Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

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.



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.

You had absolutely no problem through out this entire thread with jumping to conclusions.


It was only when you were claim was shown up to be so utterly false and without merit that you reverted to this bizarre and bewildering "EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD IS POSSIBLE!" position. Instead of abcking off and saying, ok, maybe I was wrong about this, you're taking the most baffling deranged stand ive ever seen.

You are actually demanding that no one make any claim ever despite all evidence to back them up because theres a possibility that something else no matter how remote or incradibly stupid might have taken place.


Following your logic(if it can be called that) I demand that this thread be locked as you can not say that anything happened that day 100%. I mean, it could all just be some elaborate prank or some hallucination.

Dar

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?

"We have no idea if they had a T-72 main battle tank in the cargo hold, after all we haven't seen any evidence which disproves it!"

Unfortunately you still haven't shown any evidence that they

a) had the capability to make fire-bombs, i.e.: suitable flammable materials
b) used them


The fact they had bottles does not prove they had firebombs just as the fact that they had metal pipes does not prove that they built a meccano trebuchet to fire bottles of saline at passing Israeli helicopters.

How about a bit less persecution-complex and a bit more evidence?

gandalf

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

To be fair to prinz I initially thought it was an improvised fire/petrol bomb as well and it is only because he posted the link again here that I actually went to examine it further. I then realised that it didn't look right and when I checked the label realised that it was a Saline IV Bottle.

wes

prinz wrote: »

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

No, others have made there cases, and provided there proof, and debunked your absurd claim. They have done this. Ignoring that this has been done is absurd.

Now, I am asking you to back up your claims. Get back to me when you can do so. You have went after other demaning proof multiples time in this thread, and now you refuse to provide proof, and the you call other hypocrites, despite having no proof for your own very definitive claims. I know you have no proof, and I find it funny that you are pretending otherwise.

prinz

Memnoch wrote: »

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..

I didn't start making claims. I think sceptre summed things up nicely..

sceptre wrote: »

In that case, it might be prudent for everyone not to make any assumptions about what's in it or not in it.

wes wrote: »

No, others have made there cases, and provided there proof, and debunked your absurd claim. They have done this. Ignoring that this has been done is absurd..

Proof that what appeared in the IDF video of the confrontation was a firework beyond a shadow of a doubt? No I don't think so.

prinz

Dar wrote: »

The fact they had bottles does not prove they had firebombs just as the fact that they had metal pipes does not prove that they built a meccano trebuchet to fire bottles of saline at passing Israeli helicopters.

And the fact that someone threw something that doesn't appear on the video to flare up for a long time such as a petrol fire doesn't mean what was thrown was simply a firework.

Memnoch

gandalf wrote: »

To be fair to prinz I initially thought it was an improvised fire/petrol bomb as well and it is only because he posted the link again here that I actually went to examine it further. I then realised that it didn't look right and when I checked the label realised that it was a Saline IV Bottle.

Except he has displayed this tendency of accepting the Israeli version of events quite easily.

Dar

prinz wrote: »

Proof that what appeared in the IDF video of the confrontation was a firework beyond a shadow of a doubt? No I don't think so.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No.

Given the evidence to hand however I think it more likely to be a firework than a "fire-bomb", given the fact that we have seen evidence that the passengers had the former, and complete lack of evidence that they had the latter.

Clawdeeus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Xi-zphMEU Again I refer to this. Its very clear that the soldiers should not have been put in this postition, but how long of that could anyone take with a gun before a massacre? Also note, at this time they are using those paint ball things.

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

But in your example it shows that you know Peter and you have a dislike of him for some reason. Thats what I got from that statement. Without that statement you could deny the fact that you know and that you have any feelings either way towards him. See without context you can still gain some value from a statement or video.

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).

No but it makes sense to the Israelis. I will repeat again that I do not agree with the Israeli actions. I do however see where there coming from and how the flotilla does not shoulder zero percent of the blame in the escalation to bloodshed as it has been claimed. (that my friend is biased)

In your own words. Completely irrelevant side issue.

Glad we agree on something

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.

