Pro-Israel BBC bias on Flotilla Massacre documentary.

harryd2

CokaColumbo wrote: »

this incident demonstrated that there is a deep anti-Israel bias in the Western media..

Another example of the pro-muslim western media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Du97Sv61U

harryd2

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If you watch the documentary and review Israeli policy, you will note that the IDF does not seek to prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid, goods and supplies to Palestinian citizens.

Most NGO's there will disagree with you here.
After the 2008 invasion many humanitarian trucks were blocked by the Israelis.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

In the specific case of the flotilla incident, the IDF wished only to inspect the aid (which consisted of weapons also) and deliver it themselves to the Palestinians.

Given the record of the IDF it was safe to assume they would have removed anything that was on the banned list, including clothes, shoes, paper, fruit..

CokaColumbo wrote: »

You should also note that Israel has since relaxed the land-blockade.

Yes this is true. Noted. It's basically Israel admitting that the blockade was over the top in the first place.
A positive step nonetheless.
Another positive step is Israel has let most of the Humaitarian aid from the flotilla through.
This surprised me to be honest, as they have blocked much of it in the past.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

And "Apartheid" is such an inapplicable word to describe the situation in the middle east. It is grossly offensive to those who do in fact suffer the ills of apartheid.

Perhaps Nazist would be a better term.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Palestinians, and Muslims in general, who reside in Israel enjoy more rights and liberty than they do in their own countries.

What country is Palestinians own country?
European Jews don't belong there ethnically, if you look at the people of the surrounding countries.
It's an insult to Palestinians to say they, in general, enjoy more liberty than muslims in other countries.
Living under a blockade having had their land/infrastructure blown apart, can't rebuild it as no supplies allowed into the land. millions of gallons of raw sewage running into the sea every day as their sewrage plants are destroyed. Intermittent electricity, Jews not allowing water into the place.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I didn't say anything about 9/11. I said that various Muslim governments have a stated goal of killing all the Jews in the middle east.

I didn't say you did, I was asking.
Yes various muslims have said this, and it's easy for Palestinians to subscribe to it given the daily torture they face.
However they have conceded to a 2-state solution ie: Letting the Jews keep the land they colonised, and recognising the right for Israel to exist. But Israel won't accept.

CokaColumbo wrote: »

If you look at the most recent set of peace-talks between Israelis and Palestinians, it was none other than Hamas who massacred five Israeli civilians in a drive-by shooting on the eve of the talks, declaring the act, "heroic". Who was the victim there and who didn't want the talks to succeed?

Similary there were 5 Palestinians shot & killed by the IDF the same day as the flotilla raids. Of course this didn't make any media as it happens daily at any rate.

I don't celebrate or agree with the killing of anyone, but overall the Palestinians have suffered considerably more, and lost multiple times the number of people that Israel has.
Looking at the 2008 invasion, 1400 palestinians were killed (inc 300 Children) which 14 casualties on the other side, some from friendly fire. 100x here.

Brown Bomber

harryd2 wrote: »

Most NGO's...

HAHA. That shut them up; inconvenient truths have a way of doing that.

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

HAHA. That shut them up; inconvenient truths have a way of doing that.

whats an NGO????

Brown Bomber

Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck.

According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.Here he is in front of the camera working for the IHH.

Cevdet Kiliçlar, a 38 year old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, was on the Mavi Marmara, in his capacity as a photographer employed by IHH. At the moment he was shot he was standing on the bridge deck on the port side of the ship near to the door leading to the main stairwell and was attempting to photograph Israeli soldiers on the top deck.

According to the pathology reports, he received a single bullet to his forehead between the eyes. The bullet followed a horizontal trajectory which crossed the middle of the brain from front to back. He would have died instantly.

These are from his Flickr account. http://www.flickr.com/photos/48893402@N02/ Notice the humanity in his work. A terrorist? :rolleyes: A father of a young girl and boy more like.











Here he is on the Mavi Marmara shortly before he was murdered, the same camera in hand as he had when he was executed.



CAUTION GRAPHIC

This is the cameraman with his brains literally blown out assassination style. The entry wound literally between his eyes. Murderous bastards.
http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/september012010/israeli_self_defense_against.jpg

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

whats an NGO????

