|
On June 03 2010 18:49 Klaz wrote:
"Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.
During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead
That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children."
Any reasonable person would call bullshit on this. Every single person on those boats knew that they were going to be running an Israeli blockade. Israel made it plain as day for days ahead of time that they were going to board the ships. Also, what's this business about attacking with bombs? I think this reporter came down with a very bad case of planned hyperbole. Hell, why was a reporter on there in the first place?
Put the legality of what Israel did aside for one moment. Here's the bottom line on this incident: the whole purpose of the flotilla was to bait the Israelis into doing something stupid, which they did. Why else would the same groups that funded the first flotilla send more boats into the Israeli blockade now? Why else would these groups challenge the Israeli naval blockade instead of go through the regular channels that Israel and Egypt have set up to funnel aid into Gaza?
With this one maneuver, the enemies of Israel have probably done more damage to Israel than any number of a carbombs or suicide bombers could do. It's quite brilliant, really.
|
On June 03 2010 23:22 xDaunt wrote:
Any reasonable person would call bullshit on this. Every single person on those boats knew that they were going to be running an Israeli blockade. Israel made it plain as day for days ahead of time that they were going to board the ships.
Nonsense. Israel said they would turn the ships back, they never said that they would assault the ship at 3 am, with commandos and shoot people dead.
The FACT is that previous aid flotillas HAVE succeeded(and yes Israel threatened to turn them back also), but this time the idiots in charge decided to order a military action in what should have been a civilian policing issue.
Also, what's this business about attacking with bombs? I think this reporter came down with a very bad case of planned hyperbole. Hell, why was a reporter on there in the first place?
I believe he is referring to flash bangs and sound grenades. The reason there were reporters on there is because the IDF have a long-standing history of brutality against peaceful protesters, and civilians. The journalists were on board to report any illegal activities by the Israelis and this is precisely what they are doing.
Put the legality of what Israel did aside for one moment. Here's the bottom line on this incident: the whole purpose of the flotilla was to bait the Israelis into doing something stupid, which they did.
Wrong. The purpose was to deliver aid to the people of gaza and to show the people of Gaza that the world has not forgotten about their plight. Like previous such missions the priority was to help people in desperate need. You can't blame the aid workers if the Israelis acted with arrogance and stupidity.
Why else would the same groups that funded the first flotilla send more boats into the Israeli blockade now? Why else would these groups challenge the Israeli naval blockade instead of go through the regular channels that Israel and Egypt have set up to funnel aid into Gaza?
This has been repeatedly answered. The regular channels are a myth, less then a quarter of what's needed gets through and the Israelis arbitrarily block items that the people of gaza need. Such as cement to build water treatment plants.
With this one maneuver, the enemies of Israel have probably done more damage to Israel than any number of a carbombs or suicide bombers could do. It's quite brilliant, really.
Any damage that has been done to Israel's reputation is of their OWN doing and nobody else's.
Also, it's important to re-iterate that the far more damning report is from the following interview:
http://vodpod.com/watch/3760407-interview-with-al-jazeeras-jamal-elshayyal-one-of-the-passengers-on-the-mavi-marmara
We now know three ESSENTIAL things.
1) The Israelis had machine guns and pistols and not just paint guns when they boarded these ships.
2) The Israelis fired first and with LIVE ammunition from the air before a single soldier had set foot on the mavi marmara.
3) The passengers on the ship had good reason to believe they were about the be killed and so fought back against the landing commandos in a desperate act of self defence.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
|
Time and time again you are unable to offer a single substantive refutation of the points that I have made, resorting instead to ad hominem attacks and outright dismissals.
No, I'm not a member of free gaza or any such group. The only charities my wife and I donate to are: Deaf Child Ireland, Amnesty International and Action Aid Vietnam.
In fact I hadn't heard of the free gaza movement or the palestinian solidarity movement until this incident.
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
On June 03 2010 23:48 Klaz wrote:Time and time again you are unable to offer a single substantive refutation of the points that I have made, resorting instead to ad hominem attacks and outright dismissals. No, I'm not a member of free gaza or any such group. The only charities my wife and I donate to are: Deaf Child Ireland, Amnesty International and Action Aid Vietnam. In fact I hadn't heard of the free gaza movement or the palestinian solidarity movement until this incident.
Oh no I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal here, in fact you can say what you want, it's just your views are so inline with such movements I was only wondering.
|
On June 03 2010 23:51 Spenguin wrote:
Oh no I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal here, in fact you can say what you want, it's just views are so inline with such movements I was only wondering.
