EPTNews: Israel Attacks Gazan Aid Flotilla - Page 50
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
mass_
36 Posts
| ||
|
Coraz
United States252 Posts
learn the facts | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:55 Coraz wrote: saying israel attacked gaza is like saying russia invaded georgia learn the facts I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:14 xDaunt wrote: 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. He is not just wrong when he describes American foreign policy under the Bush administration in such a way, he is also showing a complete disregard for reality. A hypothetical spreading of democracy around the world would arguably be in America's interests, but in reality America has more pressing interests... interests that actually motivated its actions Did America invade Afghanistan in 2001 in order to spread democracy? No, the United States was attacked by individuals belonging to a group harbored by that country. It was an act motivated by very real security concerns, not some overarching desire to spread democracy. If spreading democracy were the goal, there were better regions of the world, ones without a history of instability and not filled with rival warlords, to start in. Did America invade Iraq in 2003 in order to spread democracy? No, that's clearly not what happened and I don't know how anyone could even argue that it was. As with Afghanistan, putting a stable democracy into place was a secondary goal at best. If your fundamental mission in the world is to spread democracy, you don't send billions in aid directly to autocracies around the world as the Bush administration did, most notably with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan under Musharraf, and not ask for democratic changes. If you want a clear idea of what the Bush administration was thinking, and truthfully I'm not sure that is entirely possible for someone outside of the administration to have, you need to read the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years written by Paul Wolfowitz and PNAC's open letter to President Clinton on Iraq. Do that and tell me how many times these future Bush administration officials mention democracy | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 05 2010 08:19 Mindcrime wrote: He is not just wrong when he describes American foreign policy under the Bush administration in such a way, he is also showing a complete disregard for reality. A hypothetical spreading of democracy around the world would arguably be in America's interests, but in reality America has more pressing interests... interests that actually motivated its actions Did America invade Afghanistan in 2001 in order to spread democracy? No, the United States was attacked by individuals belonging to a group harbored by that country. It was an act motivated by very real security concerns, not some overarching desire to spread democracy. If spreading democracy were the goal, there were better regions of the world, ones without a history of instability and not filled with rival warlords, to start in. Did America invade Iraq in 2003 in order to spread democracy? No, that's clearly not what happened and I don't know how anyone could even argue that it was. As with Afghanistan, putting a stable democracy into place was a secondary goal at best. If your fundamental mission in the world is to spread democracy, you don't send billions in aid directly to autocracies around the world as the Bush administration did, most notably with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan under Musharraf, and not ask for democratic changes. If you want a clear idea of what the Bush administration was thinking, and truthfully I'm not sure that is entirely possible for someone outside of the administration to have, you need to read the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years written by Paul Wolfowitz and PNAC's open letter to President Clinton on Iraq. Do that and tell me how many times these future Bush administration officials mention democracy The Iraq invasion was simply unfinished business. No one but the neocons would have jumped on it so willingly, but it was an overdue conclusion to the Gulf War and a series of failed policies. In Afghanistan, you're right that our interest in the region was rekindled by al-Qaeda - but regime change was the larger objective. After 9/11, Mohammed Omar told the U.S. to give evidence that Bin Laden's group was responsible and the Taliban would hand him over (I think this is best read as stalling for time). But this belittles the fact that such an extremist group could only exist in Taliban-run Afghanistan, as well as the fact that the leader of the Mujahideen was murdered only days earlier. Throw in our hairy Cold War history and you have all of the makings for a regime-change policy. As much as I loath many of the neocons, I take them at sincerity when they say they believe democratic countries don't export terrorist ideologies. Our foreign policy has in the past been too focused on supporting autocratic enemies of our enemy without looking at the big picture. And I would argue that the Democrats don't see things much differently. They don't disagree with the methodology - they just show greater hesitation to action. As for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... we really have few to zero allies in the region. Pakistan is in a very uncomfortable position of facing an ugly part of itself, but appears to institutionally be on the correct side. It's difficult to tell whether our interest ends with fundamentalism and moves on to democracy - I think we would need an ear in the State Department to know this. Saudi Arabia controls oil and they've got Mecca (and Jeddah). Don't fuck with Saudi Arabia. Period. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:53 mass_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiCGD793na8&playnext_from=TL&videos=XzPVC1PT-bY&feature=sub This focuses too much on 4 times, they are commandos with automatic weapons, 4 shots could be just 1 sec on the trigger. | ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On June 05 2010 08:50 semantics wrote: This focuses too much on 4 times, they are commandos with automatic weapons, 4 shots could be just 1 sec on the trigger. Except he was shot at close range in the chest which will drop anyone if its an automatic weapon so what the reasoning behind those 4 shots in the skull? Seems little fishy if you ask me also didn't they say it from a pistol? | ||
