I don't support either side. I didn't say the activists didn't attack the commandos. I'm just saying you can't know exactly what happened when there are only one-sided accounts. The video starts in the middle of fighting and you can't see shit except guys with sticks fighting guys coming down on ropes. You don't know who did what first or why. And the news isn't supposed to be a "side"; it's supposed to report what happens, even though it doesn't really do a reliable job of that because it can only provide accounts of what happened.
So even though the video evidence directly contradicts one side time and time again (we were unarmed, the Israelis started shooting the instant they landed, we didn't plan to fight, all totally false), we still can't be sure because blah blah blah.
Okay.
Which is why I said both sides provided dubious accounts. They're not gonna just come out and say "yeah we hate Jews and did our best to beat the ones boarding our boat but were ultimately defeated by superior weaponry" or "yeah we boarded the boat with the intention of using excessive force and killing people unnecessarily when we have guns and they have sticks because we think our people are better than their people and thus are entitled to their land."
The physical evidence in those links doesn't really establish what you're saying.
Yes it does.
The video itself mentions that the activists are using chairs and poles, not guns.
They most certainly did use guns, including two pistols taken from IDF commandos they'd managed to overpower.
It also looks like the first soldier down from the heli (if that video starts off that way and not partway through the boarding) kicks one of the people onboard the ship almost immediately-
So?
Heck, the article implies the first two soldiers were attacked by metal poles while getting off the helicopter, which just isn't true at all in the video.
According to the "peace activists" on the ship, they were fired on by IDF soldiers as they began boarding, but if you watch the video above, you can see IDF soldiers being attacked violently with metal poles as they repelled down from a hovering helicopter.
And the article implies that those are the first two soldiers where...?
Which is why I said both sides provided dubious accounts. They're not gonna just come out and say "yeah we hate Jews and did our best to beat the ones boarding our boat but were ultimately defeated by superior weaponry" or "yeah we boarded the boat with the intention of using excessive force and killing people unnecessarily when we have guns and they have sticks because we think our people are better than their people and thus are entitled to their land."
Yeah... your reasoning is awful. So because neither side will admit to the worst possible interpretation of their motivations and actions, that means that automatically both sides' accounts are dubious?
This is a good way to draw a conclusion, as opposed to looking at the actual evidence and seeing whether it confirms or contradicts the detailed accounts of either side?
Yeah look at that intent to use excessive force... with paintball guns.
It also looks like the first soldier down from the heli (if that video starts off that way and not partway through the boarding) kicks one of the people onboard the ship almost immediately-
Heck, the article implies the first two soldiers were attacked by metal poles while getting off the helicopter, which just isn't true at all in the video.
According to the "peace activists" on the ship, they were fired on by IDF soldiers as they began boarding, but if you watch the video above, you can see IDF soldiers being attacked violently with metal poles as they repelled down from a hovering helicopter.
And the article implies that those are the first two soldiers where...?
Because it's placed immediately after "began boarding" and there's a but.
And it's important to establish who started acting violent first. If what happened was the IDF kicked one of the activists, then the activists retaliated with chairs and poles which prompted the IDF to start using riot gear and then live ammunition it's a very different story from the activists attacking immediately.
The guns are not used until AFTER the violence. If they were taken from the IDF troops, then they can't have been prepared with guns.
How do those tapes establish that the activists initiated the violence if it starts with an IDF soldier kicking someone on the boat then the situation escalating as both sides numbers and resources grew?
Edit: As for paintball guns, your own source says they were armed with live fire.
"As a result of this life-threatening and violent activity, naval forces first employed riot dispersal means, followed by live fire."
Edit2: To clarify, to me this tape looks like a group of extremely worried people fighting with people they see as their enemy with no clear evidence of how the enemy identified themselves, then responding with violence. This happened on both sides.
Because it's placed immediately after "began boarding."
That still doesn't imply what you're saying it does, and a Technorati writer with presumably no connections to either side is now an official Israeli government source I guess.
And it's important to establish who started acting violent first. If what happened was the IDF kicked one of the activists, then the activists retaliated with chairs and poles which prompted the IDF to start using riot gear and then live ammunition it's a very different story from the activists attacking immediately.
So... already having weapons at the ready, not lying around but in hand, planning for violence hours beforehand, swarming around the landing sites, that means little to nothing, but an IDF commando kicking at a guy who is going for him while he's trying to land means that the IDF started it.
