DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on July 05, 2010, 02:59:41 AM
-
Israel loses Turkey, gains Greece as strategic partner
DEBKAfile July 4, 2010, 11:09 PM
(http://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2010/07/04/big/Papandreou1.7.10.jpg)
Greek FM George Panadreou shows interest
Israel has finally moved on from its fractured relationship with Turkey - notwithstanding the impression
conveyed by some US and Israeli circles that the damage is not beyond repair. This week, the Israeli
Minister of Trade and Labor Minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer made last-ditch bid to save the relationship
by initiating a meeting in Zurich with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutolu. It went badly and was
hotly debated at the Israeli cabinet meeting Sunday, July 4. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said
he thought it was worth a try, but most ministers said that given Ankara's harsh hostility, it should
never have taken place.
Meanwhile, as Western and Turkish media outlets harped on Israel's loss of its only Muslim ally in the
Middle East, Jerusalem was busy acquiring a new strategic partner: Greece, a NATO member like
Turkey with plenty of Middle East interests, has shown interest in stepping into Turkey's shoes
and investing in stronger military and intelligence ties.
DEBKA reported on June 25 from sources in Athens and Jerusalem that this development was not
so much planned in Jerusalem as initiated by Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, who boasts
many Jewish and Israeli friends and business contacts, some of whom hold high political and intelligence
positions in Israel. He saw Athens' chance to slot into Ankara's place in Jerusalem and transform their
present diplomatic, economic, military and intelligence ties into a thriving strategic alliance,
that would carry the same advantages to both sides as did Israel's former relations with Turkey.
According to some sources, Papandreou also hopes this alliance will help ease some of his country's
financial woes. But most of all, he is looking to Israel for help in speeding the upgrade of his armed
forces and helping transform them into the Christian mainstay of NATO in the Balkans and southern
Europe - in place of the Muslim Turkish army.
This notion was not the direct outcome of Israel's break with Turkey or the clash aboard the Turkish
Mavi Marmara on May 31 between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian Turkish activists. It has been
evolving for some time, first broached in the summer of 2008 when Papandreou allowed 100 Israeli F-15
and F-16 fighter-bombers to pass through Greek Mediterranean air space for practicing long flights and
in-flight fueling.
The distance between Israel and Greece there and back is 1,900 kilometers, identical to the distance
between Israel and Iran.
The Greek prime minister went out of his way to be of assistance, making available to the Israeli Air Force
the crews and advanced S-300 PMU1interceptor missile batteries Athens purchased from Russia back in 2000.
They were allowed to practice bombing sorties against these batteries, in case Moscow decided to sell them to
Iran and Syria.
The severe financial crisis besetting Greece this year enhanced the friendly ties between Athens and Jerusalem.
While European Union countries spent long months discussing whether to bail Greece out and save it from collapse
(eventually granting a ?110 billion package), Papandreou turned to Jewish financial titans in Europe and the
United States for help to keep the Greek economy afloat.
-
I can tell, you are all for the US bailing out Greece, so long as it does it by giving the money to Israel first.
Greece has no allies in the Muslim world as Turkey did, and a fraction of the population and territory. Turkey shares a border with Iran, Greece does not.
Greece is a poor substitute. Israel blew it bigtime for killing those Turks. Now what gets into Gaza depends on the Egyptians, and it is all because of the failure of Netanyahu's crappy leadership.
-
Greece is a poor substitute. Israel blew it bigtime for killing those Turks.
What was their alternative?
Turkey is blowing it big time, giveing up an ally that employs thousands of Turks and has usefull technology to share. Joining with new allies that have less to offer and are more intreated in exerciseing controll inside Turkey.
-
The alternative was to prevent the ship from landing with items supposedly forbidden to the Gazans. Sending commandos was hardly the only alternative. It is pretty easy to prevent an unarmed cargo ship from docking in a harbor if you have even a minimal navy, and no, there were no serious weapons on board that ship.
No one had to die to prevent the ship from unloading. Netanyahu wanted the Israelis to pull off another damned Entebbe,and they blew it. The goal was to take over the control of the ship with no casualties, but it was unnecessary to take the helm of the ship to do this.
It was a failure, admit it. Now the Egyptians can let anything in they wish, and Israel has lost control. Their goal was squelched.
Banning lumber and cement is dumb, but banning spices and candy was extremely dumb. Netanyahu is either an idiot or he needs to remove the idiots that advised him on this.
-
The alternative was to prevent the ship from landing with items supposedly forbidden to the Gazans. Sending commandos was hardly the only alternative. It is pretty easy to prevent an unarmed cargo ship from docking in a harbor if you have even a minimal navy, and no, there were no serious weapons on board that ship.
No one had to die to prevent the ship from unloading. Netanyahu wanted the Israelis to pull off another damned Entebbe,and they blew it. The goal was to take over the control of the ship with no casualties, but it was unnecessary to take the helm of the ship to do this.
It was a failure, admit it. Now the Egyptians can let anything in they wish, and Israel has lost control. Their goal was squelched.
Banning lumber and cement is dumb, but banning spices and candy was extremely dumb. Netanyahu is either an idiot or he needs to remove the idiots that advised him on this.
From the martyrs point of view it was a success.
Why was there hundreds of people armed with clubs on that ship?
I think the choreography was stepped through without missing a step.
Yes you are right, the IDF could have shot it with a naval canon , and as it turns out in hindsight , this might have been a better alternative.
-
If I were on that ship (highly unlikely, as I think it would be too risky) I would have brought a club. Who wouldn't?
I would say they should have
(1) ordered the ship to stop.
(2) fired a salvo across the bow if it did not.
(3) waited.
That is how the FBI dealt with the rebellious tax protesters in Montana after the Waco ruckus. They just surrounded them and waited. They probably would not have had to wait more than a week. After all, there was nothing on that ship that presented any threat if it had been imported into Gaza. Nothing that you or I could not buy within 20 miles of home, and no weapons.
The Gaza blockage is an outrage to human decency. The Israelis are not really threatened by Hamas. Those silly rockets have killed 23 people total. NOTHING like the number of Gazans killed.
The biggest advantage of the Palestinians is that justice is on their side when it comes to that blockade.
-
With the advantage of hind-site XO snipes at decision makers yet before hand he wouldn't know the correct move to make because all he's good at is agitation, division, and ruination. It must be a liberal thing because Obama did it to Bush for 8 years. Then when faced with tough decisions Obama always does the wrong thing because 1. he has no experience 2. he isn't a leader 3. he has no character 4. he was put in office with affirmative action. Obama and XO just shoot off their mouths like little yappy chihuahua's barking and barking but there is nothing behind their words but hot air.
They were all for the Stimulus from the gitgo, but what did it get us? In debt. They were for health care and right out the gate that is another disaster and failure. Liberals can't get it right because they are flawed, foolish, and small-minded.
-
If I were on that ship (highly unlikely, as I think it would be too risky) I would have brought a club. Who wouldn't?
I would say they should have
(1) ordered the ship to stop.
(2) fired a salvo across the bow if it did not.
(3) waited.
That is how the FBI dealt with the rebellious tax protesters in Montana after the Waco ruckus. They just surrounded them and waited. They probably would not have had to wait more than a week. After all, there was nothing on that ship that presented any threat if it had been imported into Gaza. Nothing that you or I could not buy within 20 miles of home, and no weapons.
The Gaza blockage is an outrage to human decency. The Israelis are not really threatened by Hamas. Those silly rockets have killed 23 people total. NOTHING like the number of Gazans killed.
The biggest advantage of the Palestinians is that justice is on their side when it comes to that blockade.
You are somewhat intelligent and also lacking all desire to become a martyer , so I also imagine that you would not buy a ticket to ride on one of those ships. But if you were, why on earth arm yourself with a club?
If the ship had no wepons on board they could have peacefully submitted to search and the supplys would have been in Gaza with minimal delay.
Gazans most desprately need better rockets so that they can better justify their imprisonment, if Jews were more into Myrterdom they might let more uninspected cargo into Gaza, with a few better rockets a reinvasion of Gaza can happen sooner rather than later.
-
If I were on that ship (highly unlikely, as I think it would be too risky) I would have brought a club. Who wouldn't?
I would say they should have
(1) ordered the ship to stop.
(2) fired a salvo across the bow if it did not.
(3) waited.
That is how the FBI dealt with the rebellious tax protesters in Montana after the Waco ruckus. They just surrounded them and waited. They probably would not have had to wait more than a week. After all, there was nothing on that ship that presented any threat if it had been imported into Gaza. Nothing that you or I could not buy within 20 miles of home, and no weapons.
The Gaza blockage is an outrage to human decency. The Israelis are not really threatened by Hamas. Those silly rockets have killed 23 people total. NOTHING like the number of Gazans killed.
The biggest advantage of the Palestinians is that justice is on their side when it comes to that blockade.
typical moronic statement. under Bush, forget about obama, but under a real leader if mexico were firing rockets into downtown san diego Bush or any real leader would take care of the problem, not sit there and wish the situation would go away. and he would NOT beg mexico to stop. what in the hell is HAMAS firing rockets into Israel for?
-
Kramer, when Stupid puts on his "I'm with stupid" shirt, he makes sure the arrow points to you.
The Israelis can move people out of range of those rockets, and the people in range can move themselves.
It is every bit as stupid to fire the rockets as it is to live within range of them.
-
Kramer, when Stupid puts on his "I'm with stupid" shirt, he makes sure the arrow points to you.
The Israelis can move people out of range of those rockets, and the people in range can move themselves.
It is every bit as stupid to fire the rockets as it is to live within range of them.
You want a six mile no mans land?
even if the rockets were smaller rather than bigger ,
Why shouldn't Israel raze the trees and homes half the rockets range back from the border?
These are indeed stupid rockets.
-
Kramer, when Stupid puts on his "I'm with stupid" shirt, he makes sure the arrow points to you.
The Israelis can move people out of range of those rockets, and the people in range can move themselves.
It is every bit as stupid to fire the rockets as it is to live within range of them.
Bozo, no country let's another country fire rockets at them, period. that invites more of the same because it shows weakness. this is Arab 101 stuff here - crush them! if anything Israel has shown way too much leniency and patience with these barbarians.
-
Kramer, when Stupid puts on his "I'm with stupid" shirt, he makes sure the arrow points to you.
