Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

What? It's very very very unlikely that the reason there are no eye-witnesses to something is because it didn't happen in the first place? I would have thought that would be the most likely reason for there to not be eye-witnesses to something.

Also murder is a very interesting term. I notice you use murder for the civilians if they "attacked" (even in self-defence?) the commandos. I've never seen you use that term in relation to the Israeli soldiers shooting someone in the head four times.

As far as murder it boils down to intent. Did the commandos go in with the aim to murder them? I dont believe so. Did those on the boat who attacked have a pre-meditated plan to attack Israelis if they boarded the boat at any point? I believe so.

I'm really not in the mood to spend another afternoon talking around in circles with you. I have said the IDF have a reason to cover up their actions so everything said by them should be taken with a pinch of salt. Do you also agree that the Flotilla may have similar rationale to cover up their actions so eyewitness statements should be taken with a pinch of salt?

gandalf

BTW if anyone can copy that video I suggest you do. I have a feeling it may disappear soon

wes

prinz wrote: »

Can Fuhrer prove what was thrown was a firework? You see this works both ways.

I am not Fuhrer, firstly and I am asking you for proof and not him. So enought with the avoidance and obfuscation.

Now I asked you to provide proof for your claims, and you have not done so.

So once again:

wes wrote: »

You said it was a firebomb. Prove it was a firebomb then. You made this claim, and have provided 0 evidence for it. So again, do you have a single shred of evidence for your claim?

**EDIT**
You made the claim in this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66233124&postcount=3049

So once again, can you prove your claim?
**END EDIT**

Wibbs

Well it was something that was ignited and expended itself rapidly. This suggests a firework. A flare is designed to burn for far longer or its a pretty crap flare. A firebomb is also designed to burn for longer again that is its purpose. So the only logical conclusion is its either a firework or a crap flare or a firebomb that failed to go off. Given the ignition was suitably vigourous the latter thogh possible seems less likely. Ergo they threw a banger.

prinz

wes wrote: »

I am not Fuhrer, firstly and I am asking you for proof and not him.Now I asked you to provide proof for your claims, and you have not done so.

Is there any reason I should be singled out to provide proof other than the fact that it goes against the anti-IDF tide?

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Its between 0.51 & 0.53 on the video entitled Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers

On the idfnadesk channel on your favourite youtube. Can't wait for your comments on this

Right I see now and yes I would agree it seems likely its not a firebomb although to the untrained eye it could easily be taken for one. As they say - never assign to malice alone what can be explained by incompetence.

Dar

prinz wrote: »

Is there any reason I should be singled out to provide proof other than the fact that it goes against the anti-IDF tide?

That would because you are supporting the IDF assertion that a fire-bomb was used. I have to see anyone demanding evidence that Santa Clause was on board armed with a machette, but then again the IDF haven't made that claim....yet.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Is there any reason I should be singled out to provide proof other than the fact that it goes against the anti-IDF tide?

Again, I am asking you back up a claim you have made. You have asked me the same thing several times in this thread, and I see no reason why I can't ask the same of you.

So once again, do you have any proof for your claim:

wes wrote: »

You said it was a firebomb. Prove it was a firebomb then. You made this claim, and have provided 0 evidence for it. So again, do you have a single shred of evidence for your claim?

**EDIT**
You made the claim in this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66233124&postcount=3049

So once again, can you prove your claim?
**END EDIT**

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Is there any reason I should be singled out to provide proof other than the fact that it goes against the anti-IDF tide?

Well you did label an IV bottle as a firebomb when clearly it isn't unless you can describe how it is?

I have done you the courtesy of explaining my conclusion and I think it is only fair and right that you reciprocate that courtesy with me

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Right I see now and yes I would agree it seems likely its not a firebomb although to the untrained eye it could easily be taken for one. As they say - never assign to malice alone what can be explained by incompetence.

So you are saying that the IDF were wrong then

I wonder what else they got wrong bambooze.

(btw a bottle of IV is pretty bad for combat trained troops to film as a weapon eh, kinda makes you wonder how professional the IDF are, break international law, botch the operation and can't even recognise a basic piece of field medical kit)

prinz

gandalf wrote: »

Well you did label an IV bottle as a firebomb when clearly it isn't unless you can describe how it is?I have done you the courtesy of explaining my conclusion and I think it is only fair and right that you reciprocate that courtesy with me

Do we know what that bottle actually contains as opposed to what it originally contained? Thought not.

Dar wrote: »

That would because you are supporting the IDF assertion that a fire-bomb was used. I have to see anyone demanding evidence that Santa Clause was on board armed with a machette, but then again the IDF haven't made that claim....yet.

Ah yes I forgot anything that remotely supports an IDF assertion is beyond the pale here.:rolleyes: As long as it contradicts the IDF then anything goes.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Lets throw out the example of rape again...