So do you actually have a salient point to make or are you only interested in pointless innuendo that has no evidence behind it?
|
On June 03 2010 23:36 Klaz wrote:
We now know three ESSENTIAL things.
1) The Israelis had machine guns and pistols and not just paint guns when they boarded these ships.
2) The Israelis fired first and with LIVE ammunition from the air before a single soldier had set foot on the mavi marmara.
3) The passengers on the ship had good reason to believe they were about the be killed and so fought back against the landing commandos in a desperate act of self defence.
2 and 3 - you got that from sources (the al jazeera reporter who were ON one of the ships and happens to be anti-israeli) which are just as biased as IDF members - why should we believe the activists over the Israeli soldiers? Trying to pass them as facts based on so lose grounds is riddicoulus at best.
There is little reason to think that Israel didn't screw up something in the process (9 were after all killed), but the activists weren't any bit better themselves (trying to break a legal blockade when they were warned beforehand they would be stopped with force if necesssary).
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
On June 03 2010 23:54 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 23:51 Spenguin wrote:
Oh no I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal here, in fact you can say what you want, it's just views are so inline with such movements I was only wondering. So do you actually have a salient point to make or are you only interested in pointless innuendo that has no evidence behind it?
Wow I've never met someone so aggressive just relax.
|
On June 03 2010 23:54 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2010 23:51 Spenguin wrote:
Oh no I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal here, in fact you can say what you want, it's just views are so inline with such movements I was only wondering. So do you actually have a salient point to make or are you only interested in pointless innuendo that has no evidence behind it?
There's not a lot of incentive to engage you with any "salient point" when you won't even acknowledge some of the basic, undisputed facts, such as Israel publicly announcing that it would board the flotilla if it challenged the blockade. The mere fact that you think that the flotilla was purely a humanitarian mission says quite enough about how skewed your views are on this subject.
|
On June 04 2010 00:13 Ghostcom wrote:
2 and 3 - you got that from sources (the al jazeera reporter who were ON one of the ships and happens to be anti-israeli) which are just as biased as IDF members - why should we believe the activists over the Israeli soldiers? Trying to pass them as facts based on so lose grounds is riddicoulus at best.
Actually I also saw an interview on Sky News (owned by Mr. Ruport Murdoch who also owns Fox News) yesterday with the first British citizen to be released who also said that the Israelis had fired first and with live ammo. This seems to be consistent with reports from most of the aid workers.
Including an Israeli Member of Parliament who was also on board the ship:
"Haneen Zoubi said Israeli naval vessels had surrounded the flotilla’s flagship, the Mavi Marmara, and fired on it a few minutes before commandos abseiled from a helicopter directly above them. "
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100602/FOREIGN/706019813/1002/FOREIGN
On what basis are you saying the reporter was biased? This sounds like a circular argument. Since Israel has confiscated all the photographic evidence the only evidence we have to go on is eye-witness reports from the people who were there. Now you want us to dismiss eye-witness reports as being biased also? That's crazy.
I can give you plenty of examples of why the IDF are untrustworthy, you know like the time they lied about using White Phosphorous but then we're proven to have used it? I also think the fact that they refuse to allow an independent, international investigation into the incident shows how little faith they have that their story will hold up to impartial scrutiny.
This whole "anti-israeli" crap is nonsense. If you have credible evidence to show that the reporter in question does not have integrity, please present it.
There is little reason to think that Israel didn't screw up something in the process (9 were after all killed), but the activists weren't any bit better themselves (trying to break a legal blockade when they were warned beforehand they would be stopped with force if necesssary).
The blockade was completely illegal(as I have pointed out in painstaking detail in several posts over the past few pages) and has been condemned by the United nations, many countries and various international humanitarian organisations. All of whom have a 10x better track record of honesty than the Israeli Government.
|
On June 04 2010 00:21 xDaunt wrote:
There's not a lot of incentive to engage you with any "salient point" when you won't even acknowledge some of the basic, undisputed facts, such as Israel publicly announcing that it would board the flotilla if it challenged the blockade. The mere fact that you think that the flotilla was purely a humanitarian mission says quite enough about how skewed your views are on this subject.
They are neither basic nor undisputed.
Can you show me an official quote from the Israelis that they would board the flotilla in international waters (before the incident)?
Again, I'll repeat, previous aid flotillas HAVE made it through.
