BBC Flotilla Documentary: Attack on IDF Was Premeditated

[Apocalypse]

Apocalypse, what you mean is I have been told by you to use sources you approve of and when I first came online and did not know who american people were used a website which again in this instance was giving information which was correct but which was very biased. Because of this your friend Gardiner has been following me around blowing his trumpet about my mistake since then which was when I met him. It is cheap attempts to delegitimise and does neither of you any favours. You have even tried to deny Palestinian academics the right to have a point of view. Even those working from Bethlehem University.

In this particular instance it was 2am in the morning here and for whatever reason Haaretz was not responding. I wanted sleep. Here is Haaretz's article.

Knesset revokes Arab MK Zuabi's privileges over Gaza flotilla - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Apocalypse what is important is that what is provided is true. Your own favourite source is anything but reliable and Wiki has had problems with Camera and pro Israeli activists rewriting Israeli sections. One of the reasons it is one of the more unreliable sources, but your favourite.

The article was correct as you yourself admit beneath.

Indeed but what is important is that you would not post articles of PressTV, an Iranian government ruled agency, as you seem to be giving it legitimacy as a source of knowledge.

What a strange kind of democracy you have in Israel. An elected member is going about her business and she looses her privileges which she needs in order to do the job she has been elected to do and you believe she should be charged for going about her business - all because she does not agree with your position. Are you sure it is democracy you have in Israel because it sounds nothing like democracy I know.

It's a regular democracy really, it's the knesset members that we have here that are unique, nowhere else do you have members of the parliament that take drastic actions against the country and its soldiers, risking their lives deliberately and later on denying on TV that soldiers were even attacked.

I came upon a letter she had written to the authorities believing she was going to even be stripped of her citizenship but cannot at the moment find that link. Perhaps you can tell us a bit more on that.

and as far as where my position is, it is where it always is, with justice.

I don't see her being stripped of her citizenship nor did I ever hear about such case and it would probably never happen, but she should be jailed for taking part in a hostile action towards the state and its soldiers, that far is obvious from my position.

 

[Apocalypse]

Ad-hominem attacks already? It shows how weak your stance is...

Spare me the bullcrap and focus on my words.

It is not trespassing when you board a ship carrying the flag of another country, making it (in this case) Turkish soil. By definition that's an invasion, however minute it may be. When we consider that those 'trespassing' were carrying guns and according to many witnesses, including the captain, fired before they entered, then we see just how off the mark you are here.

Your argument fails.
Reasons;

1) No backing up for the claim that soldiers have carried guns (not paintball rifles)

2) No backing up for the claim that soldiers have fired on the flotilla before boarding it.

3) A false claim that the Mavi Marmara was carrying the Turkish flag while it was not, during the boarding it was carrying the Komor Islands flag and that is well known.

4) A false claim that boarding a ship that carries a country's flag equals to invading a country's soil. Back it up?

Do keep entertaining me.

None of the soldiers had life threatening injuries and the soldier from the video that was stabbed was treated by a doctor who was a passenger. All the captives were treated for their injuries.

False, soldiers have had life threatening injuries (serious injuries) and indeed were saved in Israeli hospitals, along with other activists from the Mavi Marmara.
Funny that you'd leave it out.

Anyway, please do answer this post already:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ttack-idf-premeditated-27.html#post1058985749

For the third time.

 

[expandmymind]

Ignoring for a moment that your entire comment here seems to be copy and pasted and is referring me to something called "The document 'Analysis of bias: BBC Panorama "Death on the Med",
let's just take a look at one example of how your commentary here is really baseless and irrelevant.

It was made clear that I found the analysis.

You claim, about the chainsaws found, that "They were never used as weapons but as tools to cut the Israeli grappling hooks".
How do you know that?
What's your source?

Well we know they weren't used as weapons because not even Israel has claimed this... Another clue is the fact no one was injured by a chainsaw.

Oh, really?
How in heavens' sake is that misleading?
I see no importance in mentioning such details nor do I see how can not mentioning them would somehow mislead people about the truth.

Really? This is all you could muster? Why didn't you start with the first 5 examples? or the first 10? Why did you have to wade through before finding an example you thought worthy? It's alright, they were rhetorical questions I already know the answers to.

