Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

karma_

Foxtrol wrote: »

They would give into pressure or would overreact.

are you seriously saying that the flotilla planned for Israel to overreact?

That is one of teh most mind boggling leaps I've seen in this thread yet.

droidus

bambooze wrote: »

Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian cabinet minister, on a phone interview to CNN from Jericho, estimated that there were a total of 500 Palestinians killed.

Palestinian Information Minister, Yasser Abed Rabbo, accused Israel of digging mass graves for 900 Palestinians in the camp

According to retired IDF General Shlomo Gazit, the death toll was 55 Palestinians and 33 Israelis.

Amnesty International's report concluded "No matter whose figures one accepts, "there was no massacre."

Human Rights Watch completed its report on Jenin in early May, stating "there was no massacre,"

Lorenzo Cremonesi, the correspondent for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera..
"In short, it was all talk and nothing could be verified," wrote Cremonesi. "At the end of that day, I wrote that the death toll was not more than 50 and most of them were combatants".

A BBC report later noted, "Palestinian authorities made unsubstantiated claims of a wide-scale massacre," and a reporter for the Observer opined that what happened in Jenin was not a massacre.

References please, and if wiki is all you've got then I have to question the reliability as its notoriuosly tainted when it comes to this topic.

And your missing the point. The initial claims of 'hundreds of deaths' were based on Israeli statements which I referenced in my post. Also, you claimed that this proved that 'Palestinian activists' were liars. Since when are Palestinian cabinet ministers 'activists'?

But tell me, how many Palestinians have to be killed before you call it a massacre? Do you know what the word means?

How would characterise the crushing of a man in a wheelchair in the middle of a road with a tank followed by reversing over him repeatedly until there is nothing left but a smear in the dirt? Self defence?

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

I believe even without context there is some value.

Sorry, but this is patently false. If you actually, genuinely believe this then you need to seriously examine the way you come to a conclusion because it is DEEPLY flawed. Without context there can be NO meaning of validity. Let me illustrate.

Let's say there's a guy called Peter. And I find out that Peter said he would hurt my wife.

To this, I responded. "If he comes near my wife, I will kill Peter.'

Now say you take my statement and chop out the first half so that it simply says. "I will kill Peter." So now it means something ENTIRELY different. So with a little editing and by taking it out of context, it makes me sound like a dangerous criminal.

This is what the Israeli's have effectively done with their editing. Which is why their videos have NO VALUE without full context.

I can guarantee that if there weren't any tapes there would be many more people from the flotilla claiming there was no resistance. (I've no evidence but it would make sense)

It's funny how ANYTHING that might make the flotilla look less legitimate as a humanitarian mission and as a result justify the IDF's action, ALWAYS makes sense to you. (I call bias again).

If I was Israels PR people I would have actually let there be condemnation of the incident and let the claims that there was no resistance be made public before releasing the video discrediting them and the flotilla. Complete irrelevant side issue I know.

In your own words. Completely irrelevant side issue.

I am currently leaning towards the IDF version because it makes absolutely no sense to send troops with non lethal weapons on board a boat which you have just shot live rounds onto which have killed a passenger.

So yet again, what makes sense to you just happens to justify the IDF's actions even though it's pure conjecture?

I'm suggesting it was far more chaotic then that. Your applying some artificial order to incidents without any evidence but in a way that supports your prejudice in favour of the IDF.

Also, seeing as the flotilla itself was directed to provoke the IDF I wouldn't put it past 20 or 30 on a boat of 600+ to provoke the IDF further.

This is the textbook example of a strawman. You've made an initial statement, for which you have NO PROOF, and pretended it is a matter of fact, and then gone on to conjecture wildly based on this MADE UP FACT.

This is the logic to my argument and I have yet to hear an eye witness, poster or commentator who can dispute this logic. Feel free to try though

There is no logic here. You're taking things out of context and attributing meaning to them without any evidence. You're discounting any eye-witness testimony that contradicts your prejudice. And you're repeatedly resorting to strawman arguments based on unproven conjecture. Again, all typical of coming from a severely prejudiced and biased viewpoint.