As to the nature of the mission, if it wasn't humanitarian, then what was it? Just because the organisers wanted to focus the world's attention on the plight of the people of gaza doesn't mean the mission wasn't humanitarian. Do you even understand what that word means?
|
On June 04 2010 00:33 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 00:21 xDaunt wrote:
There's not a lot of incentive to engage you with any "salient point" when you won't even acknowledge some of the basic, undisputed facts, such as Israel publicly announcing that it would board the flotilla if it challenged the blockade. The mere fact that you think that the flotilla was purely a humanitarian mission says quite enough about how skewed your views are on this subject. They are neither basic nor undisputed. Can you show me an official quote from the Israelis that they would board the flotilla in international waters (before the incident)? Again, I'll repeat, previous aid flotillas HAVE made it through. As to the nature of the mission, if it wasn't humanitarian, then what was it? Just because the organisers wanted to focus the world's attention on the plight of the people of gaza doesn't mean the mission wasn't humanitarian. Do you even understand what that word means?
Here you go: http://gazafreedommarch.org/cms/en/News/View/10-05-28/Gaza_aid_flotilla_undeterred_as_Israel_steps_up_warnings.aspx
Looks pretty unequivocal to me. Also, this is from a pro-Palestinian source.
Also, read what I said again. I said the flotilla was not a "purely humanitarian" mission. The whole purpose was to make Israel do something stupid. It was a stunt that worked, no different than the non-violent dissent that took place in British India or the American South during the Civil Rights movement. As I said, it was a brilliant maneuver.
So, I have a question for you: under what circumstances would you accept the existence of Israel?
|
I've read the quote. I understand that Israel made a lot of threats (I've already said this before). But they've also made threats in the past.
The only part that's unequivocal to me is that they would turn the ships back. From this I would assume they would surround them in daylight and block their way. Or a simpler solution is to just park an empty old tanker in Gaza port (which doesn't really have enough space for more than one ship)
I still can't find the bit where they said they would board the ship with armed commandos in the middle of the night in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. This is why the passengers were so shocked. They genuinely believed that Israel wouldn't try anything in Interntional waters and were waiting for daylight to enter Gaza waters.
Also, read what I said again. I said the flotilla was not a "purely humanitarian" mission. The whole purpose was to make Israel do something stupid. It was a stunt that worked, no different than the non-violent dissent that took place in British India or the American South during the Civil Rights movement. As I said, it was a brilliant maneuver.
Peaceful protest is just that, peaceful protest. No one makes you do anything stupid. People have to take responsibility for their actions. Again nothing you've said contradicts the humanitarian nature of the mission. Which was to help a beleaguered populace.
So, I have a question for you: under what circumstances would you accept the existence of Israel?
I completely accept the right of Israel to exist. I also believe the Israeli people have a right to live free, productive, and happy lives. However, I don't agree that this permits them to inflict cruel and brutal punishment and humiliation on the innocent, civilian population of Gaza.
|
Silly Klaz, that Israeli Parliament member is definitely not reliable as she is a representative in the Palestinian group. We obviously cannot believe anything except what comes out of official Israeli news sources.
+ Show Spoiler + Of course I am kidding, but I think Al-Jazeera has been portrayed pretty effectively through the US mass media as an almost certainly unreliable source of Arab anti-Israeli propaganda.
|
On June 04 2010 00:59 EtherealDeath wrote:Silly Klaz, that Israeli Parliament member is definitely not reliable as she is a representative in the Palestinian group. We obviously cannot believe anything except what comes out of official Israeli news sources. + Show Spoiler + Of course I am kidding, but I think Al-Jazeera has been portrayed pretty effectively through the US mass media as an almost certainly unreliable source of Arab anti-Israeli propaganda.
I don't know about the US but Al-Jazeera is quite well respected in Europe. I'd probably trust them more than I trust Fox News.
Though I'd definitely rank BBC and CNN above them.
|
Klaz: You were the one who pointed out Israel's own words as proof of them not being at war. I showed evidence of the contrary. But yes, I am well aware that a lot of politics talk is just rhetorics. This is ultimately a legal issue that I believe is so complex that it takes an expert to discuss it. I'm not one, and I'm pretty sure you're not either. I mean, you mentioned earlier that Hamas' rocket strikes are legal if Israel is officially at war with Hamas. That is false. But overall you do have a point. And that is something that I really want to see the experts comment on.
I have to say though, that the entire above discussion is based on a technicality. If by some subtle detail Israel's actions are found legal or illegal, does somebody think that really determines whether their actions were wrong or right?
