kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
It is quite clear that this is being done for the cameras. Besides that the soldiers were brought there through kidnapping, as shown by the videos, it could be that they've tried to get something to bargain with.
And as I've stated nearly every article from a reliable source about that incident has included the fact that two soldiers were suffering from gunshot wounds.
They were being taken care of at the hospital and released after a few days.
Its becoming increasingly probable to me that the IHH has in fact no ties to the global jihad and this is yet another IDF "statement" with no relevance or sources to back it up.
I guess we are living in inverted world, then, because just today Germany outlawed the organization due to its terrorist ties.
I think the final piece of evidence for you to formally dismiss them as having terrorist ties must be for them to be filmed hijacking some planes and running them into the Azrieli Center Tower in Tel Aviv.
I said it was becoming "increasingly probable". I didn't say they didn't have ties to Hamas and its ilk. Yet the mission of the IHH was to send aid to Gaza, which was promptly stopped with acts of violence from the other side.
I didn't say Israel was lying.
When one is calling a non-extremist an extremist, he is showing a sign of extremism.I was referring to the IDF. But you knew that.
Wrong, this proves that you weren't capable of following the incident and this gives further backing to the opposite version that your version of the incident argues against.Which where provoked by swarming fleets of IDF soldiers who felt like shooting at protestors with sticks was acceptable.
How is it becoming "Increasingly probable" that they didn't have ties to terrroists if it is a fact that they do?I said it was becoming "increasingly probable". I didn't say they didn't have ties to Hamas and its ilk.
Israel has offered them a countless times to enter the aid through the crosses, but they've refused for the sake of propaganda.that the I Yet the mission of the IHH was to send aid to Gaza, which was promptly stopped with acts of violence from the other side.
Nothing that you couldn't counter with "Israel lies" no.No evidence to support that.
Actually I did just provide a lot of videos and have referred you to the fact that Israeli soldiers were suffering gunshot wounds.You haven't provided evidence for that either, even when asked.
The IDF unit hasn't opened fire until the force commander gave the order to, which was after a soldier was stabbed and another was thrown overboard and was seriously injured.Then you wouldn't mind providing links.
And even then that proves nothing.
The IDF have great skills in just shooting bullets all over the place and swurling around in the hopes it will hit something, anything. Chances are on a packed out boat with angry people they caught a few IDF bullets, but thats mere speculation, just like your quote above this current one.
I guess we are living in inverted world, then, because just today Germany outlawed the organization due to its terrorist ties.
I think the final piece of evidence for you to formally dismiss them as having terrorist ties must be for them to be filmed hijacking some planes and running them into the Azrieli Center Tower in Tel Aviv.
Israel to release critical report on flotilla raid - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review
At least they know they where wrong.
When one is calling a non-extremist an extremist, he is showing a sign of extremism.
Wrong, this proves that you weren't capable of following the incident and this gives further backing to the opposite version that your version of the incident argues against.
The IDF has had the right to board that ship according to international law, just as the US has the right to board drugs smuggling ships. People cannot attack unless they are being attacked, and all of the evidence points towards the fact that the protesters have attacked the soldiers without being attacked first.
Besides that, you have claimed that the IDF was shooting people that hold sticks, while the IDF didn't shoot even when the violent crowd was using knives and has managed to stab its soldiers.
The IDF has only responded with live ammunition once live ammunition was being used against them.
How is it becoming "Increasingly probable" that they didn't have ties to terrroists if it is a fact that they do?
Is the Danish research, the US and Israel, and even Germany's opinions on the IHH not valid in your eyes?
Actually I did just provide a lot of videos and have referred you to the fact that Israeli soldiers were suffering gunshot wounds.
You've replied to that with "Israeli doctors are lying".
The IDF unit hasn't opened fire until the force commander gave the order to, which was after a soldier was stabbed and another was thrown overboard and was seriously injured.
I for one think that retaliation should have came before a soldier was seriously injured, it's unacceptable to nearly sacrafice a soldier's life for the sake of some violent nutjobs.
Very correct, just as there is no proof that the activists that were shot to death were killed by shots from the IDF.
No, we don't know that, this is what he states.
Somehow you seem to think that if he says so it makes it a fact, yet just a moment ago you were arguing that if Israel says something it doesn't make it a fact.
This is purely the best example so far for the double standards in your arguments surrounding the state of Israel, and it is legitimate for me to use that exposure of your double standards to dismiss your future comments surrounding the issue.
No, we don't know that, this is what he states.
Somehow you seem to think that if he says so it makes it a fact, yet just a moment ago you were arguing that if Israel says something it doesn't make it a fact.
This is purely the best example so far for the double standards in your arguments surrounding the state of Israel, and it is legitimate for me to use that exposure of your double standards to dismiss your future comments surrounding the issue.
