Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Irlandese

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry what exactly does this have to do with the Israeli attack on the flotilla? I'm confused.

Having a problem with the reading glasses?
The post was a direct reply to the quoted post from droidus, number 4159 above.
It was not me that brought Turkey up.
I was simply making a very relevant riposte.
Whether it suits your perspective or that of your five cloned "thank you" fans on the issue or not, is not my concern, friend.
By "cloned" I refer to these same posters' ready habit of blankly lining up on a regular basis to support whatever contribution
comes from their group, from my point of view, irrespective of the presence or absence of any inherent merit in said posts.
A matter of opinion, of course. But, then, that is what blogs are for, even if I write often on the side supporting a more even-handed approach to Israeli actions and their reasons.

alastair

Israel did not drop white phosphorous on apartment buildings housing women and children. Subsequent research has shown that the vast majority of Palestinian casualties of the operation in Gaza were combatants.

No white phosphorous on apartments? Amnesty beg to differ:


“It’s as though a fire is burning in my body. It’s too much for me to bear. In spite of all the medicine they are giving me the pain is still so strong.”

Sixteen-year-old Samia Salman Al-Manay’a, speaking to Amnesty International from a hospital bed 10 days after a white phosphorus shell landed on her house in the Jabalia refugee camp, northern Gaza on 10 January.

During Operation “Cast Lead” Israeli forces made extensive use of white phosphorus, often launched from 155mm artillery shells, in residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians. Homes, schools, medical facilities and UN buildings – all civilian objects – took direct hits.

White phosphorus is a weapon intended primarily as an obscurant to provide cover for troop movements on the battlefield. It does so by releasing a thick white smoke as it burns. It can also be used to mark targets, to “trace” the path of bullets, and as an incendiary weapon.41 It can be dispersed by artillery shells, grenades, and rockets.

Israeli forces often air-bursted white phosphorus artillery shells over residential areas of Gaza. Artillery shells are for use on conventional battlefields and are not capable of pinpoint targeting. White phosphorus artillery shells used in air-burst mode cover an even larger area,
as each shell explodes in mid-air and ejects 116 sponge-like lumps of felt impregnated with white phosphorus, which ignite on contact with oxygen and cascade down over an area the size of a football pitch or larger, depending on the height at which it is burst and wind conditions.

In addition to the indiscriminate effect of air-bursting such a weapon, firing these shells as artillery exacerbates the likelihood that civilians will be endangered. Until Operation “Cast Lead” the Israeli army had stopped firing artillery into Gaza after a gruesome incident on 8 November 2006 in which 18 members of a family were killed in their homes by a barrage of artillery shells that struck several houses in Beit Hanoun, seemingly by mistake.42

White phosphorus is extremely dangerous for humans as it causes deep burns through muscle and down to the bone, continuing to burn until deprived of oxygen. It can contaminate other parts of the body, or even people treating the injuries, poisoning and irreparably damaging internal organs. Burn victims suffering a relatively small percentage of burns – 10 to 20 per cent – who would normally survive, often die if the burns are from white phosphorus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_07_09_gaza_report.pdf

The vast majority of Palestinian casualties of the operation in Gaza were combatants? B'Tselem beg to differ:

Between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, the Israeli military carried out an attack on the Gaza Strip named Operation Cast Lead. The magnitude of the harm to the population was unprecedented: 1,390 Palestinians were killed, 759 of whom did not take part in the hostilities. Of these, 318 were minors under age 18. More than 5,300 Palestinians were wounded, of them over 350 seriously so.
http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Castlead_Operation.asp

alastair

As I am sure you are aware, last November the Government of Israel instituted an unprecedented 10-month moratorium on new residential construction in the West Bank. That comes in addition to the long-standing policy that states that Israel would refrain from building new settlements in the West Bank, expanding existing settlements, providing government incentives for settlement activities or expropriating land for settlement-related use.