They don't deserve the constant rocket fire, for example.
If I take a knife with me, do you think the police officers will think that I am unarmed? They clearly were not unarmed.
|
On June 04 2010 00:50 Klaz wrote:I've read the quote. I understand that Israel made a lot of threats (I've already said this before). But they've also made threats in the past. The only part that's unequivocal to me is that they would turn the ships back. From this I would assume they would surround them in daylight and block their way. Or a simpler solution is to just park an empty old tanker in Gaza port (which doesn't really have enough space for more than one ship) I still can't find the bit where they said they would board the ship with armed commandos in the middle of the night in INTERNATIONAL WATERS. This is why the passengers were so shocked. They genuinely believed that Israel wouldn't try anything in Interntional waters and were waiting for daylight to enter Gaza waters.
Oh come now. Are you really going to parse words? What do you think happens when you try and break a military blockade?
Anyway, in case you still have doubts, here's something better: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100528/wl_afp/mideastconflictgazademoaid_20100528153029;_ylt=Anu8HAAv4697e4Y3n0.0.KABS5Z4
Israel earlier told the ambassadors of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, and Ireland -- the countries from which the ships set sail -- that it "issued warrants that prohibit the entrance of the vessels to Gaza" and that the flotilla would be breaking international law.
Israel made it clear it intends to halt the vessels and detain the hundreds of people aboard in the port of Ashdod before deporting them.
|
Almost certain that Fox News is more highly respected in the US than Al-Jazeera. I haven't watched TV in years, preferring online news, but while I did and before I started cross-referencing through international sources and my own research into subjects as well, my view of Al-Jazeera from what I got through US media was:
1) Some random Arabic news organization
2) Probably supports terrorists
3) Completely biased against Israel and is either against Israel's existence or otherwise would like to affect a negative change to it
4) Biased against western nations in general as well, and especially against the US/Israel
5) Some cheap ad-hoc organization that's not very trustworthy and mostly spews propaganda
Maybe things have changed, as I seriously have not bothered watching TV for about 5 years now, but again that is just my personal take on Al-Jazeera back in the day due to relying solely on broadcasted US media.
EDIT: And I distinctly remember thinking, long time ago when I watched tv, that Al-Jazeera was THE news organization FOR the arab terrorists, and I don't know where else I could possibly have gotten this bias from except US news media.
|
On June 04 2010 01:02 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 00:59 EtherealDeath wrote:Silly Klaz, that Israeli Parliament member is definitely not reliable as she is a representative in the Palestinian group. We obviously cannot believe anything except what comes out of official Israeli news sources. + Show Spoiler + Of course I am kidding, but I think Al-Jazeera has been portrayed pretty effectively through the US mass media as an almost certainly unreliable source of Arab anti-Israeli propaganda. I don't know about the US but Al-Jazeera is quite well respected in Europe. I'd probably trust them more than I trust Fox News. Though I'd definitely rank BBC and CNN above them.
Uh no - perhaps in Ireland, but not in Denmark. Al-Jazeera is in no way known for it's objectivity. Stop trying to pass your own beliefs as facts.
|
On June 04 2010 01:05 Squeegy wrote:
You were the one who pointed out Israel's own words as proof of them not being at war. I showed evidence of the contrary. But yes, I am well aware that a lot of politics talk is just rhetorics.
Nope you haven't. Israel aren't in an official state of war. Because they want to claim the benefits of this. They have used this in their defence of their treatment of Hamas prisoners. Political rhetoric is just that. You are confusing rhetoric with legal claims. There is a difference.
This is ultimately a legal issue that I believe is so complex that it takes an expert to discuss it. I'm not one, and I'm pretty sure you're not either. I mean, you mentioned earlier that Hamas' rocket strikes are legal if Israel is officially at war with Hamas. That is false. But overall you do have a point. And that is something that I really want to see the experts comment on.
The legality is well established I'm afraid, though you will always find some expert who will say anything you want to. Hell I'm sure Robert Mugabe can present plenty of legal experts to justify his actions. Though the second part is true, indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas would be a war crime, but not an act of terrorism(If Israel recognized their legitimacy). Should have made that distinction more clear.
If I take a knife with me, do you think the police officers will think that I am unarmed? They clearly were not unarmed.
How many passengers were on that ship? 500-600? Let's say 4 people on average live in a house. How about we go to 100 houses and empty out the kitchen drawers. How many knives will you find?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
