Israel attacks Aid Flotilla. At least 2 dead

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

The Turkish Islamic charity behind a flotilla of aid ships that was raided by Israeli forces on its way to Gaza had ties to terrorism networks, including a 1999 al-Qa'ida plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, France's former top anti-terrorism judge said last night.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/turkish-group-had-ties-to-alqaida-bomb-plot-2205345.html

That article also indicated that he didn't say if they had ties now.

And given that in the same article they said.

The group is not among some 45 groups listed as terrorists by the US State Department's Office of the Co-ordinator for Counterterrorism.

I guess the answer is no. Try harder.

bambooze

deadtiger wrote: »

That article also indicated that he didn't say if they had ties now.

And given that in the same article they said.



I guess the answer is no. Try harder.

Regardless, I'm sure there's no shortage of terror related groups not on that list, but this is quite incriminating however you look at it..

"clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad"

gandalf

Eibhin70 wrote: »

Having read 172 pages and counting, I'm none the wiser really...however, it seems to me that the majority of the peace activists had good, honest genuine intentions and another shower of hooligans tagged along for the ride. You know like, when you go to support your football team and then you come across these bunch of gurriers in the stand, who have no interest in football...they're only there for one agenda, i.e. to cause trouble. Police come out in force to stop these hooligans and then all hell breaks lose! The public is outraged, the police is condemned for use of excessive force and the hooligans got what they wanted in the first place...conflict!

Oh I don't contest they there were hot heads on that ship given the numbers involved.

However to blame them for their deaths and the injuries is wrong and it is typical deflection of blaming the victims.

People died because a botched operation was put into motion illegally in International Waters. They died because instead of boarding the ships in daylight hours and dealing with them like the were civilians they were assaulted at night with troops who normally get involved in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage operations. From quotes attributed to the troops it appears that they were expecting a ship full of terrorists when in fact the vast majority were peaceful activists.

Did the organisers want Israel to look bad and highlight the illegal blockade of Gaza, yes of course they did. Did they expect to be met with a brutal assault at 4am no. Given that all other previous attempts at breaking this blockade have either been turned away or have been allowed through they could have been forgiven for believing that the same faith would await them.

All this blame for the deaths, the injuries (to protesters and troops), the kidnapping from International Waters all lie at the feet of a Hawkish Israeli government who seem to believe that they are above International Law and who have turned Israel into a rogue nation. If the Pro-Israel people on this thread actually do care about their country they would realise the damage that people like Netanyahu and his legion of spokesmen are doing to their reputation worldwide.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

Regardless, I'm sure there's no shortage of terror related groups not on that list, but this is quite incriminating however you look at it..

"clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad"

Incriminating is attacking ships in International Waters, killing people, injuring people and then kidnapping the survivors.

That is incriminating and that actually happened a few days ago.

A Dub in Glasgo

bambooze wrote: »

Regardless, I'm sure there's no shortage of terror related groups not on that list, but this is quite incriminating however you look at it..

"clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad"

It really is laughable that this is the extent of the evidence from Israeli apologists to justify their slaughter the other morning.

bambooze

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It really is laughable that this is the extent of the evidence from Israeli apologists to justify their slaughter the other morning.

An aid organization involved has "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad"

Vid evidence clearly shows them tooled up for battle before israelis boarded..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

Vid evidence clearly shows them laying into the israelis en masse with metal bars and other weapons including knives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Vid evidence (and various reports) shows the israelis initially used non-lethal paintball guns before resorting to real guns when their lives were in danger (some are still in hospital with serious injuries).

The flotilla had every opportunity to turn back but refused all warnings as yet again vid evidence shows..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4

Instead deciding to challenge a heavily defended military blockade.. they got the publicity they so desired. Hamas is loving this.

The evidence keeps building.

Eibhin70

deadtiger wrote: »

Oh I don't contest they there were hot heads on that ship given the numbers involved.

However to blame them for their deaths and the injuries is wrong and it is typical deflection of blaming the victims.

People died because a botched operation was put into motion illegally in International Waters. They died because instead of boarding the ships in daylight hours and dealing with them like the were civilians they were assaulted at night with troops who normally get involved in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage operations. From quotes attributed to the troops it appears that they were expecting a ship full of terrorists when in fact the vast majority were peaceful activists.

Did the organisers want Israel to look bad and highlight the illegal blockade of Gaza, yes of course they did. Did they expect to be met with a brutal assault at 4am no. Given that all other previous attempts at breaking this blockade have either been turned away or have been allowed through they could have been forgiven for believing that the same faith would await them.

.

