Bull**** dector again
This man is a Us Veteran, and is one of the people that were named in the supposed terrorist ties list.So I call bull **** on this.
Your belief that a US veteran can do no wrong is disingenuous and an outright fallacy.This man is a Us Veteran, and is one of the people that were named in the supposed terrorist ties list. So I call bull **** on this.
Moderator's Warning: |
I have dual citizenship - US/IsraeliAlso once you are a US citizen i thought you are not allowed another citizenship/passport? ( or am I wrong)
I am absolutely not misreading you. I have understood you, your words and your intentions to their full extent.Then you are misreading me. For a start not everything I have said is concerned with what activists say and when it is it is because of a particular point, so that is not true. It is particularly untrue with regard to 'that Kenneth guy', below, because if you read what I said properly you would have seen that it was because of the fact that he was speaking about his part in disarming soldiers which made me give what you wrote more thought. You also, perhaps this comes from translation or perhaps you are just choosing to misread me, but just because I quote something does not mean I am saying it is true or untrue, I am simply quoting what the person says. I am still involved in my own investigation and learning.
By 'them' I was referring to the violent mob that this Kenneth was part of.If you have proof of 'that Kenneth guy' attacking soldiers with knives and crowbars of course you will be able to present this.
Key words being "he has said".As I have already said he has already spoken of disarming soldiers. He has not said he was uninvolved, though yes, he said he did not harm the soldiers he disarmed. Now you have made a definite point. This will need to be proved. We all know that there was a fight. We just do not know why.
Which is why the Israeli soldiers have returned fire.If I believed I was about to be killed, would I fight even though I was supposed to just sit there and die if need be. I do not know. I am not Ghandi.
I do not think that there is a doubt to what a person that chooses to attack soldiers with knives and crowbars think. I honestly do not think you're fooling anyone.That is something you refuse to understand. It is extremely important what the people on the boat believed the situation to be, more important than what the situation was.
Again, you're not fooling anyone.I have also said and left link to listening to a previous boat the Arion and hearing them being told in no uncertain terms that they would be fired on.
Absolutely not, it is you and people that promote such illogical claims that would not be given a hearing in a court of law.Then you and the rest of the 'objective' world would be no good in courts of law.
I have zero doubts that the evidence, which is more than sufficient for the rational person, would be sufficient to accuse the activists with the intent to murder in a court of law.It is not sufficient just to say someone is guilty of something, you have to prove it.
It is crystal clear what the intentions of the activists were.A person for instance fighting for his life is not the same as someone fighting because he has a desire to hurt someone. They are too entirely different situations.
The most likely option so far is that they have attacked the soldiers with the intent to kill them.Indeed there are a great number of options. At the current moment on what I know now, those are the two most likely. If further evidence was produced, I might change my mind but it so far has not been.
How is it relevant that no Israeli has died if two Israelis were seriously injured?Maybe, maybe not. I certainly have seen nothing yet to make me come to that conclusion. No Israeli died. 9 of them died with multiple gunshot wounds. Perhaps they were as they say just trying to protect themselves.
And that would have nothing to do with my sense of logic, but rather with my current profession.You would not get a job in a court of law in our country.
We did. The footage covers it.We still have not seen the beginning of the fighting
I have dual citizenship - US/Israeli
duel citizWait where was this shot? 0-0
why does he have blood on his face.
Also once you are a US citizen i thought you are not allowed another citizenship/passport? ( or am I wrong)
Its just kind of strange
Nope you can have dule citizenship ^^.
I know you can, but once you get a US citizenship you cant get a UK one or an irish one, unless you had one before..
Or am I missing something.
I realized that some can do wrong thought the IDF picked someone who is well know in the non violence movement, so they picked someone with the wrong background history. And the other ones they picked as terrorist kind of smell fishy too.
think he can be a little bit crazy.
Our cases are different. I was born in the United States. As a minor, you automatically became a US citizen when your parents were granted US citizenship. In your case, you also retain the citizenship of your birth country (Israel). You should check with both the US Department of State and the US Immigration Service if you should wish to obtain the citizenship of yet a third country. As a citizen of both the US and Israel, you can legally possess both passports.okay thanks
I am absolutely not misreading you. I have understood you, your words and your intentions to their full extent.
