Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Im using the basis of logic and the thought of how the meeting of the commandos would have gone before they left their base.

"Oh we've decided to send in the first couple of guys with paint ball guns and tasers and allow you to be beaten and at best be taken into a hostage situation. This will then allow us the good PR we need to kill a few of these damn protesters. Who wants to go first?"

wes

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 made the following claim, and have yet to provide any proof:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66233124&postcount=3049

So when you claim that you "have the good form to wait until any proper invesitgation is completed", well that doesn't make any sense, considering you made a definitive claim about a fire bomb. Btw, still waiting on that proof .

Wibbs

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.

I actually agree with you on this point. I have felt the same since the start. I dont blame the IDF guys on the ground. Their commanders reckoned a night time raid would subdue the boat and intimidate the passengers to comply with their blockade. It went horribly wrong and soldiers trained to respond did so vigorously. Probably more than say Irish troops would as the chances are high as part of the IDF they would have experience of live fire.

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.

This I'm less inclined to believe. Do I think some wanted to be "martyrs for the cause"? Yes and not just the Muslims either BTW. I dont think they expected to be actual martyrs though. The vast majority on the ship were likely fueled by righteous indignation and that went wrong too. As for a pre meditated plan? If it was, it was the most amateur pre meditated plan since the charge of the light brigade. They could have easily made up an arsenal of actual firebombs, reinforced the doors to the engine room and the bridge. A ship of ten thousand tonnes or more can do an awful lot of damage to other ships. Even a warship would be in serious crapola if it ran into one. They could have held off the IDF long enough or hard enough that the IDF would have had to go really apeshít. Yes there was resistance, yes it escalated to viciousness, but I think "plan" is a stretch TBH. I dont think the IDF planned to kill anyone either BTW. Again it escalated and went out of control. In situations like that? Whats that old military notion? Plans tend to go out the window when enemy contact is made.

Memnoch

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.

Nonsense, there is more than enough evidence there to draw a reasonable and logical conclusion that that bottle is NOTHING other than a bottle of Normal Saline that was used to treat an injured patient.

Your obstinate insistence on refusing to accept something so obvious makes me seriously doubt if you can show any objectivity in things that aren't nearly as clear cut.

prinz

gandalf wrote: »

Proper investigation by whom though?

Personally I'd suggest an international panel be appointed to investigate, manned by the likes of Maarti Ahtisaari for example

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

Personally I'd suggest an international panel be appointed to investigate, manned by the likes of Maarti Ahtisaari for example

Appointed by whom?

Dar

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.

Shall we ask Scotland Yard to send their finest investigators to determine the bloody obvious?

prinz

wes wrote: »

well that doesn't make any sense, considering you made a definitive claim about a fire bomb. Btw, still waiting on that proof .

Again, my aim was to highlight definitive claims being made. Definitive claims that seem to be accepted on here as long as they go against the IDF.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Until that time I think it wise for everyone not to start making claims about what was/was not used.

Its ok for you to make such claims but then when the only evidence you can produce is roundly dismissed as being woefully inaccurate, you now claim that no one is allowed to make any claims about what was used?


Have you just done the internet equivelent of taking your ball and going home?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im using the basis of logic and the thought of how the meeting of the commandos would have gone before they left their base.

"Oh we've decided to send in the first couple of guys with paint ball guns and tasers and allow you to be beaten and at best be taken into a hostage situation. This will then allow us the good PR we need to kill a few of these damn protesters. Who wants to go first?"

That's just in your own imagination.

It could much more easily be, that some soldiers were equipped with paint guns and others with live fire (and obviously they had to be or else people wouldn't have died).

And either, someone with a paint gun misused it so badly that they blew a hole in another persons head with it, or some soldier got twitchy and fired early. Or a commander on the mission saw the level of possible resistence and ordered a warning volley to disperse the protesters.

And since they planned on confiscating all the video evidence anyway, they didn't think they would get caught or be held accountable.