Fair enough.....it sounds like they boarded the ship at night so as to prevent the organizers and Hamas of having a PR Field Day. It obviously backfired bigtime!

But to suggest (as many posters have done on this thread) that all the peace activists were Mother Theresas and Ghandis is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, methinks....

On another note, I heard that the Rachel Corrie is headed towards Turkey...

Macha

bambooze wrote: »

Vid evidence clearly shows them tooled up for battle before israelis boarded..

What of it? Do they not have the right to defend themselves? I feel like I'm going around in circles.

bambooze wrote: »

Vid evidence (and various reports) shows the israelis initially used non-lethal paintball guns before resorting to real guns when their lives were in danger (some are still in hospital with serious injuries).

Did you miss the earlier discussion about the almost inevitable result of aggressively, illegally boarding a ship in international waters in the middle of the night? It's wonderful that we can sit here, viewing video footage over and over, and see them as paintguns. How on earth would someone on the ship know that they were initially using paintguns?

bambooze wrote: »

The flotilla had every opportunity to turn back but refused all warnings as yet again vid evidence shows..

Why should they have turned back? Again, the might is right argument.


Wouldn't it be nice to be able to see some more footage from the other side. The Israelis made quite sure that didn't happen.

bambooze wrote: »

Instead deciding to challenge a heavily defended military blockade.. they got the publicity they so desired. Hamas is loving this.

Do you agree that the IDF carried out their operation in the way they did for PR reasons?

bambooze wrote: »

The evidence keeps building.

Of what? You have provided no new evidence above and instead seem to be intent on ignoring valid points that have been made and funnelling your attention onto what are really not the most important issues of the incident.

Scofflaw

Eibhin70 wrote: »

Having read 172 pages and counting, I'm none the wiser really...however, it seems to me that the majority of the peace activists had good, honest genuine intentions and another shower of hooligans tagged along for the ride. You know like, when you go to support your football team and then you come across these bunch of gurriers in the stand, who have no interest in football...they're only there for one agenda, i.e. to cause trouble. Police come out in force to stop these hooligans and then all hell breaks lose! The public is outraged, the police is condemned for use of excessive force and the hooligans got what they wanted in the first place...conflict!

Wrong order, though. Here the "police" - armed commandos - didn't "come out in force to stop these hooligans" - they came out in force expecting only to have to beat up and intimidate the peaceful supporters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

bambooze wrote: »

The evidence keeps building.

No, the propaganda is building. We all knew that Israel would attack the character of those onboard, with intent of deflecting attention from their obvious illegal act of piracy and war.

• Israel confiscates video evidence of the event.
• Israel releases edited videos of the event.
• Israel placed a communication ban on all passengers, enabling them to get their view of events out.

On top of the following:

• Israeli troops beat up women onboard, breaking the nose of one girl according to an Irish passenger.
• Israel illegally boarded a vessel in international waters.
• Israel illegally upholds a blockade which affects 1.5 million people.

The only evidence that is building, is that Israel is a morally inept state that should have been smashed with sanctions a long time ago.

Scofflaw

Eibhin70 wrote: »

Fair enough.....it sounds like they boarded the ship at night so as to prevent the organizers and Hamas of having a PR Field Day. It obviously backfired bigtime!

But to suggest (as many posters have done on this thread) that all the peace activists were Mother Theresas and Ghandis is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, methinks....

On another note, I heard that the Rachel Corrie is headed towards Turkey...

Nobody has suggested all the peace activists are Mother Theresa. That's a straw man.

cordially,
Scofflaw

alastair

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you would advocate that the international community as a whole then follows Israel's somewhat flexible status, then?

I'd not advocate any such thing - but you have to follow the logic of the Israeli state's position - if there's no international state of conflict, and it's not an internal insurgancy, then you can't lay claim to legislation that covers either situation. Israel isn't flexible in it's approach btw - it's ambigious - and that ambiguity can work against it as well as for it.

gandalf

bambooze wrote: »

The evidence keeps building.

All deflecting from the point that Israel flouted International Law and assaulted a civilian humanitarian fleet as if it was a military target and killed people, injured people and then kidnapped those who survived.

gandalf

Eibhin70 wrote: »

Fair enough.....it sounds like they boarded the ship at night so as to prevent the organizers and Hamas of having a PR Field Day. It obviously backfired bigtime!

But to suggest (as many posters have done on this thread) that all the peace activists were Mother Theresas and Ghandis is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, methinks....

On another note, I heard that the Rachel Corrie is headed towards Turkey...

And on using troops normally used in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage operations for a policing operation.

