Results of the Mavi Marmara Attack

[The Fool]

So your claim is these greenhouses are still intact, ready to produce crops if only Israel would allow those crops to market?

Prove it.

nope....have to do my hair.


not up to me to disprove the claim. Thought you would have been familiar with that concept. I encourage you to take advantage of the fine search engine made available by JREF if your memory of this topic is a little fuzzy.

edit to add: know I said it before but I'm going to ignore further attempts to breath life into the old strawberry story.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Don't hold your breath Mycroft. TF has a tendancy of only whinging incessantly and not doing any of the leg work when he makes statements as he does.

The greenhouses were looted when Israel pulled out in 2005, but had been partially rebuilt some several months after, albeit not fully.

Looters strip Gaza greenhouses

And then partially rebuilt, where the produce goes predominantly through the Karni crossing whereas the Egyptians do squat as usual:

Gaza greenhouses herald economic harvest

All in all, Egypt could do substantially more in allowing in Palestinian produce as Israel has been doing for decades already, but the Egyptian agricultural sector sees Gazan produce as a threat to their economy.

 

[marksman]

if the borders are open I fail to see how anything could be restricted......but if the Egyptians have not opened the borders as they said they would it may very well be different.

Given that several articles have been posted showing that the borders are not open and are in fact restricted, I fail to see why you still speak in hypotheticals. Are you refusing to read these articles? On what basis do you think the borders might be open?

You're the one who hypothesized that Egypt has allowed unrestricted access. Several articles have been offered debunking that hypothesis. Have you bothered to educate yourself at all since making that initial post?

 

[The Fool]

Don't hold your breath Mycroft. TF has a tendancy of only whinging incessantly and not doing any of the leg work when he makes statements as he does.

The greenhouses were looted when Israel pulled out in 2005, but had been partially rebuilt some several months after, albeit not fully.

Looters strip Gaza greenhouses

And then partially rebuilt, where the produce goes predominantly through the Karni crossing whereas the Egyptians do squat as usual:

Gaza greenhouses herald economic harvest

All in all, Egypt could do substantially more in allowing in Palestinian produce as Israel has been doing for decades already, but the Egyptian agricultural sector sees Gazan produce as a threat to their economy.

If you are going to reply to my posts why continue to pretend you are ignoring me.

your first link talks of "dozens" of greenhouses being damaged. What is a dozen in Israel? A thousand? Your link talks of dozens damaged out of 3000 or so. The original chant was "destroyed". It appears that a small number were damaged....slightly different story to the greenhouses were destroyed.



And the money payed to "save" them....who was that payed to?....what would the people have done if they were not payed? Destroy them?

Your second link talks of the crops produced from these "destroyed" greenhouses, thanks for that it helps reinforce my point.

and the export route for fresh strawberries is not to truck them over a desert to Egypt. It requires fast transit to the markets in europe. But the Israelis certainly took care of that didn't they.

How long are we going to keep up the strawberry diversion? I warn you....marksman will be here shortly to put you back on track.

 

[The Fool]

Given that several articles have been posted showing that the borders are not open and are in fact restricted, I fail to see why you still speak in hypotheticals. Are you refusing to read these articles? On what basis do you think the borders might be open?

You're the one who hypothesized that Egypt has allowed unrestricted access. Several articles have been offered debunking that hypothesis. Have you bothered to educate yourself at all since making that initial post?

I'll repeat my post in the hope you understand it the second time around.

"if the borders are open I fail to see how anything could be restricted......but if the Egyptians have not opened the borders as they said they would it may very well be different."

 

[Mycroft]

Don't hold your breath Mycroft. TF has a tendancy of only whinging incessantly and not doing any of the leg work when he makes statements as he does.

Preaching to the choir, man.

The purpose of asking him to prove his assertions isn't do get him to prove his assertions, he never does that, but just to drive home how flimsy their foundation is.

 

[marksman]

I'll repeat my post in the hope you understand it the second time around.

"if the borders are open I fail to see how anything could be restricted......but if the Egyptians have not opened the borders as they said they would it may very well be different."

Yes, I understand what you wrote. By using the word "if" you are setting forth a hypothesis, which is what I stated. You were not making an affirmative statement of fact, and I never characterized your post in such a fashion. I then pointed out that after you first made this hypothesis, numerous articles were posted debunking the premise of the hypothesis. Do you recognize that this hypothesis has now been debunked?

I don't understand the obstinance in this instance. You used the word "if" to clearly denote that you were open to the possibility that the words following the if might not be true. That should mean you are willing to acknowledge when evidence is given showing those words to be untrue. And they were shown to be untrue. All that is left is for you to acknowledge that fact. Will you?

 

[mortimer]

Is someone everyone?

So by your logic, because one Nazi member was not anti-Jew, then the Nazis were not anti-Jew?

 

[The Fool]

Preaching to the choir, man.