Non Government Organisation

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

I've read the report. It makes clear that there's no evidence to suggest that anyone was killed prior to the boarding of the ship. It also makes clear that they don't know where Furkan Dogan was shot from initially. What it definitely doesn't support is the contention that he was:

I hoped you paid more attention to the UN report than my posts.

What you've quoted was made in reference to Bilgen not Furkan Dogan. I'm going to make this a little easier for you.

Ibrahim Bilgen, a 60 year old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot. He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front. These wounds would not have caused instant death, but he would have bled to death within a short time without medical attention.

Forensic evidence shows that he was shot in the side of the head with a soft baton round at such close proximity and that an entire bean bag and its wadding penetrated the skull and lodged in the brain. He had a further bruise on the right flank consistent with another beanbag wound. The wounds are consistent with the deceased initially being shot from soldiers on board the helicopter above and receiving a further wound to the head while lying on the ground, already wounded.

Ok. Got that? One of the first passengers of 60+ to be shot. Was shot from above. You with me?

Now. Combine this with what else we've learned from the UN report.

However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

Then add it to the remarkably consistent testimonies of his fellow passengers who describe him and others being shot by live ammunition from the helipcopters prior to boarding.

Not that hard to figure out then is it?

Ibrahim Dilgen "One of the first passengers to be shot" "was on the top deck" of the Mavi Marmara. His official autopsy revealed his injuries to being consistent with being shot first from the helicopter above. The UN fact finding mission has "concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the deck prior to the descent of the soliders".

In any case it is a red herring, tragic though it is. It is irrelevant who was shot first by live rounds from the helicopter as what is important is that there were shots fired prior to the Isreali commandos boarding, therefore prior to the edited IDF released footage, therefore no case for IDF self-defense (if ever there even was), therefore a crime against humanity.

harryd2

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not that hard to figure out then is it?

It's pretty obvious to any sane person but yer up against the same propaganda crap as usual with the Israelis.
When they forged the Irish passports.
They kept quiet about it for days, until they concluded that they might get away with denying it. THEN they started to deny it.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In any case it is a red herring, tragic though it is. It is irrelevant who was shot first by live rounds from the helicopter as what is important is that there were shots fired prior to the Isreali commandos boarding, therefore prior to the edited IDF released footage, therefore no case for IDF self-defense (if ever there even was), therefore a crime against humanity.

Red herring my arse - there's no evidence that anyone was shot prior to the boarding - as reflected in the UN report. So when you state:

• Shot in the chest from the helicopter. i.e. before any IDF had boarded. Therefore not IDF self-defense.

It's a supposition not endorsed by the UN report.

The IDF certainly shouldn't have boarded as they did, but spare the 'crime against humanity' exaggerations and fabricated claims for the UN report.

Brown Bomber

harryd2 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious to any sane person but yer up against the same propaganda crap as usual with the Israelis.
When they forged the Irish passports.
They kept quiet about it for days, until they concluded that they might get away with denying it. THEN they started to deny it.

Yeah and they don't have 400 nukes either.

It has just been reported that the Dubai Chief of Police recieved death threats from Mossad.
http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article150601.ece

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Red herring my arse

Flattered. But thanks but no thanks - your not my type.

alastair wrote: »

there's no evidence that anyone was shot prior to the boarding - as reflected in the UN report. So when you state: It's a supposition not endorsed by the UN report.

1. Eye-witness testimony is evidence.
2. The UN report clearly states (for the umpteenth time)

However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

So who were they firing at then FFS if not the passengers? The Muslim passengers who had gathered on the top deck for dawn prayers.

I don't know what your game is but it's getting on my tits at this stage to be honest. You selectively quote from all my posts and don't address any of the real points. I can't work out if your in denial, afraid to admit you were wrong or simply taking the piss.

alastair wrote: »

The IDF certainly shouldn't have boarded as they did, but spare the 'crime against humanity' exaggerations and fabricated claims for the UN report.

here we go again. According to the ICC any of these offenses committed systematically is a crime against humanity.

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

I make that 6.

alastair

6 arbitary selections from a list that doesn't have anything to do with the boarding of the ship? Has anyone been charged with murder, let alone found guilty? Nope.

The UN report is quite clear about the sequence of deaths and what point they happened. It makes clear that the first four deaths occurred in the 15 minutes of the initial boarding - they make no mention of any deaths prior to the boarding - end of story.

