Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

Scofflaw

paulaa wrote: »

http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-how-israels-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-fakes-photos-of-seized-weapons/

Oh dear - EXIF information on the original images shows them to have been taken quite some time ago, so perhaps they are what we might call "representative images" - pictures of what a pile of flak jackets would look like?

The WordPress image bambooze linked to does indeed have this EXIF information:

Date: February 7, 2006 4:49:57AM (timezone not specified)
(4 years, 3 months, 23 days, 10 hours, 16 minutes, 53 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)

You can check that here yourselves. And the night-scopes one again looks a little odd:

Create Date|2006:02:07 05:20:56.39 (4 years, 3 months, 23 days, 9 hours, 54 minutes, 19 seconds ago)
Date/Time Original|2006:02:07 05:20:56.39 (4 years, 3 months, 23 days, 9 hours, 54 minutes, 19 seconds ago)
Modify Date|2010:06:02 11:23:04.39 (3 hours, 52 minutes, 11 seconds ago)


It could have been someone's camera setting being out of date, but then there's the modify date 4 years later...

Rather more sensibly, the ones on the Flickr stream have been Photoshopped - again, you can see that in the image data.

Tsk, tsk. It looks at first sight that someone has been at the pork pies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

deadtiger wrote: »

Not necessarily. The majority of posters see that a crime was committed by Israel using the excuse of defence.

I would say that very close to 100% of people would agree that the IDF slipped up in this operation, and that the loss of life was to say the least tragic.

Some of us believe that the people on the ship are also at least partly responsible for deliberately disobeying IDF orders, and attacking the people who boarded the ship with metal bars and the like to act on that warning.

Others of us believe that the Israelis alone are to fault in every respect.

I'm in the first camp. I do think media reports suggesting that 50 people on the Mavi Marmara were known terrorists or terrorist sympathisers is just digging a deeper hole on the Israeli part.

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

Hamas rules gaza, anything shipped into gaza goes through them, Hamas is recognized around the world as terrorist.

If no blockade was in place, iran would be free ship loads of missiles and heavy weapons into gaza just as they have done with hezbolllah in south lebanon. Basically a nightmare scenario for israel - radical iran backed islamists on their northern and southern borders armed with missiles that could reach any point in israel. The stakes are VERY high for israel which is why this is taken so seriously.

Absolute crock. Israel controls all the access points into Gaza bar the Rafah crossing, which is too small to handle any volume of transport. Israel can continue to check every damn thing going into Gaza - what it can't do is continue to blockade a crazy list of proscribed items (from pasta to cement)at their own convenience. The ending of the blockade still leaves all access point under the supervision of israel - posing no additional threat to the security of Israel. Use some common sense! Do you honestly think that israel is going to allow missiles be snuck in under their noses?

Manic Moran

Irish_Nomad wrote: »

Article 6 does specify international waters covered by the treaty and since the attack happened in the Med it seems that article 5 could be invoked.

ARTICLE 6- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

I sit somewhat corrected.

That said, it's not actually something that requires any particular response either: Now that I'm reading Art 5 in more detail, the only requirement is "each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."

It would be hard-pressed to claim that a skirmish off Gaza is a threat to the North Atlantic area sufficient to require a particularly robust response.

NTM

caseyann

The bullet proof vest with all the pirate attacks understandable why they were on board.If gas masks there,could still understand why on board.I wouldnt be going anywhere near gaza with out them.imo

mrboswell

dlofnep wrote: »

You understand that the blockade fuels extremism, right? If Israel did not illegally occupy Palestinian territories, and did not enforce an illegal blockade - then you would have a much more moderate environment in Palestine.

Israel places collective punishment on the Palestinian people, 1.5 million alone in Gaza. It is illegal. You either adhere to international law, or you don't. If you don't - you should be held accountable like any other state - no exceptions.

I would say it more resembles ethnic cleansing than just a blockade that is fueling the extremism.

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

Reasonable expectation of bias in this case, being a turkish flotilla etc..

Also me not being turkish, I'd rather trust the beeb or some other mainstream english language news org with a track record for fair reporting. Common sense really.

Because Turkish telly (or al J) don't? You are aware there's an Irish ship in the flotilla, so presumably RTE can't be trusted on that basis either? Quite a few British taking part too, so that rules out the beeb.

I love the way the beeb is 'mainstream' while Turkish media isn't.

Do you do kids parties too?

Irlandese

Ardent wrote: »

Only an idiot brings a metal pole to a gun fight.