|
mass_
36 Posts
On June 05 2010 08:50 semantics wrote: This focuses too much on 4 times, they are commandos with automatic weapons, 4 shots could be just 1 sec on the trigger. You are pathetic.. There is really nothing more to be said to you... | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-attack-autopsy-results According to the scientists at the ATK, Dogan, who held US and Turkish citizenship was shot five times – from close range in the right side of his nose, in the back of the head, in the back and twice in the left leg. The oldest victim was 60-year-old Ibrahim Bilgen, a Turkish politician, engineer and activist who was married with six children. He had been shot once in the right temple, once in the right side of his chest, once in the back and once in the hip. Cetin Topcuotlu, a 54-year old former Taekwondo champion who worked as a coach for the Turkish national team, was shot three times – once in the back of his head, once in his hip and once in his belly. His wife, Cigden, who was with him on the Mavi Marmara said at his funeral on Thursday she would take part in further flotillas to Gaza with her son. This seems to correct an earlier report that he was shot 4 times in the head, though he WAS shot 5 times in various places. I'm not sure how much difference the distinction makes, but we might as well be as accurate as we can about this stuff. Edit: This kid(19) must be fucking Rambo or something if they had to do all that to "put him down." Edit 2: This is PURE SPECULATION on my part. But reading the report why do I get the horrible feeling that these people we're shot and when they we're incapacitated received a finishing kill shot? | ||
|
oo_xerox
United States852 Posts
| ||
|
GodIsNotHere
Canada395 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:16 oo_xerox wrote: this has reached full circle people, its time to let it go, none of you will stop whats going on there, so yeah, lives were lost, and both sides are right and wrong, deal with it, but stop posting the same shit over and over. Both sides were wrong? They boarded a ship in International waters... there is no excuse for that sorry. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:20 GodIsNotHere wrote: Both sides were wrong? They boarded a ship in International waters... there is no excuse for that sorry. There are legal excuses, but they do not appear to apply in this situation. The debate should be focused on the legality of the attack and I think an independent investigation will confirm eyewitness accounts that it was illegal - I don't trust an Israeli investigation to be impartial (they targeted people documenting the event and destroyed equipment), and the fact that the U.S. is opposed to an independent investigation is not only shameful, it is precisely why Americans should be outraged that our government hasn't taken a stronger stance. Obama is being deceptive with words when he says that the U.S. supports the U.N. resolution. | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:20 GodIsNotHere wrote: Both sides were wrong? They boarded a ship in International waters... there is no excuse for that sorry. Yes, both sides were wrong imo, you just pointed out one of the IDF mistakes. And of course there is no excuse for what happened...for both sides. I dont really buy that one side has made no errors or less important errors or whatsoever. Both sides could have changed it with a little bit common sense or better execution, if they just wanted to. For me it is a typical loss-loss situation. Both sides have a massive amount of PR-material now, it is even more fuel to that everlasting conflict and that just plain sucks. The fact that atleast 9 (how many people died actually? I heard everything from 9-16 now) humans died is of course the worst fact of the whole story. | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
"Kevin Ovenden of Britain said a man who had pointed a camera at the soldiers was shot directly through the forehead with live ammunition, with the exit wound blowing away the back of his skull." Several activists said, the death toll was higher than nine, and accused the Israeli army of hiding bodies and destroying forensic evidence. "The soldiers shot a doctor who surrendered and they threw dead bodies into the sea. We still don't know what happened to them," said Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, the Turkish charity which organised the convoy. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6536MF20100604 "In addition to those killed, 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing, he added." Again, when I read these reports, I'm not surprised that Israel has confiscated all the photographic evidence and won't release the unedited footage. Yes I can see how both sides were wrong.(sarcasm) How many Israeli soldiers did the aid workers execute again? It's remarkable how many people have bought the Israeli PR spin on this. Also, we are not going in circles, because as the protesters, who were held incommunicado by Israel for 3 days so that its PR could establish their narrative unchallenged, begin to return to their countries, the eye-witness reports emerging paint a very different picture from Israeli claims. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:00 GodIsNotHere wrote: Except he was shot at close range in the chest which will drop anyone if its an automatic weapon so what the reasoning behind those 4 shots in the skull? Seems little fishy if you ask me also didn't they say it from a pistol? I haven't heard what kind of weapon it was, but simple you wrestle guns away from people and mis-firing happens, along with people firing out of panic to regain control, not too hard to see that. The guy was shot and killed, no need to go he was shot 4 times in the head to make a spin of Israeli hate =p | ||