The Israelis can move people out of range of those rockets, and the people in range can move themselves.
It is every bit as stupid to fire the rockets as it is to live within range of them.
You want a six mile no mans land?
even if the rockets were smaller rather than bigger ,
Why shouldn't Israel raze the trees and homes half the rockets range back from the border?
These are indeed stupid rockets.
for every mile of land israel has to push back then the arabs should have to lose the same. its all silly, israel should just kick ass and get rid of the problem.
-
XO doesn't get it.
XO buys into the sham being sold
XO buys the sham that this is about one ship breaking a blockade
The Turkish PM has been cozying up to Iran for some time before this latest sham incident.
The ship incident was just the first public move in the IslamoNazi chess game that now includes Turkey.
Once Iran is hit big...Turkey will crawl back in it's hole with it's tail between it's legs.
It was somewhat successful convincing fools like XO that it was about taking baby bottles
to babies not about what it's really all about which is Iranian missles at Israel's door and
an Iranian port at Israel's door. Of course the sham didn't work in real terms...but it did
work in further fooling fools like XO. Israel is the bad guy for not wanting Iranian missles
in it's back door.
But that is no surprise....XO is vehemently anti-Israel.
-
Israel IS the bad guy for HAVING the Goddamned missiles.
The US is not going to bomb Iran, and neither is the US. Dream on.
Like I said, Israel is as important to the US as Trandenestria or South Ossetia or perhaps Kashmir, but I resent paying for Israel's "defense".
Turkey is a worthy ally of the US: they joined the UN in Korea. Israel is a parasitic beggar nation that depends on my taxes.
-
Anti-Israeli Bravo Sierra aside, I have to agree with the general gist of XO's initial analysis.
Israel has every right to establish whatever relationship with any nation it chooses. But cultivating better relations with Greece - if it has anything at all to do with their relationship with Turkey - is a ridiculous move by Israel.
First, by simple comparison, Turkey has, indeed, all of those Muslim ties, along with power and prestige in the Middle East that Greece lacks entirely. In regional terms, Greece as a strategic partner has nothing to offer. That relationship would be nothing compared to the loss of Turkish partnership.
Second, Greece is rocked by internal strife and economic catastrophe right now. It's like one passenger on the Titanic clinging to another.
Third, Greece is STILL an enemy in all but name to Turkey. The effect of improved relations with Greece - especially if flaunted as an antidote to the loss of Turkish support - would drive a last nail into the coffin of Turkish-Israeli relations. It might well also drive the Turks to openly support Iran and other regimes currently hostile to the west. Turkey is a moderate nation, but the Turks are a proud people and eventually they are going to see a lot more sense in sticking with their Muslim brothers than in groveling at the feet of the US and Israel. They have already resisted the overtures of the US concerning their fight with the Kurds and involvement in the ongoing conflicts, in spite of our NATO relations. I think we squander our own goodwill with Turkey at great peril. Israel needs them even more. Turkey seems like no threat right now, but Iran seemed pretty secure in 1976.
Finally, somewhere, the Maccabees are turning over in their graves.
-
Israel IS the bad guy for HAVING the Goddamned missiles.
The US is not going to bomb Iran, and neither is the US. Dream on.
Like I said, Israel is as important to the US as Trandenestria or South Ossetia or perhaps Kashmir, but I resent paying for Israel's "defense".
Turkey is a worthy ally of the US: they joined the UN in Korea. Israel is a parasitic beggar nation that depends on my taxes.
$3 billion a year to Israel is a drop in the (bucket) budget compared to all my tax money wasted on the Great Society. At least with Israel we have something to show for it. With the Great Society waste all we got was Obama and then we lost another $16 TRILLION with his election.
-
Anti-Israeli Bravo Sierra aside, I have to agree with the general gist of XO's initial analysis.
Israel has every right to establish whatever relationship with any nation it chooses. But cultivating better relations with Greece - if it has anything at all to do with their relationship with Turkey - is a ridiculous move by Israel.
First, by simple comparison, Turkey has, indeed, all of those Muslim ties, along with power and prestige in the Middle East that Greece lacks entirely. In regional terms, Greece as a strategic partner has nothing to offer. That relationship would be nothing compared to the loss of Turkish partnership.
Second, Greece is rocked by internal strife and economic catastrophe right now. It's like one passenger on the Titanic clinging to another.
Third, Greece is STILL an enemy in all but name to Turkey. The effect of improved relations with Greece - especially if flaunted as an antidote to the loss of Turkish support - would drive a last nail into the coffin of Turkish-Israeli relations. It might well also drive the Turks to openly support Iran and other regimes currently hostile to the west. Turkey is a moderate nation, but the Turks are a proud people and eventually they are going to see a lot more sense in sticking with their Muslim brothers than in groveling at the feet of the US and Israel. They have already resisted the overtures of the US concerning their fight with the Kurds and involvement in the ongoing conflicts, in spite of our NATO relations. I think we squander our own goodwill with Turkey at great peril. Israel needs them even more. Turkey seems like no threat right now, but Iran seemed pretty secure in 1976.
Finally, somewhere, the Maccabees are turning over in their graves.
At the end of the day Turkey doesn't want, need, or benefit from a nuclear armed Iran. Need I say more?
-
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE66413N.htm (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE66413N.htm)
Turkey's foreign minister was quoted on Monday as saying that Ankara would cut ties with Israel unless it apologised or accepted an international inquiry into its deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza.
But a Turkish government official told Reuters the minister's words had been misrepresented. The official said Ankara's position was that it would be very difficult or impossible to repair bilateral ties with the Jewish state unless Ankara's previously stated demands were met.
-
Does Turkey really want an inquiry?
Seems like there is a lot for those Turkish civilians to explain.
-
Turkey is not an enemy of the US or of Americans in any way, and should not become an enemy or suffer worse relations because of the dumb crap that Israel does. There is no reason why the Turks should NOT do an investigation. They were the once who lost the most people to this. It was Israels fault that anyone got killed, as they started the fight by sending those goons down a rope onto a ship.
-
Turkey is not an enemy of the US or of Americans in any way, and should not become an enemy or suffer worse relations because of the dumb crap that Israel does. There is no reason why the Turks should NOT do an investigation. They were the once who lost the most people to this. It was Israels fault that anyone got killed, as they started the fight by sending those goons down a rope onto a ship.
Goons?
How did this ship have four hundred club weilding peacenicks?
-
The people on the ship had a right to have clubs. The Israelis sending their goons down a rope proves that they needed them.
Observe who and how many of each got killed. I saw nothing about 400 people with clubs in any new report. But if they had really been prepared for a fight, they would have had submachine guns, and bazookas. Clubs are a poor weapon when the enemy has firearms.
And again, the Zionists were not only wrong, but stupid and wrong and lost this one because of being both stupid and wrong.
-
<<This notion was not the direct outcome of Israel's break with Turkey or the clash aboard the Turkish
Mavi Marmara on May 31 between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian Turkish activists.
This was how DEBKRAP described the murder of nine Turkish humanitarian aid workers - - as a "clash" between commandos and activists. As if two armed groups had met and shot it out.
What a bunch of undisguised garbage. Murder is murder and most of the world can understand it as such. "Club-wielding passengers?" Give me a break - - they tore up the ship's railings to use as makeshift weapons of self-defence after the Israeli commandos opened fire on the unarmed passengers and began dropping onto the decks.
The switch in allies can be summarized as:
Turkey: pop. 72.5 million, armed forces about 1 million, est. 2009 GDP $880 billion;
Greece: pop. 11 million, armed forces about 178,000, est. 2009 GDP $334 billion
Political stability of Greece - - let the headlines speak for themselves. Greeks are rioting in the streets because of the EU's attempts to force "fiscal restraint" on them. We'll have to see how interested the Greeks are in getting themselves embroiled in Middle Eastern conflicts for the sake of their new-found friends, who have already demonstrated pretty conclusively how they treat allies of long standing.
Anyone who can't see this as a distinct lurch toward oblivion by the Israelis is definitely looking at this with blinders on.
-
<<This notion was not the direct outcome of Israel's break with Turkey or the clash aboard the Turkish
Mavi Marmara on May 31 between Israeli commandos and pro-Palestinian Turkish activists.
This was how DEBKRAP described the murder of nine Turkish humanitarian aid workers - - as a "clash" between commandos and activists. As if two armed groups had met and shot it out.
What a bunch of undisguised garbage. Murder is murder and most of the world can understand it as such. "Club-wielding passengers?" Give me a break - - they tore up the ship's railings to use as makeshift weapons of self-defence after the Israeli commandos opened fire on the unarmed passengers and began dropping onto the decks.
The switch in allies can be summarized as:
Turkey: pop. 72.5 million, armed forces about 1 million, est. 2009 GDP $880 billion;
Greece: pop. 11 million, armed forces about 178,000, est. 2009 GDP $334 billion
Political stability of Greece - - let the headlines speak for themselves. Greeks are rioting in the streets because of the EU's attempts to force "fiscal restraint" on them. We'll have to see how interested the Greeks are in getting themselves embroiled in Middle Eastern conflicts for the sake of their new-found friends, who have already demonstrated pretty conclusively how they treat allies of long standing.
Anyone who can't see this as a distinct lurch toward oblivion by the Israelis is definitely looking at this with blinders on.
don't fret, by the time this is over Turkey will be Israel's buddy once again. Iran will get de-nuked by Israel and so on and so force and yadda yadda yadda.
-
What a bunch of undisguised garbage. Murder is murder and most of the world can understand it as such.
Fortunately, this is not murder. It is "selective execution" of "enemies of the people."
Man, you shoulda seen that post . . .
Anyone who can't see this as a distinct lurch toward oblivion by the Israelis is definitely looking at this with blinders on.
I'm not sure about oblivion, but it is not a step up by any means. Israel doesn't need a NATO ally. The de facto military arm of NATO is already her biggest ally.
-
<<I'm not sure about oblivion, but it is not a step up by any means. Israel doesn't need a NATO ally. The de facto military arm of NATO is already her biggest ally. >>
That may be starting to change. In any event, I have always wondered, when the shit hits the fan, just how far that "biggest ally" is willing to go for its little sidekick. This is, after all, an "alliance" never formalized in a mutual defence treaty, in which all of the benefits of the "alliance" seem to flow in one direction only.