Do you think that is right?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that the operation was illegal in International Waters.

the_syco

dlofnep wrote: »

The only evidence that is building, is that Israel is a morally inept state that should have been smashed with sanctions a long time ago.

Agreed, but where to put them? Israel is "far far away" in regards to where to put a large amount of jews after WW2, but have now become a pain in the sides of the people who put them there. As they created the country, and as the country co-operates in that it allows it's airfields to be used, it's harder in a military perspective to put sanctions on it.

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

but this is quite incriminating however you look at it..

Incriminating in what regard? The jihad to provide pasta, pencils and cement to the people of Gaza. Terrible terrorism, isn't it?

alastair

bambooze wrote: »

The evidence keeps building.

The evidence of the notorious kitchen plate, catapult and deckchair offensive on the IDF, cunningly prepared in international waters, should the IDF happen by. Makes sense to me.

alastair

Eibhin70 wrote: »

But to suggest (as many posters have done on this thread) that all the peace activists were Mother Theresas and Ghandis is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, methinks...

Who said that? What I read was that anybody on the ship had every right to A. Stop an illegal boarding of the ship, and B. Self defence against illegal agression.

BluePlanet

the_syco wrote: »

Agreed, but where to put them? Israel is "far far away" in regards to where to put a large amount of jews after WW2, but have now become a pain in the sides of the people who put them there. As they created the country, and as the country co-operates in that it allows it's airfields to be used, it's harder in a military perspective to put sanctions on it.

I think the United States is the best answer.

dlofnep

the_syco wrote: »

Agreed, but where to put them? Israel is "far far away" in regards to where to put a large amount of jews after WW2, but have now become a pain in the sides of the people who put them there. As they created the country, and as the country co-operates in that it allows it's airfields to be used, it's harder in a military perspective to put sanctions on it.

I'm not suggesting we abolish the state of Israel. It's there, and there's little we can do about it. I believe the 1967 borders should be set in place, exactly as defined. But that's another issue.

What I'm referring to - is sanctions for Israel, for any immoral act that it engages in. Just like the US is pressing for Iranian sanctions, they should not continuously veto sanctions on Israel. IMO - The United States has far too much power, and until politics changes there - we will never be able to change Israel, because the US will continue to protect it.

FlutterinBantam

I notice that the five 'Irish' were deported to 'Stamboul' and 'arrangements' were being made to send them back to Ireland.

I would hope that no Irish taxpayers money is involved here as surely there are more deserving outlets for it.

Who funds these people?
Why does one want to fly to Lebanon.
What do they do to support themselves?

All legitimate and pertinent questions this poster would opine.


Source radio bulletins this a.m.

Rezident

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

The Turkish charity at the centre of the raid by Israeli forces on an aid vessel in the Mediterranean was under intense scrutiny last night over its alleged links with militant organisations.

Despite their claims to be an entirely peaceful organisation, The Foundation for Human Rights, Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) has a history of involvement in Islamic extremism around the world and has been linked with an attempted bombing of an airport in the US.

Israeli security sources said that about 40 people set upon their commandos as they abseiled from a helicopter on to the upper deck of the ship, armed primarily with paintball guns intended for use in crowd control. The troops found themselves facing a crowd armed with metal pipes, knives and stun grenades.

The activists tied the rope used by the soldiers to a railing on the ship, in the hope of bringing down the helicopter,

Very clever if this is true. It's like the ultimate 'death by cop'. If they planned to attack the Israelis knowing the Israelis would eventually shoot them - with real guns as opposed to the paintball guns for crowd control, each martyr would be even more effective against Israel than a suicide bomber. Very sneaky if true and The Times is usually a reliable source. The plot thickens.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

So you would advocate that the international community as a whole then follows Israel's somewhat flexible status, then? After all, there have been no shortage of people claiming over the last few years that regardless of what Israel's point of view is, the situation in Gaza is a state of armed conflict and that the laws of war should apply. Regardless of what Israel claims, if that is the point of view of the rest of the world, then it's just as disingenuous to say 'well, on this particular issue, maybe we'll change our minds'

What we have right now being displayed is a bizarre situation where on this occasion, positions on both sides are inverted. At least the gentleman quoted by Alastair above is consistent, in that he's saying 'Armed conflict, but excessive'

That's a nice try, but what has been pointed out is that Israel cannot try to claim the legal benefits of 'armed conflict' in this case when it repeatedly denies that a state of armed conflict exists (in order to claim the benefits of that). And neither can you on Israel's behalf.

