|
On June 08 2010 21:15 ArKaDo wrote:
Let's make it clear: In the constitution Israel is the state of JEWS, so Arab are not recognize as they should.
In the second time, i think you have a different identity card if you are arabic or jew in israel. So it's NOT a "pure" democracy in theory.
Israel is not a constitutional democracy - we have no constitution but rather a set of Basic Laws, which may some day become a part of a constitution, but is a work in progress. In the declaration of independence, it is written that Israel is the Jewish state. It is also written that it is a democracy and that there will be no segregation. There have been attempts in the past to pass the Basic Law: Equality, but time and time again that law has fallen due to pressure from a bizarre alliance of religious Jews and Muslims which would just hate for women to have equality legally specified.
There is the exact same identity card if you are Arabic or Jewish in Israel, though in the nationality on your ID does specify religion. There is a different one that is issued by the Palestinian authority.
Well, beside that Israel is a nice democracy with a great democratic system (better than my country for exemple) where everybody can vote.
Seriously Krazius, i agree that Chomsky has always been an idealist (a famous confrontation to Foucault back in the days clearly showed that) but still, your way of thinking is exactly your so called "ivory-tower". All you do is defending your country and saying on the same time that you are a "peace activist". Be clear with yourself.
To be more precise, you can't make war for peace, that's an idiocy by itself: you can make war to change the actual state, or to free people, or anything else.
You cannot say that you want peace and on the same time agree with IDF's violence.
A) It's Kazius, drop the 'r'. I don't add an "ng" at the end of your nickname, so drop the childish insults.
B) I'm not an ivory-tower philosopher as I have already been involved in the conflict on a personal level by continually voting on it, demonstrations, political rallies and the such, but also by being a soldier.
C) I am a peace activist. I have gone inside the west bank, have given humanitarian aid not just by giving stuff or transferring it, but by actually spending my time aiding people. I have participated in demonstrations, I consistently try to use my democratic rights of protest and free speech to the fullest extent. This does define action towards peace, hence, peace activist.
D) I never said that the blockade was done in order to achieve peace, it was done in order to achieve security. These things should not be mutually exclusive. Allow me to remind you that Israel negotiated under Rabin, Peres, Barak and even Netanyahu in the 90s while being attacked continually. Any country's first priority should be protecting it's citizens from death - by proactive means if necessary. You might find that callous, but keep in mind that other alternatives have failed very badly in the past, so Israel's only choice is between looking good in the media and saving lives.
E) The IDF is not a stand-alone here, and I wish people would stop talking about it as anything but a normal military. It does what the government commands it to do. The soldiers don't want to be in these situations, and by your (and most people here's) method of parsing out blame, you are giving it to 18-21 year old kids who want nothing more than to get the mandatory service over with and go home. I'm sure it makes it easy for you thinking that the army has free reign and that Israel is some sort of military dictatorship and not a true democracy. That is what you're implying every time you say the IDF and not the government is responsible.
People blamed Bush for Iraq, not the US military.
There is a big difference between "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" (if you want peace, prepare war) and "if you want peace, make war".
There is also a difference between "turn the other cheek" and "get fucked in the ass". Over the past 20 years various approaches failed, among them tolerating terrorist attacks and working towards peace while hoping someone will apply pressure to stop the terrorist attacks. The US was the only country to apply such pressure, and it's not exactly a neighbor. That is the main reason the negotiations up to 2000 failed.
If you want peace, it does not mean that you need to tolerate buses full of children exploding... in the same route your little brother takes to school. Israel is trying to minimize the active conflict inside Gaza and the West Bank, while still protecting it's people. That is a duty of a state.
|
On June 09 2010 05:47 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 05:33 Klaz wrote:
It would be funny if it didn't happen so often. Seems to be the modus operandi of those that seek to justify the unjustifiable.
Deny, obfuscate, deny, apologise, obfuscate. Oh, I see, so there is in fact nothing I, IDF or anyone for that matter can say or do. You've made up your mind. Lovely open-mindedness!
Based on the evidence available to date(including eye witness testimony and the behaviour of the IDF in trying to cover up the facts rather than bring them into the open,), I'm of the opinion that the IDF acted criminally and illegally. If the Israeli government was to allow an independent international investigation and this enquiry concluded that a) the boarding was justified b) the use of lethal force on the Mavi Mamara was justified, then I would have to amend my views in light of this new evidence.
At this stage I don't see what other new evidence can possibly come to light, other than a full disclosure of the material seized by the IDF, which is doubtful and even then it will be difficult to know that the material has not been tampered with.
|
On June 09 2010 04:35 Severedevil wrote:
Those pictures are remarkably clean and well-positioned, considering they were supposedly taken at night in the middle of a brawl.