It is misleading because we were not given the context of the man's 'confession'. Context is everything, especially in a documentary.

But admittedly, that is the weakest of all the points in the analysis and no doubt why you used it as an example.

Nevertheless what is your source for the first remark? ("Without the knowledge...")

None of them are my source. I provided a link that is now broken. Google the man's name and what the analysis is and I'm sure you'll find his sources. I merely posted it because, barring a few points, it is clear to anyone who reads only a small portion of the analysis that the documentary was biased.

Go thorough it one point at a time and we'll both see just how biased the program was.

 

[Apocalypse]

It was made clear that I found the analysis.

I do recall a statement about taking you a hell of a time to put it up or something when it has taken you a few minutes from the time differences between the posts.

Well we know they weren't used as weapons because not even Israel has claimed this... Another clue is the fact no one was injured by a chainsaw.

Well besides those "clues" of yours not creating a situation of absolute knowledge the dude who has created this article describes in it, I do recall Israel claiming that soldiers were attacked with axes, knives and other cold weapons.
This could indeed easily include chainsaws in it, and the chainsaw not managing to hit anyone does not mean that it was not used.
A sniper rifle can be used while missing a target, can it not?

Point is we do not know, yet you speak with absolute knowledge.
Ain't it grand?

Really? This is all you could muster? Why didn't you start with the first 5 examples? or the first 10? Why did you have to wade through before finding an example you thought worthy? It's alright, they were rhetorical questions I already know the answers to.

It caught my eye really, to suggest that I've read your entire comments here would be a lie as even I am not bored enough to read the same propaganda over and over again.
But why would it matter? Can you not simply answer the question?

It is misleading because we were not given the context of the man's 'confession'. Context is everything, especially in a documentary.

Bullcrap, not knowing if he was aware of being filmed or not while saying what he said does not change the fact that he said it, nor does it mislead anyone into believing some other truth.

None of them are my source. I provided a link that is now broken. Google the man's name and what the analysis is and I'm sure you'll find his sources. I merely posted it because, barring a few points, it is clear to anyone who reads only a small portion of the analysis that the documentary was biased.

Go thorough it one point at a time and we'll both see just how biased the program was.

In other words, you have no source to back up the claim with.
I've never heard anything that suggests the man was not informed about being filmed.

 

[expandmymind]

Spare me the bullcrap and focus on my words.



Your argument fails.
Reasons;

1) No backing up for the claim that soldiers have carried guns (not paintball rifles)

2) No backing up for the claim that soldiers have fired on the flotilla before boarding it.

3) A false claim that the Mavi Marmara was carrying the Turkish flag while it was not, during the boarding it was carrying the Komor Islands flag and that is well known.

4) A false claim that boarding a ship that carries a country's flag equals to invading a country's soil. Back it up?

Do keep entertaining me.



False, soldiers have had life threatening injuries (serious injuries) and indeed were saved in Israeli hospitals, along with other activists from the Mavi Marmara.
Funny that you'd leave it out.

Anyway, please do answer this post already:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...ttack-idf-premeditated-27.html#post1058985749

For the third time.

1+2. This was claimed by witnesses who testified independently.

3.Ok, they switched out the Turkish flag. This does not change the situation at all.

4. I thought this was common knowledge. When you attack a flagged ship you are attacking that particular country. Basic Martime law.

5. Please provide evidence that they were saved from 'life-threatening' injuries. Even Panorama doesn't claim this.

6. Post answered.

 

[Apocalypse]

1+2. This was claimed by witnesses who testified independently.

Doesn't count as objective evidence in my book.
So please do not try to base your words on what the activists have claimed in the future, I do not base mine on what the soldiers have claimed.

3.Ok, they switched out the Turkish flag. This does not change the situation at all.

Simply correcting yet another misleading factor in your comment.

4. I thought this was common knowledge. When you attack a flagged ship you are attacking that particular country. Basic Martime law.

No that was not common knowledge, especially since this was a merchant vessel that was funded and managed by a private organization.
Now please do refer me to the law in the maritime law that declares the boarding of a flagged ship to be an invasion into the flag's country's soil.