Mr Evrony seems to have forgotten about East Jerusalem (and the events of just this March):

JERUSALEM — Hours after Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. vowed unyielding American support for Israel’s security here on Tuesday, Israel’s Interior Ministry announced 1,600 new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem. Mr. Biden condemned the move as “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/world/middleeast/10biden.html

Sand

LOL - theres some maniac on Newstalk, some ex US marine (Ken O'Keefe?) turned Hamas sympathiser doing an interview on this. He was apparently on the turkish ship. The guy basically lost the run of himself and confirmed most of the details of what the Israelis have said. He took a gun off one of the commandos, when questioned about the violence he said Ghandi said it was better to use violence than to be a coward. He is very passionate about it all, which is charming. But yeah, the Israelis werent kidding. They landed right on top of a bunch of maniacs.

Byron85

Sand wrote: »

LOL - theres some maniac on Newstalk, some ex US marine (Ken O'Keefe?) turned Hamas sympathiser doing an interview on this. He was apparently on the turkish ship. The guy basically lost the run of himself and confirmed most of the details of what the Israelis have said. He took a gun off one of the commandos, when questioned about the violence he said Ghandi said it was better to use violence than to be a coward. He is very passionate about it all, which is charming. But yeah, the Israelis werent kidding. They landed right on top of a bunch of maniacs.

Some nicely flawed logic there.

Offy

Sand wrote: »

LOL - theres some maniac on Newstalk, some ex US marine (Ken O'Keefe?) turned Hamas sympathiser doing an interview on this. He was apparently on the turkish ship. The guy basically lost the run of himself and confirmed most of the details of what the Israelis have said. He took a gun off one of the commandos, when questioned about the violence he said Ghandi said it was better to use violence than to be a coward. He is very passionate about it all, which is charming. But yeah, the Israelis werent kidding. They landed right on top of a bunch of maniacs.

And that justifies murder in International waters does it? If I was on a ship in International waters and it was boarded illegally I was also defend myself. Why do you think the murder of civialians by troops is acceptable? More importantly why the 'lol'? What part of all this do you find funny?

Johnboy1951

An opinion on the type of weapon held by at least one Israeli commando who came on board the Mavi Mamara ...... which if true means the Israelis were 'loaded for bear' and not just with paintballs and side arms ......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dbxxm1EhAU

I would not be sure what it is, but would doubt it is a paintball gun ....

Sand

And that justifies murder in International waters does it? If I was on a ship in International waters and it was boarded illegally I was also defend myself. Why do you think the murder of civialians by troops is acceptable? More importantly why the 'lol'? What part of all this do you find funny?

The LOL was the reaction to the activist basically sabotaging almost single handed the denial people had with regards to the people on board taking the guns from commandos (this was dismissed) and that people engaged in violence wilfully (again this was dismissed). Also, like I said, he was passionate/a maniac with contacts with Hamas. Quite possibly the worst person to try be a PR point man.

People have now retreated to the "Well, if my ship was attacked in international waters when I was attempting to breach a naval blockade, why Id..."

Id wonder what theyd do if they had rockets falling on their heads from a neighbouring terrorist group? Seeing as theyre so quick to revert to violence to defend a ship surely theyd do all sorts of horrible and terrible things to the people launching rockets at their families and homes. Oh wait...

Byron85

Because we all know a former U.S Marine is just going to lie down and take it when he believes that he's been wrongly done by.

Your arguments are fallacious and downright childlike.

billy the squid

Whilst you might get away with that kind of rhetoric in the US, claiming that someone who does not agree with Israeli government policy somehow supports a terrorist organisation, you should know better that firstly, it is not always the case, and secondly, in a country where a persons reputation is protected by libel laws, making such a claim is careless and dangerous.

Whether they like them or not, hamas hold all the cards in Gaza and as such you have to deal with them whilst there.

That is the thing with humanitarian aid, sometimes the aid workers have to deal with people they don't like to get their aid to the people that need it.