What you're saying is ludicrous.
The guns are not used until AFTER the violence. If they were taken from the IDF troops, then they can't have been prepared with guns.
The IDF said it took 5 guns off them, 2 of them guns taken from commandos. That leaves 3 guns that they already had.
How do those tapes establish that the activists initiated the violence if it starts with an IDF soldier kicking someone on the boat then the situation escalating as both sides numbers and resources grew?
Gee, I don't know, maybe having weapons already in hand and placing yourself at the spot where the commandos are trying to land, maybe having planning sessions on how to attack the commandos as they land, are not peaceful acts? Maybe kicking at a guy as you're trying to land is self-defense when there's dozens of people around holding weapons in their hands?
Why was there zero violence and zero casualties on the other 5 ships?
The activists initiated the violence. On no other ship did the IDF use any violence at all. Because they were not attacked on any of the other ships.
Edit: As for paintball guns, your own source says they were armed with live fire.
I said from the start that the commandos were armed with pistols. Also they had paintball guns. And stun grenades. Try reading that again, after riot dispersal tactics (paintball guns, stun grenades, etc.) failed, they used their pistols.
Oh look, there they are, arming themselves, giving out instructions, and assembling on the upper deck. The actions of people who only resorted to violence after the IDF used it first. Suuuuuuuure.
On November 18 2012 05:56 DeepElemBlues wrote: That still doesn't imply what you're saying it does, and a Technorati writer with presumably no connections to either side is now
So... already having weapons at the ready, not lying around but in hand, planning for violence hours beforehand, swarming around the landing sites, that means little to nothing, but an IDF commando kicking at a guy who is going for him while he's trying to land means that the IDF started it.
What you're saying is ludicrous.
The IDF said it took 5 guns off them, 2 of them guns taken from commandos. That leaves 3 guns that they already had.
Gee, I don't know, maybe having weapons already in hand and placing yourself at the spot where the commandos are trying to land, maybe having planning sessions on how to attack the commandos as they land, are not peaceful acts? Maybe kicking at a guy as you're trying to land is self-defense when there's dozens of people around holding weapons in their hands?
Why was there zero violence and zero casualties on the other 5 ships?
The activists initiated the violence. On no other ship did the IDF use any violence at all. Because they were not attacked on any of the other ships.
Uh, the video shows that the pipes and chairs were brought up from below decks (well, except for the chairs that were possibly already on the deck because they're chairs). The people were NOT initially positioned where the commandos landed with knives, chairs, or pipes. I suggest you watch again. One chair from belowdecks is visible before the cut in the film. Even the latest video you posted from the security tapes cuts after the first person lands to when the violence gets under way.
There were probably zero casualties and violence on the other five ships because the individuals on that ship had different temperaments or experiences with the IDF in the past.
Edit: I mean, this situation is obviously a huge powderkeg. Did the other ships similarly prepare? Have we seen tapes from them? It's entirely possible one spark-whether it was a loudspeaker announcement, something throwing something, or yes, one of the activists firing upon the soldiers-blew up that powderkeg.
Edit2: I mean, the Israeli government itself conceded that the majority of people onboard the ship were not violent.
"The Israeli government official conceded that most of those on the Mavi Marmara were "not necessarily violent. There were also people from the Free Gaza movement who had nothing to do with Islamists."
Col Kemp said: "Most of the people on the ship were there either because they wanted to deliver aid or to take part in a publicity stunt – they weren't intent on violence. I suspect some of them were duped, and had no idea what they were getting in to."
Edit3: I mean hell, you want to look for what set them off? Probably the warning shots and dropped stun grenades.
Well if someone/country/terrorist group attacks your country...i would say peace talks are out the door, you simply attack back. Trying to talk peace while your getting bomb usually doesn't work out to well...over the years im sure each country hasn't made the best decisions and purposely did things to piss the other country off , but if you look past that to what is happening now. I think in Israel position if you were being attacked you simply have to attack back (repeat from the first sentence i know :D)
I guess it would be like you screwed this girl and found out she had b/f...b/f knows you and wants to fight you, he hits you you in your face, can pretty much assume peace talk is over...i mean you can try talking to him while he's hitting you in the face and see how it goes, my guess would be not so well...ohhh, you could also try not fighting back and see if it makes him stop hitting you, i don't suggest this because I got this odd feeling it won't go so well either.