-
<<I'm not sure about oblivion, but it is not a step up by any means. Israel doesn't need a NATO ally. The de facto military arm of NATO is already her biggest ally. >>
That may be starting to change. In any event, I have always wondered, when the shit hits the fan, just how far that "biggest ally" is willing to go for its little sidekick. This is, after all, an "alliance" never formalized in a mutual defence treaty, in which all of the benefits of the "alliance" seem to flow in one direction only.
Yeah, but there is way too much history there. And if you want to be completely cynical, keeping Israel over there to occupy the ragheads helps keep them from getting any funny ideas about forming an actual working Pan-Arab alliance which just might become another major power - even a superpower - and would introduce a whole new problem in that oil-rich region. OPEC is quite enough to deal with. Israel keeps them all jockeying for power while trying to avoid getting on Big Brother's hit list. Eliminate Israel and they could have enough free time on their hands to start thinking about mergers. It could be like a wall-street orgy with five breaks a day for prayer.
I don't see the US backing off from supporting Israel anytime soon. And if we did, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Israel courting Russia and China (and them falling in line for the same destabilization reasons). World politics is a funny pup.
-
<<And if you want to be completely cynical, keeping Israel over there to occupy the ragheads helps keep them from getting any funny ideas about forming an actual working Pan-Arab alliance which just might become another major power - even a superpower - and would introduce a whole new problem in that oil-rich region. OPEC is quite enough to deal with. >>
If I wanted to be completely cynical? Come on, Pooch, put that old imagination to work. If I wanted to be completely cynical, I'd have to say that Zio-Nazi bribe money, of which AIPAC, I can tell you from personal knowledge, is but the tip of the iceberg, will keep the unbelievably corrupt U.S. Congress on the side of Israel for a very, very, very long time. As the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty should have told any thinking observer.
<<Israel keeps them all jockeying for power while trying to avoid getting on Big Brother's hit list. Eliminate Israel and they could have enough free time on their hands to start thinking about mergers. It could be like a wall-street orgy with five breaks a day for prayer. >>
Israel, to the contrary, is what should bring them together despite all their differences, since it is Israel that humiliates the Muslim world every second of the occupation of the West Bank occupation, with gratuitous extra-large doses of humiliation thrown in at choice intervals, i.e., invasions of Lebanon, invasion of the West Bank, invasion of Gaza, murder of the Turkish relief workers, etc. etc. etc. Support of Israel is behind much of the anti-American sentiment of the Middle East today. At the end of WWII, the country they loved to hate was the UK. Even at the time of the Suez War, it was the English and French bad guys conspiring with the Israelis to take back the Canal by force, and the American good guys who forced them to give up their ill-gotten gains. Somehow, after Eisenhower, American $$$$$upport swung round to Israel, and hatred of America all over the Middle East has risen to epic proportions.
-
This was how DEBKRAP described the murder of nine Turkish humanitarian aid workers - - as a "clash" between commandos and activists. As if two armed groups had met and shot it out.
=================================
A rumble in the schoolyard between the Sharks and the Jets, as in "West Side Story".
It could be more colorfully described as a skirmish between Turks with improvised weapons and armed piñatas.
I suppose Debkafiles would have preferred that the club wielders had been blindfolded.
And again, the fact is that Israel was stupid and lost this round, and an important ally. I hardly think that the Turks are going to decide to make nice with the Zionists again: I have a feeling that the Turkish political and military classes only did so for so long
because the former were advised by the Americans (and may have shared a War College classroom with them) and the latter liked Israel's weapons. I do not believe that Turks actually like the Jews all that much: they just see the Arabs as backward hicks who have not the sense to come up with their own Ataturk.
-
If I were on that ship (highly unlikely, as I think it would be too risky) I would have brought a club. Who wouldn't?
And yet, no one has yet explained WHY there were hundreds of people on that supposed cargo ship.
Most cargo ships, even big ones, operate with a crew of a few dozen max. The "Edmund Fitzgerald" had a crew of 29 (we know this from the song's lyrics :) ) for one of the largest freighters in the world at the time. Again, according to the lyrics, she was carrying 26,000 tons of ore (mostly taconite) from Minnesota / Wisconsin to Ohio when she went down. That's a larger cargo than what was on the ship in Gaza, and they didn't need hundreds of crew.
-
And yet, no one has yet explained WHY there were hundreds of people on that supposed cargo ship.
Michael Tee admitted the truth.....it was a publicity stunt...you are exactly right....why
would you need hundreds of people?....thats insane....but not if you have another agenda.
-
This was a charitable mission, and one assumes that many wanted to be present just to be able to claim they were there, when the blockade was broken and the Israelis made fools of themselves.
They certainly did not need all that many people to tear down the Berlin Wall. They demolish walls all the time with six or seven people.
Jesus could have given a perfectly good Sermon on the Mount with only a dozen in the audience, and there would have been no miracle to feed them required. Imagine Moses leading seventeen people for fourteen days. How about Noah and Mrs Noah with a pair of housecats and some stowaway mice on an eight hour cruise, and eight hour cruise.
Symbolic acts require a symbolic multitude, I would say.
-
"Demonstration of solidarity" would probably be more accurate and less frivolous than "publicity stunt" but in either case their presence was largely symbolic. I don't think that Israel has the right to murder people in cold blood because they are participating in a symbolic demonstration and I don't think the world sees it as anything less than cold-blooded murder of highly principled people doing what their conscience tells them to do. To the corporate American MSM, which is almost entirely pro-Israel and almost entirely owned by Zio-Nazis and their sympathizers, this was a one-or-two-day flash in the pan. Hopefully the Muslim world will not forget so soon. I see this as one more nail in the coffin of the Zio-Nazi racist apartheid state, with many more nails to go, but the direction of the trend is becoming clearer. Israel as a racist state is an abomination. I'm just sorry I ever supported it. It was wrong from the get-go, and the passage of time only indicates how wrong the foundation really was.
-
I can't see supporting the Israelis leaving and Israel being disbanded or abolished, but I agree that the idea of creating Israel in the first place has turned out to have been a rather large mistake.
I think there could be a solution, but we may be approaching a time in which the population exceeds the area involved. There is a finite amount of water in Palisrael. Any solution would involve something like at least half the Jews and half the Arabs being seriously disappointed in one way or another, and there is no way that extremists like Hamas or Kahane's old party (Kach, or something like that) will ever be satisfied.
-
Looks to me now like a one-state solution with equal rights for all is about the only reasonable hope. Of course, this means the end of Israel as a "Jewish state" but so what? States should not have any religion or ethnicity but only ensure equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity.
-
As I have said before, the unification of religion and state has to be the single most disastrous idea ever to have been conceived. But how does a single state solution occur? You might sell it to the PLO, but selling it to the Zionists is likely to be a very hard sell.
-
Good article by Conn Hallinan in antiwar.com regarding Turkey's rise as a regional ME power as the influence of America and its corrupt satellite dictatorships fades to black. (Slight exaggeration for wishful thinking here)
http://original.antiwar.com/hallinan/2010/07/05/turkey-america-and-empires-twilight/ (http://original.antiwar.com/hallinan/2010/07/05/turkey-america-and-empires-twilight/)
The article ties in nicely with rising second-tier powers' (Brazil, India, Turkey) dissatisfaction with the postwar structure of the UN and its Security Council, so it's applicable to the ME and elsewhere as well. Turkey's strategic regional interests are nicely explained, also how it is going about tending to them.
-
<<But how does a single state solution occur? You might sell it to the PLO, but selling it to the Zionists is likely to be a very hard sell.>>
This factor is discussed from time to time in the MSM, under the general heading of "The Demographic Time Bomb," i.e. the natural growth rate of the Israeli Arab population outpacing that of the Israeli Jewish population. The general consensus seems to be that the Jews will attempt to maintain their dominance by cutting back on the "one-person-one-vote" principle and as required the human rights principle as well, resulting in a more and more South-African-style apartheid state which will eventually collapse under internal opposition and international condemnation, much as the original model did.
The Zionists are well aware of the problem. In areas of Israel most "endangered" by the growing Israeli Arab population, they are trying to encourage settlement by ultra-Orthodox Jews, whose religion bans contraception in favour of the Biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply." This is kind of a two-edged sword, because the Israeli elites are pretty much secular and these bearded fruitcakes and their wrapped-up women can be a bigger problem for them than the Arabs, if given enough time to grow in sufficient numbers. Already in certain parts of Jerusalem, they are throwing human shit at women who dress "immodestly" or otherwise provoke their ire. It kind of reminds me of The Cat, The Mice and The Cheese children's story.
-
"I don't think that Israel has the right to murder people in cold blood because they are participating in a symbolic demonstration .......
I will grant to you , yes even as a Canadian, the right to to murder in cold blood any person who is symbolicly clubbing you to death.
-
<<I will grant to you , yes even as a Canadian, the right to to murder in cold blood any person who is symbolicly clubbing you to death.>>
An interesting point we can hold in reserve until such time as the murder victims are themselves engaged in symbolic murder. In the recent Mediterranean Massacre, however, the symbolism was one of humanitarian aid being brought to an oppressed, blockaded and deprived group of human beings.
-
In the recent Mediterranean Massacre, however, the symbolism was one of humanitarian aid being brought to an oppressed, blockaded and deprived group of human beings, by hundreds of club weilding murderers.
-
I will grant to you , yes even as a Canadian, the right to to murder in cold blood any person who is symbolicly clubbing you to death.
-==========================
The ones being clubbed were the Israeli commandos, all of whom were armed with more serious weapons than clubs, so please.
-
Where do you (plane) get the idea of "hundreds of club-wielding murderers" from?
Although you will not find a single photo of the murdered Turkish aid workers anywhere in the corrupt, Zio-Nazi-controlled American MSM, their photos and two-line bios can be found here:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/ (http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/)
including the photo of a 19-year-old American citizen, a student in Turkey who planned one day to be a doctor, shot at close range four times in the head and once in the chest.
The others were aid workers and humanitarians with the Turkish relief organization IHH who had participated in other relief operations in Africa and elsewhere. They were university graduates, engineers, teachers, etc.
Look at the pictures. Read the two-line biographies. I have only one question for you:
Who did they murder? You call them club-wielding murderers, so I would just like to know, who exactly have they murdered?
-
I will grant to you , yes even as a Canadian, the right to to murder in cold blood any person who is symbolicly clubbing you to death.