Its the logical order. Its not in favor of anyone. Why would you send troops with non lethal weapons into an area were you have already used live rounds for them to eventually be taken hostage. That is according to an eye witness from the boat. I know the IDF are incompetent but I believe not that incompetent. (I could be proved wrong)

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.

Ok if you want to believe that everyone on the boats were peace loving hippies who had no expectation that Israel would never make an attempt to stop using force or that this action would be great PR for their cause then go ahead. I however are much more cynical and would call your view blinkered.

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.

Well if I am prejudiced and biased at least I am prejudiced and biased against both sides. I think the Israeli actions were idiotic and illegal. I, however, am not blindly defending the Flotilla who you refuse to place anything other than zero percent of the blame for any of the escalation which lead to the bloodshed. No matter what way you paint it you are showing a hell of a lot more bias in one direction than I am

Your honour. I'm done with this witness.

Ditto

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

I didn't start making claims. I think sceptre summed things up nicely..

He did, but that doesn't change the fact that you've been thoroughly owned (happens to all of us) and your only going to make everyone laugh at you even more if you keep wriggling.

Honestly, I can't wait to show my wife later, the picture of this "firebomb," that Israeli supporters claim was used by the activist terrorists to try and blow them up.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Proof that what appeared in the IDF video of the confrontation was a firework beyond a shadow of a doubt? No I don't think so.

You know what I asked. Now this is what you said:

prinz wrote: »

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

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

Now prove it.

Again, others have provided there proof, and debunked your absurd and nonsensical claims for the most part, and the fact that your insisting on being wrong, and providing 0 proof or even attempt to address the points made by others, is truly astonishingly nonsensical.

Now, get back to me when you provide your proof, as other have provided some proof to back up there claims, and you have provided none.

prinz

Dar wrote: »

Beyond a shadow of a doubt? No.
Given the evidence to hand however I think it more likely to be a firework than a "fire-bomb", given the fact that we have seen evidence that the passengers had the former, and complete lack of evidence that they had the latter.

..and I have no problem with you saying that.

Dar

prinz wrote: »

And the fact that someone threw something that doesn't appear on the video to flare up for a long time such as a petrol fire doesn't mean what was thrown was simply a firework.

So let me get this straight,the IDF tears the ship apart to the point of emptying out the cutlery drawers and toolboxes to show just how many "sophisticated weapons" were on board, but somehow no-one thought to take pictures of all the petrol bombs? They release pictures of bars cut off railings, but can't show one picture of the remains of the deadly Molotov cocktails thrown at them?

Did any of the soldier receive burn wounds?

Foxtrol

gandalf wrote: »

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

Agreed

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

Agreed

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?

Agreed

None of that makes the Flotilla any less of a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy which endangered the lives of everyone on board

prinz

wes wrote: »

Now prove it..

Why should I prove it when another poster doesn't have to prove anything? Going round in circles wes. See Dar's post above.

Fuhrer

Foxtrol wrote: »

None of that makes the Flotilla any less of a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy which endangered the lives of everyone on board

It being a PR Stunt doesnt make it any less of an Aid convoy though.

Memnoch

Clawdeeus wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Xi-zphMEU Again I refer to this. Its very clear that the soldiers should not have been put in this postition, but how long of that could anyone take with a gun before a massacre? Also note, at this time they are using those paint ball things.

Sigh... this is why I requested you read the last few pages...

here is what I've already said to another poster on this issue...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66235720#post66235720

This is a video that has been edited and taken out of context. The fact that it has been edited means EVERYTHING. Without context it has no value.

Let me break it down very simply for you.

Here is what the tape objectively shows:

As Israeli soldiers absail down onto the boat they are mobbed and attacked by some passengers on the boat with what look like bars or sticks (wooden or metal) of some type. And one is later thrown over board. (I think we both agree on this bit.

Now.... two possible explanations have been provided for this video.

Israeli version: The soldiers were attacked without provocation by protesters intent on causing an incident.

Flotilla version: The soldiers had already shot and killed at least one person on the boat and considering the IDF's reputation in this matter people felt they had to defend themselves.

Now...

