Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

Evidence?

Prinz have you any evidence apart from the partial video and the word of the IDF to support your views?

gandalf

prinz wrote: »

The footage that was being broadcast from the deck live as the boarding started. The one that makes no mention of people having been killed already. The one that's been shown on TV repeatedly.

Yes but do we have a clear idea of where the people were killed. You are assuming it was on the top deck but we have no idea. Like we have no clear idea of the exact death toll.

It's not piracy.

No thats what people are calling it. Technically it is an act of war against a flagged vessel of another sovereign nation.

...and professors of law and the like. Obviously Israeli stooges. :rolleyes:

Can you provide the links to those please

JimiTime

in a few of the videos, has anyone else noticed guys (flotilla passengers) with gas masks on? Why would they bring gas masks?

Memnoch

prinz wrote: »

Really? Evidence?

It's been linked several times.

Mihalis Grigoropoulos, Greece
I was steering the ship, we saw them [Israeli soldiers] capture another ship in front of us, which was the Turkish passenger vessel with more than 500 people on board and heard shots fired.

There was another quote from people on board a different ship reporting that they had been told that the Israelis were using live ammo, and that people were dead and that they should not try to resist at all and that this was the last communication they received from the captain of the lead ship.

There was a video if it as well and I'm sure I linked both the quote and the video in this thread before. Unfortunately I did not favorite it and can't find the source for that one again, I will link it here if I do.

20Cent

Foxtrol wrote: »

Read my post again. I dont agree with the band items. God I cant make it any clearer.

The purpose wasnt aid. It was to make an issue of the blockade in the hopes that they would set a precedent by passing it or Israel would do something stupid and international pressure would force it to end.

There was lots of options both sides could (and should) have taken to prevent this.

Perhaps.
Don't see how you can be for aid being delivered AND the blockade though.

gandalf

JimiTime wrote: »

in a few of the videos, has anyone else noticed guys (flotilla passengers) with gas masks on? Why would they bring gas masks?

They expected tear gas to be used on them maybe?

Foxtrol

Memnoch wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you disagree with me. All that matters was the the Israelis caused the panic on the LEAD boat, and the first hand account from someone ON THAT BOAT is the proof of this.

I've already explained why there were no fatalities on the other boats and have no desire to repeat myself endlessly.

How would they possibly know about deaths on the other boats when people on the boat itself didnt know at the time. I'll take you're point on this as there is possibility that the Israelis didnt give them a chance to surrender so there no 100% sure way to know that no lives would have been lost. (though it still disagree)

Utter and complete nonsense. It is the person who is acting criminally and illegally that is responsible, not the person who refuses to be cowered by threats. Your repeated attempts to blame the victims are frankly disgusting.

You're still just avoiding my question and your personal attacks on me dont upset me.

You either agree that there would be no lives lost if the boats had gone to the Israeli port or you think the IDF would have still killed the protesters. Please try to answer the question this even though it doesnt suit your argument.

wes

JimiTime wrote: »

in a few of the videos, has anyone else noticed guys (flotilla passengers) with gas masks on? Why would they bring gas masks?

In case tear gas (or some other kind) would be used on them.

doncarlos

JimiTime wrote: »

in a few of the videos, has anyone else noticed guys (flotilla passengers) with gas masks on? Why would they bring gas masks?

In case they were gassed?

bush Baby

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its not my spin on it, the BBC have reported it, unless you are calling the BBC's integrity into question as well?

Assuming of course, the BBC are unbiased. Which they are not. They represent the culture of the British government. Ever read the Balfour Declaration? British Middle East policy is based on it.

JimiTime

deadtiger wrote: »

They expected tear gas to be used on them maybe?

Oh right, so people set out knowing they were going to be provoking a military power. These people had brought their children along too. Hmmmm.

alastair

Foxtrol wrote: »

It really is a simple yes or no answer, not excuses as to why the choice wasnt made. Simply, if the flotilla had agreed to go into the Israeli port would there have been deaths on the boat?

It really is a simple yes or no answer, not excuses as to why the choice wasnt made. Simply, if the IDF had n't chosen to take over the ships in international waters at night would there have been deaths on the boat?

doncarlos

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh right, so people set out knowing they were going to be provoking a military power. These people had brought their children along too. Hmmmm.

Yes. So they deserved to be shot because they thought at worse they'd be tear gassed? Hmmmmmm

droidus

prinz wrote: »

The legality of the operation is open to debate.

