting I was at on the day of the murders, there were several Jews present, one of them even being an invited speaker, and he was applauded with the same vehemence as almost everyone else (the only exception was the conservative party spokeswoman who was mainly booed).

---
(1) Again, accidents and killings by neglect are naturally not murders. I do not believe either case applies here, though.

 

[Pardalis]

An article by Ken O’Keefe, a former US Marine and Gulf War veteran and “a huge supporter of non-violence”, who was “directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos”.

Reflections by a Former US Marine on the Mavi Marmara: On Cowardice and Violence.

He said:

I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers

He took the weapon of an Israeli soldier. He got what logically followed, a beating.

The IDF soldier doesn't read minds, he couldn't possibly know O'Keefe didn't intend to use the weapon he just grabbed from him (assuming he is telling the truth that he didn't want to use it).

This testimony looks bad for your little hero.

I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go.

Is he saying they single-handedly disarmed the Israeli troops and let them go? How then did they get apprehended? His story leaves out that part, the part where they are taken over by the IDF. I mean, they must have been overpowered at some point, right?

His testimony of what happened reads like a bad Chuck Norris script.

I highly doubt the veracity of this account.

Maybe he took the IDF's weapon, got smacked in the head, and imagined the rest?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

One of the first rays of light in what has been a media debacle for Israel is that Americans aren't falling for anti-semitic bull@#$%.

Why do people like to cry "anti-semite" any time others criticize the state of Israel? Do you not realize that criticism of a government is not the same as criticism of the people who live under that government's authority? Is there anything Israel might do that wouldn't lead to accusations of anti-semitism against those who would criticize their actions?

Israel is not alone.

Quite so. The United States is Israel's partner in crime. It is not alone.

 

[Pardalis]

Here's a more logical and believable account:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ered-israeli-commandos-show-new-side-of-raid/

The attack on the ship started at 4:30 a.m. with 15 commandos rappelling down ropes to the ship’s upper deck. The first three commandos were captured and taken to the lower deck. After one minute, the commandos opened fire and took control of the upper deck.
At 4:35 a.m. another team arrived by helicopter. At 4:50 a.m. the commandos started taking over the ship. At 5:00 a.m the military announced it had control of the ship’s bridge.
The three commandos then either escaped or were freed by their colleagues.

It's much more likely that the crew kidnapped the commando, and that sparked the IDF to open fire. At least, it fits with the video and photographic evidence of IDF soldiers being clubbed, stabbed and bloodied.

O'Keefe's "we disarmed them and let them go" BS doesn't make any sense.

Is this how O'Keefe disarmed the IDF, Jihad?

 

[WildCat]

Why do people like to cry "anti-semite" any time others criticize the state of Israel?

Because for some reason no other country on the planet is held to the same standards as Israel. I wonder why that is?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why do people like to cry "anti-semite" any time others criticize the state of Israel?

Because it's a heck of a good soundbyte.

Because for some reason no other country on the planet is held to the same standards as Israel.

Only problem is, I don't get called anti-Sino for criticizing China, nor anti-Germanic for criticizing Germany.

Many of the Palestine supporters genuinely believe what they are saying. They really have this stance that Israel is the bad guy and that she breaks all manners of laws and is imperialist and so on and so forth, same with you and I believe that, say (pardon the bad analogy) China has no right to be in Tibet. I agree the tiny little state of Israel gets a disproportionate amount of attention, but this doesn't necessarily mean that any criticism is based on a hatred of Jews.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/tp-israel-flotilla-cp-rtr2e.jpg

Why am I reminded of Star Wars lightsabre battles?

 

[Adrian Lopez]

Because for some reason no other country on the planet is held to the same standards as Israel. I wonder why that is?

I doubt that is true, but how exactly does it validate the accusation that people who criticize Israel are anti-semites? I understand anti-semites would likely hold Israel to a different standard than they would other countries, but that does not in any way establish the claim that people who criticize Israel generally do so because they're anti-semitic.

The main people to blame for criticism of Israel are the people who work for the Israeli government.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Because for some reason no other country on the planet is held to the same standards as Israel. I wonder why that is?

[BillSwerski'sSuperfans]

Da Juice

[/Swerski]

 

[Skeptic]

Some of you may find this entertaining...or possibly disturbing:
Ideas for ‘reverse flotillas’ gain steam

Northern Cyprus, under the illegal occupation of Turkey, may be getting some aid from Israeli activists. It could be known as the flotilla war. Of course, this is just a stunt may not get enough resources for follow through but it is amusing.

Since each side apparently wants to show how humanitarian they are for PR purposes, I can just see it now: Turks smuggling in chocolate cake to Gaza, while the Israelies, in retaliation, dropping ice cream sundaes into Kurdish areas.

Upping the ante, the Turks sent all of Gaza a huge bouquet using FTD florists, while Israel warned that if this goes on, next thing there's a free kindle just waiting for every Cypriot, gotten cheap through mass order on amazon. (Finding all those mailing addresses on google earth was a bitch, though.)

Greece, a traditional rival of Turkey, is on the alert, and the Turkish secret service issues a special warning: beware of Greeks bearing gifts, they might be collaborators with the Israeli aid flotillas.

This is beginning to remind me of Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death" monologue.

And they say the middle east is crazy.

 

[Skeptic]

As I said earlier, the Turkish military is not at all a fan of Erdogan and his cozying up to Islamists.

If Erdogan trys to involove the Turkish military they may well turn their guns towards him and say "you talkin' to me?"

The expression "you and what army?" comes to mind for some reason.

 

[BeAChooser]

To JihadJane, in response to her non sequitor and quite silly response to my quite reasonable and quite pertinent questions ... rotflol!

 

[marksman]

I'm not familiar with this "collective punishment definition" that you speak of, nor do I know to what extent it is employed by those who criticize Israel.

By way of example, Turkey blockaded Cyprus but calls Israel's blockade of Gaza "collective punshment". It's hard to imagine a more blatant double standard. Those people who protested Israel's blockade but did not also protest Turkey's blockade as "collective punishment" of Cyprus can rightly be argued to be having a double standard.