Positions are not "inverted" here - apologists for Israel are claiming a legal position they deny otherwise, in the hopes that it will cover the illegality of their actions. If we allow them (and you) that benefit, then you must necessarily accept all the corollaries - that is, that Israeli actions elsewhere are illegal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Here are some questions for those defending Israels actions that I would like to see them answer. I have asked them before and they has been some limited response to them. I am interested in their opinions on these.

Why carry out this operation in International Waters?

Why carry out this operation at night when the risks were higher for the personel assaulting the ships?

Why use military tactics against a purely civilian humanitarian fleet?

Why use troops from Shayetet 13 the unit that specializes in sea-to-land incursions, assassinations, counter-terrorism, sabotage and have been involved in the past in killing members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades on an operation against a purely civilian humanitarian fleet?

Were the soldiers primed by telling them that 75% of the people on board were terrorists?

Macha

Rezident wrote: »

Very clever if this is true. It's like the ultimate 'death by cop'. If they planned to attack the Israelis knowing the Israelis would eventually shoot them - with real guns as opposed to the paintball guns for crowd control, each martyr would be even more effective against Israel than a suicide bomber. Very sneaky if true and The Times is usually a reliable source. The plot thickens.

If you mug someone in the street and that person turns out to have a past criminal record, does it make you any less responsible for the fact that you mugged that person?

I'm loathe to use rape comparisons but time and again in this thread, the arguments defending Israel are akin to:

"Your honour, just look at her past history"
"Your honour, look at how she was dressed"
"Your honour, what was she doing down a dark alley anyway?"

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I notice that the five 'Irish' were deported to 'Stamboul' and 'arrangements' were being made to send them back to Ireland.

I would hope that no Irish taxpayers money is involved here as surely there are more deserving outlets for it.

Who funds these people?
Why does one want to fly to Lebanon.
What do they do to support themselves?

All legitimate and pertinent questions this poster would opine.


Source radio bulletins this a.m.

You might at least show a lttle respect and call the city by it's correct name Istanbul.

I'm guessing they were deported to Turkey as that is where the ship originated from. Why do you worry about how they support themselves as long as they don't pop round your door and ask for a donation? Opine away though.

alastair

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I notice that the five 'Irish' were deported to 'Stamboul' and 'arrangements' were being made to send them back to Ireland.

I would hope that no Irish taxpayers money is involved here as surely there are more deserving outlets for it.

Who funds these people?
Why does one want to fly to Lebanon.
What do they do to support themselves?

All legitimate and pertinent questions this poster would opine.


Source radio bulletins this a.m.

Scare quotes on Irish? You have any problem with Irish citizens having a different ethnicity to yourself?

No-one on the boats asked to be taken to Israel, nor to be deported to Turkey. If any of them need assistance in getting back from Turkey, they're perfectly entitled to ask for embassy assistance, just like any other Irish national can. If someone wants to go to Lebanon, that's their business, but obviously they won't be helped finacially to do so by the embassy.

Scofflaw

Rezident wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece



Very clever if this is true. It's like the ultimate 'death by cop'. If they planned to attack the Israelis knowing the Israelis would eventually shoot them - with real guns as opposed to the paintball guns for crowd control, each martyr would be even more effective against Israel than a suicide bomber. Very sneaky if true and The Times is usually a reliable source. The plot thickens.

No, the plot remains exactly where it was. It doesn't matter a damn whether people on board decided to attack the commandos as they came on, or before - Israel was illegally assaulting a civilian vessel in international waters.

However you slice, spin, or dice this one, it remains very clear that Israel was completely in the wrong - it used military force to counter a civilian challenge. The people on board had every right to try to repel boarders, and Israel had no right to assault the ships.

A million videos isn't going to change that, because the people on board had the right to do what you're accusing them of doing.

regards,
Scofflaw

alastair

Rezident wrote: »

Very clever if this is true. It's like the ultimate 'death by cop'. If they planned to attack the Israelis knowing the Israelis would eventually shoot them - with real guns as opposed to the paintball guns for crowd control, each martyr would be even more effective against Israel than a suicide bomber. Very sneaky if true and The Times is usually a reliable source. The plot thickens.

The plot thickens in your head you mean. They didn't attack the Israelis - the IDF attacked them - in a place where they had no legal right to do so.

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote: »

If you mug someone in the street and that person turns out to have a past criminal record, does it make you any less responsible for the fact that you mugged that person?

I'm loathe to use rape comparisons but time and again in this thread, the arguments defending Israel are akin to:

"Your honour, just look at her past history"
"Your honour, look at how she was dressed"
"Your honour, what was she doing down a dark alley anyway?"

"Your honour, she is a known associate of prostitutes".

cordially,
Scofflaw