On November 18 2012 06:04 -StrifeX- wrote: Well if someone/country/terrorist group attacks your country...i would say peace talks are out the door, you simply attack back. Trying to talk peace while your getting bomb usually doesn't work out to well...over the years im sure each country hasn't made the best decisions and purposely did things to piss the other country off , but if you look past that to what is happening now. I think in Israel position if you were being attacked you simply have to attack back (repeat from the first sentence i know :D)
I guess it would be like you screwed this girl and found out she had b/f...b/f knows you and wants to fight you, he hits you you in your face, can pretty much assume peace talk is over...i mean you can try talking to him while he's hitting you in the face and see how it goes, my guess would be not so well...ohhh, you could also try not fighting back and see if it makes him stop hitting you, i don't suggest this because I got this odd feeling it won't go so well either.
Guess, the best option is trying to see beforehand if that girl you want to screw has a boyfriend.. Right?
On November 18 2012 06:04 -StrifeX- wrote: Well if someone/country/terrorist group attacks your country...i would say peace talks are out the door, you simply attack back. Trying to talk peace while your getting bomb usually doesn't work out to well...over the years im sure each country hasn't made the best decisions and purposely did things to piss the other country off , but if you look past that to what is happening now. I think in Israel position if you were being attacked you simply have to attack back (repeat from the first sentence i know :D)
I guess it would be like you screwed this girl and found out she had b/f...b/f knows you and wants to fight you, he hits you you in your face, can pretty much assume peace talk is over...i mean you can try talking to him while he's hitting you in the face and see how it goes, my guess would be not so well...ohhh, you could also try not fighting back and see if it makes him stop hitting you, i don't suggest this because I got this odd feeling it won't go so well either.
Guess, the best option is trying to see beforehand if that girl you want to screw has a boyfriend.. Right?
On November 18 2012 06:04 -StrifeX- wrote: Well if someone/country/terrorist group attacks your country...i would say peace talks are out the door, you simply attack back. Trying to talk peace while your getting bomb usually doesn't work out to well...over the years im sure each country hasn't made the best decisions and purposely did things to piss the other country off , but if you look past that to what is happening now. I think in Israel position if you were being attacked you simply have to attack back (repeat from the first sentence i know :D)
I guess it would be like you screwed this girl and found out she had b/f...b/f knows you and wants to fight you, he hits you you in your face, can pretty much assume peace talk is over...i mean you can try talking to him while he's hitting you in the face and see how it goes, my guess would be not so well...ohhh, you could also try not fighting back and see if it makes him stop hitting you, i don't suggest this because I got this odd feeling it won't go so well either.
It takes the bigger man to not strike back and take the beating. How did blacks in America get their equalities? Some did use force (Black Panthers) but the most well known is obviously Martin Luther King for his advocacy of non-violence Its not easy in no shape or form. But there is just so much hatred in this region its difficult to find a side that would be willing to accept the loss of life.
Man this whole Isreal/palastine affair is going crazy.
Are Hamas actually trying to bait Isreal into a war again with the arab nations or? Last i heard on the news they started bombing Jerusalem which hasnt happened before.
Well you can try not striking back, but when you have no more people left it will be to late to decide to attack then.
Plus i don't think civil rights have anything to do with being bomb / attack from another country...not saying it doesn't matter...but it's a whole different situation.
On November 18 2012 06:04 -StrifeX- wrote: Well if someone/country/terrorist group attacks your country...i would say peace talks are out the door, you simply attack back. Trying to talk peace while your getting bomb usually doesn't work out to well...over the years im sure each country hasn't made the best decisions and purposely did things to piss the other country off , but if you look past that to what is happening now. I think in Israel position if you were being attacked you simply have to attack back (repeat from the first sentence i know :D)
I guess it would be like you screwed this girl and found out she had b/f...b/f knows you and wants to fight you, he hits you you in your face, can pretty much assume peace talk is over...i mean you can try talking to him while he's hitting you in the face and see how it goes, my guess would be not so well...ohhh, you could also try not fighting back and see if it makes him stop hitting you, i don't suggest this because I got this odd feeling it won't go so well either.
Guess, the best option is trying to see beforehand if that girl you want to screw has a boyfriend.. Right?
psssshhhh who the hell does that now days???
Maybe the country that doesn't want to get bombed by terrorists, i don't know.