-- Besides that, since there were no casualties on the other 6 ships--
An Israeli military inquiry into the naval raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla says commandos were under-prepared and mistakes were made at a senior level.
The report says the operation suffered from flawed intelligence-gathering and inadequate planning.
But it also praised the commandos involved and found the use of force had been the only way to stop the flotilla.
Eight Turks and one Turkish-American died in the naval raid in international waters, which provoked a major outcry.
The report criticised the operation's planners for not having a back-up plan in the event of violence.
--snip--
That is entirely based on the words of the activists themselves, the one who took part in the political act, and since we must not presume positive unless proven so, right now it just happens so that as far as the facts are involved there was no violence towards the activists on board of the 6 other ships.Here we go again...
There are reports on the BBC website from Greek activists on 2 of the other ships in the flotilla that said there was violence from IDF soldiers on those other ships. We have to wait the full report from the inquiry anyway.
I believe that too was entirely based on the words of the activists, please refer with a link to those "reports".Another point is that on the two previous flotillas (pre2010) that were stopped and ordered to Israeli ports there were again reports of violence by the IDF against the activists.
By all means, every country has the right according to international law to stop or attack a ship in international waters that tries to breach its blockade even after being warned multiple times.The pattern shows that the first two flotillas arrived in Gaza (the second ship was rammed but still got to port) then the next flotillas were stopped, boarded and reports of violence against activists. By extension there would have been those prepared to defend themselves and attack IDF soldiers when they tried to board the flotilla.
I don't see why you're quoting this, the internal investigation by the IDF has reached the conclusion that the activists were responsible for the violence. (such a hard conclusion to reach to, really, considering the tons of evidence we've all been exposed to)Besides which, Israel admits Gaza flotilla raid 'mistakes'
Eiland report finds 'mistakes, but no failures' - Israel News, YnetnewsThe report was handed Monday afternoon to the army's chief of staff as well as a number of high-rank officers. Since the Eiland committee was appointed by the IDF, its report deals neither with the state's conduct nor the army's pre-emptive gathering of intelligence, but rather focuses on preparations for the flotilla's arrival.
Analysis of the incident that occurred on board the Turkish Marmara, the report says, led the committee to conclude that the activists on deck had been the first instigators of violence.
At least four instances of live fire on soldiers were noted, though the committee believes there were six in all. In addition, a bullet removed from a soldier's knee shows the Turkish activists had prepared non-military arms to use against the forces.
The first issue probed by the committee was whether the Navy had the chance to stop the ships before they arrived in Israel's territorial waters. It concluded that this was not an option because the Navy has not yet developed such abilities, which take around two years to acquire. The army is discussing the option of doing so now.
Another issue probed was that of intelligence gathered by the Navy and the Military Intelligence Directorate before the flotilla set sail. The committee concluded that the IDF had chosen not to collect intelligence on Turkey and the IHH because the former is considered friendly and the latter unthreatening.
Eiland said this decision seemed correct, but that army officials should have taken into consideration the changing tides of Israel's relations with Turkey in the first months of 2010, which was also the time the IHH began openly discussing the flotilla.
He added that the developing relationship between the IHH and the Turkish government necessitated more extensive research than provided by intelligence sources.
However, Eiland said, even with more research intelligence still would have failed because so much of the violence had been brewing on board the Marmara itself.
Regarding the actual raid, the report found that the Navy had prepared only for "likely" resistance by a handful of activists, and not for a violent attack. Even when the ships neared, and the Navy began to understand it had erred, no new set of plans was formulated.
Eiland said the Navy should have understood that the situation did not match its assessments and stop to reconsider the actions it would take.
Aside from the criticism, the Eiland committee also made use of its report to praise the forces that conducted the raid. "I am glad to say we found a long list of praise-worthy things, and these do not only have to do with the conduct of the commando soldiers on the ship but also with other factors, including the evacuation of victims after the operation," the major-general said.
And in any case, he concluded, there was probably nothing the army could have done that would have led to a vastly different outcome. "We must learn from the conclusions deduced by the investigation and the way I see it, the IDF is trying to do so," Eiland said.
To go further into this. You are correct I do believe O'Keefe. I was not sure at first but Ryineal-haruno produced some information on him which allowed me to discover that he is a long term peace activist.
Certainly was in the US army so had the know how to disarm the soldier but to suggest that someone who is already known as working as a peaceful peace activist has suddenly become a terrorist questions credibility.
So yes, I believe him but with reason.
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/06/israel-declares-us-citizen-on-aid-ship-a-terrorist/
Also thats a different thread whereby Alexa has shown you the Germany IHH is unrelated to its Turkish based counter-part so we'll move this conversation there.
since we must not presume positive unless proven so, right now it just happens so that as far as the facts are involved there was no violence towards the activists on board of the 6 other ships.