Offy

One side has to be 'the bigger man' and I dont expect Hamas to be that man so its left to Israel IMO. Hamas are like the IRA, if your troops dont kill their wifes, children, etc. they cease to have support. Thats what happened in our history. As long as Israel are killing non militants they will face criticism and condemnation and rightly so. Hamas is rightly condemned for its terrorist attacks so why should we turn a blind eye to Israel killing aid workers. Where do this attitude of 'Israels sh1te doesnt smell' come from. Why do people think 'well its ok for Israel to kill aid workers because thay were doing what Israel didnt want them to do and anyway Hamas killed Israeli troops' come from?
The ex-solider had Hamas ties so that justifies murder of innocent civilians does it? Oh now I see it, he was stood beside the innocent civilians so they deserved to die because of course they too mush have had ties with Hamas. Guilty by association, now it makes sense to me!
One side has to stop killing civilians and I expect that side to be the Israeli government, no let me change that. The Israeli government will receive nothing but criticism and condemnation from me as long as they use weapons like white prosphorus, as long as they kill civilians, as long as they steal land, as long as they kill aid workers, as long as they pirate ships, as long as they steal water, as long as they steal natural gas, as long as they print their own Irish passports for assassins, as long as they are SCUM and thats what I classify governments that do those things.

Moomoo1

Offy wrote: »

One side has to be 'the bigger man' and I dont expect Hamas to be that man so its left to Israel IMO. Hamas are like the IRA, if your troops dont kill their wifes, children, etc. they cease to have support. Thats what happened in our history. As long as Israel are killing non militants they will face criticism and condemnation and rightly so. Hamas is rightly condemned for its terrorist attacks so why should we turn a blind eye to Israel killing aid workers. Where do this attitude of 'Israels sh1te doesnt smell' come from. Why do people think 'well its ok for Israel to kill aid workers because thay were doing what Israel didnt want them to do and anyway Hamas killed Israeli troops' come from?
The ex-solider had Hamas ties so that justifies murder of innocent civilians does it? Oh now I see it, he was stood beside the innocent civilians so they deserved to die because of course they too mush have had ties with Hamas. Guilty by association, now it makes sense to me!
One side has to stop killing civilians and I expect that side to be the Israeli government, no let me change that. The Israeli government will receive nothing but criticism and condemnation from me as long as they use weapons like white prosphorus, as long as they kill civilians, as long as they steal land, as long as they kill aid workers, as long as they pirate ships, as long as they steal water, as long as they steal natural gas, as long as they print their own Irish passports for assassins, as long as they are SCUM and thats what I classify governments that do those things.

agree with that

simply put, there was no justification in terms of security for stopping this flotilla, especially in such a heavy-handed way. When reprisals for terrorist actions are excessive and heavy-handed you can no longer justify them using 'security' as an argument.

Moomoo1

Irlandese wrote: »

How do you like christians?
Have you heard any news about Turkey finally admitting to, if not apologising for the
genocide against the Armenians who are christians?
It is all a bit embarrassing, I know. What with the Turks now championing human rights and their own kurds being subjected to hamas-style mahem and the ghosts of millions of poor Armenians refusing to be forgotten.
Damned inconvenient I should say. Damned Armenians and Kurds !

ahem... you know that according to the Israeli parliament Armenian genocide NEVER HAPPENED?

(I am Armenian and I object to our genocide being used to whitewash Israel by saying 'oh, they killed Turks so that's alright, they are guilty of genocide anyway').

The ex-solider had Hamas ties so that justifies murder of innocent civilians does it?

Where in sands post was he suggesting that?
This is more of the attitude of "he's not 100% behind us[we think] so lets put words he didn't say into his mouth"..."damned poster telling us about stuff said/done we'd rather not know was said/done..."
Some posters here have an awfull habit of doing that and they complain about whataboutery??

Double standards in debate abound I think.

Moomoo1

T.W.H Byron wrote: »

The Israeli Ambassador has published an open letter in today's Sunday Independent.

Although both sides have made mistakes over the years, the Palestinians are responsible for much of the conflict. They were the ones who rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which would have given the Palestinians a state on 45 per cent of the Mandate Territory and the Jews 55 per cent for their state (more than half of which was desert). There would never have been a conflict had they accepted UN Resolution 181.