It's actually quite a nice analogy, the girl being the land. While i agree that jewish people needed a "home", i can't fathom what the victors of WW2 were thinking to split that country and give the inhabitants of that land even a worse deal (less land for alot more people). To me it's kinda obvious that that "guy" will punch your teeth all day long. And it won't stop.
So if you want to see it this way, the first mistake wasn't even made by Israel, but the UK/US etc.
Edit: of couse, i know what muslims think of jews nowadays, but if i recall correctly, it was not always that way (maybe i'm wrong there, not too sure). 1948 and everything after that did not help.
Well honestly, i don't think there is much of anything could prevent what happens...It's like Israel religion is surrounded by religions that hate them and think they deserve the right to their land.
All the religions in the middle east are pretty agressive as far as attacking each other just because they don't believe this or etc...Peace in the middle east, going to take someone with alot of power and amazing speech to create a peace. Which christians believe will be probably the "anti-christ".. Even if throw that out and look outside of a religion aspect, def going to take someone/group that all sides will listen to and will put all trust into for that kind of peace to happen...
Just my opinion of course :D
They started really fighting / war when Israel was basically formed...not sure what year that is, that is really when started getting heated.
Regarding the Mavi Marmara incident - I have no sources to quote, but having served in the Israeli Commando unit that boarded the flotilla I happen to know quite a bit about what happened there - and I can say 100% that Israel never intended for any violence aboard any of the ships. Israel had no reason to want casualities, the Mavi Marmara was a HGUE international shitstorm for Israel.
Aside from the Marmara there were several other ships and several flotilas beforehand that had ZERO violence. Nothing. Except for the one ship with the IHH activists on it.
On November 18 2012 06:26 hooahah wrote: Regarding the Mavi Marmara incident - I have no sources to quote, but having served in the Israeli Commando unit that boarded the flotilla I happen to know quite a bit about what happened there - and I can say 100% that Israel never intended for any violence aboard any of the ships. Israel had no reason to want casualities, the Mavi Marmara was a HGUE international shitstorm for Israel.
Aside from the Marmara there were several other ships and several flotilas beforehand that had ZERO violence. Nothing. Except for the one ship with the IHH activists on it.
Think about that a bit.
In all honesty I suspect a handful (probably a decent chunk) of the people on the Marmara were mercenaries planted there. Whether that was to attack Israeli soldiers if they encountered aggression or whether it was to attack them period is a hell of a thing to prove unfortunately. The other boats had their own precautions-some threw stun grenades, one was ringed with barbed wire, one had altered their boat to make it harder to board and endangered lives, the others had coordinated passive resistance. The situational warning shots and the initial landing allowed the handful of mercenaries to pull the rest of the passengers into the aggression, which kicked off the conflict.
I just think the allegations that the video evidence shows that everyone killed or fighting on the boat was a terrorist trying to set up the IDF to look bad is wrong, given the unclear nature of the only evidence we have.
I will agree that if anyone on the Israeli side screwed up in this situation it wasn't so much the IDF as the people above them.
On November 18 2012 02:42 NesquiKGG wrote: [quote]
google huh? I lost 2 Uncles 4 cousins 1 aunt and my Grandfather .. you know how? Americans randomly shooted at a supermarket just for fun ... you know what the News published? It was a suicide mission of one of the terrorists ... now let me ask you one thing.. you remember the last attack from Israel against Gaza when they killed like hundres of innocent people at the Beach? when the Turkish President asked that moron how people try to defend him while he did this thing everybody tried to shut him up ... why? why do people who try to tell the truth always get cut off? Answer me some Questions and i gonna stop hatin on Israel.
How do you feel as a neutral Person about what happened the last time when Israel attacked Gaza? (the Beach story and so on) + Show Spoiler +
How do you react when people kill a member of your Family or the whole Family? ( im sure you cant answer this cause you didnt go trough something like that and i wish you and the others here never gonna live through a hell like this )
You chose Hamas over peace, you face the consequences.
yeah but.. peace is quite shitty, with limited living space, razed down infrastructure, no mean on production, and ambargos both from sea and land. Sorry, I honestly can not ask palestinians to sit down and accept everything getting worse.
It is not a choice of peace or killing all the jews! for most people its a choice of survival.
And firing rockets at civilians or organizing terror attack helps them..... how? Also remember they have a border with Egypt, and the gaza strip was always that size.
when did war helped anybody? I never said targeting civilians were helping palantenians. same goes for israel. if no other options are available to them, you gotta stop and think again before accusing people of mindless bloodlust.