One of the above is the statement of an organisation with a track record for killing innocent civilians and in fact committing war crimes and then LYING about it. AND They also confiscated all the possible evidence that would prove ONE WAY or the other, what the truth REALLY is, and REFUSE to release this to any independent authority.

While the other is based on eye-witness reports from international citizens in good standing.

dlofnep

Foxtrol wrote: »

None of that makes the Flotilla any less of a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy which endangered the lives of everyone on board

Israel endangered the lives of everyone on board. Nobody else.

And it wasn't a PR stunt. It was a legitimate aid convoy intent on breaking an illegal blockade which imprisons 1.5 million people. The only PR stunt, is Israel's blatant propaganda in the media, where the refuse to release anything but edited footage of what occurred.

wes

prinz wrote: »

Why should I prove it when another poster doesn't have to prove anything?

They have at least provided some proof and you have provided nothing. Indeed you got owned pretty badly, and the fact that you kept it up, has given me a great laugh.

prinz wrote: »

Going round in circles wes. See Dar's post above.

Yeah, and you refuse to back up your claims with any proof, as per usual, as you have none.

Foxtrol

Fuhrer wrote: »

It being a PR Stunt doesnt make it any less of an Aid convoy though.

I haven't disagreed that there was aid on board. There is however disagreement on whether it was a PR stunt or not. (Even when one of the boats apparently didn't even have any aid on it)

Fuhrer

prinz wrote: »

Why should I prove it when another poster doesn't have to prove anything? Going round in circles wes. See Dar's post above.

We're going round in circles because you keep brining everyone around in circles.


Why not just admit that it wasnt a firebomb and that you cant find anything to back up your claim that it was a firebomb?

IrishTonyO

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.

then why did you say anything about firebombs?

IrishTonyO

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.

You have been making a lot of definitive yourself on this thread, talk the plank out of your own eye first

IrishTonyO

prinz wrote: »

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



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

no it is not, the truth is what is required

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

None of that makes the Flotilla any less of a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy which endangered the lives of everyone on board

Agreed except they had precedence that all the other ships that they sent before this flotilla were either turned away and let through without the fate that met this convoy.

Maybe they assumed the same would happen this time. Which I would consider to be logical but naive.

At least you agree with me that International Law was breached. That alone should be enough to justify an International Inquiry at the UN.

Foxtrol

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel endangered the lives of everyone on board. Nobody else.

And it wasn't a PR stunt. It was a legitimate aid convoy intent on breaking an illegal blockade which imprisons 1.5 million people. The only PR stunt, is Israel's blatant propaganda in the media, where the refuse to release anything but edited footage of what occurred.

In my eyes a legitimate aid convoy does not continually advertise themselves and the fact that it is hell bent on running a blockade put in place by a democratic nation (whether the blockade is legal or not is a side matter). A legitimate aid convoy attempts to maximise the aid it brings and not the number of people, to the point were there is a boat with no aid, just passengers. With those factors considered it is a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy.

bambooze

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel endangered the lives of everyone on board. Nobody else.

The organisers trying to run a military blockade endangered lives - what did they expect the military to do about it? What part of "military" didnt they get? It wasn't a teletubbies blockade.

And it wasn't a PR stunt. It was a legitimate aid convoy intent on breaking an illegal blockade which imprisons 1.5 million people. The only PR stunt, is Israel's blatant propaganda in the media, where the refuse to release anything but edited footage of what occurred.

It was a publicity stunt, they could have landed the aid in israel and trucked (most of) it in and what were the 600+ foreigners on board actually doing there? They were not needed to deliver aid, only to attract more publicity.

IrishTonyO

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 better read the politics forum charter, to know what is and is not allowed here

Fuhrer

Foxtrol wrote: »

In my eyes a legitimate aid convoy does not continually advertise themselves and the fact that it is hell bent on running a blockade put in place by a democratic nation (whether the blockade is legal or not is a side matter). A legitimate aid convoy attempts to maximise the aid it brings and not the number of people, to the point were there is a boat with no aid, just passengers. With those factors considered it is a PR stunt masquerading as an aid convoy.

Unless they think the only way to get through the blockade is tell the whole world that you are brining much needed supplies to a desperate people and only a heartless people would stop you.