Your honour. I'm done with this witness.

prinz

wes wrote: »

You made a very definitive statement of there being a firebomb, in this post..

..and other posters have made similar definitive statements.

wes wrote: »

Your claims have been debunked comprehensivly, and I have no clue why you are still posting about this.

Actually it hasn't. We still have no idea what these bottles were actually being used for. We have no idea if x amount of these bottles were used as firebombs and x amount weren't. We have no idea being the most important factor here, and is the point I was underlining. Why is it ok to jump to conclusions as long as it paints one side in a good light as opposed to the other?

Fuhrer wrote: »

I can stand by my claims based on evidence, the only way you can stand by your claim is that "Anything is possible!"

So tell us what evidence, other than it didn't look like a petrol bomb from the oft criticised IDF video?

bambooze

droidus wrote: »

But tell me, how many Palestinians have to be killed before you call it a massacre? Do you know what the word means?

How many israelis? How many when they are combatants? How long is a piece of string? Fact its there was no massacre according to well.. just about everyone.

How would characterise the crushing of a man in a wheelchair in the middle of a road with a tank followed by reversing over him repeatedly until there is nothing left but a smear in the dirt? Self defence?

Painful? In fact israeli tanks also crushed several israeli soldiers in the last lebanon war. **** happens in war.

BluePlanet

prinz wrote: »

..
Actually it hasn't. We still have no idea what these bottles were actually being used for. We have no idea if x amount of these bottles were used as firebombs and x amount weren't. We have no idea being the most important factor here, and is the point I was underlining. Why is it ok to jump to conclusions as long as it paints one side in a good light as opposed to the other?

Why don't you tell us?
Your the one linking to the IV bottle claming it's a firebomb.
Now, why did you jump to that conclusion and post it here on boards?

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

So tell us what evidence, other than it didn't look like a petrol bomb from the oft criticised IDF video?

http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/9.jpg

Byron85

bambooze wrote: »

Painful? In fact israeli tanks also crushed several israeli soldiers in the last lebanon war. **** happens in war.

Are you honestly trying to compare a man in a wheelchair who was crushed by an Israeli tank to a man who was a well trained, well armed member of a well funded army??

**** happens in war. Pull the other one. One of them was there to kill people and it wasn't the one in the wheelchair.

Foxtrol

karma_ wrote: »

are you seriously saying that the flotilla planned for Israel to overreact?

That is one of teh most mind boggling leaps I've seen in this thread yet.

1)They were dealing with Israel.

2)They attempted to run their blockade.

3)They were dealing with Israel.

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

They would give into pressure or would overreact. There is no other expectation that they could have when they refused to give into the Israeli requests. It had been proven by now anyway that it was not about the specific aid the ships were carrying as it wouldnt be close to what was needed (it has apparently also come out that one boat didnt even have any aid on it, just passengers).

It was ALL ABOUT THE AID. It was about using MORAL PRESSURE to set a PRECEDENT. By delivering aid to gaza (and it was stuff that was needed, wheelchairs, cement, notebooks) they break the blockade and allow aid to go in unrestricted. (as mandated by the UN btw). More people in the flotilla increases the moral pressure and makes it harder for Israel to stop them with force. Which sadly Israel decided to do anyway.

What is your premise then, that there weren't non-lethal weapons used by the first commandos and hostages weren't taken or that no one was shot before they boarded?

I've already stated my premise... which I will repeat...

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.

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

1)They were dealing with Israel.

2)They attempted to run their blockade.

3)They were dealing with Israel.

They are dealing with Israel is no excuse to break International Law now is it?

They are dealing with Israel should not automatically mean that civilian shipping in International Waters is met with terminal force now does it?