I believe that too was entirely based on the words of the activists, please refer with a link to those "reports".
-- By all means, every country has the right according to international law to stop or attack a ship in international waters that tries to breach its blockade even after being warned multiple times.
When the soldiers of that country are boarding the ship, it doesn't constitute as an assault against the activists, and hence there is no room for the claim to "self-defense" and an attack against the soldiers would be considered to be a pure and simple assault, rightfully met with self-defense from the soldiers who have the right to defend their lives.
I don't see why you're quoting this, the internal investigation by the IDF has reached the conclusion that the activists were responsible for the violence.
Alexa only showed me that she believes in the word of the terrorist supporters who denied their association.
So you believe that he has engaged in past peaceful activities, and you believe that because of that it is unlikely that he has engaged in a violent activity on board of the Mavi Marmara.
Clearly you fail to see how baseless those assumptions are.
Just as I said you were caught with your double standards on Israel, it would be legitimate for me to use the previous post as a proof of that double standard for future comments by you on the subject.
You were presuming that the activist's words are true. Right now their words are baseless, and we must refer to it as if there was no violence on the other ships unless proven otherwise.Sorry, that doesn't stand up. I'm not presuming anything – just simply stating hat some activists on the other ships have spoken of violence against them on those other ships. That runs counter to your attempt to presume.
Yes that's a nice tactic by YNET but the navy and the defense minister have confirmed the reports that the ship was stopped and towed to the Ashdod port, not that the crew was attacked.YouTube - Aid ship to Gaza intercepted
An al jazeera reporter and various activists on their return. Obviously being “al jazeera” and evil activists they're all lying. ”Reporters from Al-Jadeed and Al-Jazeera TVs said the Israeli navy fired three times on the ship. The shooting caused no casualties. The local Al-Jadeed station says Israeli troops then boarded the ship and threatened the crew.
*
It said the ship was surrounded by 18 Israeli gunboats demanding the crew turn back.
*
The Israeli army confirmed the report, adding that the boat was towed to the Ashdod port and that the crew was taken in for questioning.
*
The journalists claimed that the Navy had contacted the ship's captain over the radio and warned him not to continue towards Gaza. The captain said that the Israel troops damaged the radios and other technical apparatus. *
*
The Togo-flagged "Tali," with about 60 tons of aidand eight activists and journalists, left Lebanon Tuesday. After an overnight stop in Cyprus, it sailed on to Gaza Wednesday morning trying to reach the strip in defiance of an Israeli blockade.” ynet news.
Assuming you're referring to Israel's right to attack the ships that try to breach its blockade, I agree.Of course they have the right to stop and attack however this doesn't mean they should always do this.
Correct. But then again what good is not having international pressure on your blockade when the blockade itslef is non-existent?My original point is that the first flotillas were allowed through and there was no international pressure
But I'm not speaking about the right to attack, but the right to stop and inspect the ships.Spin it any way you wish – that right to attack proved counter-productive.
Yes, we were kinda saying this all along, the soldiers should not have been dropped into a violent crowd and the soldiers should have been equipped with war-zone equipment. Perhaps then there'd have been a real deterrence and this would have ended differently. It just so happens that folks don't tend to get scared when they see commandos coming at them with paintball guns.Having the right to do something doesn't mean doing it is the wisest course of action. The commandos did well under severe pressure but mistakes higher up were made by those who put the soldiers into that position.
You're taking things out of context, gunner has said that the commanding chain is responsible for the violence on board the Mavi Marmara. The investigation has found the opposite, the activists were the ones responsible for the violence.In fact, I may remember wrongly but I think Gunner saying the very same thing about the performance of the troops vs the decisions that put them into that position very early on in the period of events and being attacked by yourself and Tashah on two different threads for saying so. I won't hold my breath waiting for anyone to apologise to him or agree he was right – even when an IDF investigation essentially says what he said at the time.
Alexa only showed me that she believes in the word of the terrorist supporters who denied their association.
Here you are simply being dishonest but I think that is probably a known for most posters by now.
Moderator's Warning: |
-- You were presuming that the activist's words are true.
Right now their words are baseless, and we must refer to it as if there was no violence on the other ships unless proven otherwise.
We can't presume a positive unless this positive is based.
-- Yes that's a nice tactic by YNET but the navy and the defense minister have confirmed the reports that the ship was stopped and towed to the Ashdod port, not that the crew was attacked.
Nevertheless even if we presume a positive here the shots seem to be warning shots, and that is legitimate.
But then again, this specific incident has occurred within Israeli territorial waters, if the captain has refused to turn his ship after being warned then Israel can just as well sink the ship, let alone fire warning shots at it, so I don't see you having a case here.