• Shot in the chest from the helicopter. i.e. before any IDF had boarded. Therefore not IDF self-defense.

'Fraid not.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

6 arbitary selections from a list that doesn't have anything to do with the boarding of the ship? Has anyone been charged with murder, let alone found guilty? Nope.

The UN report is quite clear about the sequence of deaths and what point they happened. It makes clear that the first four deaths occurred in the 15 minutes of the initial boarding - they make no mention of any deaths prior to the boarding - end of story.



'Fraid not.

It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful engagement with you. You are clearly in denial.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's impossible to have any kind of meaningful engagement with you. You are clearly in denial.

I still don't know which parts of that documentary are biased.

King Mob

meglome wrote: »

I still don't know which parts of that documentary are biased.

The bits that show Israelis as human beings and not evil death machines for whatever bollocks BB buys into?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

The bits that show Israelis as human beings and not evil death machines for whatever bollocks BB buys into?

Hang on a fukking minute, never has BB painted Israeli citizens as anything but human, its the zionist scum he has a problem with, well it's not a problem, its Indignation.

You can cover your eyes and humm all you like, doesn't mean others have to.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Hang on a fukking minute, never has BB painted Israeli citizens as anything but human, its the zionist scum he has a problem with, well it's not a problem, its Indignation.

He makes a distinction?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

He makes a distinction?

PM him, now fukk off taking another thread off course.

Your forever trying to shoot the messanger.
Your shooting blanks into a barrel with no fish in it, try realize that.

He does make the distinction, you just don't/won't see it.

Mahatma coat

Just one thing, the UN Report that BB Keeps Quoting, that seems to me to be a genuine UN Report, and it CLEARLY States that shots were fired from he Helicopter PRIOR To Boarding, or Have I read that wrong???

Alastair, if thats not what it says Would you like to show us what it actually says??

oh BB you missed J on that list;)

old_aussie

Maybe the BBC believes that any nation has a right to, by any means, stop support being given to a terrorist run country.

The people elected the terrorists to run their country so the people are nothing but terrorists themselves.

The Israelis should have sunk the flotilla.

Mahatma coat

old_aussie wrote: »

Maybe the BBC believes that any nation has a right to, by any means, stop support being given to a terrorist run country.

And who decides which camp People get put in??? One mans Freedom Fighter Etc, Do We the Irish have a right to Exterminate any Israeli that comes to our Country because they MIGHT Steal someones Passport, therby compromising National Security?????

The people elected the terrorists to run their country so the people are nothing but terrorists themselves.

And if the Other side Elect a LandStealing Apartheid Rgieme they shouldnt be Surprised if a Large Portion of the World Consider them SCUMBAGS

The Israelis should have sunk the flotilla.

Lovely Fella aint ya, Realisticly t5he Flotilla Passengers would have been well within their Rights to Kill the soldiers and carry on, The 'Pirates' Had no Rights they acted illegally and deserve to Swing from a Yardarm somewhere

Brown Bomber

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just one thing, the UN Report that BB Keeps Quoting, that seems to me to be a genuine UN Report, and it CLEARLY States that shots were fired from he Helicopter PRIOR To Boarding, or Have I read that wrong???

Alastair, if thats not what it says Would you like to show us what it actually says??

oh BB you missed J on that list;)

I think when the report says "live" fire alastair gets mixed and thinks it says "live" (as in live forever) fire, fire that makes you live longer.

Yeah here is the report - http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/FlotillaReport.pdf

Point 114

http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/FlotillaReport.pdf

However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers.

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Just one thing, the UN Report that BB Keeps Quoting, that seems to me to be a genuine UN Report, and it CLEARLY States that shots were fired from he Helicopter PRIOR To Boarding, or Have I read that wrong???

Alastair, if thats not what it says Would you like to show us what it actually says??

oh BB you missed J on that list;)

It says shots were fired prior to the boarding alright - it also says that no-one was killed before the boarding started.
I'd have thought the distinction between shooting and actually killing someone was fairly self-evident?

During the operation to secure control of the top deck, the Israeli forces landed
soldiers from three helicopters over a fifteen-minute period.71 The Israeli forces used
paintballs, plastic bullets and live ammunition, fired by soldiers from the helicopter above
and soldiers who had landed on the top deck. The use of live ammunition during this period
resulted in fatal injuries to four passengers,

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

It says shots were fired prior to the boarding alright - it also says that no-one was killed before the boarding started.
I'd have thought the distinction between shooting and actually killing someone was fairly self-evident?