By 'them' I was referring to the violent mob that this Kenneth was part of.
Key words being "he has said".
Which is why the Israeli soldiers have returned fire.
The activists, however, have had no sane reason to believe that they would be killed.
If the IDF wanted them killed, they would be dead before they understood what happens.
There is absolutely no sane reason to believe those were the activists thoughts.
I do not think that there is a doubt to what a person that chooses to attack soldiers with knives and crowbars think. I honestly do not think you're fooling anyone.
Again, you're not fooling anyone.
This is an international procedure. To warn the ship to stop, when it doesn't, warn it to stop or else it would be attacked.
Just two days ago I was watching a show on the Discovery channel about border security.
An Australian navy ship was chasing a ship suspected with drugs smuggling, ordering to stop immediately and allow the Australian navy soldiers to board the ship.
When it was ignored they've issued another warning saying "stop immediately or you will be shot".
Absolutely not, it is you and people that promote such illogical claims that would not be given a hearing in a court of law.
I have zero doubts that the evidence, which is more than sufficient for the rational person, would be sufficient to accuse the activists with the intent to murder in a court of law.
It is crystal clear what the intentions of the activists were.
The most likely option so far is that they have attacked the soldiers with the intent to kill them.
How is it relevant that no Israeli has died if two Israelis were seriously injured?
How does it matter if the soldiers' lives were entirely dependent on the doctors' aid?
How does it matter when two soldiers were shot with live bullets?
How does it matter when soldiers were stabbed?
The intent to murder is crystal clear here.
And that would have nothing to do with my sense of logic, but rather with my current profession.
And still I do not doubt that my chances to get such a job in your country are still way, way higher than yours.
We did. The footage covers it.
In terms of the IHH, the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) published a report entitled "The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing." The report claims that the IHH has links to extremist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
The report can be found at: http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf (See pp.10-14 of the document or pp.14-18 of the .pdf).
I'm not very familiar with the author of the report. Although he is not affiliated with any well-established universities/colleges nor is he part of the Intelligence/counterterrorism community, he has written a book entitled Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network (favorably reviewed in Political Science Quarterly and generally favorably reviewed in The International Journal of Middle East Studies), has been published in Foreign Affairs, and has lectured before various law enforcement and counterterrorism entities. In the review published in The International Journal of Middle East Studies," it is noted that there are "numerous factual errors" e.g., the Kohlmann revers to the Bosnia conflict as a "civil war" (I do, too, as it was a war that resulted when Yugoslavia broke up, but the objection is purely a technical one with the reviewer arguing that the Bosnia war concerned aggression). The reviewer also notes that other errors concern names and events, but the overall substance is well-researched. Finally, the reviewer concludes:
More importantly, Kohlmann's work should be regarded as a major contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning measures that ought to be taken with regard to the acute problem of Islamic terrorism. It tells us that the best way to deal with militant Islam is the political one, as Bosnia is proof that radical Islam has been decisively fed by the regional conflicts involving unjust treatment of Muslims. As the author stresses, al-Qa[hamza ]ida was allowed (and indeed, invited) to come to Bosnia due to the failure of the West to prevent genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. (It seems contradictory that Kohlmann criticizes the Clinton administration's tacit approval of Islamic shipments of weapons to Bosnia aimed at helping the Bosnian Muslims.) Therefore, the book is strongly recommended to the world's statesmen to inform them that they should solve the protracted conflicts in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, and Xinjiang in a just way. Of course, specialists in Islamic terrorism should read the book, too.
Finally, the Centre for European Policy Studies describes DIIS as follows:
The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) is an independent research institution engaged in research in international affairs. The institute draws up reports and analyses and follows developments in international affairs continuously in order to assess the security and foreign policy situation of Denmark, e.g. aspects of relevance with regard to development policy. DIIS also communicates research findings, analyses and knowledge and performs functions concerning documentation, information and library services. Furthermore, DIIS contributes to the education of researchers, supports the development of research capacity in developing countries and establishes contacts between Danish and international research environments.
