EPTNews: Israel Attacks Gazan Aid Flotilla - Page 49
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
| ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
I'm really curious how you formed your opinion of how the popular opinion towards Israel is in Germany. It is true that our political figureheads restrain from criticizing Israel or are at least very cautious and the jewish lobby has more influence than it should have given only the number of jews living in Germany. This is of course due to our history and I think it's ok that way but you can't really extrapolate from that on the popular opinion. Consider the following: Something around 10% of Germans are so called people with a immigration background and it's safe to assume that most of them are opposed to Israel. Furthermore is the peace movement kind of big in Germany and almost everyone on the political left does not agree with Israels general policy (there were German politicians on the flotilla btw). And even if you are neither it doesn't make you automatically a supporter of Israel. In fact I have yet to meet someone in person who is outspoken pro Israel. | ||
|
Jzerg
84 Posts
These things include toys, books (including educational ones), clothes, shoes, chocolate, toilet paper, cigarettes, canned food, fruit juice, plant seedlings, gasoline, building materials, etc. A lot of other products are severely restricted, including many ones used for fishing and agriculture (e.g. nets, plastic piping for irrigation, water pumps and filters, etc..). The power generator fuel is limited so that there a rolling blackouts for 12 hours a day, as well. I used to be very pro Israel until I lived in Zuerich, Switzerland for 5 years (40% of the city's population is foreigners.) I made a lot of friends from the middle east (including Israel). My Israeli friends did not consider Palestinians as human beings, saying they were, and I quote, "worthless animals". The friends I had from Lebanon, although hating Israel (the state, not the people) for what they did to their country, were not in any way similar - even after having lost family members in bombings. Sure, this is anecdotal evidence, but my experiences there combined with a lot of research on my part regarding the situation and a more objective news media definitely changed my perspective on the situation. Unfortunately, with the US backing Israel no matter what they do, the situation isn't going to change. For example, Israel will not make peace with Hezbollah in Lebanon or Syria (which they could have both if they gave back the land they took in '67), because the land they occupy allows them to control a huge amount of water supply in the region - a resource which is only going to become more important. The situation saddens me a lot. | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/ameri...ry?id=10814848 Obviously NOT executions... "Quote: The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency." "Quote: A Canadian on board, Farooq Burney, described watching an elderly man bleed to death. The head of a Turkish charity that organized the aid flotilla said an Indonesian doctor was shot in the stomach and a photographer was shot in the forehead." Guns... guns and MORE guns? "Quote: Burney told Reuters. "So they basically took the guns away from them and took the cartridges out and threw them away." Asked if anyone had used the guns against the Israeli commandos, Burney said, "No, not at all." "Yes, we took their guns. It would be self defence even if we fired their guns," Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, said. "We told our friends on board we will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns," he said, adding that people shouted that the weapons should not be used. "By this decision, our friends accepted death, and we threw all the guns we took from them into the sea," Yildirim said." Is it ANY surprise that the Israeli's won't release the evidence? Someone asked me about the use of the word "murder" before. I said I didn't think that was the case. Well, I'm prepared to say it now... Murderers. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On June 04 2010 22:07 -Desu- wrote: [/b][/i]"We told the Indonesian doctor to take the soldier back. He took his patient back, and as he was going back, they shot him 5 times in the stomach," One of the dead was 19-year-old boy Furkan Doğan, a Turkish citizen with an american passport. State-run Anatolia news agency said he was hit by four bullets in the head and one in the chest. Squeegy I've been following your posts since the beggining. Haven't seen any more biased poster in this thread than you. You are trying to look like you are unbiased with your posts. But your when it comes to evidence supporting IDF, you support it. Then when it comes to evidence supporting activists you stand as "We can't know about it we are not sure". Ok doofus, to let your unbelieving mind believe, the body of that child came to country yesterday. Forensic medicine examination proved that the body 4 shots in the head and 1 in the heart. More than 3 witnesses, witnessed the conduct. Now its the main page news about the kid. You keep on believing sth else, but I congradulate