5. Please provide evidence that they were saved from 'life-threatening' injuries. Even Panorama doesn't claim this.

Panorama, as does every other legit source in the universe, claim that soldiers were seriously injured.
As I said in my previous post, seriously injured means a life threatening situation.
Do you wish to deny it? Really?

 

[expandmymind]

I do recall a statement about taking you a hell of a time to put it up or something when it has taken you a few minutes from the time differences between the posts.

It took me ages to sort it out from it's original format (scribd)

Well besides those "clues" of yours not creating a situation of absolute knowledge the dude who has created this article describes in it, I do recall Israel claiming that soldiers were attacked with axes, knives and other cold weapons.
This could indeed easily include chainsaws in it, and the chainsaw not managing to hit anyone does not mean that it was not used.
A sniper rifle can be used while missing a target, can it not?

They were attacked with axes? I think you should read the analysis. Could you back up this claim please? And have the IDF stated that chainsaws were used in the defence? I think not..

Point is we do not know, yet you speak with absolute knowledge.
Ain't it grand?

I think we can be sure that, after the display of the weapons, Israel would have claimed the chainsaws were used in the attack and displayed the chainsaw also.

It caught my eye really, to suggest that I've read your entire comments here would be a lie as even I am not bored enough to read the same propaganda over and over again.
But why would it matter? Can you not simply answer the question?

Eh, I did. You quoted my reply next...

Bullcrap, not knowing if he was aware of being filmed or not while saying what he said does not change the fact that he said it, nor does it mislead anyone into believing some other truth.

To suggest that knowledge of being filmed would not have affected the man's testimony is grossly misleading. Where he may be normally inclined to say just about anything in order to be freed, I'm sure you'll find that putting a camera in front of someone, filming them, would very likely have had an effect on what he was saying. In any normal documentary we would have been given this info.

Again though, it's one tiny example.

 

[alexa]

Indeed but what is important is that you would not post articles of PressTV, an Iranian government ruled agency, as you seem to be giving it legitimacy as a source of knowledge.

which in this instance it is. I knew that, you knew that, anyone who had in anyway looked into this knew that. I can't see how you can use wiki if you believe that any source has to be a legitimate source of knowledge. Who is to decide what a legitimate source of knowledge is? anyway in this instance the information was true. I don't know much about Press TV but I did know what they were saying was true.

It's a regular democracy really, it's the knesset members that we have here that are unique, nowhere else do you have members of the parliament that take drastic actions against the country and its soldiers, risking their lives deliberately and later on denying on TV that soldiers were even attacked.

She did not do that. We do have MP'S in the UK standing up and protesting about government decisions, actions and policies which they believe are wrong. Not as much as we used to but we do.

I understand she went more to gain information rather than anything else. That is an appropriate thing for a Government minister to do. There were many politicians on this convoy as well as retired ambassadors and so on. A lot of people wanted more information and that is what they got.

She did not deliberately risk soldiers lives, indeed she was calling for medical help. She did nothing to hurt her country. She was a courageous woman willing to do her job despite risk to herself...and I am sure she like everyone else, never expected what happened.

Any statements which she has made will need to be assessed by the UN tribunal. I would not take information when someone is in shock as she will have been immediately after. She will have been saying what she knew to the best of her ability, that is probably hearsay because I understand she was on the second level and did not see anyone killed.

We have so far only heard the Israeli version, it will be for the UN to listen to both sides. It will obviously be a great help if all film is handed over to them.

I don't see her being stripped of her citizenship nor did I ever hear about such case and it would probably never happen, but she should be jailed for taking part in a hostile action towards the state and its soldiers, that far is obvious from my position.

Well I certainly saw a letter she had apparently written to an appropriate authority on this. It is of course not impossible that was some propaganda which is why I can get no further information on it. If I find it I will let you know.

 

[expandmymind]

Doesn't count as objective evidence in my book.
So please do not try to base your words on what the activists have claimed in the future, I do not base mine on what the soldiers have claimed.

They were witnesses wwho happened to include the captain of the ship.

Simply correcting yet another misleading factor in your comment.

The point remains, therefore the 'factor' was not misleading. It was simply an error.

No that was not common knowledge, especially since this was a merchant vessel that was funded and managed by a private organization.
Now please do refer me to the law in the maritime law that declares the boarding of a flagged ship to be an invasion into the flag's country's soil.