-==========================
The ones being clubbed were the Israeli commandos, all of whom were armed with more serious weapons than clubs, so please.
Yes please.
You have a pistol.
I come in with a club.
Suppose I explain myself to you first and my reasons are compelling.
Then I break your knees with my club , I assure you at this point that I will stick to non leathal injurys.
Then I break your nose, chin , teeth whatever I may .
I will continue as long as I am not too tired , because I have explained my very compelling reasons to you I know tht you are not going to do anything as drastic as shooting me to stop me.
-
Where do you (plane) get the idea of "hundreds of club-wielding murderers" from?
Literal truth.
Where are any murderers not human beings precious in the sight of God?
They came prepared to do as they did and for the sake of a publicity stunt they killed themselves with IDF soldiers.
Why were there hundreds of them , why were there clubs? Why were there knives?
If you want to refine the accusation to attempted murder , I would go along with that , but they certainly came prepared to ambush, to kill and die, so no less.
Although you will not find a single photo of the murdered Turkish aid workers anywhere in the corrupt, Zio-Nazi-controlled American MSM, their photos and two-line bios can be found here:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/ (http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/)
including the photo of a 19-year-old American citizen, a student in Turkey who planned one day to be a doctor, shot at close range four times in the head and once in the chest.
The others were aid workers and humanitarians with the Turkish relief organization IHH who had participated in other relief operations in Africa and elsewhere. They were university graduates, engineers, teachers, etc.
Look at the pictures. Read the two-line biographies. I have only one question for you:
Who did they murder? You call them club-wielding murderers, so I would just like to know, who exactly have they murdered?
-
Where do you (plane) get the idea of "hundreds of club-wielding murderers" from?
Literal truth.
I read the thumbnail bios.
Then I looked one page down on that same page you provided.
To be reasonable I would subtract the wrenches , hammers and kitchen knives of the amount usually found on a ship.
Still plenty there to show this is preparation for exactly what happened .
Why were there hundreds?
Why did they bring knives to a gun fight?
Why clubs?
Do you think that any reasonable person would think that the IDF members were supposed to quietly allow themselves to be beaten to death?
This is properly defined as a stunt, even if the stunters died by their own choice.
(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e20133ef5f5899970b-320wi)
(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e20134828bd7c1970c-320wi)
(http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834522bcd69e20134828eb488970c-320wi)
-
plane, I'm not going to waste my time with this.
I'll concede the following points you make:
1. There were a lot of people on board whose presence was purely symbolic, i.e., not necessary to operate the ship, unload or distribute its cargo.
2. Those people were there solely to make a political point.
3. Those people knew there was a good chance that they would be confronted by armed force.
4. Those people knew that they could be killed in such a confrontation.
At this point, I don't see any difference at all between those people and the marchers at Selma Alabama or the participants in Gandhi's march to the sea for salt. They don't deserve to die and anyone who kills them is a murderer.
The photos of "weapons" were basically photos of anything you would find on a ship of that size. Kitchen knives. Monkey wrenches. Spanners. Ship's railings. Pliers.
I will further concede that some passengers grabbed some of the ship's equipment and used them as improvised weapons. Against people who boarded their ship in international waters without the captain's permission. To repel boarders, in classical nautical parlance.
As to whether the Israelis fired first before the clubs (ship's railings, actually) came out or whether the sequence was (1) a rapelling descent then (2) a clubbing of the commandos by the passengers and then (3) the shooting: I do not really know. The passengers say that the Israelis shot first, then the descending commandos were attacked with pieces of ship's railing, then the Israelis fired into the passengers. OTOH, the body of the 19-year-old boy had been shot four times in the head and once in the chest, all at close range, which doesn't match the story of the Jews shooting from the helicopter. No word on the other bodies that I could find.
Does it really matter? Who really initiated the violence, the Israelis who boarded the ship on the high seas without the captain's permission, or the passengers who tried to beat off the boarders with "clubs" (actually pieces of ship's railing?)
And I'll return to my first question, which I don't believe you ever seriously addressed: if the murdered aid workers were, as you called them, "murderers," then who exactly was it that they murdered?
-
Those are not peices of ships railing.
Those are pick handles .
I do not care why I have a gun and you don't , you are not wise to hit me with a club.
You are certainly not a freedom riders equal if you come to the peace rally armed for a rumble.
-
I like the clever touch of laying it out on a Turkish flag. Even the pruning shears.Pruning shears against actual guns.
Now we need to see the weapons that the Israelis had, spread out on an Israeli flag.
You should be bright enough to recognize propaganda when you see it, really.
Again, the Israelis acted needlessly and stupidly, and they lost this time, because they no longer can decide everything that gets into Gaza as they once did.
-
<<Those are not peices of ships railing.
<<Those are pick handles .>>
OK, let's say they are pick handles. Do you have any proof they were on the ship when the Israelis boarded it? How do you know the Israelis didn't just put them there after they gained control of the ship, maybe even after they docked it?
<<I do not care why I have a gun and you don't , you are not wise to hit me with a club.>>
Well, it's always wise to bend over quietly if a bigger stronger man wants to fuck you in the ass, but is a lack of that kind of submissive wisdom deserving of death? Is there no blame at all for the guy who wanted to fuck you in the ass and killed you for not submitting peacefully?
When a ship is boarded on the high seas without the captain's permission, do any resisting passengers deserve to die for their "unwise" resistance?
<<You are certainly not a freedom riders equal if you come to the peace rally armed for a rumble.>>
Probably not, but does that give the vigilantes the right to kill you?
Again, who initiated the violence of that episode, those who boarded the ship on the high seas without the permission of the captain or those who (perhaps "unwisely") resisted them?
-
<<Those are not peices of ships railing.
<<Those are pick handles .>>
OK, let's say they are pick handles. Do you have any proof they were on the ship when the Israelis boarded it? How do you know the Israelis didn't just put them there after they gained control of the ship, maybe even after they docked it?
Why lie about the ship railing? They were captured on film useing something like this were they nerf?
<<I do not care why I have a gun and you don't , you are not wise to hit me with a club.>>
Well, it's always wise to bend over quietly if a bigger stronger man wants to fuck you in the ass, but is a lack of that kind of submissive wisdom deserving of death? Is there no blame at all for the guy who wanted to fuck you in the ass and killed you for not submitting peacefully?
I don't think that any sort of sex was planned by the IDF , I think that the ship had four HUNDRED murdurous idiots on bourd armed with knives and clubs in preparation for a gun fight.
Publicity stunt- Muslim myrter style
When a ship is boarded on the high seas without the captain's permission, do any resisting passengers deserve to die for their "unwise" resistance?
<<You are certainly not a freedom riders equal if you come to the peace rally armed for a rumble.>>
Probably not, but does that give the vigilantes the right to kill you?
Once you are killing me my right to kill you appears as if by majic , what lead up to that moment becomes so much less relivant that the complete answer to your question is -Yes.
Again, who initiated the violence of that episode, those who boarded the ship on the high seas without the permission of the captain or those who (perhaps "unwisely") resisted them?
The Turks and other poorly armed nautical rioters are entirely at fault.
Perhaps unwisely? Wherefrom perhaps?
Was the blockade any surprise?
Was being borded after the ship crossed the blockade any surprise?
Is getting shot by a gunman you have just stabbed or clubbed a surprise?
-
<<Why lie about the ship railing? They were captured on film useing something like this were they nerf?>>
Well, obviously a pickaxe handle is more incriminating than a ship's railing. A ship's railing is an improvised weapon, it shows the passengers had no real plans for a violent confrontation. Pick handles I don't think belong on a ship (you'd know better than I) so the laying in of a supply of pick handles would indicate planning by some passengers for a violent confrontation. That's why I think the Israelis are lying about it and that's why I think they brought the pick handles on board after they secured the ship.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think that the Israelis were illegally boarding the ship without the captain's permission on the high seas and the passengers had every right to resist. The violence was initiated by the illegal boarding, the Israelis can no more justify the murders by the passengers' legitimate resistance than a robber or rapist can justify killing his victim because he or she resisted. The fault for the crimes committed in resistance to an unlawful action lies with the criminal who initiated the violence, not with the victim who puts up resistance, wisely or unwisely.
Your post is pure nonsense, an attempt to justify what is an obvious crime committed during a blatant act of piracy.
-
<<Why lie about the ship railing? They were captured on film useing something like this were they nerf?>>
Well, obviously a pickaxe handle is more incriminating than a ship's railing. A ship's railing is an improvised weapon, it shows the passengers had no real plans for a violent confrontation. Pick handles I don't think belong on a ship (you'd know better than I) so the laying in of a supply of pick handles would indicate planning by some passengers for a violent confrontation. That's why I think the Israelis are lying about it and that's why I think they brought the pick handles on board after they secured the ship.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think that the Israelis were illegally boarding the ship without the captain's permission on the high seas and the passengers had every right to resist. The violence was initiated by the illegal boarding, the Israelis can no more justify the murders by the passengers' legitimate resistance than a robber or rapist can justify killing his victim because he or she resisted. The fault for the crimes committed in resistance to an unlawful action lies with the criminal who initiated the violence, not with the victim who puts up resistance, wisely or unwisely.
Your post is pure nonsense, an attempt to justify what is an obvious crime committed during a blatant act of piracy.
That is the diffrence between murder and manslauter.
Why doesn't the IDF have the right to board a ship in Isreli waters?
Our Coast guard boards ships every day , not always willing , when needfull cutters train a five inch gun onto the recalcitrant , or even call the USN for help.
The Turkish ship had the option for complyance and peacefully objecting , the supplys would have arrived in Gaza all the sooner.
They wanted Turkish deaths they comitted suicide by cop , the idea is disgusting but how can it be denyed?
They are on film smacking the IDF with all sorts of stick, knife and etc...
They intended to fight , they intended to loose and they have credibility only where the audience is already convinced.
-
<<Why doesn't the IDF have the right to board a ship in Isreli waters?>>
They did not board the ship in Israeli waters. It was boarded on the high seas.
<<Our Coast guard boards ships every day , not always willing , when needfull cutters train a five inch gun onto the recalcitrant , or even call the USN for help.>>
When was the last time your Coast Guard murdered nine passengers? When was the last time they boarded a ship without the captain's permission on the high seas?