Why is no other option available? why cant they merge with the PLO and actually hold negotiations? As long as they are violent (and that's 100% in Hamas's interest) nothing will be accomplished.
because israel already holds a very much disputed legal blockade on whole state, and not that flexiable on negotiation table. a negotiation with unconditional support from USA to israel and no leverage on palestenian side will not solve anything. Why would those people sit together with their oppresser without and promise on compremise.
The goal of the Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Why would Israel want to compromise period? There is no trust, you give them a piece of land they move their rockets closer to you. The time for negotiating is long past.
You can't kill them all. Or you can, but there will be splash damage from nuclear fallout. Unless you kill every single Palestinian there will still be resistance to the occupation. Also there are still tons of other Arab nations that can attack Israel.
This is irrelevant, they tried appeasement, it failed because the Palestinians don't want a peace that both sides can live with. Their goal is not to acquire a fair share of land and resources to live now, their goal is to destroy Israel so they can live with magic man after they die. All Israel can do is play hardball until the resistance is crushed to the point of irrelevance or die trying. It doesn't matter how bad the current strategy is when there are no alternatives.
The Palestinians have a dreadful situation going on. Living on the Gaza Strip is right dangerous, violent, and absolutely horrible, its a situation that we cannot even imagine. You have to understand, negotiating with someone who continually takes land from you is not an easy situation and the hatred that is shown towards Israel is a result of Israel's own doing.
On November 18 2012 02:46 Feartheguru wrote: [quote]
You chose Hamas over peace, you face the consequences.
yeah but.. peace is quite shitty, with limited living space, razed down infrastructure, no mean on production, and ambargos both from sea and land. Sorry, I honestly can not ask palestinians to sit down and accept everything getting worse.
It is not a choice of peace or killing all the jews! for most people its a choice of survival.
And firing rockets at civilians or organizing terror attack helps them..... how? Also remember they have a border with Egypt, and the gaza strip was always that size.
when did war helped anybody? I never said targeting civilians were helping palantenians. same goes for israel. if no other options are available to them, you gotta stop and think again before accusing people of mindless bloodlust.
Why is no other option available? why cant they merge with the PLO and actually hold negotiations? As long as they are violent (and that's 100% in Hamas's interest) nothing will be accomplished.
because israel already holds a very much disputed legal blockade on whole state, and not that flexiable on negotiation table. a negotiation with unconditional support from USA to israel and no leverage on palestenian side will not solve anything. Why would those people sit together with their oppresser without and promise on compremise.
The goal of the Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Why would Israel want to compromise period? There is no trust, you give them a piece of land they move their rockets closer to you. The time for negotiating is long past.
You can't kill them all. Or you can, but there will be splash damage from nuclear fallout. Unless you kill every single Palestinian there will still be resistance to the occupation. Also there are still tons of other Arab nations that can attack Israel.
This is irrelevant, they tried appeasement, it failed because the Palestinians don't want a peace that both sides can live with. Their goal is not to acquire a fair share of land and resources to live now, their goal is to destroy Israel so they can live with magic man after they die. All Israel can do is play hardball until the resistance is crushed to the point of irrelevance or die trying. It doesn't matter how bad the current strategy is when there are no alternatives.
The Palestinians have a dreadful situation going on. Living on the Gaza Strip is right dangerous, violent, and absolutely horrible, its a situation that we cannot even imagine. You have to understand, negotiating with someone who continually takes land from you is not an easy situation and the hatred that is shown towards Israel is a result of Israel's own doing.
How about negotiating with someone who is willing to give a massive portion of their country to you, even though you send women and children bombs to blow them up?
yeah but.. peace is quite shitty, with limited living space, razed down infrastructure, no mean on production, and ambargos both from sea and land. Sorry, I honestly can not ask palestinians to sit down and accept everything getting worse.
It is not a choice of peace or killing all the jews! for most people its a choice of survival.
And firing rockets at civilians or organizing terror attack helps them..... how? Also remember they have a border with Egypt, and the gaza strip was always that size.
when did war helped anybody? I never said targeting civilians were helping palantenians. same goes for israel. if no other options are available to them, you gotta stop and think again before accusing people of mindless bloodlust.