|
mass_
36 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:16 oo_xerox wrote: this has reached full circle people, its time to let it go, none of you will stop whats going on there, so yeah, lives were lost, and both sides are right and wrong, deal with it, but stop posting the same shit over and over. It is minds like you, why this planet is at it's current state. "Stop it, you can't change what is going on." Do you realize how pathetic, how ignorant you sound? If you've ever read just a little bit of history, you would have realized it only took one person's initiative to change the world most of the time. Mahatma Gandhi Nelson Mandela Kemal Ataturk Abraham Lincoln Martin Luther King Jr. These figures influenced masses, and thanks to these people the world is a different place. So stop saying "none of you can do nothing." You don't know that. You don't know if one of us decides to stop playing f.cking computer games and take action. But you are pathetic. You think what people have been doing here is nonsense. You think people should stop exchanging ideas about something terrible that happened and go back to playing video games. You sir, want people to stop discussing a very important and a very sad fact of the world which is crimes against humanity and go back to playing computer games. It isn't time to let it go. It never is. It is time to let go of stupid, mind numbing video games and start taking actions. It is time to unite over the internet. This is the only place where all the minds of all the different nations can unite and have their voices heard. This is the only place that we can start fixing our generation that which is also under the influence of the digital drug called the internet. We can't continue numbing our brains. It is time to use the internet for good, So, say it with me if you agree with me; Hi, I'm from the Republic of Internet and I'm against the crimes that are committed against humanity. Thank you. | ||
|
Clockwork.Orange
United States3 Posts
On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. Are you seriously arguing that they didn't expect to be boarded by the IDF? That was the entire purpose of their trip, to be stopped carrying supplies and gain some advantage out of the PR circus. So at 3am, without expecting the IDF, they happen to be in a mob on the deck to intercept the IDF? 'Picked up whatever they could find' doesn't take into account the iron bars they cut from the ship railings, which are clearly visible in numerous videos. Steel tipped plastic bullets? what in the world are you talking about? The idea of rubber/plastic bullets is less-than-lethal force, steel would defeat that purpose. What they landed with, and used, were paintball guns, as is widely acknowledged. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. Theres no evidence that they opened fire prior to landing, furthermore, their wounds don't match up with that account. 9mm handgun wounds are distinguishable from 5.56mm rifle wounds. Then you throw in a disclaimer that maybe they weren't shot at but still thought they were all going to be executed. I guess whatever slander sticks to the wall will work for you. Funny the other 5 ships didn't fear for their lives to the point they picked up sticks to attack men with handguns. People are quite aware if shots are being fired at them or not, theres no guesswork involved. There were also 'consistent' accounts of hundreds of dead in Jenin, which never happened. The fact that you take Hamas supporters' word at face value and assume the IDF is lying at every turn says enough about your biases. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. I don't disagree that they should throw out all the video they have of the incident, but I'm sure the same claims could and would be made that what is on video is out of context and not the whole picture. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: .... 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) If the IDF has a long history of TARGETTING innocent civilians, go ahead and provide some reputable links to incidents. I don't argue that innocents haven't died in the 50 year long war against Israel on both sides. I do argue that Hamas and the other terrorist groups involved specifically target civilians for murder while the IDF specifically targets military targets. If you want to look at the recent Gaza short war, where hundreds died, try explaining why so many of those 'civilians' killed were males 18-30. International citizens in good standing? who? On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. The IDF immediately put these people into a detention area. The whole idea of the blockade running was to create some PR propaganda for the Palestinians- what possible benefit would it be for the IDF to hand over the video, before even looking at it, and let the other side edit what gets shown on TV? The whole conflict has a long history to it of the Palestinian activists creating anti-Israeli myths to propagate on western TV. They have been very successful with it. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: ... 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. They severely injured a number of commandos, beat them with metal rods and stabbed at least one of them but I guess that wasn't enough? The IDF needed to let one of them die before they had the right to self-defense? Like you say, there were 600 of them, once you are in mortal danger you start dropping anyone that continues to attack you, regardless of how many that is or how many times you need to shoot someone before they go down. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. Who would do an independent investigation? The UN, which puts out laughable condemnations of Israel every year? Amnesty International, the EU, the Russians, the Chinese, some other nation? They've all taken sides in this conflict or have nothing to gain and much to lose by pissing off one side or the other. The video clips, however short, already establish the important facts in this raid- People on the ship used enough force to justify self-defense, with a lethal amount of force, by the vastly outnumbered IDF commandos. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: 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. An analogous situation would be drug runners having the right to self defense when pulled over by cops. The blockade was well-announced, the IDF response to the blockade runners was well announced. If you seriously think the IDF would have started murdering people who weren't resisting them with lethal force, maybe you should look at the other 5 ships. The Israelis had nothing to gain from dead 'martyrs' and everything to lose. The whole circus that has sprung up around this event was entirely predictable. Your whole argument here rests on an eyewitness that was invested enough in the re-arming of Hamas to take a ship ride to Israel, with certain detention at the end of the road. It amuses me greatly that you can apply " If it was me and I thought people we're trying to kill me, I'd fucking shoot back." as a justification for self-defense on the Hamas-supporting radical Islamists' side but fail to see that is exactly the justification for force used by the IDF commandos. You steal the sidearm of a cop or a soldier, you've just elevated the level of force you are using to lethal and you'll be lucky if you don't end up shot and dead. On June 05 2010 07:44 Klaz wrote: .... Gives the autopsy results of those killed. And shows the level of force involved. Let's hope this one stays up.  People were shot multiple times. Thats a normal level of force when faced with people threatening you with lethal force. You don't shoot to wound, or slow, you shoot to stop. One handgun round will not knock someone across the room and put them down, sometimes 3 rounds wont keep someone down and you'd be hard pressed to start counting if you get in a fire fight. Its hard to find more mainstream anti-Israeli sources than Reuters and Al Jazeera; BEIRUT, June 3 (Reuters) - Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony. There were sharp differences in the versions of Monday’s events at sea on the cruise liner Mavi Marmara. Witnesses freed after three days incommunicado in Israel accused troops of war crimes; Israel held to its line that they fired in self-defence. But the account from Andre Abu Khalil, a cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, echoed other testimony, from both sides, that after an initial landing by a small group of commandos armed with anti-riot weapons was overpowered by activists wielding sticks, a second wave of marines stormed in, killing those in their way. … Abu Khalil told Reuters by telephone from the southern Lebanese village of Marjayoun: “There were four Israeli soldiers brought to the lowest deck. They had fracture wounds.” | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 05 2010 09:55 Klaz wrote: http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/06/gaza-freedom-flotilla-israelis-threw.html "Kevin Ovenden of Britain said a man who had pointed a camera at the soldiers was shot directly through the forehead with live ammunition, with the exit wound blowing away the back of his skull." Several activists said, the death toll was higher than nine, and accused the Israeli army of hiding bodies and destroying forensic evidence. "The soldiers shot a doctor who surrendered and they threw dead bodies into the sea. We still don't know what happened to them," said Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, the Turkish charity which organised the convoy. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6536MF20100604 "In addition to those killed, 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing, he added." Again, when I read these reports, I'm not surprised that Israel has confiscated all the photographic evidence and won't release the unedited footage. Yes I can see how both sides were wrong.(sarcasm) How many Israeli soldiers did the aid workers execute again? It's remarkable how many people have bought the Israeli PR spin on this. Also, we are not going in circles, because as the protesters, who were held incommunicado by Israel for 3 days so that its PR could establish their narrative unchallenged, begin to return to their countries, the eye-witness reports emerging paint a very different picture from Israeli claims. hearsay, one people who clearly is bias vs another who is clearly bias. Also the usage of the word execute is bias against the Israeli's as it implies that killing people was an order. Eye-witnesses are the worst, do you want me to list all the reasons why eye-witnesses are the worst for finding out the truth. Maybe i should list the case in the US where like 20 people went to jail becuase of police with leading questions making kids say people were sexually abusing them. People lie, and memories is not video. Israel needs to release all the footage to a 3rd party who could be considered neutral. =p | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On June 05 2010 10:09 Clockwork.Orange wrote: Are you seriously arguing that they didn't expect to be boarded by the IDF? That was the entire purpose of their trip, to be stopped carrying supplies and gain some advantage out of the PR circus. So at 3am, without expecting the IDF, they happen to be in a mob on the deck to intercept the IDF? 