I had to laugh at that. So if the Scots were offered a partition plan that meant England stretched as far as Aberdeen and the Scots just had the highlands then they could have been blamed for not accepting it?

deravarra

Israel is the most theocratic state in the world. But they pretend to be democratic. At least with the Saudis, you know where you stand.

Israel picks and chooses which international laws it wishes to quote and abide by. If it doesnt suit the israeli agenda, then it simply ignores it.

If Israel halted the mass immigration into the country by Jews then there wouldnt be a need for so much rapid expansion with all the settlements being built there.

Of course, we arent allowed say things like this, as it would be deemed anti semitic.

Israel is an illegal state instituted by the British government. The sooner that people realise that, the better.

Offy

Deleted User wrote: »

Where in sands post was he suggesting that?
This is more of the attitude of "he's not 100% behind us[we think] so lets put words he didn't say into his mouth"..."damned poster telling us about stuff said/done we'd rather not know was said/done..."
Some posters here have an awfull habit of doing that and they complain about whataboutery??

Double standards in debate abound I think.

What about:

Sand wrote: »

The LOL was the reaction to the activist basically sabotaging almost single handed the denial people had with regards to the people on board taking the guns from commandos (this was dismissed) and that people engaged in violence wilfully (again this was dismissed). Also, like I said, he was passionate/a maniac with contacts with Hamas. Quite possibly the worst person to try be a PR point man.

Sand wrote: »

and that people engaged in violence wilfully

Sand wrote: »

Also, like I said, he was passionate/a maniac with contacts with Hamas.

People engaged in violence wilfully and a maniac with contacts with Hamas. This is another diversionary tactic. People did not engage in violence wilfully, they defended themselves from an aggressor in international waters. The fact that the incident took place in international waters means the Israeli troops were in the wrong. Sands suggests in the post that the Israelis were in the right, they were not.
The point is simply Black Brier, if you are attacked by someone you are entitled to defend yourself but your nonsense post suggests people should not defend themselves if attacked by Israel. That is ludicrous. From reading Sands post I assumed that because a Hamas supporter was on the ship it was full of maniacs. One Hamas support does not equate to a bunch of maniacs nor does it justify murder of innocent aid workers.

Sand wrote: »

But yeah, the Israelis werent kidding. They landed right on top of a bunch of maniacs.

Does that statement not suggest the Israelis were justified in their actions to you? It does to me. It looks like Sands is saying the Israelis were right to do what they did as it was a ship full of maniacs. I disagree!

Offy

deravarra wrote: »

Israel is the most theocratic state in the world. But they pretend to be democratic. At least with the Saudis, you know where you stand.

Israel picks and chooses which international laws it wishes to quote and abide by. If it doesnt suit the israeli agenda, then it simply ignores it.

If Israel halted the mass immigration into the country by Jews then there wouldnt be a need for so much rapid expansion with all the settlements being built there.

Of course, we arent allowed say things like this, as it would be deemed anti semitic.

Israel is an illegal state instituted by the British government. The sooner that people realise that, the better.

+1 well said.

alastair

Sand wrote: »

The LOL was the reaction to the activist basically sabotaging almost single handed the denial people had with regards to the people on board taking the guns from commandos (this was dismissed) and that people engaged in violence wilfully (again this was dismissed). .

Eh? What thread have you been reading?

BlaasForRafa

deravarra wrote: »

Israel is the most theocratic state in the world. But they pretend to be democratic. At least with the Saudis, you know where you stand.

Israel picks and chooses which international laws it wishes to quote and abide by. If it doesnt suit the israeli agenda, then it simply ignores it.

If Israel halted the mass immigration into the country by Jews then there wouldnt be a need for so much rapid expansion with all the settlements being built there.

Of course, we arent allowed say things like this, as it would be deemed anti semitic.

Israel is an illegal state instituted by the British government. The sooner that people realise that, the better.

You are wrong on pretty much everything there. Israel is not an "illegal state", whatever that means. It was established by the United Nations under resolution 181.