Why is no other option available? why cant they merge with the PLO and actually hold negotiations? As long as they are violent (and that's 100% in Hamas's interest) nothing will be accomplished.
because israel already holds a very much disputed legal blockade on whole state, and not that flexiable on negotiation table. a negotiation with unconditional support from USA to israel and no leverage on palestenian side will not solve anything. Why would those people sit together with their oppresser without and promise on compremise.
The goal of the Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Why would Israel want to compromise period? There is no trust, you give them a piece of land they move their rockets closer to you. The time for negotiating is long past.
You can't kill them all. Or you can, but there will be splash damage from nuclear fallout. Unless you kill every single Palestinian there will still be resistance to the occupation. Also there are still tons of other Arab nations that can attack Israel.
This is irrelevant, they tried appeasement, it failed because the Palestinians don't want a peace that both sides can live with. Their goal is not to acquire a fair share of land and resources to live now, their goal is to destroy Israel so they can live with magic man after they die. All Israel can do is play hardball until the resistance is crushed to the point of irrelevance or die trying. It doesn't matter how bad the current strategy is when there are no alternatives.
The Palestinians have a dreadful situation going on. Living on the Gaza Strip is right dangerous, violent, and absolutely horrible, its a situation that we cannot even imagine. You have to understand, negotiating with someone who continually takes land from you is not an easy situation and the hatred that is shown towards Israel is a result of Israel's own doing.
How about negotiating with someone who is willing to give a massive portion of their country to you, even though you send women and children bombs to blow them up?
Oh trust me, its not easy from both sides. I support Israel trying to make peace (I'm a believer in a two-state solution even though it may never come into existence). And the country they are giving back to you are part of illegal settlements that Israel continually does on Palestinian lands.
On November 18 2012 04:13 Goozen wrote: [quote] And firing rockets at civilians or organizing terror attack helps them..... how? Also remember they have a border with Egypt, and the gaza strip was always that size.
when did war helped anybody? I never said targeting civilians were helping palantenians. same goes for israel. if no other options are available to them, you gotta stop and think again before accusing people of mindless bloodlust.
Why is no other option available? why cant they merge with the PLO and actually hold negotiations? As long as they are violent (and that's 100% in Hamas's interest) nothing will be accomplished.
because israel already holds a very much disputed legal blockade on whole state, and not that flexiable on negotiation table. a negotiation with unconditional support from USA to israel and no leverage on palestenian side will not solve anything. Why would those people sit together with their oppresser without and promise on compremise.
The goal of the Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. Why would Israel want to compromise period? There is no trust, you give them a piece of land they move their rockets closer to you. The time for negotiating is long past.
You can't kill them all. Or you can, but there will be splash damage from nuclear fallout. Unless you kill every single Palestinian there will still be resistance to the occupation. Also there are still tons of other Arab nations that can attack Israel.
This is irrelevant, they tried appeasement, it failed because the Palestinians don't want a peace that both sides can live with. Their goal is not to acquire a fair share of land and resources to live now, their goal is to destroy Israel so they can live with magic man after they die. All Israel can do is play hardball until the resistance is crushed to the point of irrelevance or die trying. It doesn't matter how bad the current strategy is when there are no alternatives.
The Palestinians have a dreadful situation going on. Living on the Gaza Strip is right dangerous, violent, and absolutely horrible, its a situation that we cannot even imagine. You have to understand, negotiating with someone who continually takes land from you is not an easy situation and the hatred that is shown towards Israel is a result of Israel's own doing.
How about negotiating with someone who is willing to give a massive portion of their country to you, even though you send women and children bombs to blow them up?
Oh trust me, its not easy from both sides. I support Israel trying to make peace (I'm a believer in a two-state solution even though it may never come into existence). And the country they are giving back to you are part of illegal settlements that Israel continually does on Palestinian lands.
Any issues of legality went out the window when children and women were used as living weapons to kill innocent civilians.
EPT
I lost 2 Uncles 4 cousins 1 aunt and my Grandfather .. you know how? Americans randomly shooted at a supermarket just for fun ... you know what the News published? It was a suicide mission of one of the terrorists ... now let me ask you one thing.. you remember the last attack from Israel against Gaza when they killed like hundres of innocent people at the Beach? when the Turkish President asked that moron how people try to defend him while he did this thing everybody tried to shut him up ... why? why do people who try to tell the truth always get cut off? Answer me some Questions and i gonna stop hatin on Israel. 