The fact that the IDF have REPEATEDLY shown a BLATANT disregard for civilian lives is CONSISTENT with this.

bambooze

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Unlike say, palestinian activists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Massacre_allegations

prinz

gandalf wrote: »

Appointed by whom?

Good question. UN, perhaps NATO might have an interest in this.

Fuhrer wrote: »

Its ok for you to make such claims but then when the only evidence you can produce is roundly dismissed as being woefully inaccurate, you now claim that no one is allowed to make any claims about what was used?

It was in response to your own definitive claim. What's good for one is good for the other.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Again, my aim was to highlight definitive claims being made. Definitive claims that seem to be accepted on here as long as they go against the IDF.

In the post I am again quoting, you make a definitive claim, and you mentioned nothing about highlighting anything at all:

prinz wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM

Between 51 and 53 seconds in. That is a crude firebomb, not a firework.

You clearly make a definitive claim above.

So care to provide some proof?

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Thank you for answering however I disagree that only SOME have the rationale to lie. They obviously ALL do but only SOME will. I am coming at this from the angle were I'm not taking anything at face value but also not completely disavowing anything either. AFAIK they have no track record of being dishonest but do have a track record of being pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli.

If you are in court it will be pointed out if there is a past history between a victim and their alleged accuser as it would be a rational reason for them to fabricate their story in order to hurt the other party. It would also be pointed out if there was rationale for a witness to mislead the court for their personal gain.

wes

bambooze wrote: »

Unlike say, palestinian activists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin#Massacre_allegations

So your saying the activists on the Floatilla, are the same people mentioned in your link? Have any proof, that every single one of them were involved in that, or even all the organizations involved in the Floatilla?

Wibbs

Memnoch wrote: »

Your obstinate insistence on refusing to accept something so obvious makes me seriously doubt if you can show any objectivity in things that aren't nearly as clear cut.

TO be fair to prinz he's just trying to see the opposing view. IME he's not so closed minded as to be that rigid. Indeed he's more the "I'll fight for the underdog" as a default position.

Prinz wrote:

Personally I'd suggest an international panel be appointed to investigate, manned by the likes of Maarti Ahtisaari for example

Ditto, but sadly I really seriously doubt that this will happen. They'll follow the lead of th US in such things and keep it internal. Though unlike the US who contrary to some beliefs do tend to be pretty open, the Israelis going on past history wont be. Too much chance of being lynched politally by their own. In that link(Jerusalem Post IIRC) earlier written by an Israeli where he suggested it might have been a PR disaster, just look at the comments posted. Rabid nutters doesnt come into it. For all the talk of "ordinary Israelis" being not so gung ho, the fact is a large proportion are. Just like a large proportion of the Palestinans are up for strapping semtex to their first born.

Memnoch

Dar wrote: »

Shall we ask Scotland Yard to send their finest investigators to determine the bloody obvious?

Don't forget the dried blood on the label as well as what looks like saline mixed with blood from backflow in the "drip chamber"(not sure if that's the correct medical term for it) as well as the IV line itself.

Which is exactly what you would expect if someone was handling it and treating a patient in a trauma situation on a moving boat and had blood on their hands or gloves.

With all the commotion it's very easy for the IV line to be dislodged and there to be back flow of blood into the line itself and the "drip chamber."

But this is what happens when you take the word of PROVEN LIARS at FACE VALUE. You end up being forced to defend the indefensible and looking like an idiot in the process.

prinz

wes wrote: »

You clearly make a definitive claim above.
So care to provide some proof?

No, I don't really care to do that, as long as other people are allowed to make similar claims without a similar burden.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

Thank you for answering however I disagree that only SOME have the rationale to lie. They obviously ALL do but only SOME will. I am coming at this from the angle were I'm not taking anything at face value but also not completely disavowing anything either. AFAIK they have no track record of being dishonest but do have a track record of being pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli.

If you are in court it will be pointed out if there is a past history between a victim and their alleged accuser as it would be a rational reason for them to fabricate their story in order to hurt the other party. It would also be pointed out if there was rationale for a witness to mislead the court for their personal gain.