But even if they're legit, all it does is move us from "Israeli thugs kill deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters" to "Israeli thugs get well-deserved beatdown before killing deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters".
So what you are saying is that Israeli soldiers are thugs, have no right to use lethal force under any condition, and whatever the other people do, it's fine.
|
On June 09 2010 07:08 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 04:35 Severedevil wrote:
Those pictures are remarkably clean and well-positioned, considering they were supposedly taken at night in the middle of a brawl.
But even if they're legit, all it does is move us from "Israeli thugs kill deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters" to "Israeli thugs get well-deserved beatdown before killing deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters". So what you are saying is that Israeli soldiers are thugs, have no right to use lethal force under any condition, and whatever the other people do, it's fine.
In the context of this issue, such a conclusion would be consistent with international law and ethics.
|
On June 09 2010 05:34 angelicfolly wrote:
WARING, I do watch fox news, so to you, you might want to avoid me (this is in light of the post you edited). Oh by the way fox news IS considered the most balanced news networks in America....
I'm not interested in getting side tracked into a discussion about fox news. I've seen the study about it being the "most trusted" network in America and that study is far more nuanced than you realise and has far wider implications than the headline. I know it's impossible to make someone who actually trusts Fox News realise just how ridiculously misinformed they are so I'm not going to waste my time trying.
I wasn't trying to prove who attacked first, but the fact that the flotilla WAS NOT peaceful. You have pictures that show Israel soldiers being pulled down, bleeding, and with knives in the picture. That does NOT paint a peaceful picture, If they where peaceful they would NOT have responded to violence, civil rights in America anyone?
The idea that a peaceful person or people would engage in self-defence and indeed do so with force is not paradoxical. I'm a peaceful person, I do not believe in violence, but I will defend myself from violence if need be. However, there is a difference between self-defence and pre-emptive violence dressed up as self-defence.
If those terrorists claims where debunked provide the documents so, if you can't don't bring it up again. Oh buy the way I didn't learn that at Fox News...
Actually I don't need to debunk anything. If you CLAIM that those people are terrorists, you have to provide evidence to prove that. Innocent till proven guilty is the law, not the other way around.
Ummm, if your whole goal is a pr campaign why make yourself look bad by killing the soldiers. That really was the whole goal of the flotilla, give Israel some pretty bad publicity.
Or quite simply you didn't kill soldiers because violence was never your intention and you were forced into it because you thought you were about to be killed. And many of you in fact, were.
|
On June 09 2010 07:15 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 05:34 angelicfolly wrote:
WARING, I do watch fox news, so to you, you might want to avoid me (this is in light of the post you edited). Oh by the way fox news IS considered the most balanced news networks in America.... I'm not interested in getting side tracked into a discussion about fox news. I've seen the study about it being the "most trusted" network in America and that study is far more nuanced than you realise and has far wider implications than the headline. I know it's impossible to make someone who actually trusts Fox News realise just how ridiculously misinformed they are so I'm not going to waste my time trying.
You shouldn't encourage trolls. They feed on anger.
|
It doesn't matter who attacked first in my eyes. The result was inevitable and the Israeli commanders are to blame. If you're on a boat and are suddenly boarded by people who you see as thugs and murderers, who you are volunteering to aid against, people are going to react poorly.
If you're a soldier and you come onto a boat and get attacked with metal rods, you're going to react poorly.
If they wanted to search the boat for weapons they should have been MUCH more diplomatic. The person who set up the protocol of repelling from helicopters is to blame here.
And fuck fox news.
|
On June 09 2010 07:13 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 07:08 Kazius wrote:On June 09 2010 04:35 Severedevil wrote:
Those pictures are remarkably clean and well-positioned, considering they were supposedly taken at night in the middle of a brawl.
But even if they're legit, all it does is move us from "Israeli thugs kill deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters" to "Israeli thugs get well-deserved beatdown before killing deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters". So what you are saying is that Israeli soldiers are thugs, have no right to use lethal force under any condition, and whatever the other people do, it's fine. In the context of this issue, such a conclusion would be consistent with international law and ethics.
Ethics aside, anyone has a right to defend himself from any legal point of view. How they got there is irrelevant and you are spewing BS.
|
On June 09 2010 10:39 Kazius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 07:13 mmp wrote:On June 09 2010 07:08 Kazius wrote:On June 09 2010 04:35 Severedevil wrote:
Those pictures are remarkably clean and well-positioned, considering they were supposedly taken at night in the middle of a brawl.
