So now they admit to taking weapons from the soldiers. What on earth did were they expecting to happen? Also apparently the metal objects the activists used to fight the soldiers were pipes on the ship that were cut using angle grinders. Was there any other reason to cut them that to prepare for a fight?
By the way, I am outright rejecting the claim that Israel opened fire at the activists before landing. They may have fired warning shots, but that is not shooting at the activists.
I've no doubt they tried to take weapons from the soldiers. Makes sense since they thought the soldiers were trying to kill them.
Here's the kicker. Israel claimed that they only went down with paintball guns and only used live ammo after their soldiers we're shot at.
How did they shoot the soldiers if the soldiers only went down with paintball guns?
Also it doesn't matter if they hit the activists intentionally or unintentionally before landing. You start shooting at a crowd of people and someone get's hit, people are going to react.
The soldiers went down with paintball guns and small firearms. Now the IHH representitive has admitted that they took guns from the soldiers. In other words, soldiers lose their guns to violent attackers. People end up dead. Seems like a logical conclusion to the story.
You don't understand. I'm rejecting the claim that someone was hit before they landed. The swedish author, Henning Mankell, has said that people were shot in their sleep. I can't imagine any reason for Israel to want this. A confrontation wasn't in their interest. Why would they do this, what could possibly be the motivation? The soldiers were special forces, who I very much doubt would panic or succumb to excess use of force without a reason. In other words, the only explanation is that they were ordered to do this. But I just can't see any reasonable motivation for why would Israel want to do that. That is why, I believe these claims are untruthful.
On June 04 2010 01:47 Squeegy wrote: But they confiscated all the cameras anyway. Moreover, they had the ability to jam their contacts, so your theory about the motivation for a night-time attack seems quite weak.
Not really. In day time all the camera crews would have been up and running and everything would have been broad cast live.
They jammed mobile communications but not satellite. There was SOME small footage broadcast live, but it was limited. Also it's not easy to film at night, lighting is a big issue. Hence the Israeli footage, with night vision.
I think they wanted to catch the flotilla by surprise and not really give them a chance to broadcast. And they succeeded. I'm pretty sure there would have been far more "live" coverage during the day especially if the people on the ship we're prepared.
Also, the metal pipes were cut from the ship. This shows clear preparation for confrontation, unless you can think of a good idea for why they were doing this.
Sorry, but a video released by the IDF 3 days after the fact has no credibility with me whatsoever. Considering that they've confiscated everything. That could have been edited any which way or faked it or anything.
On June 04 2010 01:26 Squeegy wrote: I disagree. Maybe you wish to back your claim with a link or ten?
Link to what? That Israel does not consider captured hamas fighters to be prisoners of war? Which it would have to if it was legally at war with Hamas.
Also, it isn't that you needed to be more clear here. It's rather you should've said something entirely different than what you did. You actually said the rocket attacks would be legal acts of war. That is not an issue of making an unclear distinction, that is an issue of being outright wrong.
Firing rockets against your declared enemy in war IS a legal act of war. But firing them indiscriminately without regard for civilian casualties is a war crime. So in that sense you are correct. That distinction didn't occur to me at the time and I was mistaken. I should have said that it would still be a war crime, but not an act of terrorism.
It doesn't matter if the knives were kitchen knives. It matters that they used them to fight. That is what makes them armed.
Nope. There is a difference between arming yourself and going somewhere. And being unarmed, finding yourself under attack and picking up whatever you can find to defend yourself.
Again, there's not enough evidence to support that knives were used. Or if they we're how many. Israel has shown a photo of all the knives they found on the ship, that doesn't prove they were used.
Link to, for example, to that your claim has been clearly established.
I have posted a video, where you can see a soldier being stabbed with a knife. Want me to post it again? I also posted a video (on this page even?) where it shows that the metal pipes were cut from parts of the ship before the soldiers landed. Seems to me like they were arming themselves before they were under attack.
On June 04 2010 01:44 Ghostcom wrote: I would gladly do so, but unless your have taken danish lessons you are going to be in trouble. But if you want an example of a production where the station screwed up you could just take the "documentary" they made about Denmark. Or the airing of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGRBu7mzrg....
Well this video is no less legitimate than anything squeegy or kazius posted. You can either try and gather some information from somewhat reliable international sources, trying to find the truth in the middle, or you can simply listen to Israeli preaching and dismiss everything else out there. In this scenario I'd stick with what Mohammad said, he was less biased.
On June 04 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: The soldiers went down with paintball guns and small firearms. Now the IHH representitive has admitted that they took guns from the soldiers. In other words, soldiers lose their guns to violent attackers. People end up dead. Seems like a logical conclusion to the story.
No, in other worse, people acting in self-defence took guns from soldiers who were trying to kill them.