<<The Turkish ship had the option for complyance and peacefully objecting , the supplys would have arrived in Gaza all the sooner.>>
Would you have complied with an order to stand by for boarding by a foreign ship in international waters or would you have resisted?
<<They wanted Turkish deaths they comitted suicide by cop , the idea is disgusting but how can it be denyed?>>
How can it be proven is the real question. How do you know they wanted to be murdered? If they were being boarded and had a right to resist that does not mean they wanted to be killed any more than a woman resisting a rapist wants to be killed. Your "reasoning" is just sick. It's crazy. People who have a right to resist and choose to fight back do NOT want to be killed and do not expect to be killed.
<<They are on film smacking the IDF with all sorts of stick, knife and etc...>>
There is no film of anyone attacking IDF with a knife. There is one-minute film of rappelling commandos being beaten with pieces torn off from the ship's railings and the passengers say the Israelis were shooting from the helicopers before they began rappelling onto the deck. But in any event, the passengers were well within their rights beating off a boarding party boarding them on the high seas without the captain's permission to board. Agree or disagree with that?
<<They intended to fight, they intended to loose . . .>>
How are they any different than a woman fighting off a much bigger and stronger rapist? She intends to fight and at that point she doesn't see how she can win, but she's standing up for herself and her rights - - she loses the fight and she's dead. Can the killer use your argument, "She intended to fight, she intended to lose, so it's her fault and not mine?"
The fault is with the criminal, not with the victim who offers resistance. Your arguments are preposterous.
<< . . . and they have credibility only where the audience is already convinced.>>
Really? Let's talk about credibility. The Israelis videotaped the whole episode and released only one or two minutes of their tape. The passengers too recorded everything - - on camcorders, cellphones, etc. All of which were confiscated by the Israelis, none of which (except for a very few successfully hidden exceptions) were ever seen again. Who has more credibility? The ones who confiscate all of the evidence they can find and hide 99% of it, or the ones whose records were confiscated and hidden?
-
<< . . . and they have credibility only where the audience is already convinced.>>
Really? Let's talk about credibility. The Israelis videotaped the whole episode and released only one or two minutes of their tape. The passengers too recorded everything - - on camcorders, cellphones, etc. All of which were confiscated by the Israelis, none of which (except for a very few successfully hidden exceptions) were ever seen again. Who has more credibility? The ones who confiscate all of the evidence they can find and hide 99% of it, or the ones whose records were confiscated and hidden?
True, that is the same reason I don't beleive anything positive about Staln , Mao or Fidel Castro , they had too much edit.
But I don't see the comparison to rape.
Complience would not have caused any harm of any sort , the embargo was no secret and boarding ships to enforce an embargo is COMMONPLACE!
It is a dayly occurance on any seacoast prone to smuggling.
I have a hint for you , do not attack an RCMP officer , even with a bit of handrail on a boat of your own , some time before you manage to kill him he might get off a shot.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulai_Ahmed_er_Raisuni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulai_Ahmed_er_Raisuni)
-
I am unsure what the Spanish Morocco wars have to do with this. I cannot see where we can regard opposition by Moroccans to the conquest of their country as anything but justified resistance, but there were complications like this guy you mention, who allied himself with the Spaniards.
As I said before, the main thing about the Israelis boarding this ship on the high seas was that it was an unjust move, and far more important, a very, very stupid one. The repercussions of this were that now the Egyptians have the power to let any damned thing cross into Gaza that they wish. The Americans, who previously pressured the Egyptians to bow to Israeli wishes, have obviously decided not to continue pressuring the Egyptians. If you want to regard this as you would a sporting event, I see no other way to evaluate it than
Score:
Israel 0
Turks 1
I predict that there will be no further commandos rappelling down ropes onto ships on the high seas.
-
You don't see the comparison to rape? How the hell can you not see it?
Man demands sex, woman resists demand, man kills woman. She's to blame because she tried to offer resistance to a much more powerful individual making an illegal demand? Had she given the guy sex, she'd be no worse off the morning after (let's assume the rapist was gonna use a condom) - - so according to you, SHE'S the one at fault getting herself killed. She wanted suicide by rapist.
That's exactly the argument you make against the Turkish passengers killed resisting an illegal boarding party. They are the ones at fault for resisting. Had they not resisted, NBD. The goods aboard would have reached Gaza anyway. Or not. Who knows WTF the Israelis would have done with the cargo had there been no scandalous murders to complicate the situation?
Your argument is classic blame-the-victim. I don't know how this can be advanced with a straight face. It is ridiculous.
-
I like the clever touch of laying it out on a Turkish flag. Even the pruning shears.Pruning shears against actual guns.
But can you answer Plane's question? Could one expect the IDF commandos to allow themselves to
be beaten to death with hammers/knives/clubs so you would not be able to make the ridiculous
claim that it was "pruning shears against actual guns"? Should the IDF soldiers allowed themselves
to be stabbed with pruning shears? If you were armed and a guys were running at you with pruning
shears, clubs, and knives with obvious bad intentions you would not fire because you have a superior
weapon and woud consider it "unfair"?
-
Could one expect the IDF commandos to allow themselves to
be beaten to death with hammers/knives/clubs so you would not be able to make the ridiculous
claim that it was "pruning shears against actual guns"? Should the IDF soldiers allowed themselves
to be stabbed with pruning shears?
=========================================================]
I expect that a sane IDF commander would never have sent these goons to take part in the "Piñatas of Zion pageant in the first place. I would never volunteer to be a commando. It was a fool's mission.
-
You don't see the comparison to rape? How the hell can you not see it?
Man demands sex, woman resists demand, man kills woman. She's to blame because she tried to offer resistance to a much more powerful individual making an illegal demand? Had she given the guy sex, she'd be no worse off the morning after (let's assume the rapist was gonna use a condom) - - so according to you, SHE'S the one at fault getting herself killed. She wanted suicide by rapist.
That's exactly the argument you make against the Turkish passengers killed resisting an illegal boarding party. They are the ones at fault for resisting. Had they not resisted, NBD. The goods aboard would have reached Gaza anyway. Or not. Who knows WTF the Israelis would have done with the cargo had there been no scandalous murders to complicate the situation?
Your argument is classic blame-the-victim. I don't know how this can be advanced with a straight face. It is ridiculous.
What would an unresisting "victim " have suffered here?
Something as objectionable as rape? or something as benign as waiting in line?
Death before dishonor I do understand , but death before delay of a day is kinda unreasonable.
I wonder really how straight your face is when you pump up hyperbole stratisphereic hights as if you had no regaurd for your own credability.
-
<<What would an unresisting "victim " have suffered here?>>
According to most passenger accounts, the unresisting victims suffered fatal gunshot wounds. According to the Israeli accounts, it was the resisting passengers who either got the fatal gunshot wounds or caused other passengers to get them.
Who to believe? I believe the passengers because the Israelis confiscated all of their photos and videotapes and did not release them. The Israelis also videotaped the whole thing and released only about two minutes of the tape.
Therefore it is the Israelis who are taking extreme measures to avoid the facts becoming known to the public, not the passengers. Therefore it is the Israelis who have something to hide. Therefore it is the Israelis who are lying.
<<Something as objectionable as rape? or something as benign as waiting in line?>>
OK, let's pick something "more benign."
Say the guy just wants to grope the woman. She resists and he kills her. Who's at fault? The victim who didn't have to put her life at risk to avoid a few gropes or the criminal who accosted her in the first place and provoked the resistance?
<<Death before dishonor I do understand , but death before delay of a day is kinda unreasonable.>>
What makes you so certain about the benign consequences of the boarding anyway? How do you know the whole cargo wouldn't have been dumped in the sea? How do you know the passengers wouldn't all be beaten and tortured? How do you know that the Israelis wouldn't plant weapons and bombs and then charge the passengers with terrorism-related crimes?
<<I wonder really how straight your face is when you pump up hyperbole stratisphereic hights as if you had no regaurd for your own credability.>>
Tell ya what, plane, you worry about your own credibility and let me worry about mine. I'm not the one here taking the absurd line that the pirates are innocent if their victims were killed in the act of resisting the piracy because the intent of the pirates was "benign." Anyone who advances such a ludicrous argument IMHO would necessarily have very serious credibility problems, but it was not my business to assess them and so I refrained from doing so.
-
What if the intent was even less objectionable than "groping"?
There is no evidence at all that the IDF wanted to do more for this ship than they had done on any other.
If they were shooting to kill from the helicopter there wouldn't have been a croud on the deck to attack the commandos as they decended.
If the IDF was the FIRST to use deadly force , how were any able to approach them with a club?
It isn't just unlikely , it doesn't work.
There are some pictures taken by the passengers in the public , they show IDF commandos bleeding on the deck and being menaced by knives.
Think about it , these guys were not menaced by dead passengers.
-
Think about this:
Israel lost the ability to control the Gaza border, and looked like sh*t and fell in it to pretty much everyone who was not overdosed on AIPAC and other Zionisy propaganda. It was a loss, and it was a predictable loss.
A tactical loss, and a propaganda loss.
-
Think about this:
Israel lost the ability to control the Gaza border, and looked like sh*t and fell in it to pretty much everyone who was not overdosed on AIPAC and other Zionisy propaganda. It was a loss, and it was a predictable loss.
A tactical loss, and a propaganda loss.
Also a loss for Egypt.
But if the death of a few Turks looses this much for Egypt and Israel , imagine the death of a few Egyptians at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood looseing it all again for Hamas.
Blood is the token for this game , even when the tactic is so transparent.
-
Could one expect the IDF commandos to allow themselves to
be beaten to death with hammers/knives/clubs so you would not be able to make the ridiculous
claim that it was "pruning shears against actual guns"? Should the IDF soldiers allowed themselves
to be stabbed with pruning shears?
=========================================================]
I expect that a sane IDF commander would never have sent these goons to take part in the "Piñatas of Zion pageant in the first place. I would never volunteer to be a commando. It was a fool's mission.
The Blockade could be enforced much more cheaply and automaticly with mines.
Your prefrence?
Ships running a blockade can expect to be boarded , there was no element of surprise for the supply ship.
If you think that the Passengers didn't plan exactly what happened why did they react with violence ? Did they panic?
-
<<What if the intent was even less objectionable than "groping"?>>
Why do you want to keep changing the goal-posts? I went from rape to groping in my example, but you won't answer either one. Let's stop the ride at "groping," because you still haven't answered either one of my questions. Who's at fault if the pervert kills the woman for resisting a grope? The pervert or the resisting woman?