But even if they're legit, all it does is move us from "Israeli thugs kill deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters" to "Israeli thugs get well-deserved beatdown before killing deliverers of humanitarian aid on international waters". So what you are saying is that Israeli soldiers are thugs, have no right to use lethal force under any condition, and whatever the other people do, it's fine. In the context of this issue, such a conclusion would be consistent with international law and ethics. Ethics aside, anyone has a right to defend himself from any legal point of view. How they got there is irrelevant and you are spewing BS.
Are you kidding me? From the facts of this situation, that we know of, the Israeli soldiers definitely did not take the right actions against the protesters.
|
On June 09 2010 07:15 Klaz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2010 05:34 angelicfolly wrote:
WARING, I do watch fox news, so to you, you might want to avoid me (this is in light of the post you edited). Oh by the way fox news IS considered the most balanced news networks in America.... I'm not interested in getting side tracked into a discussion about fox news. I've seen the study about it being the "most trusted" network in America and that study is far more nuanced than you realise and has far wider implications than the headline. I know it's impossible to make someone who actually trusts Fox News realise just how ridiculously misinformed they are so I'm not going to waste my time trying. Show nested quote +I wasn't trying to prove who attacked first, but the fact that the flotilla WAS NOT peaceful. You have pictures that show Israel soldiers being pulled down, bleeding, and with knives in the picture. That does NOT paint a peaceful picture, If they where peaceful they would NOT have responded to violence, civil rights in America anyone? The idea that a peaceful person or people would engage in self-defence and indeed do so with force is not paradoxical. I'm a peaceful person, I do not believe in violence, but I will defend myself from violence if need be. However, there is a difference between self-defence and pre-emptive violence dressed up as self-defence. Show nested quote +If those terrorists claims where debunked provide the documents so, if you can't don't bring it up again. Oh buy the way I didn't learn that at Fox News... Actually I don't need to debunk anything. If you CLAIM that those people are terrorists, you have to provide evidence to prove that. Innocent till proven guilty is the law, not the other way around. Show nested quote +Ummm, if your whole goal is a pr campaign why make yourself look bad by killing the soldiers. That really was the whole goal of the flotilla, give Israel some pretty bad publicity. Or quite simply you didn't kill soldiers because violence was never your intention and you were forced into it because you thought you were about to be killed. And many of you in fact, were.
Don't waste your time, klaz it's not worth it. Trust me, you want to live in your little world go right ahead. Keep denying things that you don't agree with. I mean if you so choose you could write the sky off as being green with the amount of toxic you keep putting out. So keep attacking people who disagree with you, it REALLY gets the point across on who we are dealing with. So much for the personal attacks...
haha, you really like that one don't you? Interesting, I wonder did the chicken or the egg come first? Jokes aside, heres what we do know, with the amount of pictures and vids (regardless of what you want from them YOU CAN take them as evidence with a certain amount of credibility) compared to conflicting eye witness reports. Oh by the way wasn't one of those reports that the flotilla didn't attack the commandos? So klaz why didn't the women smuggle pictures of a massacre by the Israel soldiers? Certainly does sound like pre-emptive violence dressed up as self-defence.
I'm ONLY going to say this once to you, do NOT ignore what I have put into my post, and act like it was never brought up. You should really keep tabs on what is posted. I have given credibility to my claim, TO WHICH you have NOT.
http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/06/intel-specific-flotilla-passangers-linked-to-al-qaeda-hamas-and-other-terror-organizations-6-june-2010/
Ask a question in speculation get a speculative answer. We could go on and on, on why the terrorist didn't kill the soldiers but thats really an non-issue right now with all the evidence that we have right now (its NOT in your favor).
Now the ball is in your court lets see how you play this out.
mmp,
Isn't there a rule against one liners that add nothing to the discussion?
Jacobs Ladder,
It so does matter, because that the whole point of placing blame. Israel just cannot set back and let a ship pass through their blockade, they would have way to much to lose for it. In your thoughts how else are you going to stop a ship?
Yet another person who just seem to not be able to stand fox, I wonder why?
|
Dude you must be trolling. If you think fox news is unbiased I feel very sorry for you. I bet MSNBC is biased tho, right?
|
|
|
Lmao, what did you just do?