They are dealing with Israel should not mean that people are kidnapped from International Waters and held without charge for 3 days in a prison in a country they had no intention of visiting?

bambooze

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to compare a man in a wheelchair who was crushed by an Israeli tank to a man who was a well trained, well armed member of a well funded army??

**** happens in war. Pull the other one. One of them was there to kill people and it wasn't the one in the wheelchair.

Was there ever a war where some civilians were not hurt? It was unfortunate but thats the grim reality of war.. fact is 33 soldiers died in that battle because israel chose to send them in on foot to minimize collateral damage. It was extremely risky to walk into such a place and they paid the price for that.. however it 'worked' in the sense that most casualties were combatants.

But anyway this is drifting further off topic.

droidus

bambooze wrote: »

How many israelis? How many when they are combatants? How long is a piece of string? Fact its there was no massacre according to well.. just about everyone.

The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770.

Five Americans die and its a massacre. 50+ Palestinians die including at least 20 civilians during a military operation from which reporters and medical personnel are banned for 2 weeks and its 'unfortunate'.

Still - if you accept Amnesty's judgment on Jenin (after a totally compromised investigation) I assume you also accept their judgment that the blockade is a gross violation of international law? That the IDF routinely targets civilians? That Israel routinely tortures Palestinians and uses children as human shields in house to house searches? Check the Amnesty reports for the last 20 years, its all there.

Glad to see we're making some progress.

Painful? In fact israeli tanks also crushed several israeli soldiers in the last lebanon war. **** happens in war.

Yeah. In this war **** generally happens to Palestinian civilians and peace activists at the hands of the IDF.

bambooze

Latest on that next ship..

Foreign Ministry calls out to last flotilla ship en route to Gaza, asking it to sail directly to Ashdod. 'We have no interest in boarding ship,' statement says. 'If cargo contains no weapons we will convey it to Gaza'

"We have no interest in boarding the ship. If it sails directly to the Ashdod port, we will secure its crew and refrain from boarding it. Israel is prepared to receive the ship and unload its cargo. After it is checked to make sure it contains no weapons we will be prepared to transfer all of the goods to Gaza,"

Clawdeeus

doncarlos wrote: »

Lads any chance you could answer my question please?

Why are you so inclined to believe the activists? Is it so hard to believe that both parties have an agenda to push?

Memnoch

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Why are you so inclined to believe the activists? Is it so hard to believe that both parties have an agenda to push?

Please go and reread the last few pages. This has been discussed to death already.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Latest on that next ship..

Foreign Ministry calls out to last flotilla ship en route to Gaza, asking it to sail directly to Ashdod. 'We have no interest in boarding ship,' statement says. 'If cargo contains no weapons we will convey it to Gaza'

"We have no interest in boarding the ship. If it sails directly to the Ashdod port, we will secure its crew and refrain from boarding it. Israel is prepared to receive the ship and unload its cargo. After it is checked to make sure it contains no weapons we will be prepared to transfer all of the goods to Gaza,"

Will that include the cement that is on board as well there Mr Spokesman bambooze?

(btw it is normally good form to include links to articles you are quoting as well)

doncarlos

Clawdeeus wrote: »

Why are you so inclined to believe the activists? Is it so hard to believe that both parties have an agenda to push?

I don't believe them all I'm sure some will lie and exaggerate.
I just find it hard to believe that ALL the activists are lying and that if the IDF had evidence that proved their innocence they would hold on to it

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Will that include the cement that is on board as well there Mr Spokesman bambooze?

It does actually say "all of the goods"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899099,00.html

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

It does actually say "all of the goods"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899099,00.html

Even the ones on the illegal blockade list?

BluePlanet

bambooze wrote: »

It does actually say "all of the goods"

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899099,00.html

It's not worth believing them.

If they are lieing, and the aid is confiscated it would be unlikely to create international pressure on israel based upon what one guy in the Foriegn Ministry said.