you, doing your job in this thread very well. We both know what's your job is. My "We can't know about it we are not sure" comments were about the legal aspect of this issue. A lot of people are actually choosing sides when it comes to that, yet I am the most biased person? Fascinating! I don't think I ever denied that people were shot dead. I am highly questioning the claim that the soldiers would shoot a doctor without a reason. It could've been excessive use of force, but I won't buy it that it was a cold-blooded murder. On June 04 2010 23:38 condoriano wrote: It's amazing, probably the first discussion where I can literally pick any opponent and state that he is lying through his teeth: Finland - A Place Where Israel is Loved This only shows what kind of reasoning people use in order to prove their point, same with the German guy on the previous page. That's why this debate is still going in circles, because after a point is refuted it's instantly brought up again. Props to Mothxal, that was honest and insightful. A quote from your link: "And the general Finnish media, like much of the mainstream press throughout Western Europe, is often biased and slanted in its coverage of the Middle East." Do you guys still want to discuss me or shall we move back to the topic? | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On June 05 2010 01:33 Squeegy wrote: "And the general Finnish media, like much of the mainstream press throughout Western Europe, is often biased and slanted in its coverage of the Middle East." Do you guys still want to discuss me or shall we move back to the topic? I don't think anyone is discussing you, mainly pointing fingers to expose the ignorance. What exactly did your quote do for you to change the idea of this same article that most Finns are (or were in 2009) supporting Israel? Were we discussing the "media" here at all? | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On June 05 2010 01:53 condoriano wrote: I don't think anyone is discussing you, mainly pointing fingers to expose the ignorance. What exactly did you quote do for you to change the idea of this same article that most Finns are (or were in 2009) supporting Israel? Were we discussing the "media" here at all? "And no I'm not Jewish. And the Finnish media is actually generally very condemning towards Israel. Is the post you replied to. And that post was a reply to this: "If you check the posts here 95% of Israel supporters either jewish, german (jewish?), british or scandinavians (I think that 1 guy from Finland is jewish too). You can tell what kind of picture they get on their TVs." So, I don't know, was your article supposed to prove my being Jewish then? | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
| ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On June 05 2010 03:22 condoriano wrote: Go 2 posts above and look at your quote to see what post you replied to. You replied to the post with an article in it, and that was the subject of my further reply as well. Now you went 2 pages back to dig out a random sarcastic post about the nationality of Israel supporters here. See, this is how you argue. You will not address the issue, you will find some random detail that you can try and cling to. Same way you evaded every post about boarding being illegal until people started posting evidence on every page. Then you found a random article that was based off that same beat up San Remo manual, ignoring the idea that the blockade was illegal. You haven't made one complete post that wasn't refuted. Now you're just being confusing. No matter how I look at it, your article is a response to my claim that Finnish media is generally condemning Israel (where I also say that I'm not a Jew). And then I point out that the article in fact agrees with me. And then you claim not to be discussing media at all. But I'm sure you have a good explanation to this. Actually, Klaz, who argued his point about the legal aspect well, I commended for raising a good point. Afterwards I also acknowledged that my knowledge about international law is limited and that I had a reason (his point about Hamas rocket attacks) to believe his was too, and that therefore I don't want to discuss the subject further. Which is something I've been saying since day one, that is that law is a complex matter and that laymen shouldn't be stating things as fact. I never ignored him, quite the contrary. But if you want me to buy the claim that it is illegal, I am going to need something stronger than Klaz's words. He never linked me to any sources or such, which I criticized him for. But let me repeat: I commended him for having a point. (I too enjoy discussing this and not the topic!) | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