'Picked up whatever they could find' doesn't take into account the iron bars they cut from the ship railings, which are clearly visible in numerous videos. Steel tipped plastic bullets? what in the world are you talking about? The idea of rubber/plastic bullets is less-than-lethal force, steel would defeat that purpose. What they landed with, and used, were paintball guns, as is widely acknowledged. Theres no evidence that they opened fire prior to landing, furthermore, their wounds don't match up with that account. 9mm handgun wounds are distinguishable from 5.56mm rifle wounds. Then you throw in a disclaimer that maybe they weren't shot at but still thought they were all going to be executed. I guess whatever slander sticks to the wall will work for you. Funny the other 5 ships didn't fear for their lives to the point they picked up sticks to attack men with handguns. People are quite aware if shots are being fired at them or not, theres no guesswork involved. There were also 'consistent' accounts of hundreds of dead in Jenin, which never happened. The fact that you take Hamas supporters' word at face value and assume the IDF is lying at every turn says enough about your biases. I don't disagree that they should throw out all the video they have of the incident, but I'm sure the same claims could and would be made that what is on video is out of context and not the whole picture. If the IDF has a long history of TARGETTING innocent civilians, go ahead and provide some reputable links to incidents. I don't argue that innocents haven't died in the 50 year long war against Israel on both sides. I do argue that Hamas and the other terrorist groups involved specifically target civilians for murder while the IDF specifically targets military targets. If you want to look at the recent Gaza short war, where hundreds died, try explaining why so many of those 'civilians' killed were males 18-30. International citizens in good standing? who? The IDF immediately put these people into a detention area. The whole idea of the blockade running was to create some PR propaganda for the Palestinians- what possible benefit would it be for the IDF to hand over the video, before even looking at it, and let the other side edit what gets shown on TV? The whole conflict has a long history to it of the Palestinian activists creating anti-Israeli myths to propagate on western TV. They have been very successful with it. They severely injured a number of commandos, beat them with metal rods and stabbed at least one of them but I guess that wasn't enough? The IDF needed to let one of them die before they had the right to self-defense? Like you say, there were 600 of them, once you are in mortal danger you start dropping anyone that continues to attack you, regardless of how many that is or how many times you need to shoot someone before they go down. Who would do an independent investigation? The UN, which puts out laughable condemnations of Israel every year? Amnesty International, the EU, the Russians, the Chinese, some other nation? They've all taken sides in this conflict or have nothing to gain and much to lose by pissing off one side or the other. The video clips, however short, already establish the important facts in this raid- People on the ship used enough force to justify self-defense, with a lethal amount of force, by the vastly outnumbered IDF commandos. An analogous situation would be drug runners having the right to self defense when pulled over by cops. The blockade was well-announced, the IDF response to the blockade runners was well announced. If you seriously think the IDF would have started murdering people who weren't resisting them with lethal force, maybe you should look at the other 5 ships. The Israelis had nothing to gain from dead 'martyrs' and everything to lose. The whole circus that has sprung up around this event was entirely predictable. Your whole argument here rests on an eyewitness that was invested enough in the re-arming of Hamas to take a ship ride to Israel, with certain detention at the end of the road. It amuses me greatly that you can apply as a justification for self-defense on the Hamas-supporting radical Islamists' side but fail to see that is exactly the justification for force used by the IDF commandos. You steal the sidearm of a cop or a soldier, you've just elevated the level of force you are using to lethal and you'll be lucky if you don't end up shot and dead. People were shot multiple times. Thats a normal level of force when faced with people threatening you with lethal force. You don't shoot to wound, or slow, you shoot to stop. One handgun round will not knock someone across the room and put them down, sometimes 3 rounds wont keep someone down and you'd be hard pressed to start counting if you get in a fire fight. Its hard to find more mainstream anti-Israeli sources than Reuters and Al Jazeera; Are you a troll or just looking for a smack-down? That's some first post... | ||
|
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
On June 05 2010 10:12 semantics wrote: hearsay, one people who clearly is bias vs another who is clearly bias. Also the usage of the word execute is bias against the Israeli's as it implies that killing people was an order. Eye-witnesses are the worst, do you want me to list all the reasons why eye-witnesses are the worst for finding out the truth. Maybe i should list the case in the US where like 20 people went to jail becuase of police with leading questions making kids say people were sexually abusing them. People lie, and memories is not video. Israel needs to release all the footage to a 3rd party who could be considered neutral. =p Well since Israel has confiscated all the objective evidence. and won't release it, eye-witness reports are all we have to go on. Also I've outlined in previous posts, why I consider the word of International citizens in good standing to be far more credible than that of the IDF. Lastly, eye-witness testimony is accepted in most courts of law in western democracies. Though of course you have to take into account whose speaking, but just because someone is the victim of a crime is not a legitimate reason to discount their testimony. | ||
| ||