<<There is no evidence at all that the IDF wanted to do more for this ship than they had done on any other.>>
Are you nuts? What other ship did armed Israeli commandos board from helicopters without the captain's permission on the high seas? Why do you so adamantly presume "good will" and "benign intentions" on the part of these pirates in such circumstances? Do you so readily presume "good will" and "benign intentions" on the part of some masked man who breaks into your home in the dead of night without your permission? Not just your presumptions but your whole manner of analysis and approach to the problem are, quite frankly, bizarre and unbalanced.
<<If they were shooting to kill from the helicopter there wouldn't have been a croud on the deck to attack the commandos as they decended.>>
Bullshit. The crowd could have scattered then regrouped and rushed in suddenly just as the commandos were reaching the deck. Why would the Israelis have then shot into a crowd with their own guys in the midst of it?
<<If the IDF was the FIRST to use deadly force , how were any able to approach them with a club?>>
See my last answer.
<<It isn't just unlikely , it doesn't work.>>
Not only works, but it works fine. The passengers are dead and the commandos were beaten with pieces of ship's railing. Just as I already explained for you. The kid shot at close range four times in the head and once in the chest was obviously murdered after the Israelis had taken control of the ship. Who sends armed commandos into a group of hundreds of activists when the ship could easily have been immobilized by fouling the prop? The intention was obviously murder and intimidation but it backfired big-time.
<<There are some pictures taken by the passengers in the public , they show IDF commandos bleeding on the deck and being menaced by knives.>>
Yes, I saw those pictures too. Interesting how the "murderous idiots" [your own words] menaced the bleeding commandos with knives. Of all the things you can do with a knife to a bleeding commando at your mercy, "menacing" him is about the least "murderous" that I can think of. The commandos all lived and the nine aid workers all died, but in your ridiculous upside-down world it is the aid workers who are "murderous" and not the commandos who killed them in cold blood. How bizarre can you get?
<<Think about it , these guys were not menaced by dead passengers.>>
YOU think about it - - if they'd fouled the props and towed in the ship, they wouldn't have been menaced by anyone and the aid workers would all be alive and uninjured. Where was the need to drop armed commandos onto the decks of a ship in international waters whose passengers had every right to resist in the circumstances?
Turkey has a million-man army and I hope to bloody hell they use it to administer a really punishing lesson to those fucking bastards, alone or better yet in concert with other opponents of the Zio-Nazi entity. It'll be long overdue.
-
<<What if the intent was even less objectionable than "groping"?>>
Why do you want to keep changing the goal-posts? I went from rape to groping in my example, but you won't answer either one. Let's stop the ride at "groping," because you still haven't answered either one of my questions. Who's at fault if the pervert kills the woman for resisting a grope? The pervert or the resisting woman?
Goal posts are they ?
Rape or murder being resisted I understand , being told "Don't go there" is not comprable to either Rape nor murder .
Rape is rediculous for you to bring up , Gropeing is rediculous too.
Compare it to someone being told not to cross a line on the beach.
In what wild sort of way is being told to stop something like being raped?
-
<<Goal posts are they ?>>
That was a metaphor, and it's not a hard one to understand. If you don't understand my metaphor, please say so and I'll be happy to explain it to you.
<<Rape or murder being resisted I understand , being told "Don't go there" is not comprable to either Rape nor murder .>>
Probably not, but this was not a case of a ship being told "Don't go there," but of a ship being boarded on the high seas without the captain's permission. Armed men in masks are not generally allowed to enter a private residence without the owner's permission, nor are they allowed to board a ship on the high seas without the captain's permission.
<<Rape is rediculous for you to bring up , Gropeing is rediculous too.>>
There is nothing at all ridiculous about either example. Groping was a specific concession to you because you asserted (without any evidence whatsoever) that the intention of the boarding party was relatively benign and so rape was an inappropriate comparison.
The boarding is an assault on the sovereignty of the ship and its captain, and is an unwanted intrusion into the right of unmolested passage of the high seas enjoyed by the passengers. In a similar way, an uninvited and unwanted grope is an assault and intrusion on the personal privacy of the woman groped.
The issue was raised in the context of your assertion that fault lay with the resister rather than with the violator, an unusually bizarre and otherworldly argument even for you.
<<Compare it to someone being told not to cross a line on the beach.>>
That's totally absurd. Telling someone not to cross a line on a beach does not violate anyone's rights. I have no right to make you shut up and therefore since I can't shut you up, you can issue any order to me that you like: "Wipe your nose!" "Don't wear green!" "Pull down your pants!" "Eat shit!" "Cross that line!" "Don't cross this line!" How are my rights violated by you telling me to do or not to do anything? OTOH, boarding a ship or groping a woman are both physical acts that violate the victim's rights - - in the case of the ship and its passengers, a right of free and unobstructed passage across the high seas and in the woman's case, a right of privacy and physical integrity.
<<In what wild sort of way is being told to stop something like being raped?>>
Being told to stop something is not like being raped. I never said that it was. YOU are the one who brought up this example, and a more absurd and irrelevant example would be hard to imagine. Nobody in this Mediterranean Massacre saga was resisting any order "not to do" something. They were resisting an armed and uninvited boarding of their ship on the high seas, which they had every right to do. They were resisting an armed violation of their right to a free and unobstructed passage, as the woman in my example would be resisting an armed violation of her right to privacy and physical integrity.
Your ludicrous contention seems to be that in both cases, resistance punished by death at the hands of the violator renders the victim, and the victim alone, at fault for his or her death, of which the violator is completely innocent. Really, a more bizarre and ridiculous assignment of blame would be unimaginable.
-
I expect that a sane IDF commander would never have sent these goons to take part in the "Piñatas of Zion pageant in the first place.
But reality is what is...and the reality is the Israeli Commandos were being attacked with clubs/knives/pruning sheers.
So again I ask you...do you think they should have just allowed themselves be killed or fire back?
-
It is absolutely rediculous to compare the IDF making a traffic stop to rape.
When an officer asks you to stop you car just how violated do you feel?
If these people had done nothing there would have been no fatalitys and very likely no rapes either.
How does being smashed with a club or poked with a knife compare with rape?
These IDF guys are seen on film getting a pretty good beating , this is necessacerily before any of the passengers were shot.
The pictures taken by the passengers themselves show injured IDF .
You may compare it to rape if you will , butr it is consentual on the part of the instigator in any case.
How many Turks that stayed home and were not crouding on that upper deck plotting ambush were injured ?
There wasn't any need for hundreds of murdourous Turks to even be there unless what they wanted was exactly what they got.
What Isreal could have done diffrent might be to have no embargo at all , but rocket attacks justify the embargo entirely , or they might have used more adequate force on the ship , instead of a boarding party , they could have used an Exocet Missle , might have had no survivors at all.
No indeed, a boarding party is a common occurance for all navys and cost guards there was no right to attack them and there would have been no negative effect of not resisting them.
What could the Turks have done better?
Well doing nothing at all would have been alright with me , there was no urgency in the first place.
If they had to pack a ship with hundreds of peace protestors , then they could have made sure that the peace protestors were peacefull ones . If the IDF had misbehaved this "victory " would have been acheived anyway and with no apparent stupidity on the part of knife and club weilding peace protestors.
If the IDF had not been attacked and had also behaved calmly then there would have been no problem , no fatalitys , plenty of press and opportunity to protest probly not even any rape.
I want you to imagine GAndi, or Dr MLKjr , or Leo Tolstoy smashing Bull Connor(or the equivelent) with a stick. This would have done wonders for the reputation of Bull Connor.
-
<<It is absolutely rediculous to compare the IDF making a traffic stop to rape.>>
No, actually what is absolutely ridiculous is to compare the armed boarding of a ship in international waters with a "traffic stop." A traffic cop is lawfully empowered to make a traffic stop and the driver is lawfully obliged to comply. That was in no way comparable with the Israeli commandos boarding the ship on the high seas without the captain's permission. Surely you have to be able to see the distinction there.
<<When an officer asks you to stop you car just how violated do you feel?>>
Not at all violated - - he's performing a legal duty and I am legally obliged to comply.
<<If these people had done nothing there would have been no fatalitys and very likely no rapes either.>>
Well, you're just repeating that the victim is to be blamed for resisting an unlawful invasion of their rights and the violator is totallly innocent of her death. It was stupid when you first stated it and it sure as hell doesn't get any better with repetition.
<<How does being smashed with a club or poked with a knife compare with rape?>>
I'd say "poked" with a knife could be worse, but nobody was "poked with a knife," so you're just making up fictitious crap of zero relevance to the issue. Some commandos were in fact hit by pieces of ship railing. Let's keep this real. Rape is probably a worse violation of bodily integrity than being hit with a piece of railing. Obviously. Anyone hit by a club has no problem testifying against his assailant in court. Has no problem with publication of his name in a newspaper. Women who are raped often are too traumatized to appear in court and are extremely reluctant to have their names put in the newspapers as rape victims. It is obviously a much more painful and shameful experience, leaving life-long psychological scarring.
<<These IDF guys are seen on film getting a pretty good beating . . . >>
Fuck 'em, they had it coming to them. Anyway, there was less than a minute. How many blows did you actually count? Rodney King got a pretty good beating, these guys looked like he took less than a dozen blows, since when is that a "pretty good beating?" Did any of these guys sustain major injuries? If they did, nobody's ever heard about it. The Israelis love to play the "victim" card - - every time a rocket hits a building, whether or not there's any personal injuries, you always see their photos of the "traumatized" resident posed with a dazed look on his or her face in front of the damage. Believe me if any commando had been seriously injured by these fictitious beatings, you'd see pictures of him and his bandages every fucking day, 24/7, from the time of the raid until now. (Unlike the people actually killed in the raid.) So IMHO NOBODY got a "pretty good beating" because nobody was seriously injured.
<< . . . this is necessacerily before any of the passengers were shot.>>
Bullshit. The commandos shot the passengers from the helicopters or maybe the speedboats, then the passengers regrouped and swarmed the commandos as they were landing on the deck, then the commandos murdered some more passengers deliberately at point-blank range.