I'm not saying the IDF aren't trying to cover up it all. I'm saying the Flotilla have just as much reason to cover up parts of the story as the IDF do. If it came out that there was a portion of the flotilla who were, from the outset, hell bent on attacking Israelis then the whole protest and the actions of the IDF would both be seen in a different light.

Of course everyone has a reason to tell THEIR side of the story...

except EVERY SINGLE ACTION the IDF have taken. Is CONSISTENT with the actions of someone trying to cover up their actions. What actions have people from the flotilla taken, that show they are trying to be dishonest or misleading?

1) Attack journalists and destroy cameras as soon as they come on board

2) Confiscate all the evidence.

3) Refuse to release it to an independent investigator.

In any court of law this amounts of an obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter what reason you claim COULD be behind it. Those actions are pretty much the definition of the obstruction of justice and withholding of evidence.

"Politicians, novelists, writers" who to take time out of their schedules to join the flotilla. This is before they were detained (possibly with force), held for days, deported and even potentially a friend killed on the boat.

And none of the above is a legitimate reason in ANY court of law to discount eye-witness testimony (except maybe a kangaroo court). As I said. Just because someone is a VICTIM is not justification for disregarding their eye-witness testimony.

There are many here finding "random reasons" to place no blame whatsoever on the Flotilla. (That is not an excuse to again provide said random reasons)

Right, show me an example of a "random reason" to the level of ridiculousness of .. The Israeli's are not releasing footage of them killing innocent people in order to protect the PRIVACY of the victims.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Can Fuhrer prove what was thrown was a firework? You see this works both ways.

No it doesnt, your logic is insane.


It looked like a firework and behaved like a firework. Fireworks were also found.


This should be proof enough for anyone.


But not you.


Can you prove that it wasnt a Unicorn or a lepricon?

Dar

Dar wrote: »

Hmmmm, let me see:

- Bottle says saline on the label
- Drip chamber still attached
- IV line still attached
- Hanger still attached

Why obviously its a petrol bomb!

prinz wrote: »

Do we know what that bottle actually contains as opposed to what it originally contained? Thought not.



Ah yes I forgot anything that remotely supports an IDF assertion is beyond the pale here.:rolleyes: As long as it contradicts the IDF then anything goes.

Are you actually suggesting that they took a Saline Bottle, filled it with some sort of flammable liquid, then RE-ATTACHED the drip chamber and iv line? Despite the fact that this would make it completely useless as a fire-bomb since there's no fuse? Seriously?

Please do us all a favor: open that video, pause and look at the damn bottle.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

As far as murder it boils down to intent. Did the commandos go in with the aim to murder them? I dont believe so. Did those on the boat who attacked have a pre-meditated plan to attack Israelis if they boarded the boat at any point? I believe so.

An idiotic belief based on the word of PROVEN LIARS. Yes, the fact that they are proven liars is BEYOND dispute.

But yeah, willing to take the word of a proven liar at face value is obviously no indication of bias.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

So you are saying that the IDF were wrong then

Mistakes do happen, no reason to deny that.

(btw a bottle of IV is pretty bad for combat trained troops to film as a weapon eh, kinda makes you wonder how professional the IDF are, break international law, botch the operation and can't even recognise a basic piece of field medical kit)

If by combat troops you mean the idf spokesperson unit I'm not sure they're quite the experts you might believe..

prinz

Fuhrer wrote: »

No it doesnt, your logic is insane.
It looked like a firework and behaved like a firework. Fireworks were also found. This should be proof enough for anyone.

Paintball guns. Look like guns, behave like guns. Soldiers were armed with guns. Therefore proof that paintball guns are in fact actual guns and shoot real bullets. Proof for anyone in that logic.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Do we know what that bottle actually contains as opposed to what it originally contained? Thought not.

Its set up for medical use.

To be effective everyone knows that a fire bomb needs something like a rag in the top of it to light and give you enough time to direct it towards your intended target. If you lit that and it contained combustible fluid I think you can be safe to say you'll be extra crispy. I think you would be wise to concede this one. Bambooze has had the good form to already.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

Do we know what that bottle actually contains as opposed to what it originally contained? Thought not.

Did you miss this post of mine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prinz
If I take a bottle of coke, fill it with petrol and use it as a petrol bomb, does the fact that it says CocaCola on the label have anything to do with it?

My response
Jesus, you can see the dried blood on the ****ing bottle and the label from the person that was trying to treat the patient handling it...

I meaning mother ****ing christ you can see the ****ing blood INSIDE the IV giving set at the point to which it joins the bottle and also in part of the tube, probably from back flow from the patient.