The purpose of asking him to prove his assertions isn't do get him to prove his assertions, he never does that, but just to drive home how flimsy their foundation is.

already debunked the stupid strawberry chant (yet again).

don't need to "prove" what you asked because Bigjell did it for me pointing out the crops produced in the greenhouses that you want "proof" exist.

but by all means if you and bigjell want to take a break to pat each other on the back and convince each other how clever you are ......I can wait, no hurry.

 

[The Fool]

Yes, I understand what you wrote. By using the word "if" you are setting forth a hypothesis, which is what I stated. You were not making an affirmative statement of fact, and I never characterized your post in such a fashion. I then pointed out that after you first made this hypothesis, numerous articles were posted debunking the premise of the hypothesis. Do you recognize that this hypothesis has now been debunked?

I don't understand the obstinance in this instance. You used the word "if" to clearly denote that you were open to the possibility that the words following the if might not be true. That should mean you are willing to acknowledge when evidence is given showing those words to be untrue. And they were shown to be untrue. All that is left is for you to acknowledge that fact. Will you?

mate....don't really know how to make this clearer..

you seem to think you know what is happenkng at the crossings. There are reports that the Egyptians have stated that the borders have been "opened" you seem quite supremely confidant that you know what "opened" represents nd how the Egyptians are acting at the border on a day to day basis.. Sorry but I can't share your confidence.


personally I think its just the death throes of the blockade as people grasp for meaning in the Israeli restrictions.

 

[Mycroft]

already debunked the stupid strawberry chant (yet again).

don't need to "prove" what you asked because Bigjell did it for me pointing out the crops produced in the greenhouses that you want "proof" exist.

but by all means if you and bigjell want to take a break to pat each other on the back and convince each other how clever you are ......I can wait, no hurry.

Feel free to bring some evidence to the table.

 

[a_unique_person]

So by your logic, because one Nazi member was not anti-Jew, then the Nazis were not anti-Jew?

No.

 

[The Fool]

Feel free to bring some evidence to the table.

nope...not playing wac-a-mole with requests to disprove a claim. Claim was the Greenhouses were destroyed...so far the best support managed for this is Bigjell offering a link about "dozens" out of 3000 being damaged. Then a link about the crops produced (from destroyed greenhouses?) If you really want evidence from me I probably can't improve on bigjells effort. want me to post the links again?

unless someone wants to offer some evidence that actually supports of the claim I can't see the point in continuing on with this silly diversion.

 

[marksman]

There are reports that the Egyptians have stated that the borders have been "opened"

No, there aren't. At least none that you've provided. There were reports that Egypt would "open" the borders at some point in the near future. And then later articles reporting that the Egyptians did not in fact allow unrestricted access to goods as had been predicted.

You cited the initial predictive reports as evidence that there was a possibility that weapons could be transported across the border. I showed you the reports that showed those initial predictions turned out to be false.

I think its just the death throes of the blockade as people grasp for meaning in the Israeli restrictions.

People can think all sorts of things. The issue is whether your thoughts have any basis in reality.

 

[The Fool]

No, there aren't. At least none that you've provided. There were reports that Egypt would "open" the borders at some point in the near future. And then later articles reporting that the Egyptians did not in fact allow unrestricted access to goods as had been predicted.

you must have only read the articles that said they "would" open them and not the articles that said they had been opened. Thats a little selective isn't it?

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/02/rafah-crossing-opened-up-by-egypt/

You cited the initial predictive reports as evidence that there was a possibility that weapons could be transported across the border. I showed you the reports that showed those initial predictions turned out to be false.

sigh...its unreasonable to assume that opening the borders will allow weapons through???

People can think all sorts of things. The issue is whether your thoughts have any basis in reality.

or rose tinted reality.....

 

[marksman]

you must have only read the articles that said they "would" open them and not the articles that said they had been opened. Thats a little selective isn't it?

http://www.euronews.net/2010/06/02/rafah-crossing-opened-up-by-egypt/

Your own article states "for now Egypt will only allow in perishables and other staples." No indication the opening was unrestricted. That's no different that the articles I already cited and linked to (which, apparently, you couldn't be bothered to read).

sigh...its unreasonable to assume that opening the borders will allow weapons through???

Yeah. That's absolutely astoundingly unreasonable to assume.

 

[WildCat]

sigh...its unreasonable to assume that opening the borders will allow weapons through???

Can I enter Australia with an AR-15 with a 30 round clip?

No?

Does this mean that the borders to Australia are closed?

 

[The Fool]

Can I enter Australia with an AR-15 with a 30 round clip?

No?

Does this mean that the borders to Australia are closed?

LOL...yes, the borders of gaza and the borders of australia....indistinguishable

 

[The Fool]

OK guys here's the deal to keep you happy. Egypt is preventing all weapons from getting through.....They are brilliant at that sort of thing

 

[WildCat]

LOL...yes, the borders of gaza and the borders of australia....indistinguishable

I didn't say they were indistinguishable. You defined "open borders" as allowing anything in - including weapons.

Are you retracting that definition now?