I wonder if you realize that article is gone? Can't validate the information and as such remains hearsay. With that said, haven't you already said this was your last time posting in this topic? Lets look at the actual article and decide if your purposely misleading people here. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/american-killed-gaza-aid-flotilla/story?id=10814848 Israeli commandos rappelled onto the decks of the six ships Monday, but on the Mavi Marmara the passengers battled the soldiers with metal rods, wrested weapons from soldiers and, according to the Israeli military, fired on them. Nine people died and more than 30 were wounded, including several Israeli troops. Soldiers have a right to self defense. AGAIN if you're peaceful you don't attack soldiers. "They [Israeli commandos] were trying to land on the boat. So obviously there was this hand-to-hand combat and during that process the people on the boat were basically able to disarm some of the soldiers because they did have guns with them," Burney told Reuters. "So they basically took the guns away from them and took the cartridges out and threw them away." Look you NEVER take guns from a military commandos WHEN your purpose is supposed to be peaceful. Former U.N. assistant secretary general Denis Halliday, who is on board the Rachel Corrie, told ABC News that they do not intend to stop their mission or head to the Israeli port of Ashdod instead. Wow conflict with the Israel Military again that sure shows their peaceful. I advise anyone to read the whole article instead of snippets from both me and klaz. Why, because as you can tell both show a biased viewpoint (even though mine is to counter the little job klaz tried to pull). Hezbollah is supported by Iran there is no way their going to set around and let Israel exist. | ||
|
Hans-Titan
Denmark1711 Posts
On June 04 2010 23:35 xDaunt wrote: Here's a good article on the crisis by Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post op-ed author. I think he is Jewish, if it matters to anyone. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html Edit: If you're vehemently anti-Israel on this matter, you may want to first wrap your head in duct tape before reading this. Enlightenment sometimes hurts. :p I hate to bring The Daily Show into this, but last night they showed a clip of Charles Krauthammer saying that 'there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza', which really says something about this guys knowledge about the region. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-2-2010/clusterf--k-to-the-war-house---korean-peninsula---middle-east - At 6.15 Just sayin' | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 04 2010 23:35 xDaunt wrote: Here's a good article on the crisis by Charles Krauthammer, a Washington Post op-ed author. I think he is Jewish, if it matters to anyone. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html Edit: If you're vehemently anti-Israel on this matter, you may want to first wrap your head in duct tape before reading this. Enlightenment sometimes hurts. :p This man is a myopic ignoramus. You would do better to read more informed and impartial opinions. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 05 2010 06:20 mmp wrote: This man is a myopic ignoramus. You would do better to read more informed and impartial opinions. Sure, the guy is a conservative, but he is also one of the most renowned and respected columnists in the country. Top ten for sure. Maybe better. Don't just dismiss him as an ignoramus. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 05 2010 06:27 xDaunt wrote: Sure, the guy is a conservative, but he is also one of the most renowned and respected columnists in the country. Top ten for sure. Maybe better. Don't just dismiss him as an ignoramus. His statements prove that he is a partisan hardliner or a sensationalist. He wouldn't find an audience outside of Israel or the United States, and his views are in line with an extreme minority of U.S. and international opinion. Unfortunately the big news industry in America is terribly biased on the Israel-Palestine issue, giving the impression that his views are in some way "mainstream" when they are not. This is well understood in journalist circles - you should know this before you eat his words for breakfast. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:02 mmp wrote: His statements prove that he is a partisan hardliner or a sensationalist. He wouldn't find an audience outside of Israel or the United States, and his views are in line with an extreme minority of U.S. and international opinion. Could you talk out of your ass any more? The guy has won just about every journalistic prize imaginable, including the pulitzer. Where do you get this crap that his views are only representative of an extreme minority in America? Last I checked, over 40% of the country is conservative, larger than either moderates (~30%) and liberals (~20%). | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
