Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[Jonnyclueless]

Footage was stolen eh? So if there was stolen footage of Joos - er I mean "Israelis" executing people, would that evidence be invalid for being "stolen"?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

can you point out the actual posts that you think claim Israel has no right to defend itself....otherwise its just more meaningless chanting of slogans about unsourced claims made by people you can't or won't name.

So then you then have no p[roblem with Israel defending itself from rocket attacks which requires making sure rockets don't get smuggled in via boats.

Or were you hoping to take a position where you don't actually commit to saying anything other than being critical of everything one side does so that when you are question about your opinion you can just always pretend you never said anything?

Of course every time you are pressed on these issues you dodge everything.

Israel has a blockade as a defense against the missile attacks. They have a right to defend themselves. Do you not agree now? No one said you literally typed "Israel has no right to defend itself". Let's stop playing dumb. Every time Israel DOES defend itself you seem to have a problem with it. I have to wonder if there is any kind of defense Israel could even possibly do that you would approve of. Do you mind giving some examples of defense you don't have a problem with?

 

[Skeptic]

The documentary calls itself "Death on the Med". Where is the investigation into the deaths?

In the part that showed the deaths resulted from the commandos defending themselves from a hostile mob that violently attacked them.

 

[JihadJane]

I do not care who shot the footage of people cutting iron bars off the railing as I am only observing that, indeed, iron bars were being prepared. I accept the IDF's statement that they were not prepared for the hostile reception of iron bars.

Why? The people were banging the bars on the side of the Mavi Marmara before it was boarded, as a warning to the attackers. They were obviously very hostile to the idea of allowing a military attack on their civilian boat in international waters and prepared to defend it.

Therefore I have put forward my personal opinion that the IDF did not have a "friendly" on board to warn the IDF that such weapons were being prepared. This is a tiny point and has nothing to do with blame or guilt. I am more interested in what went wrong on an operational level. I think it is true to say that the IDF did not want to hurt anyone and I'm interested what went wrong.