And you do realize that poll was directed towards rich white men probably in their mid 40's who actually have the time to do those surveys and host there opinion about news.
|
|
|
On June 09 2010 11:44 angelicfolly wrote:
Don't waste your time, klaz it's not worth it. Trust me, you want to live in your little world go right ahead. Keep denying things that you don't agree with. I mean if you so choose you could write the sky off as being green with the amount of toxic you keep putting out. So keep attacking people who disagree with you, it REALLY gets the point across on who we are dealing with. So much for the personal attacks...
Right...
Jokes aside, heres what we do know, with the amount of pictures and vids (regardless of what you want from them YOU CAN take them as evidence with a certain amount of credibility) compared to conflicting eye witness reports. Oh by the way wasn't one of those reports that the flotilla didn't attack the commandos? So klaz why didn't the women smuggle pictures of a massacre by the Israel soldiers? Certainly does sound like pre-emptive violence dressed up as self-defence.
If you expect me to respond to your wild theorising then you shouldn't dismiss off hand the conclusions I'm coming to.
Pictures: I have no problem taking what they show as having some credibility. The issue is with how you seem to be interpreting to arrive at conclusions that they DON'T show. Also the eye witness reports have been pretty consistent.
As to the woman: Here is another idiotic conclusion drawn by you based on thin air. I'm guessing she was below deck (from the picutres) while the majority of the shooting probably took place on the upper deck. Also from reports we know that the IDF soldiers brutalised anyone they saw filming them. So the fact that she had time to take pictures and hide the chip suggests she didn't go near the attacking soldiers, just the ones that were subdued. Seriously, start making some intelligent arguments.
Or what? You'll send the IDF to beat me up? lol. If you are going to make claims as flimsy as the above it's difficult to take them seriously.
Firstly Viva Palestine is a legitimate protest group, not a terrorist one.
Secondly, the IDF putting out a list of people doesn't prove anything. Where is the EVIDENCE that these people are terrorists? I mean after their behaviour in the recent incident the IDF don't really have much credibility right now. (ignoring for a second the way they treat journalists and the evidence they are withholding)
For example:
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/
When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts.
Not content to believe that night vision goggles signal membership in Al Qaeda, reporter Lia Tarachansky of The Real News Network and I called the IDF press office to ask for more conclusive evidence. Tarachansky reached the IDF’s Israel desk, interviewing a spokesperson in Hebrew; I spoke with the North America desk, using English. We both received the same reply from Army spokespeople: “We don’t have any evidence. The press release was based on information from the [Israeli] National Security Council.”
Today, the Israeli Army’s press office changed the headline of its press release (see below), basically retracting its claim about the flotilla’s Al Qaeda links.
And also... remember that claim about "racism" made a few pages back showing how radicalised the activists supposedly were? Looks like the IDF made that one up too...
http://publicintelligence.net/israel-defense-force-fabricates-anti-semitic-remarks-in-aid-flotilla-tape/
According to Ali Abunimah, Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, has identified the woman’s voice as that of his wife Huwaida Arraf, chair of the Free Gaza Movement. However, Arraf was not aboard the Mavi Marmara. She was aboard one of the small passenger vessels in the six-boat flotilla, called Challenger 1. In fact, Arraf appeared on Russia Today describing her experiences aboard that vessel.
To make matters worse, the IDF released a video depicting what seems to be the very same conversation some days prior. However, there is no mention of Auschwitz or 9/11 in this video, only a reply of “Negative, negative, our destination is Gaza.”
UPDATE: The Israel Defense Force has now released an “unedited” version of the recording which they say the following “edited” tape is taken from. This is despite the fact that the description of the video that the IDF supplied on both YouTube and the IDF Spokesman’s blog makes no mention of the tape being edited. Moreover, the authenticity of the newly released “unedited” version is highly questionable, as it is accompanied by the revelation that the IDF secretly edited the audio of the previous version “to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange”.
In addition to their strange editing practices, the IDF was forced to admit that they mistakenly attributed the communication to be with the Mavi Marmara.
So yeah, this conversation with the radicals on the Mavi mamara (the attacked boat) happened with someone who wasn't even there... ROFLMAO. The IDF basically caught lying AGAIN.
Ask a question in speculation get a speculative answer. We could go on and on, on why the terrorist didn't kill the soldiers but thats really an non-issue right now with all the evidence that we have right now (its NOT in your favor).
It's all conjecture since none of us were there and there is no independent investigation and the israeli govt hold all the evidence. But at least try to ground your conjecture in some kind of reality instead of La La Land.
|
I've avoided touching this thread until now but are you guys seriously arguing against someone that truly believes that FOX News is balanced and then retorts with a "you can go live in your own little world"?