There is no "mass immigration" into Israel, there was a big influx after the fall of communism but that has slowed to a trickle by now.

To call Israel theocratic is nonsense, try being a non-muslim in an arab country for instance.

In any case, the entirety of your post is off topic and complete whataboutery as it has ZERO to do with the flotilla.

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In any case, the entirety of your post is off topic and complete whataboutery as it has ZERO to do with the flotilla.

So is yours, another diversionary tactic. You dont want to discuss the attack on the Flotilla, you just want to try character assassination on anyone that opposes Israel killing indiscriminately. Israels actions were despicable and thats all there is to it. The UN formed Israel and now the UN needs to step in and teach Israel a lesson, Israel constantly spits on the UN and its members.
Imagine sinking an American navy vessel as an excuse to get America to go to war with Egypt, how despicable is that? Every bit as despicable as killing aid workers. Next they will probably target the red cross!

Offy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You are wrong on pretty much everything there. Israel is not an "illegal state", whatever that means. It was established by the United Nations under resolution 181.

There is no "mass immigration" into Israel, there was a big influx after the fall of communism but that has slowed to a trickle by now.

To call Israel theocratic is nonsense, try being a non-muslim in an arab country for instance.

In any case, the entirety of your post is off topic and complete whataboutery as it has ZERO to do with the flotilla.

Remember I asked what your signature stands for? Any chance you might answer that question because it appears to support the killing of civilians. Perhaps Im wrong?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

"damned poster telling us about stuff said/done we'd rather not know was said/done..."

That might carry more credibility if there hadn't already been earlier posts (I posted one myself) in this thread making quite clear what Ken O'Keefe said he did and didn't do on the ship - and what his personal attitude to passive resistance was/is.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote:

The LOL was the reaction to the activist basically sabotaging almost single handed the denial people had with regards to the people on board taking the guns from commandos (this was dismissed) and that people engaged in violence wilfully (again this was dismissed). .

Our pro-Israel posters would do much better if they argued with the people on this forum rather than with views from other sources (or straw men). I think pretty much everyone here is quite clear on the idea that the people on board defended themselves from the Israeli assault with violence, and that amongst other things they captured three of the commandos and took their weapons from them. The debate round this neck of the woods centres on whether that was right, not whether it happened.

regards,
Scofflaw

deravarra

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You are wrong on pretty much everything there. Israel is not an "illegal state", whatever that means. It was established by the United Nations under resolution 181.

There is no "mass immigration" into Israel, there was a big influx after the fall of communism but that has slowed to a trickle by now.

To call Israel theocratic is nonsense, try being a non-muslim in an arab country for instance.

In any case, the entirety of your post is off topic and complete whataboutery as it has ZERO to do with the flotilla.

The idea of the illegal state of Israel was brought about by the balfour declaration in 1917. This precursor to the League of Nations granting Great Britain a mandate for Palestine and a Jewish national home within it. In 1947 the United Nations voted in favour of the partition of Palestine.

Does that count as your idea of establishment of the illegal state of Israel? It was simply "normalizing" the situation, under sever pressure from the US, and the allies, after being subjected to a collective guilt forced upon it by the Jewish people because of what happened in WWII.

Mass immigration did and still does take place. Not so much now, but it still does happen.

A "state" founded upon the principles of being a home for a religious group, which discriminates on the basis of religion, and fights to promote one religion over any other is theocratic. Israel pretends its a democracy. Saudis dont.

Off topic? Simply pointing out the simple and irrefutable arrogance of a nation bedevilled by their collective paranoid schizophrenia.

Scofflaw

deravarra wrote: »

The idea of the illegal state of Israel was brought about by the balfour declaration in 1917. This precursor to the League of Nations granting Great Britain a mandate for Palestine and a Jewish national home within it. In 1947 the United Nations voted in favour of the partition of Palestine.

Does that count as your idea of establishment of the illegal state of Israel? It was simply "normalizing" the situation, under sever pressure from the US, and the allies, after being subjected to a collective guilt forced upon it by the Jewish people because of what happened in WWII.