Okay now you're back tracking. You're REPEATEDLY taken the claims of the IDF at face value.

Like assuming that the protesters we're trying to "murder them". And then conccoted some convoluted conspiracy to justify this.

bambooze

wes wrote: »

So your saying the activists on the Floatilla, are the same people mentioned in your link? Have any proof, that every single one of them were involved in that, or even all the organizations involved in the Floatilla?

Have you proof every single IDF member is a liar?

He claims the idf are proven liars, I claim palestinian activists are proven liars. Which is not to say all of them are but some are very much proven.

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

It was in response to your own definitive claim. What's good for one is good for the other.

In what backwards world is this true?


I backed up my claim with the facts that there were fireworks, actual fireworks found on board. That the video showed an object being thrown and exploding into a flash like a firework, not burning like a firebomb would.


On the other hand, you showed a picture of a saline bottle, suggesting that it might be possible that it was used as a firebomb despite overwhelming indictations to the contrary.

Afterwards you then claimed no one can claim anything because we dont know definitely.


Every reasonable person here will agree that some things we can make a safe assumption on given the evidence but not you of course.

Unless it supports your argument.

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

No, I don't really care to do that, as long as other people are allowed to make similar claims without a similar burden.

Right so you're happy to accept that you make claims that are based on little to no evidence and that can easily turn out to be wrong, and therefore we should not really place much worth in any future claims you make.

Memnoch

Fuhrer wrote: »

In what backwards world is this true?
On the other hand, you showed a picture of a saline bottle, suggesting that it might be possible that it was used as a firebomb despite overwhelming indictations to the contrary.

He didn't suggest it. He claimed it as a matter of fact:

Originally Posted by prinz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM

Between 51 and 53 seconds in. That is a crude firebomb, not a firework.

No hint of suggestion or doubt there.

Foxtrol

Wibbs wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this point. I have felt the same since the start. I dont blame the IDF guys on the ground. Their commanders reckoned a night time raid would subdue the boat and intimidate the passengers to comply with their blockade. It went horribly wrong and soldiers trained to respond did so vigorously. Probably more than say Irish troops would as the chances are high as part of the IDF they would have experience of live fire. This I'm less inclined to believe. Do I think some wanted to be "martyrs for the cause"? Yes and not just the Muslims either BTW. I dont think they expected to be actual martyrs though. The vast majority on the ship were likely fueled by righteous indignation and that went wrong too. As for a pre meditated plan? If it was, it was the most amateur pre meditated plan since the charge of the light brigade. They could have easily made up an arsenal of actual firebombs, reinforced the doors to the engine room and the bridge. A ship of ten thousand tonnes or more can do an awful lot of damage to other ships. Even a warship would be in serious crapola if it ran into one. They could have held off the IDF long enough or hard enough that the IDF would have had to go really apeshít. Yes there was resistance, yes it escalated to viciousness, but I think "plan" is a stretch TBH. I dont think the IDF planned to kill anyone either BTW. Again it escalated and went out of control. In situations like that? Whats that old military notion? Plans tend to go out the window when enemy contact is made.

I believe the plan was botched on both sides. As far as the boat I'd actually tend to agree as I believe that many had a plan to repel any Israeli incursion but they unfortunately forgot who they were dealing with. I think most wanted a scene were certain people took beatings of sustained mid-level injuries but in the heat of the moment things got out of hand and people crossed the line. They were not provoking a response from the Gardai (or similar) rather Israeli commandos who when threatened reacted to protect themselves. So I was probably wrong to say attempted murder. GBH maybe?

wes

prinz wrote: »

No, I don't really care to do that, as long as other people are allowed to make similar claims without a similar burden.

Well, you have made such demands of other posters multiple times on this thread, anD now you refuse to provide proof of your claim. So, I take it you won't be asking other for anymore proof, seeing as you are unwilling to provide any yourself.