Not true. Regardless of whether or not israel is at war with a non-sovereign entity named 'Gaza' or 'Palestine' (which,as has been mentioned above Israel is at great pains to define the conflict explicitly as not a state of war), the fact remains that Israel's blockade, like the occupation of the territories is illegal, constitutes collective punishment under international law and is not officially recognised by any other state.

If the blockade is unlawful, (and it is) then all actions which stem from the blockade are unlawful. The activists were in fact attempting to end an unlawful situation which has been condemened repeatedly by the UN including the recent call for cessation by the Security Council.

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

Well at least the "humanitarian" angle has been dropped.

I haven't used it at any point. However, since the purpose of the flotilla is to break a blockade that denies people necessary aid, 'humanitarian' certainly applies.

prinz wrote: »

AFAIK there are no gardaí present at the Curragh Camp. I am fairly certain the first person I'd be greeted by would be army personnel. How can I object to being arrested, probably at gun point and detained until gardaí could take over, and claim the police should have arrested me to begin with? Please note the IDF had tried to divert the convoy unmolested, whichn would equate to being 'arrested' above.

You would be arrested at gunpoint, but even if you refused to come quietly, as long as you are not armed (with a gun or other serious weapon), they don't get to shoot you - and that's in a specifically military area, which international waters is not.

prinz wrote: »

As above. Substitute any militarised area in the world. You don't need to be attempting to gain entry by deadly force.

International waters are not a military area. And yes, they do need to be using force to try to breach the blockade for it to be a military matter, otherwise what's happening is purely a civilian affair, where the blockade is 'broken' by moral pressure. Same as a protest, same as a picket line - none of these can casually be changed into a military confrontation legally.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

Foxtrol wrote: »

You either agree that there would be no lives lost if the boats had gone to the Israeli port or you think the IDF would have still killed the protesters. Please try to answer the question this even though it doesnt suit your argument.

This is a pedantic, and invalid argument as far as I'm concerned. Just because the aid workers didn't give in to the initial Israeli threats doesn't mean you can blame them for the Israelis subsequently killing them.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote: »

in a few of the videos, has anyone else noticed guys (flotilla passengers) with gas masks on? Why would they bring gas masks?

Breathing equipment is standard on ships, for firefighting.

cordially,
scofflaw

gandalf

JimiTime wrote: »

Oh right, so people set out knowing they were going to be provoking a military power. These people had brought their children along too. Hmmmm.

What they all brought their kids, some brought them, one or two brought them. Did those people bring gas masks too? What exactly is your point?

Really is this is the best you can do you?

Foxtrol

20Cent wrote: »

Perhaps.
Don't see how you can be for aid being delivered AND the blockade though.

Im not. I personally disagree with both of those actions by Israel, I can however see it from their point of view.

Im being falsely painted as agreeing with everything that Israel does. I just dont believe that 100% of the blame for this sad incident lies with Israel. (Just a large proportion of it)

Scofflaw

Memnoch wrote: »

This is a pedantic, and invalid argument as far as I'm concerned. Just because the aid workers didn't give in to the initial Israeli threats doesn't mean you can blame them for the Israelis subsequently killing them.

It's a 'first cause' argument anyway - the passengers wouldn't have had anything to react to if the Israelis hadn't boarded them, the flotilla wouldn't have been there if Israel wasn't operating a blockade, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Foxtrol wrote: »

I just dont believe that 100% of the blame for this sad incident lies with Israel. (Just a large proportion of it)

Yes but without an illegal night time assault by special forces troops in International Waters there would have been no deaths.

The whole chain of events that occurred after this hinges on this fact. They are totally responsible for the deaths of those on the ships, the injuries to their own men and handing their enemies a propaganda coup they could have only dreamed of last week.

mrboswell

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im not. I personally disagree with both of those actions by Israel, I can however see it from their point of view.

Im being falsely painted as agreeing with everything that Israel does. I just dont believe that 100% of the blame for this sad incident lies with Israel. (Just a large proportion of it)

You can't use the "they were asking for it" line. isreali attack was illegal, immoral etc. Typical self-serving behavior by the bullies of the middle east

Foxtrol

alastair wrote: »

It really is a simple yes or no answer, not excuses as to why the choice wasnt made. Simply, if the IDF had n't chosen to take over the ships in international waters at night would there have been deaths on the boat?