<<The pictures taken by the passengers themselves show injured IDF .>>
Yeah, being PROTECTED by the passengers. The "injuries" appeared to be bruised cheeks and mussed hair. Like I said, had they not shot into the passengers, they wouldn't have been punched out. Had they not tried to board the ship they would not have been punched out. Who gives a shit they were injured, they provoked a necessarily violent resistance by their own piratical actions. They never should have been sent to board the ship.
<<You may compare it to rape if you will , butr it is consentual on the part of the instigator in any case.>>
Do you even know what consensual means? What is consensual about it? Who gave them permission to board? What on earth could possibly be consensual about that boarding?
<<How many Turks that stayed home and were not crouding on that upper deck plotting ambush were injured ?>>
What is your point? That by not staying home but traveling by sea the Turks put themselves at risk of being boarded by pirates and thus are responsible for any injuries they received in fighting off an illegal boarding party on the high seas? You're just spouting the same crazy shit in different forms. They had every fucking right in the world to get on a Turkish ship and sail on it in international waters, in the Mediterranean. They had every fucking right to resist those who tried to board their ship on the high seas without the captain's permission. The injuries and deaths inflicted on them for their resistance were totally the fault of the aggressors or violators and not in any way of the victims themselves.
If Americans traveling on an American ship in international waters were shot and killed while resisting boarders attempting to come aboard without the captain's permission, would you ask the same question, "How many Americans that stayed home and were not crowding the upper deck plotting ambush were injured?" OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T. They had the right of passage of the high seas, they had the right to repel boarders, and if they were injured or killed repelling boarders, you would never think of blaming the victims because they didn't stay home in bed.
<<There wasn't any need for hundreds of murdourous Turks to even be there unless what they wanted was exactly what they got.>>
"Murderous" - - a strange adjective to use on people who didn't murder anyone, and a strange adjective to refrain from using on those who did murder nine activists. You live in an upside-down world of your own and you speak in an upside-down language of your own too.
There wasn't any need for boatloads of murderous Israelis to board the ship and murder its passengers. Again, your statement boils down to "Blame the victims." Who are YOU to tell them that they didn't have a need to be on the boat? They obviously felt there WAS a need for them to be there, to show their support with their bodies. Your ugly racist statement is the same argument used by racist white Southerners to smear the marchers at Selma, the Freedom Riders and other civil rights activists - - they didn't need to be in Alabama unless they wanted to be killed. The Turks had a right AND a reason to be there. They were murdered and the blame for the murders is obviously on the men who killed them. And their officers.
<<What Isreal could have done diffrent might be to have no embargo at all , but rocket attacks justify the embargo entirely , or they might have used more adequate force on the ship , instead of a boarding party , they could have used an Exocet Missle , might have had no survivors at all.>>
When you want to debate logically, I'll be happy to debate logically. There is no way I am going to be able to respond to your murderous rantings without saying something equally stupid and ugly, so I will pass on this.
<<No indeed, a boarding party is a common occurance for all navys and cost guards there was no right to attack them and there would have been no negative effect of not resisting them.>>
Bullshit. A Coast Guard doesn't operate hundreds of miles from the territorial waters of any nation and a navy has no right to board a vessel on the high seas without the captain's permission and there was no way that the passengers or crew were obligated to submit peacefully to the boarding. They had every right to resist.
<<What could the Turks have done better?>>
You don't learn a single God-damn thing, do you? Why not ask what the rape victim could have done better? Worn less provocative clothing, for example? Tried not to sway her hips as she walked? This is patently the most ridiculous crap that I have seen coming out of you. The Turks sent a ship to Gaza carrying humanitarian relief supplies which they had every right to send and which the Israelis had no right to stop.
<<Well doing nothing at all would have been alright with me , there was no urgency in the first place.>>
Well, obviously you don't know jack-shit about the conditions in Gaza and the Turks do, and the bottom line is that you are wrong and they are right about the urgency.
<<If they had to pack a ship with hundreds of peace protestors , then they could have made sure that the peace protestors were peacefull ones . >>
They WERE peaceful. Until the IDF attempted an illegal boarding. Then they did what they had every right to do - - they resisted with force.
<<If the IDF had misbehaved this "victory " would have been acheived anyway and with no apparent stupidity on the part of knife and club weilding peace protestors.>>
The IDF did "misbehave," obviously, first in boarding the ship and second in killing the passengers.
<<If the IDF had not been attacked . . . >>
They were attacked because they attempted to board. The resistance was justified. The killing of the resistors was not.
<< . . . and had also behaved calmly then there would have been no problem >>
Are you nuts? OF COURSE there would have been a problem, the problem being the violation of the passengers' right of free passage on the seas.. THAT was the problem, and THAT was what generated the resistance. Tell me do Amerian vessels routinely stop for boarding by forces of other nations? No? Well then, why should Turkish ships?
<<, no fatalitys , plenty of press and opportunity to protest probly not even any rape.>>
Well instead they insisted on defending their rights and were killed for it. So who to blame? The guys who were violating those rights or the victims who died defending them?
<<I want you to imagine GAndi, or Dr MLKjr , or Leo Tolstoy smashing Bull Connor(or the equivelent) with a stick. This would have done wonders for the reputation of Bull Connor.>>
Well, now you're talking tactics, whereas up to now we were discussing right and wrong. As a matter of tactics, it might have been better for the passengers to just stay in place and let the fucking Israelis mow them all down without lifting a finger in resistance, boy that would have done wonders for the reputation of Israel too, what a black eye they'd get for the massacre. Unfortunately, the Israelis already have a black eye for the massacre of hundreds of civilians in Gaza (it's called the Goldstone Report) but it didn't seem to do much good to the Palestinian cause. The Zio-Nazi-controlled MSM has buried the story (just as they've buried the Mediterranean Massacre) and the Zio-Nazi-controlled U.S. Congress has decided to shoot the messenger, figuratively speaking of course and pretty much ignore the whole thing.
And BTW, FYI, nobody was shooting at Dr. King OR at Gandhi with live ammunition, so I don't see any sense in your comparison, which, like the rest of your Blame-the-Victim argument, is totally absurd.
-
Also a loss for Egypt.
===================
No, it's NOT a loss for Egypt, being as the Egyptians can inspect everything that comes across the border from Gaza.
For the illegal stuff, there will always be tunnels, I assume. Destroying tunnels has always been the job of the Egyptians.
Again BIG loss for Zionists, bot in security and reputation. BIG win for those seeking to remove the blockade.
-
Again BIG loss for Zionists, bot in security and reputation. BIG win for those seeking to remove the blockade.
So the Blockade is no longer in place?
Seems to me the orchestrated public outcry has had as much influence on the situation as Mikey's rantings have in changing US foreign policy.
-
Mikey has not changed anything outside this forum. Nothing we say here affects the world, in thew event you have not noticed.
The public outcry has made Israel look bad and rather stupid, because, well, they ARE bad and they HAVE been rather stupid.
But no, of course the blockade is no longer in place as it was before. It was one rigid blockade and now it is two less strict blockades: one Egyptian and one Israeli.
Previously, the border at Gaza was closed. So the Israelis had a rather short list of what could be brought into Gaza. Candy and spices were not on the list, for example: the goal was to make the people of Gaza miserable. Israel is trying to force the Gazans to rebel against Hamas, and it has not been successful. The Gazans blame the Israelis for their plight. They are unwilling to risk their lives trying to overthrow fellow Palestinians. Maybe they should, there is much to dislike about Hamas. Hamas is led by ideologues as silly as the silliest of the Mayer Kahane types in the Israeli coalition.
Hamas' rockets have not caused Israel to make nice with Gaza.
Holding that unfortunate Israeli soldier has not caused Israel to make nice with Gaza, either.
On the other hand, depriving Gazans of spices and sweets and cement and fertilizer has not made them make nice with Israel.
And yes there are many types of fertilizer that cannot be used for explosives. \
Now the entry at Raffah is open. The Egyptians decide what goes into Gaza. The Israelis have decided to make a list of what is banned, not what is permitted as before. So this incident resulted in the people of Gaza being able to buy more things than previously, and their fate is no longer exclusively decided by the Israelis.
-
Ships are still inspected by the Israeli's and the Egyptians inspect the legitimate transfers at the border.
What really has changed?
-
<<Seems to me the orchestrated public outcry has had as much influence on the situation as Mikey's rantings have in changing US foreign policy. >>
Shit, BT. You have no idea how discouraging that is to me. Here I was, thinking that I had Barack and Hillary reading the threads daily and hanging on my every word.
-
Here I was, thinking that I had Barack and Hillary reading the threads daily and hanging on my every word.
My sense is that they are disappointed with your characterizations of the troops.
-
<<What really has changed?>>
Their image has gone sour. There are more people thinking ill of them than before. Maybe not enough to make a difference this time, but a substantial chunk of their remaining goodwill has eroded.
Like a bank account. There's lots of goodwill remaining (just read these posts here in this thread) but outside the thread, large withdrawals have been made from the account. There's still enough for the next atrocity and the one after that, but ultimately they'll reach a point where enough people say, "That's it!" or "That's enough!" and the sources of support and funding will dry up. I'm willing to bet right now that in the liberal Jewish communities of North America and Europe, people who were formerly significant contributors (money, influence) are cutting back, or in some instances cutting off; or are much closer to reaching that point than they were at the start of this year. The cynical fascists who run the fucking country can't continue to take the Diaspora Jews as if our support was automatic and eternal, because we are the ones who will pay the price in rising domestic anti-semitism the longer their list of atrocities and crimes against humanity continues to grow. More and more Jews in the Diaspora will eventually reach the point of "You're on your own, ass-holes," which is not what any Israelis want.
-
<<My sense is that they are disappointed with your characterizations of the troops. >>
I know. I haven't been as vitriolic on them lately as I used to be, and I know it looks like I am going soft, but I'm just tired and distracted. They'll just have to understand that.
-
Ships are still inspected by the Israeli's and the Egyptians inspect the legitimate transfers at the border.
What really has changed?
================================
Only what is a actually getting in, I imagine. Are the Egyptians banning coriander and candy? I tend to think not.
-
I bet the coriander dealers are pissed. Screwed up the black market mark-up for them.
-
Their image has gone sour.
Yes the Jews are a sensitive lot. That must be crushing.
-
<<Yes the Jews are a sensitive lot. That [the souring of their image] must be crushing.>>
As I tried to explain, there are also financial implications to consider. As well as a loss of influence.