Let's have it in writing, with signatures please.

prinz

Fuhrer wrote: »

http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/9.jpg

So from that you know 100% definitively that what was thrown in the IDF video was a firework? Smoke torches AFAIK are actually types of flares which burn for long periods of time.

BluePlanet wrote: »

Now, why did you jump to that conclusion and post it here on boards?

To show the pointlessness and hypocrisy of others jumping to similar conclusions which apparently are accepted as 100% fact as long as it's anti-IDF.

bambooze

gandalf wrote: »

Even the ones on the illegal blockade list?

I have no idea if they mean "all" when they say "all".

bambooze

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's not worth believing them.

If they are lieing, and the aid is confiscated it would be unlikely to create international pressure on israel based upon what one guy in the Foriegn Ministry said.

Let's have it in writing, with signatures please.

Gal also invited the activists on board to accompany the shipment to the Gazan border. "We will cooperate with the UN and international organizations in order to ensure that all of the cargo is put to the use of Gaza's citizens," the statement said.

By which they mean not to hamas.

wes

prinz wrote: »

..and other posters have made similar definitive statements.

Yes, and I never said otherwiss.

prinz wrote: »

Actually it hasn't. We still have no idea what these bottles were actually being used for. We have no idea if x amount of these bottles were used as firebombs and x amount weren't. We have no idea being the most important factor here, and is the point I was underlining. Why is it ok to jump to conclusions as long as it paints one side in a good light as opposed to the other?

Ok, prove what your saying then, or retract it. If you keep up with your disproven claim, and the I expect you back it up, as other have done so in this regard, multiple times.

prinz wrote: »

So tell us what evidence, other than it didn't look like a petrol bomb from the oft criticised IDF video?

You are the one making accusations of a fire bomb, and as such need to prove it. Now, I expect you to prove you fire bomb accusations, seeing you refuse to drop it.

wes

prinz wrote: »

To show the pointlessness and hypocrisy of others jumping to similar conclusions which apparently are accepted as 100% fact as long as it's anti-IDF.

When, you provide some proof for your fire bomb claims, you can call others hypocrites. Get back to me when you have some.

**EDIT**
This is the post in question:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66233124&postcount=3049

I look forward to your proof. You made a definitive claim in that post, and mentioned nothing about proving hypocrisy, and now your trying to suggest your intention was something, which is nonsense.
**END EDIT**

BluePlanet

prinz wrote: »

To show the pointlessness and hypocrisy of others jumping to similar conclusions which apparently are accepted as 100% fact as long as it's anti-IDF.

OH I SEE, you were just having us all on about that IV Bottle huh?

:rolleyes: Puleeze!

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

I have no idea if they mean "all" when they say "all".

Well then you see the problem that a lot of people have when the Israeli Government make proclamations, yes?

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

To show the pointlessness and hypocrisy of others jumping to similar conclusions which apparently are accepted as 100% fact as long as it's anti-IDF.

That's nonsense. You were so desperate to find proof that the protesters were all raging terrorists that you clutched at any little straw the IDF threw your way. You genuinely believed it was a firebomb, and went on to make that claim. You weren't trying to be clever or lay a trap or make some deep intellectual arguement.

You called it like you saw it. You were convinced (because you're inclined to take the IDF at their word without corroborating evidence) it was a firebomb.

Then you we're shown to be wrong, INDISPUTABLY wrong, and you tried to claw and back track desperately, claiming that actually you had just being saying that people should wait before jumping to conclusions.

And now because it's put you in a very bad corner, your trying to clam it was all some kind of elaborate ruse. Seriously... pull the other one.

Or... just be a man, admit you were wrong (everyone is from time to time) and that in future you'll take a bit more time to verify Israeli claims before parroting them blindly.

prinz

wes wrote: »

Ok, prove what your saying then, or retract it. If you keep up with your disproven claim, and the I expect you back it up, as other have done so in this regard, multiple times.

Tell you what, I'll do that, just as soon as you give that offer to other people who made idenical claims. To refresh your memory..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66232602&postcount=3018