I see your point, but, here, the intention of the real hard-core organisers was just that, to pit activists against soldiers, hoping for a good body count, to get a PR victory and get closer to a specific political result.
I suspect these agent provocateurs are very pleased with the results so far. They may even succede in forcing the partial lifting of the blockade, but hopefully only in the context of a wider agreement guaranteeing Israeli defence and economic security. Lifting the inhuman blockade would be a positive result in itself, but with very serious consequences for everyone in the ME, if it does not come with a guarantee of continued Israeli monitoring and control over imports of arms and particularly rockets. This will be damned difficult to achieve. But the blockade also hurts Israel, so a move to bring it to an end, in a broader agreement would be a good thing. However, bowing to terrorists, sending unwilling and unaware "blind-suicide-blockade runners" to be sacrificial lambs, is not going to help anyone in the ME, least of all the children in the camps who need help yesterday.

bambooze

alastair wrote: »

Absolute crock. Israel controls all the access points into Gaza bar the Rafah crossing, which is too small to handle any volume of transport. Israel can continue to check every damn thing going into Gaza - what it can't do is continue to blockade a crazy list of proscribed items (from pasta to cement)at their own convenience. The ending of the blockade still leaves all access point under the supervision of israel - posing no additional threat to the security of Israel. Use some common sense! Do you honestly think that israel is going to allow missiles be snuck in under their noses?

Huh? The ending of the blockade leaves gaza port open and not at all under israeli control.. thats kind of the point in the blockade.

bambooze

alastair wrote: »

Because Turkish telly (or al J) don't? You are aware there's an Irish ship in the flotilla, so presumably RTE can't be trusted on that basis either? Quite a few British taking part too, so that rules out the beeb.

I love the way the beeb is 'mainstream' while Turkish media isn't.

Do you do kids parties too?

Do you speak turkish? I don't therefore to me, the beeb is a mainstream trusted news org.

Besides which media from an islamic country can hardly be trusted to be impartial in an issue involving israel.. no more than anyone here would trust israeli media reporting on gaza..

As for the RTE I have heard nothing from them so far..

alastair

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh dear - EXIF information on the original images shows them to have been taken quite some time ago, so perhaps they are what we might call "representative images" - pictures of what a pile of flak jackets would look like?

It's more likely that someone just didn't set the date in their camera. The flack jackets are just the sort of thing that would be needed by the red cross red crescent there, and the nefarious kitchen knives pics seem to have the same exif date issue.

sceptre

Scofflaw wrote: »

It could have been someone's camera setting being out of date, but then there's the modify date 4 years later...

I'm told that this particular model of camera wasn't available until June 2006 so it's rather likely that the batteries were changed two months ago (camera not available until June wouldn't have been taking pictures in February, a delayed battery change would reset date to default obviously) or that the camera was bought two months ago and the date never set - people can be quite lazy about this. I'm assuming that a photoshop edit would trigger the modify date in the EXIF data, a computer would be likely to have the correct date.

However...

Rather more sensibly, the ones on the Flickr stream have been Photoshopped - again, you can see that in the image data.

Photoshopping images is a bad thing to do if one is trying to make a point in the first place.

Macha

Irlandese wrote: »

I see your point, but, here, the intention of the real hard-core organisers was just that, to pit activists against soldiers, hoping for a good body count, to get a PR victory and get closer to a specific political result.

That is a pretty disgusting accusation to make against the organisers and one for which I would hope you have at least a modicum of evidence.

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

Huh? The ending of the blockade leaves gaza port open and not at all under israeli control.. thats kind of the point in the blockade.

Rubbish. Israel controls the waters around the port - they can continue to refuse access to the port without a blockade.

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

Do you speak turkish? I don't therefore to me, the beeb is a mainstream trusted news org.

Besides which media from an islamic country can hardly be trusted to be impartial in an issue involving israel.. no more than anyone here would trust israeli media reporting on gaza..

As for the RTE I have heard nothing from them so far..

So you don't trust them because you don't understand the language and they have a 'suspect' religion. You do know al Jazeera is available in English?

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

It's more likely that someone just didn't set the date in their camera. The flack jackets are just the sort of thing that would be needed by the red cross red crescent there, and the nefarious kitchen knives pics seem to have the same exif date issue.

Rubbish. Clutching at straws there.

Any random plonker will have the date/time set on their camera.

With all the US paid for hi-tec equipment do you expect us to believe that its cameras can't remember the date?

Ah your hilarious...

Scofflaw

sceptre wrote: »

I'm told that this particular model of camera wasn't available until June 2006 so it's rather likely that the batteries were changed two months ago (camera not available until June wouldn't have been taking pictures in February, a delayed battery change would reset date to default obviously) or that the camera was bought two months ago and the date never set - people can be quite lazy about this. I'm assuming that a photoshop edit would trigger the modify date in the EXIF data, a computer would be likely to have the correct date.

Sure - that's entirely reasonable. I do terrible things with the date and time on cameras myself. On the other hand, I'm not taking pictures as evidence in an international incident - another slipshod thing in a slipshod episode.

sceptre wrote: »

However...


Photoshopping images is a bad thing to do if one is trying to make a point in the first place.