You don't understand. I'm rejecting the claim that someone was hit before they landed. The swedish author, Henning Mankell, has said that people were shot in their sleep. I can't imagine any reason for Israel to want this.
Just because you can't imagine this or can't fit it into your existing view of reality doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again you are dismissing out of hand an eye witness report simply because it doesn't suit you. And there's no point to a discussion if your going to do that against every piece of inconvenient evidence.
A confrontation wasn't in their interest. Why would they do this, what could possibly be the motivation? The soldiers were special forces, who I very much doubt would panic or succumb to excess use of force without a reason. In other words, the only explanation is that they were ordered to do this. But I just can't see any reasonable motivation for why would Israel want to do that. That is why, I believe these claims are untruthful.
This is convoluted and strawmen logic filled with assumptions for which you have no proof. IDF soldiers have time and TIME again killed unarmed civilans, journalists and aid workers, so to suggest that they wouldn't do so here and it's unfathomable doesn't hold water. They've already done it.
A video released by the IDF 3 days after the fact has no credibility with me whatsoever. Considering that they've confiscated everything. That could have been edited any which way or faked it or anything.
Edit: Also according to your own quotes Israel have designated hamas a terrorist organisation, which isn't something you can designate an accepted military opponent as.
On June 04 2010 01:44 Ghostcom wrote: I would gladly do so, but unless your have taken danish lessons you are going to be in trouble. But if you want an example of a production where the station screwed up you could just take the "documentary" they made about Denmark. Or the airing of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpGRBu7mzrg....
Nope I haven't taken danish lessons, but I haven't yet seen credible evidence that they are untrustworthy somehow.
I'm happy to watch the documentary about Denmark.
As for the youtube clip, I'm not sure that proves anything. The BBC invited the leader of the BNP (an extremist, racist, right wing party in the UK) onto question time. Both the BBC and Sky News have shown speeches made by the BNP leader, that does not make them racist news channels.
I'd need to see the whole program and the context of it. Were Al Jazeera saying they supported this cleric's views?
Is the link to the documentary regarding Denmark. The amount of factual errors and manipulations just within the first 10 minuts are incredible.
For example, the refugee camp he visits is actually a camp for people seeking asylum which they have been denied and now they refuse to leave the country again. Also he claims no mosqus exist in Denmark - there are 2 within 4 km from where I'm sitting right now. I could keep on hampering about almost every single statement made/picture used. Al Jazeera aired this documentary as proof of how Denmark is - and whilst I'm biased due to being a dane myself, at least I'm not lying...
A video released by the IDF 3 days after the fact has no credibility with me whatsoever. Considering that they've confiscated everything. That could have been edited any which way or faked it or anything.
Edit: Also according to your own quotes Israel have designated hamas a terrorist organisation, which isn't something you can designate an accepted military opponent as.
When that opponent uses suicide bombs and target the civilian population whilst hiding amongst their own civilians I don't think it is fair to call them an accepted military opponent either.
And just to get this clear. You don't trust releases by IDF - because they are the IDF and thus biased. BUT you trust some activists who was just as involved in the case at hand? It never dawned to you that perhaps those disagreeing with you could just say "the fact that it is a statement made by an activist from that boat means that it has no credibility with me whatsoever."? Point is: you are using two standards.
A video released by the IDF 3 days after the fact has no credibility with me whatsoever. Considering that they've confiscated everything. That could have been edited any which way or faked it or anything.
Edit: Also according to your own quotes Israel have designated hamas a terrorist organisation, which isn't something you can designate an accepted military opponent as.
When that opponent uses suicide bombs and target the civilian population whilst hiding amongst their own civilians I don't think it is fair to call them an accepted military opponent either.
And just to get this clear. You don't trust releases by IDF - because they are the IDF and thus biased. BUT you trust some activists who was just as involved in the case at hand? It never dawned to you that perhaps those disagreeing with you could just say "the fact that it is a statement made by an activist from that boat means that it has no credibility with me whatsoever."? Point is: you are using two standards.
Tbh his point about the IDF information not being remarkably credible the way it is presented is not invalid. After all, we get to see a 2.5 min video when the start and finish parts of it are about 7 hours apart. Something clearly is missing.
On June 04 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: The soldiers went down with paintball guns and small firearms. Now the IHH representitive has admitted that they took guns from the soldiers. In other words, soldiers lose their guns to violent attackers. People end up dead. Seems like a logical conclusion to the story.
No, in other worse, people acting in self-defence took guns from soldiers who were trying to kill them.
You don't understand. I'm rejecting the claim that someone was hit before they landed. The swedish author, Henning Mankell, has said that people were shot in their sleep. I can't imagine any reason for Israel to want this.
Just because you can't imagine this or can't fit it into your existing view of reality doesn't mean it didn't happen. Again you are dismissing out of hand an eye witness report simply because it doesn't suit you. And there's no point to a discussion if your going to do that against every piece of inconvenient evidence.