So why didn't you quote the part were it says no one was killed before boarding then

So you do accept that there was live rounds fired before boarding then? So what in your opinion does that mean for the IDF story of self-defense?

Phill Ewinn

alastair wrote: »

Has anyone been charged with murder, let alone found guilty?

Stand out the most ridiculous argument I've had the displeasure of reading on this thread. Do you honestly expect the soldiers to man up and face prosecution? The jist of the UN report so far points to a grave wrong doing by the Israeli pirates on that day. I think you should accept that and move on.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So why didn't you quote the part were it says no one was killed before boarding then

Sorry for your ongoing confusion - if mortalities didn't occur until the boarding - as reported by the UN, then the converse is equally true - no-one was killed prior to the boarding.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you do accept that there was live rounds fired before boarding then? So what in your opinion does that mean for the IDF story of self-defense?

Sure I do. It means nothing if they didn't shoot anyone until they were attacked themsleves - as indicated by the UN report.

old_aussie

Mahatma coat wrote: »

The 'Pirates' Had no Rights they acted illegally and deserve to Swing from a Yardarm somewhere

Those pirates are just as bad as people who denigrate another countries National Flag :rolleyes:

alastair

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Stand out the most ridiculous argument I've had the displeasure of reading on this thread. Do you honestly expect the soldiers to man up and face prosecution? The jist of the UN report so far points to a grave wrong doing by the Israeli pirates on that day. I think you should accept that and move on.

'Man up' eh?

We know that there were homicides. It's for a court to determine if there were murders, and until then it's a moot point whether that fact causes you displeasure or not.

Mahatma coat

alastair wrote: »

It says shots were fired prior to the boarding alright

OK so they Shot People from the Helicopter BEFORE they Landed

dosent that Destroy the Myth that the initial intention was NON Lethal

- it also says that no-one was killed before the boarding started[/quote
But People HAD been shot and were DYING on the Deck prior to them landing to 'Confirm the Kill'

I'd have thought the distinction between shooting and actually killing someone was fairly self-evident?

:rolleyes: right, imagine this, I follow you home, as you reach your front gate I shoot you in the Stomach with a HK MP5, 6-8 9MM Rounds rip yer internal organs to bits and your stomach acid start burning the rest, You crawl into your house, collapse in the doorway and an Ambulance is called, now I didnt Kill you, when I left at high speed in my 535 you were Still alive, By your logic I havent Killed you.

Somehow I doubt the coroner will record a verdict of Death by Natural causes tho :rolleyes:

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK so they Shot People from the Helicopter BEFORE they Landed

Who said that?

Not the UN for sure.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Sorry for your ongoing confusion - if mortalities didn't occur until the boarding - as reported by the UN, then the converse is equally true - no-one was killed prior to the boarding.



Sure I do. It means nothing if they didn't shoot anyone until they were attacked themsleves - as indicated by the UN report.

Are you reading it upside down? It doesn't seem like you have read it all, just pretending to.

2nd time of asking - Show where is says nobody was killed, or fatally wounded prior to boarding.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you reading it upside down? It doesn't seem like you have read it all, just pretending to.

2nd time of asking - Show where is says nobody was killed, or fatally wounded prior to boarding.

I'd suggest you try to ramp up those reading comprehension skills:

During the operation to secure control of the top deck, the Israeli forces landed soldiers from three helicopters over a fifteen-minute period.71 The Israeli forces used paintballs, plastic bullets and live ammunition, fired by soldiers from the helicopter above and soldiers who had landed on the top deck. The use of live ammunition during this period resulted in fatal injuries to four passengers,

Mahatma coat

old_aussie wrote: »

Those pirates are just as bad as people who denigrate another countries National Flag :rolleyes:

this is MY Country Too, and thats My Flag, but anyway we digress

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

I'd suggest you try to ramp up those reading comprehension skills:

That doesn't say what you claim. Your clutching at straws, big time.

It means nothing if they didn't shoot anyone until they were attacked themsleves

So firing a gun at civilians is not an attack in alistair world?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't say what you claim. Your clutching at straws, big time.