Mass immigration did and still does take place. Not so much now, but it still does happen.

A "state" founded upon the principles of being a home for a religious group, which discriminates on the basis of religion, and fights to promote one religion over any other is theocratic. Israel pretends its a democracy. Saudis dont.

Off topic? Simply pointing out the simple and irrefutable arrogance of a nation bedevilled by their collective paranoid schizophrenia.

And now you've done so, thanks. I'm not prepared to have this thread descend into the usual recapitulation of every right and wrong in the history of the Middle East.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Back a bit more towards the topic at hand.....

Israel's blockade of Gaza is a clear violation of international humanitarian law, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has said.
In a statement, the ICRC describes the situation in Gaza as dire, saying the only sustainable solution is a lifting of the blockade.
It says Israel is punishing the whole civilian population of Gaza.
It also urges Hamas movement to allow ICRC delegates to visit a detained Israel soldier Gilad Shalit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10306193.stm

Doubtless that didn't go down well at the Likud morning breakfast.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

People engaged in violence wilfully and a maniac with contacts with Hamas. This is another diversionary tactic. People did not engage in violence wilfully, they defended themselves from an aggressor in international waters.

Why didn't the people on the irish boat do the same? Because they had more sense.

The fact that the incident took place in international waters means the Israeli troops were in the wrong. Sands suggests in the post that the Israelis were in the right,

Where?

The point is simply Black Brier, if you are attacked by someone you are entitled to defend yourself but your nonsense post suggests people should not defend themselves if attacked by Israel. That is ludicrous. From reading Sands post I assumed that because a Hamas supporter was on the ship it was full of maniacs. One Hamas support does not equate to a bunch of maniacs nor does it justify murder of innocent aid workers.

You are either misrepresenting my point or just ignoring it again. On that basis,would you enter garden full of marrauding wasps simply because it was your own?
Or a den of hungry tigers on your own because you are the keeper?

No you wouldn't.
The same applies to the flotilla.It could have sailed to Israel.
Theres being righteous and theres being stupid.
The IDF are the lions and the wasps in this case.
They have form and this man O'Keefe is admitting that he anticipated what was going to happen and was preparing for it.
Thats text book aggitation.

I don't disagree for one moment that the IDF had another option and that was lift the blockade and thats what they should do and hopefully will do.

Does that statement not suggest the Israelis were justified in their actions to you? It does to me. It looks like Sands is saying the Israelis were right to do what they did as it was a ship full of maniacs. I disagree!

No he's pointing out that whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander or that theres a liberal amount of ignoring awkward points here by the "you are 100% for us or nothing" approach from most posters here.
I've seen the tactic aimed at me umpteen times now.
I see it's aimed at Sands aswell now.How dare he ask awkward questions..

Irlandese

Moomoo1 wrote: »

ahem... you know that according to the Israeli parliament Armenian genocide NEVER HAPPENED?

(I am Armenian and I object to our genocide being used to whitewash Israel by saying 'oh, they killed Turks so that's alright, they are guilty of genocide anyway').

When and how did the full? Israeli Parliment, presumably by a majority vote?? decide? consider? infer? dream ? have one mad member suggest? any such thing???

deravarra

Deleted User wrote: »

On that basis,would you enter garden full of marrauding wasps simply because it was your own?
Or a den of hungry tigers on your own because you are the keeper?

I'd stay back for a bit, and get the experts in to deal with them. The Turks may be eager enough.

Deleted User wrote: »

The same applies to the flotilla.It could have sailed to Israel.
Theres being righteous and theres being stupid.

Yep, stupid to stand by those who are facing adversity and strife in their own country at the hands of those renowned for flouting international law and norms at every turn, then quoting it when it suits them.

Deleted User wrote: »

The IDF are the lions and the wasps in this case.
They have form and this man O'Keefe is admitting that he anticipated what was going to happen and was preparing for it.
Thats text book aggitation.

Really? And not a naval show of force which acted in a shoot first and ask questions later manner?