-
As I tried to explain, there are also financial implications to consider. As well as a loss of influence.
Bet they have all the coriander they want.
And what is influence compared to that.
-
So THAT'S what you've been smoking!!! You people aren't supposed to know about that stuff.
-
BBC News - Deaths as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid ship (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10195838.stm#id10190000/10195900/10195997-audio)
A little BBC footage .
Still shows men with guns being clubbed .
No sign that anyone was shot before the clubbing.
I am a bit surprised tho that the incident happened 40 miles to sea, this is like stopping a shoplifter before they leave the store , they should have waited .
Can't fault the IDF otherwise , on the BBC footage it really looks as if the guy with the gun is attempting to avoid shooting the jerk that is smacking him with a stick.
Since this was a planned bit of theater there should have been more cameras around , perhaps there were but the pictures captured make the IDF look too good for publishing.
-
<<A little BBC footage .>>
Yeah, a VERY little BBC footage. Barely 60 seconds worth. 45 seconds more or less of onboard action, if you don't count the shots of approaching speedboats and Palestinian flags. Covering maybe 15 to 20 feet field of vision of the camera, and that's being generous. Considering that if even 50% of the passengers had cameras there would have been hundreds of individual records of the events, ALL of them confiscated by the Israelis once the ship was seized and thoroughly searched, NONE of them released to date except the snippet we've just seen.
<<Still shows men with guns being clubbed .>>
We already knew that.
<<No sign that anyone was shot before the clubbing.>>
What? In the entire 45 seconds -20-foot field of vision, absolutely NOTHING? Well that's conclusive evidence alright. Nothing could possibly have happened before the film was shot or outside the field of vision of the camera. Nothing at all. Move on, folks, move right along.
<<I am a bit surprised tho that the incident happened 40 miles to sea, this is like stopping a shoplifter before they leave the store , they should have waited .>>
Yeah, how much better to kill innocent unarmed aid workers inside your three-mile limit, geeze in fact why not wait till they LANDED in Gaza, then kill them on dry land like the 1400 Gazans killed in the invasion of Gaza, there's nothing like legitimacy to make a massacre of unarmed people go down easy in the eyes of the world.
<<Can't fault the IDF otherwise , on the BBC footage it really looks as if the guy with the gun is attempting to avoid shooting the jerk that is smacking him with a stick.>>
LOL. Why do you think, of all the available footage taken by passengers, the IDF is releasing THESE particular 45 seconds' worth and no more? Because somebody just like you is going to think, jeeze, <<it really looks as if the guy with the gun is attempting to avoid shooting the jerk that is smacking him with a stick.>> Anything that even looks like someone with a gun is NOT trying to avoid shooting anybody else, with or without a piece of ship's railing in their hand, is not going to be released. Anything that even looks like unarmed people are being gunned down is not going to be released. You are seeing exactly what the IDF chooses to show you, nothing more. You are not seeing any other footage the passengers shot, because almost every second of it has been seized by the IDF and not returned until they've determined it's harmless.
Classic case of control and manipulation of information and you and millions like you swallow it hook, line and sinker.
<<Since this was a planned bit of theater there should have been more cameras around , perhaps there were but the pictures captured make the IDF look too good for publishing.>>
ROTFLMFAO. Yeah, that must be it. There is other stuff the IDF confiscated from the passengers but won't release now because, aw shucks, guys, we're just too modest. We don't want to look TOO good now, you folks will start to think we're just tooting our own horns a little too much.
-
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/italian-flotilla-journalist-my-credit-card-was-used-after-idf-confiscated-it-1.295493 (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/italian-flotilla-journalist-my-credit-card-was-used-after-idf-confiscated-it-1.295493)
-
A few more clips here , along with some complaining that there must be more.
The entire event was theater , are we gonna complain always about the stage management ?
I want to complain that I am tired of being the audience for this staged show.
Those images of commandos being attacked with clubs and chairs are lacking context. Were they shot before or after the boarding party started using force? One thing that we know the Israeli military’s footage does not show is any of the shooting of activists by its commandos. If footage of that exists, the military has chosen not to release it.
Likewise, supporters of the activists pointed only to those initial images that showed bloody victims of the raid, not any sort of violent clashes between the pro-Palestinian campaigners and the Israelis.
Obviously the world would get a more complete picture of what took place on Monday if all of the video shot from both sides was released and posted online. At the moment, we are forced to rely on clips of the encounter that are only partial and fragmentary, as if this was the Zapruder film. The complete, original video is very likely time-coded and in the control of Israel’s military. If the I.D.F. wants to present a complete picture of what happened, or when certain parts of the encounter were filmed, it could release the unedited footage.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/complete-video-of-israeli-raid-still-missing/ (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/complete-video-of-israeli-raid-still-missing/)
-
Gaza flotilla participants invoked killing of Jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded#)
Censored Footage from the Gaza Flotilla - How Violence Breaks Out
Censored Footage from the Gaza Flotilla - How Violence Breaks Out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaiMjAULWn0&NR=1#)
Little bit from one side , then a little bit from another.
Was anyone involved interested in the truth at all?
Everybody goes home and gets beleived no matter what they say, and the video evidence is edited so much that being fairminded would make you disbeleive them all.
-
<<Little bit from one side , then a little bit from another.
<<Was anyone involved interested in the truth at all?
<<Everybody goes home and gets beleived no matter what they say, and the video evidence is edited so much that being fairminded would make you disbeleive them all.>>
I dunno. Maybe the passengers were more violent than I first believed. But why should they allow their ship to be boarded without permission? Why can't they repel boarders? Americans would. And . . .
If the Israeli soldier was stabbed repeatedly in the back, where's the guy now? Where are the hospital records?
The Israelis shot the whole thing on videotape, they grabbed all the film and cameras from the passengers, they've got the whole archive - - yet not a single shot of an Israeli soldier shooting a passenger. Nine killed and dozens wounded but not a single one of those shootings released? It stinks on ice. They show the most provocative, inflammatory videotapes of the passengers' assault on the IDF but not one second of their own assault on the passengers. That's how I know the Israeli side is bullshit.
-
<<Little bit from one side , then a little bit from another.
<<Was anyone involved interested in the truth at all?
<<Everybody goes home and gets beleived no matter what they say, and the video evidence is edited so much that being fairminded would make you disbeleive them all.>>
I dunno. Maybe the passengers were more violent than I first believed. But why should they allow their ship to be boarded without permission? Why can't they repel boarders? Americans would. And . . .
If the Israeli soldier was stabbed repeatedly in the back, where's the guy now? Where are the hospital records?
The Israelis shot the whole thing on videotape, they grabbed all the film and cameras from the passengers, they've got the whole archive - - yet not a single shot of an Israeli soldier shooting a passenger. Nine killed and dozens wounded but not a single one of those shootings released? It stinks on ice. They show the most provocative, inflammatory videotapes of the passengers' assault on the IDF but not one second of their own assault on the passengers. That's how I know the Israeli side is bullshit.
I am not totally satisfied , but I know that the stabbing guy stabbed before he was shot. I have a hard time imagineing a timeline possibility in which the guns were used before the knives and clubs .
This video was cast live from the ship during the incident , it is the only little bit that hasn't been edited by either side.
I feel that somewhere photoshop preparations are busy improving the tapes we will see next week , and I don't think either of these sides are above that sort of tactic.
For perfect credability there should have been cameras handed to neutral partys without any opportunities for edit , since this didn't happen credability depends on the credulity of the beholder.
-
Apart from the sequence, I have some trouble with the idea of boarding the ship in the first place -- sending armed commandos into hundreds of activists who the Israelis now claim are terrorists and terrorist agents (what the hell is a "terrorist agent?" Do they get 10% of the value of anything that their terrorists blow up?) as if they didn't know this would result in a lot of bloodshed. Maybe it was the Israelis trying to produce some "live theatre" in which their own commandos would be injured or killed, discrediting anyone asking for the siege of Gaza to be lifted.
The decision to board the ship with lethally armed commandos when it could easily have been immobilized and then towed has to be a deliberate attempt to provoke deadly violence.
-
Immobilised and towed?
With a giant magnet or what?
-
<<Immobilised and towed?
<<With a giant magnet or what?>>
You know better than that. They foul the propellor and tow the ship. Either the tow rope can be attached without the passengers' cooperation or they just let the immobilized ship drift till the passengers accept the tow.
-
<<Immobilised and towed?
<<With a giant magnet or what?>>
You know better than that. They foul the propellor and tow the ship. Either the tow rope can be attached without the passengers' cooperation or they just let the immobilized ship drift till the passengers accept the tow.
That sounds like something that might work.
Has this ever been done on purpose?
I know it has happened by accident many times.
How would one controll the event?
-
Easiest way I can think of is two fast ships flanking the target ship behind, then moving forward in tandem, one on each side of the target, with a big cable or rope strung from one deck to the other. Just before they draw astern of the target, they move in closer to it from each side to put some slack in the rope, give it a bit of a U-shape and allowing it to drop into the water slightly and continue moving forward alongside the target till the partially-submerged rope contacts the prop, at which time the lines holding the rope to each ship are cut.
What I'm not sure of is if a tow rope can be affixed to the ship in such a way that the passengers or crew can't get at it to sever it. Ideally there'd be something under the waterline that frogmen could use to tie the tow-rope to, otherwise I'd just offer the tow and stand by till the passengers and crew accept it from sheer necessity.
-
Easiest way I can think of is two fast ships flanking the target ship behind, then moving forward in tandem, one on each side of the target, with a big cable or rope strung from one deck to the other. Just before they draw astern of the target, they move in closer to it from each side to put some slack in the rope, give it a bit of a U-shape and allowing it to drop into the water slightly and continue moving forward alongside the target till the partially-submerged rope contacts the prop, at which time the lines holding the rope to each ship are cut.
What I'm not sure of is if a tow rope can be affixed to the ship in such a way that the passengers or crew can't get at it to sever it. Ideally there'd be something under the waterline that frogmen could use to tie the tow-rope to, otherwise I'd just offer the tow and stand by till the passengers and crew accept it from sheer necessity.
If your tangle rope were heavy enough to tow with , then your method would have two ships attached to the screw.
You should take out a patent.
-
No, because the tangle rope might become disentangled from the prop during towing. I figure once the prop was fouled, the captain would stop the engines and it's just chance how tightly the rope is wound into the prop. Or not.