A confrontation wasn't in their interest. Why would they do this, what could possibly be the motivation? The soldiers were special forces, who I very much doubt would panic or succumb to excess use of force without a reason. In other words, the only explanation is that they were ordered to do this. But I just can't see any reasonable motivation for why would Israel want to do that. That is why, I believe these claims are untruthful.
This is convoluted and strawmen logic filled with assumptions for which you have no proof. IDF soldiers have time and TIME again killed unarmed civilans, journalists and aid workers, so to suggest that they wouldn't do so here and it's unfathomable doesn't hold water. They've already done it.
Double-standards, as Ghostcom mentioned. If memory serves, earlier on you said a few things about stuff Israel has banned, but when somebody mentioned these things in context helpful to him, you disregarded this completely because Israel hasn't indeed provided any list of the materials it has banned.
Moreover, I didn't build a strawman. Feel free to bold the part that you think is a strawman. Also, what I am saying that I can't imagine a motive for Israel to do this. If you have a good motive in mind, then please feel free to share!
On June 04 2010 02:33 Ghostcom wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjlXTB3Qu54&feature=related Is the link to the documentary regarding Denmark. The amount of factual errors and manipulations just within the first 10 minuts are incredible.
For example, the refugee camp he visits is actually a camp for people seeking asylum which they have been denied and now they refuse to leave the country again. Also he claims no mosqus exist in Denmark - there are 2 within 4 km from where I'm sitting right now. I could keep on hampering about almost every single statement made/picture used. Al Jazeera aired this documentary as proof of how Denmark is - and whilst I'm biased due to being a dane myself, at least I'm not lying...
All right, I just sat through 10 minutes of a documentary, over 90% of which was incomprehensible to me.
Arabic documentary with Danish subtitles, so I can't verify what you're saying.
It seems like a piece on problems faced by immigrants in Denmark, with reference to far right parties etc. I can understand how you might disagree with this reporters conclusions and interpretations but that can be as much down to your own bias as to his.
Moreover, unless you understand arabic, it could also be mistranslation. It's easy to misinterpret the context of something from one language to another and small errors can have a dramatic impact on the meaning of a statement. This is something I've witnessed first hand in a different language.
Funnily enough, I've also heard it said that in the Japense version of FF7 Cloud is supposed to be a little emo bitch, but the English translation is fucked up and makes him sound a lot more macho.
Of course that is just speculation and I'd need to understand both Arabic AND Danish to really be able to come to a fair judgement. (that's not to say that RTE, the Irish government channel doesn't fuck up a lot of facts in its documentaries, though I still trust em).
Regardless, I think there is enough corroboration from various other passengers on the ship to convince me of the veracity of what the reporters are saying.
A video released by the IDF 3 days after the fact has no credibility with me whatsoever. Considering that they've confiscated everything. That could have been edited any which way or faked it or anything.
Edit: Also according to your own quotes Israel have designated hamas a terrorist organisation, which isn't something you can designate an accepted military opponent as.
Thank you.
If you mean the three quotes I posted a while ago, I thought they didn't matter.
Yes, it is obvious that Israel will only show videos that help their case. I'm not naive enough to think that Israel didn't use excessive force. But the extend of this, I believe, is something like unnecessary broken bones and bruises. Not executions. If people were shot five times in the stomach or head, I am sure that there was a reason for that. As it has been mentioned earlier on in this thread, there is a video of SWAT team entering a house and shooting the barking dogs right away. Why? Because they don't take chances. And considering the resistance of the activists, at certain point, this is a stance the soldiers could have very well adopted. Armed (even if it was a knife) resistance was to be put down. However, that Israel would fake the videos. That's a pretty wild claim.
When that opponent uses suicide bombs and target the civilian population whilst hiding amongst their own civilians I don't think it is fair to call them an accepted military opponent either.
I'm not claiming that Hamas are not terrorists. I'm saying that Israel considers them to be a terrorist organisation. And you cannot be legally at "war" with a terrorist organisation, since by definition they don't have any legal standing and aren't recognised as legitimate.
And just to get this clear. You don't trust releases by IDF - because they are the IDF and thus biased. BUT you trust some activists who was just as involved in the case at hand? It never dawned to you that perhaps those disagreeing with you could just say "the fact that it is a statement made by an activist from that boat means that it has no credibility with me whatsoever."? Point is: you are using two standards.
No. I don't trust the IDF because...
1) They have killed unarmed civilians, aid workers and journalists in the past.
2) They used White phospherous and lied about it.
3) They attacked ships carrying humanitarian aid in the middle of the night, in international waters with armed commandos. (I don't think even the IDF aren't claiming that the cargo was anything but humanitarian aid)
4) They shot dead at least 9 civilians.