Now personally, seeing as you have provided no proof, I think it safe to say your claims of a fire bomb is of course wrong, and that there was indeed no firebomb in that video, and you claim was of course wrong.

BluePlanet

Dar wrote: »

Shall we ask Scotland Yard to send their finest investigators to determine the bloody obvious?

I have to admit, this whole claim an "IV bottle is really a firebomb" has been one of the most comprehenisve debunkings i've had the pleasure to observe at boards.

Prinz, you have been owned!

wes

bambooze wrote: »

Have you proof every single IDF member is a liar?

He claims the idf are proven liars, I claim palestinian activists are proven liars. Which is not to say all of them are but some are very much proven.

The IDF is an organization, so calling an organization proven liars, is not the same, as saying each individual IDF member is a liar.

Ok, so which organization are proven liars, that were involved in Jenin, and were also on the Floatilla then? **EDIT** You are trying to make a link, so care to prove this link then?**END EDIT**

Wibbs

Memnoch wrote: »

And either, someone with a paint gun misused it so badly that they blew a hole in another persons head with it,

Unlikely as the velocity even at close range wouldnt do that, unless they're using some souped up paint guns. I remember those nutters fromdirty sanchez shoting one of their own with over 100 paintballs at close range at bare skin. He had some horrible weals but no penetration and a skull is a lot thicker.

or some soldier got twitchy and fired early.

Probably. Having rellies who were in the military in war situations, they've mentioned that when one of your own starts firing the natural response is to join in. Notions of flags or orders tend to go out the window. Doubly so if you see one of your own go down. Non miltary people often massively underestimate the connection, bond, even familial love among a unit of soldiers forged in the heat of combat. Manic Moran or Maikkomi or any soldiers ex or current who post here will explain that better than I. So imagine seeing a family member being beaten by iron bars or thrown off a high deck. I know I'd open up. That part doesnt touble me TBH, beyond the obvious human cost of that. On both sides too BTW. One of the IDF guys could be some 20 year old who has just killed someone up close. Hemay macho it out, but it wont be painless.

Or a commander on the mission saw the level of possible resistence and ordered a warning volley to disperse the protesters.

I dunno Id say that happened earlier. I suspect the reports of gunfire before the boarding was that.

And since they planned on confiscating all the video evidence anyway, they didn't think they would get caught or be held accountable.

True, but dont forget that this would be part of standard operating procedure for many military situations like this. The whole point is control of the situation. Before during and after, so they would have been trained to confiscate everything pertinent(for them). I cant think of a military unit that wouldnt. For good reason beyond control, intelligence.

Memnoch

bambooze wrote: »

Have you proof every single IDF member is a liar?

He claims the idf are proven liars, I claim palestinian activists are proven liars. Which is not to say all of them are but some are very much proven.

The IDF is a military organisation with an organised structure and heirarchy. If the OFFICIAL position of the IDF has been demonstrated to be a lie, then that is sufficient to discount any other claim made in an OFFICIAL capacity without irrefutable evidence to back it up. So no, you don't need to prove every IDF soldier is a liar.

In other words, if you bought a product from a company and it turned out to be a complete, worthless pile of faeces, you wouldn't be running to buy another similar product from that company again.

prinz

Fuhrer wrote: »

I backed up my claim with the facts that there were fireworks, actual fireworks found on board. That the video showed an object being thrown and exploding into a flash like a firework, not burning like a firebomb would..

Have you independent picture or video evidence of these fireworks?

Fuhrer wrote: »

Unless it supports your argument.

Ironic

wes wrote: »

Well, you have made such demands of other posters multiple times on this thread, anD now you refuse to provide proof of your claim. So, I take it you won't be asking other for anymore proof, seeing as you are unwilling to provide any yourself. Now personally, seeing as you have provided no proof, I think it safe to say your claims of a fire bomb is of course wrong, and that there was indeed no firebomb in that video, and you claim was of course wrong.

Proof that it was a firework in the original video? No? My point being anyone can make claims. I don't see why I should have to provide any more proof than another poster making an idenitcal claim.