yeah, I can't take the guy seriously | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:09 Mindcrime wrote: Last I checked, Krauthammer described the Bush doctrine as the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy was to spread democracy. yeah, I can't take the guy seriously So how exactly is his characterization of Bush's foreign policy wrong? It seems to be exactly what Bush sought to do in Iraq (looking good) and Afghanistan (not looking so good). And let's just get this out into the open: there's a difference between disagreeing with someone and that person being an idiot. Oh right, I forgot. Most liberals think that everyone with whom they disagree is an idiot. Learn to show a little respect, or at least learn to have the "open mind" that you liberals claim to champion. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:06 xDaunt wrote: Could you talk out of your ass any more? The guy has won just about every journalistic prize imaginable, including the pulitzer. Where do you get this crap that his views are only representative of an extreme minority in America? Last I checked, over 40% of the country is conservative, larger than either moderates (~30%) and liberals (~20%). This doesn't have anything to do with conservatism and I never made that a part of my statements. And I'm not out to damn his reputation. I only noted that his views on the topic were inappropriate in the context of an informed discussion of the crisis, just as I would have little interest in hearing people argue that Israel should be wiped off the map - there are extremists on both sides, and this man's statements are highly controversial. Journalistic awards are typically awarded for journalism, not for opinions. I'm not attacking his career as a reporter, nor am I questioning the Post's right to print his opinions. That's outside of the discussion. Citing polls will not aid your side of the argument. Polls show that a significant number of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Polls show that a significant number of Republicans believe that Obama is not a citizen and is possibly the anti-christ. And whose influence do we have to blame for this disinformation? Polls do show that Americans favor a two-state solution, disfavor illegal settlements, believe that there is a serious humanitarian crisis involved, and believe that international law should be respected. And this is despite the actions and influence of elected governments and the big media. | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
On June 05 2010 04:22 angelicfolly wrote: I wonder if you realize that article is gone? Can't validate the information and as such remains hearsay. With that said, haven't you already said this was your last time posting in this topic? Lets look at the actual article and decide if your purposely misleading people here. Yeah I don't wanna keep debating this endlessly, because I think people's opinions are pretty entrenched now. As for the article. I'm sure if you google'd the names of the principles involved you'd find plenty of other articles with the same info. The article was up when I quoted it. I don't know why ABC chose to take it down. Soldiers have a right to self defense. AGAIN if you're peaceful you don't attack soldiers. This is a myth that is important to dispel. There are two conflicting narratives here. The one given by the Israeli soldiers. And the one given by the passengers of the flotilla. We are already familiar with the narrative of the IDF, so let me just present the conflicting view. The passengers say that they were surprised by the attack by the IDF as they did not expect to be attacked in international waters (hence they we're waiting for daylight to go into gaza waters, because that's where Israel has legal jurisdiction and that's where they expected to be stopped). Anyway, it was 3 am in the middle of the night and all of a sudden they get helicopters and boats coming at them from every direction. They get peppered with flash bang and stun grenade and sound grenades, as well as at least steel tipped plastic bullets initially.(now I'm not sure how different plastic bullets sound from live ammo to civilians) And we're talking about the IDF here, a military organisation with a reputation for killing civilians, journalists and aid workers (google rachel corrie). They thought they we're under attack and picked up whatever they could find to arm themselves. Then the IDF started using live rounds. From helicopters and boats. There is a fairly consistent account of this from various eye-witnesses on the flotilla. i.e. that the IDF opened fire with live ammo before any soldier touched down on the boat. The passengers say that at least one person was shot dead and two others severely injured. They GENUINELY believed that the IDF was going to kill them. (However, I think even if the IDF DID NOT use live ammo, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the passengers could have thought they we're being shot at) So when the Israeli soldiers absailed down the passengers attacked them in self-defence. Because they thought they had no other choice and were going to die anyway. Now I understand that the IDF narrative is different. The IDF claim that they only started using live ammo AFTER their absailing soldiers were attacked and they released a video to support this. This video I'm sure everyone has seen as it's all over the place. And honestly, it's an INCREDIBLE piece of PR disinformation. Here is my problem with the video. This is a video that has been edited and taken out of context. We are shown 15-30 seconds of a siege that lasted what 3 hours? We don't know what happened BEFORE the Israelis abseiled down, whether they actually fired or not as the passengers claim they did. Here is what the tape objectively shows: As Israeli soldiers absail