Look mate, a flagged vessel is part of the country who's flag is flying. It is their territory, their 'land'. I'm not searching through maritime law to provide you with information that really is common knowledge.

Panorama, as does every other legit source in the universe, claim that soldiers were seriously injured.
As I said in my previous post, seriously injured means a life threatening situation.
Do you wish to deny it? Really?

None of the soldiers wounds were life threatening as far as I'm aware.

 

[Apocalypse]

which in this instance it is.

For the protocol no it is not.
The article consists of many twisted claims and statements.
The article's subject however has a basis, if that's what you mean, but yet once more, do not refer to Press TV, your source is Ahmedinejad's government and that is something that you shouldn't let people know.

She did not do that.

You have no authority to claim so I'm afraid.
She was indeed on board of the ship and she has indeed stated on prime time TV news that soldiers were not attacked, right before the footage was released.

We do have MP'S in the UK standing up and protesting about government decisions

You have no such MP that takes actual action against his state and soldiers.
That is unique only to the Israeli democracy as far as I'm aware.

She did not deliberately risk soldiers lives, indeed she was calling for medical help. She did nothing to hurt her country. She was a courageous woman willing to do her job despite risk to herself...and I am sure she like everyone else, never expected what happened.

She's a criminal who holds an agenda against her own country's existence. Her place is in the court in front of a judge for her role in the incident, and hopefully thus would be so in the ending of the investigation.

 

[Apocalypse]

They were witnesses wwho happened to include the captain of the ship.

They are not objective sources for informations as they are a party in the investigated incident.

The point remains, therefore the 'factor' was not misleading. It was simply an error.

The factor was a mistaken factor and hence was misleading. Feel free to argue about how you being wrong was not misleading, I really don't care.

Look mate, a flagged vessel is part of the country who's flag is flying. It is their territory, their 'land'. I'm not searching through maritime law to provide you with information that really is common knowledge.

No, they can fly whatever flag they want to, in this case the Komor Islands' flag, and I've seen no indication that boarding a ship that carries a flag of a country makes it the invasion to that country's soil, you've yet to provide any source for that claim and it only works against you.

None of the soldiers wounds were life threatening as far as I'm aware.

Then you're not aware of it at all, as soldiers were indeed seriously injured.

 

[Demon of Light]

I looked into the claim of someone being shot in the head from the helicopters. Here is a site listing the various injuries the nine dead sustained:

Meet the Dead of the Mavi Marmara - Salem-News.Com

All the claims of someone being shot from a helicopter involve the person being shot in the head. Looking over it I think I figured out what this refers to:

Israeli soldiers who illegally boarded the Mavi Marmara attacked Kovdit Kililar. He was killed by a single bullet that hit him between the eyebrows as he raised his camera to photograph the commandos landing on the Mavi Marmara.

None of the other deaths match up as well with the eyewitness accounts. Thus, if the account of his shooting is accurate, I believe we can say fairly that this was the man who was shot from the helicopter and if this was indeed as commandos were landing rather than after they were on the ship then it is reasonable to say Israel fired first if they were not the only ones to fire guns. At the same time it is quite possible this singular incident may have incited some of the more violent actions by the people on board.

Of course, if he was going berserk and running with a huge knife trying to stab a soldier like most of those who got shot did

What evidence do you have that most who got shot were trying to stab a soldier with a huge knife?

Panorama, as does every other legit source in the universe, claim that soldiers were seriously injured.
As I said in my previous post, seriously injured means a life threatening situation.
Do you wish to deny it? Really?

Seriously injured does not mean a life-threatening injury necessarily. It can be a debilitating injury, like broken limbs, or painful wounds like third degree burns that may not actually a serious threat to a person's life, at least by themselves.

Do you have any evidence any soldiers sustained life-threatening injuries?

 

[alexa]

For the protocol no it is not.
The article consists of many twisted claims and statements.

Here is the article

The Knesset voted in favor of the decision which saw Hanin Zuabi losing her diplomatic passport and the right to subsidized legal counsel in case of a prosecution, wrote Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post.

Zuabi denounced the Knesset for "punishing [her] out of revenge," saying the Israeli parliament "has no idea what democracy is…."