Again if you go back and read the posts I was given several options that the Israelis could have (but wouldnt) do that would have avoided the bloodshed. I agreed with them with a simple yes, even though I could have gone into excuses as to why the Israeli government would have reasons not to accept them.

I retorted with points that could have stopped the incident from occurring from the flotilla side and I have yet to recieve a straight answer (one that didnt involve excuses as to why it wasnt chosen)

Laminations

Foxtrol wrote: »

You either agree that there would be no lives lost if the boats had gone to the Israeli port or you think the IDF would have still killed the protesters. Please try to answer the question this even though it doesnt suit your argument.

Sorry although what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. Its as unfair as arguing that the two polish men would not have died had they not gone out to face down their attackers. See this post

Pittens wrote: »

The second sentence is both a non-sequitor and racist lie.

The violent people or ethnic group here was not the Polish immigrants ( who by the way came from worse social conditions than the scum who attacked them) but the violent Irish lumpen proletariat - who we have tolerated for far too long hence the title of this thread. 75 convictions.

And the Polish guys had every right to confront people who marched up to their house. Its a pity they didnt win.

Your logic is disturbing, a pseudo-left wing morality for Ireland's massively over-indulged lumpens, and a sickening racial hatred for the Poles.

The group in the wrong here were not those onboard the ship, regarless of how they behaved towards the IDF, they were entitled to defend themselves just as you are if someone enters your house. It doesn't matter if what they did escalated things, the initial incursion onto the ship was the illegality that led to the eventual loss of life. So although what you are saying (i.e. if the activists didnt resist, they may not have died) may be true, it does in no way excuse the israelis from illegally boarding a civilian flotilla in international waters.

Scofflaw

Foxtrol wrote: »

Im not. I personally disagree with both of those actions by Israel, I can however see it from their point of view.

Im being falsely painted as agreeing with everything that Israel does. I just dont believe that 100% of the blame for this sad incident lies with Israel. (Just a large proportion of it)

Perhaps you could put a figure on that?

But no, it doesn't really work - I don't necessarily blame the soldiers themselves (depending), but "Israel" decided how the boarding would be done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

doncarlos

Foxtrol wrote: »

I retorted with points that could have stopped the incident from occurring from the flotilla side and I have yet to recieve a straight answer (one that didnt involve excuses as to why it wasnt chosen)

Ok in hindsight the choice was do as Israel says or people will die?

JimiTime

doncarlos wrote: »

Yes. So they deserved to be shot because they thought at worse they'd be tear gassed? Hmmmmmm

I didn't say anything about deserving to be shot. Its a good indication of motive though. It wasn't just a 'We want to bring aid peacefully to our palestinian bretheren'. There were obviously people on board up for some agro. That they did this, while at the same time having children on board etc says alot. Israel obviously screwed up, but the ship is not beyond blame. It obviously pre-meditated its provocation and came prepared for it. My sympathies for the deaths of the people who were shot, but the flotilla decision makers have alot to answer for here too.

Memnoch

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a 'first cause' argument anyway - the passengers wouldn't have had anything to react to if the Israelis hadn't boarded them, the flotilla wouldn't have been there if Israel wasn't operating a blockade, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've tried repeatedly pointing this out to Foxtrot, who doesn't seem to be able to grasp this and keeps parroting the same pointless, pedantic argument in vain hope of laying a portion of the blame at the flotilla.

Ashashi

What I would like to know is, if israel are so sure of their position, release every single video and photo taken by the people on the flotilla, and let the world decide, not drip feeding us israeli bias every couple of hours.

It's an act of piracy, and if Somalians boarded a ship by helicopter at 4 in the morning, there would be celebration if passengers managed to kill a couple.

israel is like a child, when it is caught doing something wrong, it begins to make up stories to get out of trouble. pathetic.

mrboswell

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say anything about deserving to be shot. Its a good indication of motive though. It wasn't just a 'We want to bring aid peacefully to our palestinian bretheren'. There were obviously people on board up for some agro. That they did this, while at the same time having children on board etc says alot. Israel obviously screwed up, but the ship is not beyond blame. It obviously pre-meditated its provocation and came prepared for it. My sympathies for the deaths of the people who were shot, but the flotilla decision makers have alot to answer for here too.

Up for agro = mo them down with guns?!?


This going around in circles - doesn't matter if there were children, adults, sailors, pets - FACT IS THAT ISRAELI COMMANDOS SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN THERE OR HAVE BOARDED THE SHIP - SIMPLE.