It says exactly what it appears to say. No fatal injuries / mortalities until boarding began.

harryd2

alastair wrote:

Has anyone been charged with murder, let alone found guilty?

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Stand out the most ridiculous argument I've had the displeasure of reading on this thread. Do you honestly expect the soldiers to man up and face prosecution? The jist of the UN report so far points to a grave wrong doing by the Israeli pirates on that day. I think you should accept that and move on.

Indeed reminds me of the arguments after the fallout from Bloody Sunday & Widgery
Clutching at straws..

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So firing a gun at civilians is not an attack in alistair world?

and attacking a solider with bars is also an attack.....

Phill Ewinn

robtri wrote: »

and attacking a solider with bars is also an attack.....

Defending yourself against pirates (using non lethal means I add) isn't criminal either.

robtri

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Defending yourself against pirates (using non lethal means I add) isn't criminal either.

purposely provoking another and being armed isnt criminal, stupid but not criminal i will agree ... and tthe opposing side arent pirates....

Phill Ewinn

robtri wrote: »

purposely provoking another and being armed isnt criminal, stupid but not criminal i will agree ... and tthe opposing side arent pirates....

That's a point worth debating.

noun
a person who attacks and robs ships at sea

How is it that you've come to the conclusion that this description doesn't fit?

robtri

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

That's a point worth debating.



How is it that you've come to the conclusion that this description doesn't fit?

you actually only copied half the sentence of that definition of a pirate...
the rest should reads...

without commission from a sovereign nation

the whole definition is therefore

One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation

since they had the commision of a soverign nation, therefore they arent pirates..

Phill Ewinn

Aha, linky?

Here's the definition again and it's source.

a person who attacks and robs ships at sea

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0635100#m_en_gb0635100

Phill Ewinn

Pretty sure what you mean to say was privateer.

EmailCite
Text size: A
A
privateer
Line-break:OnOff
Pronunciation:/ˌprʌɪvəˈtɪə/
noun
1 historical an armed ship owned and crewed by private individuals holding a government commission and authorized for use in war, especially in the capture of merchant shipping
a commander or crew member of a privateer, often regarded as a pirate

I hold fast.

robtri

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Aha, linky?

Here's the definition again and it's source.



http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0635100#m_en_gb0635100

here's my linky
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pirate

meglome

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Pretty sure what you mean to say was privateer.

I hold fast.

From you own link

pirate (pir¦ate)
Pronunciation:/ˈpʌɪrət/
noun
a person who attacks and robs ships at sea


Were the ships robbed?

harryd2

meglome wrote: »

Were the ships robbed?

Yes they took thousands of EUR of equipment and never returned it.
One guy had his phone taken and when he got back home, he had a massive bill for international calls made from Israel.

Phill Ewinn

robtri wrote: »

here's my linky
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pirate

An American dictionary? Any chance of an English definition. No wait, I've already posted it!

Phill Ewinn

meglome wrote: »

From you own link

pirate (pir¦ate)
Pronunciation:/ˈpʌɪrət/
noun
a person who attacks and robs ships at sea


Were the ships robbed?

Yes, robbed of it's crew, the people aboard and some of their goods.

uprising2

meglome wrote: »

From you own link

pirate (pir¦ate)
Pronunciation:/ˈpʌɪrət/
noun
a person who attacks and robs ships at sea


Were the ships robbed?

Yea the ships were attacked, crew kidnapped, taken off their ship, ship seized. The ship was later returned, but doesn't change the fact, so yea it was piracy.


pi·ra·cy

noun \ˈpī-rə-sē\
plural pi·ra·cies
Definition of PIRACY

1
: an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery

2
: robbery on the high seas

3
a : the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright b : the illicit accessing of broadcast signals

Examples of PIRACY

1. piracy on the high seas
2. <many countries have harsh penalties for piracy now>

Origin of PIRACY

Medieval Latin piratia, from Late Greek peirateia, from Greek peiratēs pirate First Known Use: 1537


Related to PIRACY

Synonyms: pirating

harryd2

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea the ships were attacked, crew kidnapped, taken off their ship, ship seized. The ship was later returned,

AFAIK not all of the ships have been returned.
They have huge port fees to pay from Ashdod port, before they will be released.
After kidnapping the crew, and bringing them to Ashdod against their will, where they were dragged off the ship, they were then charged with illegally entering Israel !
The hipocrisy.