She went on to say, "I represent my views, my party's views, and the views of all the Arab members of the Knesset."

However, a member of the Likud party, Yariv Levin, told her that "you don't have a place in the Knesset," and "you do not deserve Israeli citizenship."

She was among the hundreds of humanitarian campaigners to join the fleet on a mission to break the Tel Aviv-imposed siege of Gaza.

Israeli commandos attacked the activists on May 31, killing nine Turks among them.

The assault sent shockwaves across the world and gave rise to global calls for an international investigation into the incident — a demand Israel has rejected.

Following the international outcry, Tel Aviv said it would ease the land blockade on Gaza while keeping the naval surveillance strictly in order.

Zuabi said last month that the announcement of intentions to relax the restrictions "proves that it is not a security blockade, but a political one."

Palestinians, meanwhile, say the situation inside the impoverished enclave has not improved, confirming that restrictions continue to deprive 1.5 million Gazans of food, fuel and other necessities.

Now please point out where are the

many twisted claims and statements

The article's subject however has a basis, if that's what you mean

Everything has a bias.

but yet once more, do not refer to Press TV, your source is Ahmedinejad's government and that is something that you shouldn't let people know.

As I have already said, I only used this quote because I knew that what they said was true.

Please do not use Wiki again for your references. It is reference material which cannot be relied on and that is the reason it has been banned in may forums.

You have no authority to claim so I'm afraid.

I have as much authority as yourself to claim anyhing. As far as accuracy is concerned, I am far more accurate. She did nothing to risk soldiers lives.

She was indeed on board of the ship and she has indeed stated on prime time TV news that soldiers were not attacked, right before the footage was released.

I have already said

Any statements which she has made will need to be assessed by the UN tribunal. I would not take information when someone is in shock as she will have been immediately after. She will have been saying what she knew to the best of her ability, that is probably hearsay because I understand she was on the second level and did not see anyone killed.

Now if she was asked whether soldiers were attacked before she even had time to get her breath back she could only speak on what she herself knew. As she was on the second deck she would possibly be talking about whether the soldiers who were taken down there were attacked. As it happens they were not. There were given medical attention. She can only give information as best she knows. The UN enquiry will be able to speak to everyone and hopefully piece together what happened.

You have no such MP that takes actual action against his state and soldiers.
That is unique only to the Israeli democracy as far as I'm aware.

We have had plenty of MP's who have historically taken similar positions to your MP. She did not take actions against her own state and soldiers, rather she was pursuing her job and gaining information when the boat she was on was boarded in the high seas resulting in 9 deaths and numerous injuries. For you to suggest she is taking action against her state and soldiers just illustrates how absurd and bizarre and dramatically overly exaggerated or extreme your view is.

She's a criminal who holds an agenda against her own country's existence. Her place is in the court in front of a judge for her role in the incident, and hopefully thus would be so in the ending of the investigation.

She is an Arab member of the Knesset, working for the people who elected her.
You hold really extreme views and again not ones which go with democracy. That she chose to go on the flotilla shows an interest in finding out more about the situation, not as you dramatically exaggerate it, 'holding an agenda against her own country's existence'. Most democracy's discuss differences. Non democracy's insist everyone toe the line to in place policies.

 

[expandmymind]

They are not objective sources for informations as they are a party in the investigated incident.

Since when has victims' testimony not been reliable. There were many people from many different walks of life on that ship, to claim that none of them are reliable witnesses is quite simply a cop-out.

The factor was a mistaken factor and hence was misleading. Feel free to argue about how you being wrong was not misleading, I really don't care.

It simply was not misleading because it didn't change the overall picture of the situation. I thought I had made that pretty clear before.

No, they can fly whatever flag they want to, in this case the Komor Islands' flag, and I've seen no indication that boarding a ship that carries a flag of a country makes it the invasion to that country's soil, you've yet to provide any source for that claim and it only works against you.

Like i stated before: I'm not searching though maritime law to prove something that is generally common knowledge. A flagged vessel operates under the laws of the country of the flying flag, it is their territory and it is illegal to board in international waters without first receiving permission from the country.

Then you're not aware of it at all, as soldiers were indeed seriously injured.

Do you have any links to newspaper articles or anything?