down onto the boat they are mobbed and attacked by some passengers on the boat with what look like bars or sticks (wooden or metal) of some type. And one is later thrown over board. I think we can objectively agree on this much. Now.... As I said two possible explanations have been provided for this video. Israeli version: The soldiers were attacked without provocation by protesters intent on causing an incident. Flotilla version: The soldiers had already shot and killed at least one person on the boat and considering the IDF's reputation in this matter people felt they had to defend themselves. Now... One of the above is the statement of an organisation with a track record for killing innocent civilians and in fact committing war crimes and then LYING about it(google the use of white phosphorous in Gaza). AND They also confiscated all the possible evidence that would prove ONE WAY or the other, what the truth REALLY is, and REFUSE to release this to any independent authority. While the other is based on eye-witness reports from international citizens in good standing. (though the Israeli PR machine has tried to portray them as terrorists or something a claim that has been thoroughly debunked) But here's the stuff that bothers me about all this. 1) Why did the Israeli's confiscate all the video and photographic evidence. Why are they not releasing this evidence. Their actions don't seem consistent with that of someone that has nothing to hide. 2) All they need to do to prove their version of events is release the full unedited footage. Heck, I'd be more than happy if they give the evidence to the US. I trust the Obama administration. I don't need to see the videos for myself. If the US says there's nothing that incriminates Israel on there, I'd be willing to accept it. (though at this stage there is no guarentee that anything they put out hasn't been altered or edited) 3) I'm also finding it hard to believe that on the one hand we had this "terrorist" mob of what 600 people? And they wanted to cause trouble, and according to the video they even managed to subdue some of the commandos. AND they had guns. Yet these people, intent on causing trouble didn't kill a SINGLE commando. I think it's fair to say they had a chance to. But this crazy, angry mob didn't kill a single soldier. Despite having subdued at least some of them. But the elite, highly trained and equipped Israeli commandos HAD to kill at least 9 people. Trained professionals had no choice. Something doesn't stick right with me about this narrative. 4) Israel refuse an independent investigation. Again, what do they have to hide? But at the end of the day. I guess it boils down to the fact that because the IDF are witholding the evidence and not allowing any independent investigation as well as their terrible track record in these kind of situations really ruins their credibility for me and I find it difficult to trust what they are saying. Especially when any evidence they DO seem to give is heavily edited. Look you NEVER take guns from a military commandos WHEN your purpose is supposed to be peaceful. Not if you've seen people shot dead from helicopters beside you by a military force with a reputation for killing civilians. You'd have every right to believe that they were going to kill you and every right to try and defend yourself. I'm surprised they showed so much restraint in throwing the guns overboard. If it was me and I thought people we're trying to kill me, I'd fucking shoot back. Wow conflict with the Israel Military again that sure shows their peaceful. What conflict? Just because the Israeli Military issues an illegal directive doesn't mean people should fall to their knees and obey. UN resolutions mandate the delivery of unrestricted aid into gaza. The blockade is in violation of that. Sailing to gaza and offering peaceful resistance is perfectly legitimate protest. I advise anyone to read the whole article instead of snippets from both me and klaz. Why, because as you can tell both show a biased viewpoint (even though mine is to counter the little job klaz tried to pull). I didn't try to pull any job. I linked the article from which I took the quotes that I thought we're important. I dunno why they took it down afterwards, but that's not my fault. There are plenty of articles out there for people who wanna read em. here's another one... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-attack-autopsy-results Gives the autopsy results of those killed. And shows the level of force involved. Let's hope this one stays up.  Hezbollah is supported by Iran there is no way their going to set around and let Israel exist. Hezbollah are a bunch of assholes. Though I don't see what that has to do with this flotilla. Also, it's interesting to note that the leader of Hamas has said they are willing to stop all attacks if Israel is willing to withdraw to the 1967 borders agreed at the UN by both Israel and Palestine. Personally, I've been thinking about this a lot and have changed my tack on this a little. I now believe that the only way to achieve lasting peace is for Hamas to declare an unconditional, unilateral ceasefire and then plead their case to the world. | ||
| ||