Come on now.
|
On June 09 2010 13:18 koreasilver wrote:
I've avoided touching this thread until now but are you guys seriously arguing against someone that truly believes that FOX News is balanced and then retorts with a "you can go live in your own little world"?
Come on now.
To be fair, he never stated which part of fox news he believed was "balanced". If he had gone more in depth and stated fox's political commentary was balanced, that would've been a big mistake. However, he did cite a public poll, implying it to be a reliable source, so I don't know whether he is a troll or not.
|
It's pretty obvious what's up when a story about humanitarian civilians being killed becomes a 63 page thread.
|
Right...
Klaz GET OVER your egotism. Quit with the personal attacks already it's getting old and it's not doing you any favors on improving your position, actually it worsens it. You want to go down that route fine, have your whole argument discarded and you regarded as a bigot (you really should know what a bigot is, and how it deals with holding a position). On the point of my first paragraph you really should think about what it says about your position.
If you expect me to respond to your wild theorising then you shouldn't dismiss off hand the conclusions I'm coming to.
Wooosh you really don't get it. I added the chicken and the egg for a very good reason.
Pictures: I have no problem taking what they show as having some credibility. The issue is with how you seem to be interpreting to arrive at conclusions that they DON'T show. Also the eye witness reports have been pretty consistent.
You really should of gotten why I added that contradiction in that paragraph. We have pictures shoing the "activists" on the flotilla being violent. CONTRADICTING claims that they where not.
Read this on eye witness accounts it will do you some good why you cannot just take them at face value.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
Norman Paech said there where no knifes, hmmm didn't he also say he couldn't rule out others using weapons? Such a dilemma.
Anyways is this all the account witnesses that your speaking about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10206802.stm
Because that really doesn't move it beyond what we already know.
As to the woman: Here is another idiotic conclusion drawn by you based on thin air. I'm guessing she was below deck (from the picutres) while the majority of the shooting probably took place on the upper deck. Also from reports we know that the IDF soldiers brutalised anyone they saw filming them. So the fact that she had time to take pictures and hide the chip suggests she didn't go near the attacking soldiers, just the ones that were subdued. Seriously, start making some intelligent arguments.
Wow, man did you actually think I was following that line? Did it ever occur to you that was more of a statement about there being no smuggled pictures favoring the flotilla? I have only read one report of a "eye witness" saying a camera man was hit in the eye, care to show where these other reports are? So hiding and taking pictures is mutually exclusive to going near the soldiers? Didn't know we still where theorizing.
Or what? You'll send the IDF to beat me up? lol. If you are going to make claims as flimsy as the above it's difficult to take them seriously.
No you asked me for evidence to support my claim I gave you evidence in the first place so you are the one at fault for that one. yeah I'll send the big bad IDF after you, since you hate them so much.
Firstly Viva Palestine is a legitimate protest group, not a terrorist one.
Wiki article or others? Hmmm,
http://www.investigativeproject.org/blog/2010/01/true-beneficiaries-of-viva-palestina-aid
Or this one (you might find this one interesting)
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/our_regulatory_activity/compliance_reports/inquiry_reports/viva.aspx
Maybe not a traditional terrorist group but a group with ties.
Same as eye witnesses claiming events that never happened. With that said, was this event ever clean? Did I deny that Israel had made mistakes no I didn't. Point is, it was and still is a messy situation.
I pointed out five people who where claimed to be part of a terrorist organization, not al-qaeda
Ken O’Keefe
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7145681.ece
Yeah they made it up when the actual words WHERE SPOKEN. Where they messed up was what ship it was labeled with. Way to blow something out of proportion. Oh that doesn't help the flotilla at all.
It's all conjecture since none of us were there and there is no independent investigation and the israeli govt hold all the evidence. But at least try to ground your conjecture in some kind of reality instead of La La Land.
haha thats real funny denying that you are doing something similar while accusing me of it? Maybe we should hold hands and skip together in la la land.... man.
So big post, so lets see if I missed anything.
TOloseGT,
I have backed up my posts. I have been very sarcastic at times, but I never attacked someone (the first part of this post has a very specific reason why it like that). Those alone should tell you I'm not a troll.
That's one thing people don't understand about fox, people like Glenn Beck, Bill O-Rielly, Shawn all give OPINION on the news. The only one that I watch constantly would be Bill (opinion part).
|
Angelicfolly, it doesn't matter what you say or what you use as evidence. Any site they don't like is not good, but on the other hand any site they like is good. They aren't interested in considering our point-of-view. And to debunk us, they much prefer putting words in our mouths.
But hey, questioning your own beliefs is totally 90s.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