What is your evidence that the IDF didn't want to hurt anybody? Sending in "elite" commandos, whose areas of expertise lie a very, very long way from controlling crowds of angry civilians without hurting them very badly, suggests this wasn't the case.

~~~~~~~~~

Oh so you're not telling the truth then.

About what?

Thank you for correcting me. Most people who use rhetoric so blatantly and irresponsibly as you like to claim they are telling the truth. It's good to see someone honest here and admit they are not being truthful.

Sorry, you've lost me there!

I’ve no idea what you are trying to communicate.

Footage was stolen eh? So if there was stolen footage of Joos - er I mean "Israelis" executing people, would that evidence be invalid for being "stolen"?

Ooops! Are you a racist?


The small amount of footage evidence released by the Israelis is compromised by being selected by the people who are being investigated - i.e. the IDF, the ones who stole the footage.

Israel has a blockade as a defense against the missile attacks.

The declared purpose of the blockade is to put the Palestinians on a diet.

 

[amb]

I suppose it will cause a complete meltdown here if Israel decides to take out Iran's nuclear enrichment plant.

 

[WildCat]

Why? The people were banging the bars on the side of the Mavi Marmara before it was boarded, as a warning to the attackers. They were obviously very hostile to the idea of allowing a military attack on their civilian boat in international waters and prepared to defend it.

They were not even remotely prepared to defend the MM from a military attack. If they thought they were, they are immeasurably more stupid than people who bring a knife to a gun fight.

Perhaps if they bring a fully armed destroyer next time...

 

[Virus]

What is your evidence that the IDF didn't want to hurt anybody?

The video footage.

 

[Skeptic]

Why? The people were banging the bars on the side of the Mavi Marmara before it was boarded, as a warning to the attackers.

Exactly. So, when the commandos boarded, they stormed them with their knives and bars so the commandos, naturally, fought back.

When a mob attacks a bunch of commandos armed with weapons in an attempt to kill them, what did you expect?

Naturally, on the other ships, where there was no resistance, nobody got so much as scratched.

 

[Thunder]

The video footage.

you can read people's minds...through video footage?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why? The people were banging the bars on the side of the Mavi Marmara before it was boarded, as a warning to the attackers. They were obviously very hostile to the idea of allowing a military attack on their civilian boat in international waters and prepared to defend it.

The attackers? The Mavi was running a military blockade. The Mavi was committing an aggressive act of war. They run a military blockade and you call the people running the blockade the attackers? I suppose if someone gets mugged and fights back you would call the victim the attacker? And if the mugger warned the victim first it would be to ward off the victim? Was the Mavi planning on turning around and not running the blockade or were they intending to continue their blockade run which is an offensive, NOT defensive move?

Being in international waters means absolutely nothing. You seem to think that someone can be in international waters and can do anything they want. You need to learn the maritime laws. A naval blockade can take place anywhere between the origin and the belligerent destination.

Again, the Mavi was making an OFFENSIVE move, NOT defensive. Let's please learn what happened before we post OK?

What is your evidence that the IDF didn't want to hurt anybody? Sending in "elite" commandos, whose areas of expertise lie a very, very long way from controlling crowds of angry civilians without hurting them very badly, suggests this wasn't the case.

The fact that the IDF was simply doing what it's job was and was stated from the beginning. The ship did not have to run the naval blockade. They could have just brought the cargo to either of the ports and had the supplies delivered. They chose to take military action against a military naval blockade. That is an act of war. And calling a ship full of people attacking a naval blockade civilians? No, they most certainly were not civilians. You can't make a military strike and then claim it's justified by pretending to be a civilian.

Ooops! Are you a racist?

How Ironic you of all people should make that claim.

The small amount of footage evidence released by the Israelis is compromised by being selected by the people who are being investigated - i.e. the IDF, the ones who stole the footage.

Evidence?

The declared purpose of the blockade is to put the Palestinians on a diet.

And you're well aware that that's a flat out lie. And it's this kind of propaganda that makes many of us have no respect for you. Why can't truthers ever be honest?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

you can read people's minds...through video footage?

*facepalm*

Yeah they went there to kill people for no useful reason and did so with ships full of guns and bombs yet chose to send a few men in with paintball guns. They planned to kill people for no logical reason and did so by first trying to negotiate getting the ships to deliver their cargo to ports where they could be inspected.

Brilliant....

 

[The Fool]

In the part that showed the deaths resulted from the commandos defending themselves from a hostile mob that violently attacked them.

nothing in the documentary showed the deaths or how they happened. You IDF apologists seem to want to ignore the fact that you are using video footage of other events to decide that you know what happened re the shootings....

If there were 9 dead bodies in a bar....would you think a video of a fight outside the bar that happened earlier would allow you to decide the circumstances of the deaths?

please tell me how you would do this..

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I haven't watched the video, but are you saying the video shows footage from an event that wasn't part of the flotilla and how do you determine this?

 

[a_unique_person]

I haven't watched the video, but are you saying the video shows footage from an event that wasn't part of the flotilla and how do you determine this?

He's saying you can't tell from the video how the killings occured.

 

[JihadJane]

The attackers? The Mavi was running a military blockade. The Mavi was committing an aggressive act of war. They run a military blockade and you call the people running the blockade the attackers? I suppose if someone gets mugged and fights back you would call the victim the attacker? And if the mugger warned the victim first it would be to ward off the victim? Was the Mavi planning on turning around and not running the blockade or were they intending to continue their blockade run which is an offensive, NOT defensive move?

Being in international waters means absolutely nothing. You seem to think that someone can be in international waters and can do anything they want. You need to learn the maritime laws. A naval blockade can take place anywhere between the origin and the belligerent destination.

Again, the Mavi was making an OFFENSIVE move, NOT defensive. Let's please learn what happened before we post OK?

The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

The fact that the IDF was simply doing what it's job was and was stated from the beginning. The ship did not have to run the naval blockade. They could have just brought the cargo to either of the ports and had the supplies delivered. They chose to take military action against a military naval blockade. That is an act of war. And calling a ship full of people attacking a naval blockade civilians? No, they most certainly were not civilians. You can't make a military strike and then claim it's justified by pretending to be a civilian.

The UN stated that the blockade is illegal.

How Ironic you of all people should make that claim.

It was a question prompted by your apparent slip of the pen, not a claim. If you have any evidence that I am a racist please present it. Otherwise, shut up.

Evidence?

Have you followed this story at all or do you rely 100% on intuition to inform youself?

And you're well aware that that's a flat out lie. And it's this kind of propaganda that makes many of us have no respect for you. Why can't truthers ever be honest?

When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

 

[a_unique_person]

Naturally, on the other ships, where there was no resistance, nobody got so much as scratched.

Wrong.

 

[bigjelmapro]

The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of warfare and occupation.

Isn't collective punishment by definition. This has been commented on with sources given as to the legal ramifications of using this legal term when its inapplicable, but somehow you keep stating this, in addition to the fabrication below.

The UN stated that the blockade is illegal.

Read/heard nothing of the sort. Source it.

When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

Would be great if you could source this too, or do we somehow apply a different standard to you?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Wrong.

No.

 

[Mycroft]

I actually think they (on the balance of probability) were quite possibly Justified. But I also cannot see anywhere enough evidence to conclude anything beyond reasonable doubt.

I am not willing to declare the Israeli findings true beyond reasonable doubt which seems to me to be required to justify many conclusions I see made in this thread.

Ah, now the backpedaling. You also conclude (on the balance of probability) that the shootings were justified, but just want to slam people for making the same conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, even though nobody said that.

 

[Mycroft]

Why? The people were banging the bars on the side of the Mavi Marmara before it was boarded, as a warning to the attackers. They were obviously very hostile to the idea of allowing a military attack on their civilian boat in international waters and prepared to defend it.

So...the iron bars were to be used to warn the IDF?

Warn them against what? Being hit with iron bars?

It's amazing how you can take preparations for violence and recast it as preparations for non-violence.

What is your evidence that the IDF didn't want to hurt anybody? Sending in "elite" commandos, whose areas of expertise lie a very, very long way from controlling crowds of angry civilians without hurting them very badly, suggests this wasn't the case.

Two things:

1) They didn't hurt any of the people on the other boats.

2) They went in armed with paint-ball guns.

It's amazing how you take preparations for non-violence and recast it as preparations for violence.