5) Even on boats where the Israeli's haven't claimed there was any violent resistance they brutalised and beat up the passengers.
6) The destroyed cameras and confiscated the evidence.
7) The kidnapped 600 international citizens at gun point and held them incommunicado for 3 days in order to enforce a media black out.
8) They refuse to allow an independent, international and impartial investigation into the incident.
Since the Israelis destroyed the photographic and video evidence of the passengers on board the ship, that means that we only have eye-witness accounts to go on.
Also, many of the passengers are international citizens in good standing, including Nobel Laurettes, Writers, Politicians and journalists. Who, by the way have not committed any crimes that we know of.
I think it's fairly obvious who are more trustworthy.
On June 04 2010 02:52 Klaz wrote: Funnily enough, I've also heard it said that in the Japense version of FF7 Cloud is supposed to be a little emo bitch, but the English translation is fucked up and makes him sound a lot more macho.
On June 04 2010 02:50 Squeegy wrote: Double-standards, as Ghostcom mentioned. If memory serves, earlier on you said a few things about stuff Israel has banned, but when somebody mentioned these things in context helpful to him, you disregarded this completely because Israel hasn't indeed provided any list of the materials it has banned.
It wasn't in a context helpful to him. The fact is that UN resolution mandates the supply of unrestricted aid into gaza. So while I did not think this list was necessarily complete or accurate, it doesn't change my point that Israel have no right to stop aid from going into gaza, though I agree they have a right to stop weapons. But I don't consider newspaper to be weapons, though paper cuts can be sore sometimes.
Moreover, I didn't build a strawman. Feel free to bold the part that you think is a strawman. Also, what I am saying that I can't imagine a motive for Israel to do this. If you have a good motive in mind, then please feel free to share!
Well if you really want a motive here is a simple possible one: (not saying I think this is necessarily the case)
Israel wanted to scare any other aid workers from trying to deliver humanitarian aid to gaza. By assaulting the flotilla, beating people up and killing others, they sent the message that they can basically do whatever they want and get away with it and anyone who tries to challenge their illegal blockade in the future will meet with a similar level of brutality.
It's basically the same motive when they ran over an unarmed American Protester with a bulldozer a couple of years back, or "accidently" shot dead a cameraman.
Personally, I think the real motive is that they wanted to avoid the PR, launched a stupid gung-ho type assault that got badly fucked up.
Like hell you cannot be at war with terrorists which have control of a government. There is no doubt if Palestine had Israeli weapons it would be a massacre and we would be next.
Sections of Hamas “Constitution” (source):
4. Regarding peace, its Article 13 is totally negative: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. (.) There is no solution to the Palestinian question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are a waste of time and vain endeavours.”
5. Religious hatred of Jews (not only of Israel) is expressed by a hadith or ’saying’ that concludes Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews) when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Muslims (.) there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. “Only the gharkad tree [evidently a certain kind of tree] would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (this hadith, quoted from al-Bukhari and Muslim, both considered as highly reliable sources for the hadith or ’sayings’ of the Prophet Muhammad).
6. Article 8, the slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas (widely quoted by clerics and others) is a blueprint for jihadist terrorism: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”
On June 03 2010 15:39 OutOfOrder wrote: Well it has been 60 years, and if you think that Israel is going anywhere that's a little too late. There have been many proposals over the years by a bunch of 3rd party agents to split things up, all of which were shut down by the Palestinians authorities because its not the entire country basically. And in my book any attack aimed at harming civilians is terrorism. I'd love a better definition..
Then you can call the Israeli government the biggest terrorist ever.
If you mean the three quotes I posted a while ago, I thought they didn't matter.
I believe I said that the a "war" in the legal sense is not the same as a war in the rhethorical sense. A legal state of war can only be between two states. This is why the US for example brands, hamas, Al-queda etc as terrorist organisations, but not states, which means(according to them) that the normal rules of war don't apply. Israel also seems to hold this stance in it's treatment of Hamas prisoners. Though President Obama has recently reversed some of these positions in the U.S.
Not executions. If people were shot five times in the stomach or head, I am sure that there was a reason for that.
You need there to be a reason, and one that is palatable to you and that doesn't challenge your view of the world as it stands. That much I can see.
And considering the resistance of the activists, at certain point, this is a stance the soldiers could have very well adopted. Armed (even if it was a knife) resistance was to be put down.
Except in order to prove this you have to discount the eye-witness reports from the passengers of the ships that they acted in self-defence. And take the Israeli word at face value. So you are basing your conclusion of Israel's innocence on your assumption of their innocence.
However, that Israel would fake the videos. That's a pretty wild claim.
I don't think they needed to fake the videos, just edit them to suit themselves. Though I wouldn't put it past them. Either way, the fact that the footage is edited and that they've confiscated all the evidence destroys the credibility of any footage that they DO release.
EPT
