Israel Moves on From Muslim Turkey to new stategic partner Greece.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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?

[Plane]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[BT]

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.