Yes, a little unfortunate, given the number of things one can do with Photoshop. Of course, it may just have been to remove the egregious date.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mrboswell

mrboswell wrote: »

Rubbish. Clutching at straws there.

Any random plonker will have the date/time set on their camera.

With all the US paid for hi-tec equipment do you expect us to believe that its cameras can't remember the date?

Ah your hilarious...

No offence Scofflaw

caseyann

alastair wrote: »

It's more likely that someone just didn't set the date in their camera. The flack jackets are just the sort of thing that would be needed by the red cross red crescent there, and the nefarious kitchen knives pics seem to have the same exif date issue.

I thought the knives look like what you would imagine on board a ship of any kind for jobs? Dont think they look to suspicious.

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

Rubbish. Clutching at straws there.

Any random plonker will have the date/time set on their camera.

With all the US paid for hi-tec equipment do you expect us to believe that its cameras can't remember the date?

Ah your hilarious...

Fair enough. You go for your conspiracy to fabricate pictures of a bunch of run-of-the-mill red cross flack jackets. I'll opt for the rather more likely scenario of the unchanged date setting. Occums' razor and all that.

alastair

caseyann wrote: »

I thought the knives look like what you would imagine on board a ship of any kind for jobs? Dont think they look to suspicious.

They don't.

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

Fair enough. You go for your conspiracy to fabricate pictures of a bunch of run-of-the-mill red cross flack jackets. I'll opt for the rather more likely scenario of the unchanged date setting. Occums' razor and all that.

No conspiracy, just sounds rather convenient to me.

Maybe you should leave it to the IDF to come out with their own bull though

alastair

mrboswell wrote: »

No conspiracy, just sounds rather convenient to me.

Maybe you should leave it to the IDF to come out with their own bull though

No bull. The exif on the initial pics of the kitchen knives (on the ship's deck) have the correct date, the newer pic of the same kitchen knives on the tarmac (with added saws!) has the 2006 date in the exif. Join the dots.

mrboswell

alastair wrote: »

No bull. The exif on the initial pics of the kitchen knives (on the ship's deck) have the correct date, the newer pic of the same kitchen knives on the tarmac (with added saws!) has the 2006 date in the exif. Join the dots.

Actually I'm surprised that they actually bother to take pics as they obviously don't care when other nations condemn their actions as brutal.

Edit - Saw? hmmm....very sophisticated weapon - don't you need a license for handling one of those?

Irish_Nomad

Manic Moran wrote: »

I sit somewhat corrected.

well I knew nothing of any geographical limitations until you posted about it yesterday so we've both learnt something.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That said, it's not actually something that requires any particular response either: Now that I'm reading Art 5 in more detail, the only requirement is "each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."

It would be hard-pressed to claim that a skirmish off Gaza is a threat to the North Atlantic area sufficient to require a particularly robust response.

NTM

You're right but it's relevant in that the potential consequences are that much greater if Turkey follows through on escorting future convoys. A confrontation between Turkish and Israeli warships could (at least in theory) force the USA into a war against Israel.

sceptre

mrboswell wrote: »

Edit - Saw? hmmm....very sophisticated weapon - don't you need a license for handling one of those?

The big one with the roundy thing is an angle grinder at that, with a cutting disc attached. Frequently used in rescue emergencies, the sort of thing a large boat should have somewhere. Saws as well for the same reason. As "weapons" go, I'd pick a kitchen knife or a sharp pencil first.

alastair

Irish_Nomad wrote: »

well I knew nothing of any geographical limitations until you posted about it yesterday so we've both learnt something.



You're right but it's relevant in that the potential consequences are that much greater if Turkey follows through on escorting future convoys. A confrontation between Turkish and Israeli warships could (at least in theory) force the USA into a war against Israel.

There isn't going to be any military showdown between Turkey and Israel. Turkish ships can escort any flotilla boats up to Gazan waters, 20 miles off the coast. They then have to stop unless they get permission from Israel, and the IDF can board the flotilla boats quite legally.

ardmacha

They then have to stop unless they get permission from Israel, and the IDF can board the flotilla boats quite legally.

Why. Does Isreal own Gaza? Does Turkey recognise this?

alastair

ardmacha wrote: »

Why. Does Isreal own Gaza? Does Turkey recognise this?

Israel has military control of Gazan airspace and waters. As agreed with the PA in the '95 treaty. It's a legal arrangement that Turkey, like everyone else has to respect. The Israelis and the Palestinians could negotiate a new arrangement, but until then this is the legal status quo.

Scofflaw

alastair wrote: »

There isn't going to be any military showdown between Turkey and Israel. Turkish ships can escort any flotilla boats up to Gazan waters, 20 miles off the coast. They then have to stop unless they get permission from Israel, and the IDF can board the flotilla boats quite legally.

Indeed - otherwise the Turks are entering Israeli controlled waters in warships, and the boot is on the other foot.

cordially,
Scofflaw