In the end, even as I was not very familiar with the report's author, the reviews, his being published in the widely-respected journal Foreign Affairs, and the credibility of the DIIS suggest that his piece cannot be dismissed outright as propaganda. In short, the issues raised in the DIIS paper concerning the IHH are matters of concern and, if the inquiry into the flotilla incident is to be thorough, the IHH's role should be examined.
I think you're one of the most brainwashed people in this forum.There isn't imo any point in replying to this, You believe that your/official Israel stance is the only one. There is no room for debate. A lot including the legal which you say is opposed by Edward Peck, retired US ambassador, but hey, Apocalypse, shut your ears tight, there is only your/official view. Sounds awfully like brainwashing to me. Enjoy.
In terms of the IHH, the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) published a report entitled "The Role of Islamic Charities in International Terrorist Recruitment and Financing." The report claims that the IHH has links to extremist organizations, including Al Qaeda.
The report can be found at: http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS WP 2006-7.web.pdf (See pp.10-14 of the document or pp.14-18 of the .pdf).
I'm not very familiar with the author of the report. Although he is not affiliated with any well-established universities/colleges nor is he part of the Intelligence/counterterrorism community, he has written a book entitled Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network (favorably reviewed in Political Science Quarterly and generally favorably reviewed in The International Journal of Middle East Studies), has been published in Foreign Affairs, and has lectured before various law enforcement and counterterrorism entities. In the review published in The International Journal of Middle East Studies," it is noted that there are "numerous factual errors" e.g., the Kohlmann revers to the Bosnia conflict as a "civil war" (I do, too, as it was a war that resulted when Yugoslavia broke up, but the objection is purely a technical one with the reviewer arguing that the Bosnia war concerned aggression). The reviewer also notes that other errors concern names and events, but the overall substance is well-researched. Finally, the reviewer concludes:
More importantly, Kohlmann's work should be regarded as a major contribution to the ongoing discussion concerning measures that ought to be taken with regard to the acute problem of Islamic terrorism. It tells us that the best way to deal with militant Islam is the political one, as Bosnia is proof that radical Islam has been decisively fed by the regional conflicts involving unjust treatment of Muslims. As the author stresses, al-Qa[hamza ]ida was allowed (and indeed, invited) to come to Bosnia due to the failure of the West to prevent genocide against the Bosnian Muslims. (It seems contradictory that Kohlmann criticizes the Clinton administration's tacit approval of Islamic shipments of weapons to Bosnia aimed at helping the Bosnian Muslims.) Therefore, the book is strongly recommended to the world's statesmen to inform them that they should solve the protracted conflicts in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, and Xinjiang in a just way. Of course, specialists in Islamic terrorism should read the book, too.
Finally, the Centre for European Policy Studies describes DIIS as follows:
The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) is an independent research institution engaged in research in international affairs. The institute draws up reports and analyses and follows developments in international affairs continuously in order to assess the security and foreign policy situation of Denmark, e.g. aspects of relevance with regard to development policy. DIIS also communicates research findings, analyses and knowledge and performs functions concerning documentation, information and library services. Furthermore, DIIS contributes to the education of researchers, supports the development of research capacity in developing countries and establishes contacts between Danish and international research environments.
In the end, even as I was not very familiar with the report's author, the reviews, his being published in the widely-respected journal Foreign Affairs, and the credibility of the DIIS suggest that his piece cannot be dismissed outright as propaganda. In short, the issues raised in the DIIS paper concerning the IHH are matters of concern and, if the inquiry into the flotilla incident is to be thorough, the IHH's role should be examined.
the Americans appeared to confirm that there was no evidence to suggest that IHH was a terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaida.
Alexa,
Mr. Lerman's quote, "the Americans appeared to confirm that there was no evidence to suggest that IHH was a terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaida..." and the DIIS study are not necessarily contradictions. IHH might not be a terrorist organization, but it could still have links to terrorist organizations via financial or other channels. The DIIS study suggests that it does have links to terrorist groups. IMO, any examination of what happened needs to include a look into the IHH, its motives/objectives, the role its people played in the incident, etc., to gain a complete and accurate picture of what happened and why.
So, Don, is this suggesting that rather than look at the situation of what happened during this incident, an investigation of IHH is what is in order?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?