-- Correct. But then again what good is not having international pressure on your blockade when the blockade itslef is non-existent?
-- But I'm not speaking about the right to attack, but the right to stop and inspect the ships.
-- You're taking things out of context, gunner has said that the commanding chain is responsible for the violence on board the Mavi Marmara. The investigation has found the opposite, the activists were the ones responsible for the violence.
It was folks like me and Tashsah who pointed out the mistakes that were done, mistakes that were harshly criticized in the Israeli media and public, mistakes like the sending of commandos equipped with paintball guns into a massive violent mob equipped with long knives and crowbars, and mistakes like not knowing that those activists aren't really peaceful activists, but folks that are made from the martyrs-making material.
Now it's my turn to say that I wouldn't expect an apology from you.
Yes I believe I've already explained it to you that taking the activists words for granted is wrong, nevertheless since you were, a few posts ago, making the claim that there were reports on violence on board the other ships and tried to use it in favor of your argument, I am inclined to remind you that right now there was no violence on board the other ship, and unless it's proven otherwise we cannot presume that there was.You tried this last time I posted the links from the BBC. Didn't wash then, doesn't wash now.
We can't presume a negative, we're simply not presuming the positive.There are no grounds to presume there was no violence on the ship
You have obviously failed to prove that it has happened elsewhere and simply claiming that you have shown so does not equal to actually showing so.as I've shown it has happened elsewhere with other flotillas.
The IDF doesn't tend to take those activists seriously as it has a rich past with such incidents and knows full too well that they have no problem to tell a lie. Besides that, the 2009 ship did not cause an international incident, and there was no need for the IDF to explain itself.Nevertheless, the point is proven, but where is the denial in YNET that the activists were not mistreated or that the Al Jazeera reporter was wrong?
You're advocating the automatically allowance of ships to enter the Gaza port without investigating their cargos first, which means that you have no interest in Israel's security needs.That's a different point, there is a blockade against food and other supplies that affects the ordinary Gazans and others felt a basic humanitarian need to meet that need. Israel allowed the first flotillas in and stopped 8 others. Where there have been terrorists in boats or people trying to bring in weapons, they stopped them. They could simply have continued to let aid supplies through and instead decided to escalate the actions which led to May's incident which eventually led to the easing of the blockade.
They do not go through the tunnels at the same magnitudes that they would go through the crossings were they allowed to, so far is clear.I have not advocated allowing rockets or weapons supplies (which tend to go through the Gaza tunnels anyway)
Food and medical aid was being let through, some food and some forms of medical aid were restricted.but I do advocate letting aid (food and medical supplies) through.
Yes but that was entirely the fault of the activists.No problem on that front from me, any nation has that right if threatened however with aid ships that right became escalated into the events on the mavi marmaris.
Israel was intending on inspecting the aid flotillas and letting the goods through, that was the plan all along and it seems like you follow Israel's thought line, where you are in disagreement is with the activists who have refused to be inspected.I personally think Israel's stopping aid flotillas rather than inspecting and letting through was the wrong course of action.
Israel can only count on its own eyes and has the right to count on its eyes alone as a sovereign nation.Each genuine flotilla always let Israel know what was happening and had the cargo inspected.
Yes that's what happening now but it's not like the situation in Gaza has changed so much, since there was no real difference.Better still to have let the UN take appropriate aid in and then there would have been no need for the flotillas.
Outright falsehood. He continuously stated that the commanding chain put those commandos into that position – not that anyone else caused the violence. I read all his posts on the original flotilla thread.
Gunner still deserves the apology.
Again, I've referred you to the post where gunner was laying the blame on the soldiers' commanders. (And no, "soldiers' commanders" means the commanders of the soldiers, that's what the ' means when you put it after the letter S, not the soldiers + the commanders as gunner thought.)Gunner was clear in his posts; that's just one.
I didn't read in any of the posts you posted in that thread or the flotilla thread anything that looked anything similar. Gunner was always clear – both in the flotilla thread and then the thread regarding banning the IHH in Europe.
Well frankly that's a lie, since in one of the many comments where I've criticized the taken actions I was actually responding to you.I participated in (guessing) 3 to 5 Israel threads (including this one) – I don't have time to read all the threads in the whole forum. If you clearly criticised the decision making in those threads then I apologise. I didn't see them in any of those threads but I may have misread.
-- and right now I deserve an apology from you.
--snip--
Well frankly that's a lie, since in one of the many comments where I've criticized the taken actions I was actually responding to you.
Look at this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...za-flotilla-says-hamas-96.html#post1058783326
--Now here are two more posts where I'm saying that things should have been handled differently:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...za-flotilla-says-hamas-63.html#post1058781425
--I accept your apology.
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?