Seriously, if you had to climb up on the roof of your house and stick the antenna up your arse in order to convince yourself that everything the Israelis were saying was true and they were perfectly innocent, would you do that too?

Especially considering the whole White Phospherous incident. Oh Darling, I'm so sorry. I promise it was just this ONE time. I'll never beat you black and blue again.

To sum it up. There's a small chance I could be wrong, but there is little doubt in my mind that that bottle contained exactly what it was meant to contain.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

Of course everyone has a reason to tell THEIR side of the story...

except EVERY SINGLE ACTION the IDF have taken. Is CONSISTENT with the actions of someone trying to cover up their actions. What actions have people from the flotilla taken, that show they are trying to be dishonest or misleading?

1) Attack journalists and destroy cameras as soon as they come on board

2) Confiscate all the evidence.

3) Refuse to release it to an independent investigator.

In any court of law this amounts of an obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter what reason you claim COULD be behind it. Those actions are pretty much the definition of the obstruction of justice and withholding of evidence.



And none of the above is a legitimate reason in ANY court of law to discount eye-witness testimony (except maybe a kangaroo court). As I said. Just because someone is a VICTIM is not justification for disregarding their eye-witness testimony.



Right, show me an example of a "random reason" to the level of ridiculousness of .. The Israeli's are not releasing footage of them killing innocent people in order to protect the PRIVACY of the victims.

I'll answer those points when you actually answer my previous question:

Do you also agree that the Flotilla may have similar rationale to cover up their actions so eyewitness statements should be taken with a pinch of salt?

I dont count "Of course everyone has a reason to tell THEIR side of the story... except" as being any sort of answer to it.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Paintball guns. Look like guns, behave like guns. Soldiers were armed with guns. Therefore proof that paintball guns are in fact actual guns and shoot real bullets. Proof foir anyone in that logic.

Yeah, obviously if you just ignore the logic and invent your own to suit your argument.


A firebomb burns, a firework explodes.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Mistakes do happen, no reason to deny that.

Yep based on Monday very big ones eh

If by combat troops you mean the idf spokesperson unit I'm not sure they're quite the experts you might believe..

But it would be safe to assume that they would have had some form of basic training?

They are in the army after all. Unless being in the army is just a matter of slapping a uniform on and offing a couple of protesters

digme

missinformation and disinformation is not a nice thing for people to spread is it?
They are trying to flood the news with bs to take you off the actual thing they did.

Dar

prinz wrote: »

Paintball guns. Look like guns, behave like guns. Soldiers were armed with guns. Therefore proof that paintball guns are in fact actual guns and shoot real bullets. Proof for anyone in that logic.

Actually its very easy to differentiate between the paint ball guns and firearms shown in the videos. The paint-ball guns are the ones with the large gas cylinder attached to the top.

prinz

gandalf wrote: »

I think you would be wise to concede this one. Bambooze has had the good form to already.

I have the good form to wait until any proper invesitgation is completed. Until that time I think it wise for everyone not to start making claims about what was/was not used.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Yep based on Monday very big ones eh

But it would be safe to assume that they would have had some form of basic training?

They are in the army after all. Unless being in the army is just a matter of slapping a uniform on and offing a couple of protesters

I dont know what training those in the spokespersons unit would have had.. probably only very basic "here's a gun, the bullet comes out of this end, now run up and down that hill 10 times" type stuff.

BluePlanet

prinz wrote: »

I have the good form to wait until any proper invesitgation is completed. Until that time I think it wise for everyone not to start making claims about what was/was not used.

No you don't.
You were the one claiming the IV bottle was a firebomb and linked the video proof.

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

I have the good form to wait until any proper invesitgation is completed.

Proper investigation by whom though?

prinz

Fuhrer wrote: »

A firebomb burns, a firework explodes.

Ever seen sodium mixed with water?

Dar wrote: »

Actually its very easy to differentiate between the paint ball guns and firearms shown in the videos. The paint-ball guns are the ones with the large gas cylinder attached to the top.

:rolleyes: Good to see you missed the point of that post.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll answer those points when you actually answer my previous question:

Do you also agree that the Flotilla may have similar rationale to cover up their actions so eyewitness statements should be taken with a pinch of salt?

Do I agree that SOME people on the Flotilla might have rationale to cover up their actions. Yes I do.

However, this is far FAR from being enough to dismiss eye-witness reports of everyone on board.

The thing that astounds me though is your blatant hypocrisy here. You're willing to take the IDF, who are PROVEN LIARS, who have been SHOWN to LIE in exactly a similar kind of situation to this already. You're willing to take their word at face value.

But you'll go any distance and accept any POSSIBLE theory, in order to cast doubt on the word of civilians who have NO TRACK RECORD of being dishonest? Who are in fact respected upstanding international citizens?

Again, if this isn't evidence of bias, I don't know what is.