israeli navy fires on Gaza aid flotilla

[PJABBER]

Yeah, you are most obviously missing something, trying singing along to this song and you might figure out what.


People who respect human rights don't share your delusions.

Anyway, another interview with another American member of the Freedom Flotilla, retired Army colonel State Department official, Ann Wright.

Really, what is he missing? Please show us ANY video that shows ANY Israeli firing in the initial phase of the boarding. As the boarding party consolidates we can see them then shooting PAINTBALLS at the marauding activists that were intent on killing the first Israeli boarders. Again, if you don't believe the activists were using a lethal level of force, have someone take a four foot length of steel pipe and have them hit you over and over again. Then imagine there are a dozen people doing so at the same time.

Ann Wright was NOT on the assaulted ship and her comments reflect only her own opinion and characterization of events, events that she herself did not observe.

Her limited view was only of the Challenger I ship located forty minutes at speed from the assaulted ship and which was boarded without resistance.

In this interview she states that dozens of people were assigned to protect the captain of the assaulted ship from being stopped in his attempt to drive through the blockade despite all orders to halt the ship.

She also identifies that some of the people who attacked the Israelis were trained in Taekwondo (Korean karate) and were Turkish national team members.

Obviously, the activists that were assigned to repel the Israeli boarders were not your run of the mill peacenicks.

 

[Sclamoz]

By the way, note that in this video which I linked previously, one can see the break of dawn behind the ship, proving Israel attacked them after they had turned back to sea to avoid confrontation.

Interesting you should point that out because its pitch black when the video starts and stays that way until the helicopter drops the soldiers on the deck around 2:30 mark. It doesn't actually get bright out until around the 11:00 minute mark, so this video is obviously from different parts over many hours that have been edited together.

 

[palehorse]

By the way, note that in this video which I linked previously, one can see the break of dawn behind the ship, proving Israel attacked them after they had turned back to sea to avoid confrontation.

How does it prove that they turned around? Did you do some sort of sun-vs-jihadist measurement, or something?

 

[kylebisme]

Hire a tutor.

 

[Lemon law]

In MHO, any of the video is worthless for evidence just on chain of custody issues.
And when the Rachel Corrie was seized, at least there were supposed to be live video
from the ship, but that did not happen either, because Israel jammed the signal.

 

[palehorse]

Hire a tutor.

Answer the f'n question.

How does that video "prove" that they turned back?

 

[Harabec]

I find it hilarious that people are still bickering over the stopping of a ship full of terrorists by a friendly nation and ignore the real problem that is the clash of cultures today. Europe is afraid, they will do everything in their power to divert muslim (not "extremists", or "radicals" etc - just muslims) attention from themselves to Israel. Will the US act the same?
In the end, you have to decide which culture you want to dominate. Those muslims who integrated themselves into US society chose the modern option. Will you bow down to the others who reject it?

 

[Lemon law]

I find it sad and extremely stupid that we still have people so one sided as to say, " I find it hilarious that people are still bickering over the stopping of a ship full of terrorists"

Even if people can share your possible assumption that Hamas is the root problem in Gaza, this is an example or how more mature people look at such complex problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?ref=middleeast

 

[EagleKeeper]

People are going to see ant they want in the videos to buttress their position.

Parts that conflict will be ignored/explained away.

and it is possible that any video being replaced by the activists will be edited.
Just like it is stated that ISrael edited some footage and
Reuters edited out what people did not want to be seen.

Maybe taking footage from everything, people can observe what was suppressed.
But that will nake a neutral party and no one wants their position weakened.

 

[EagleKeeper]

And still waiting for flavio to point to the legal finding on the legality of the blockade that he still is so loudly trumps is illegal.

He after all researched it in depth as implied bya post of his the other day.

 

[Harabec]

Even if people can share your possible assumption that Hamas is the root problem in Gaza, this is an example or how more mature people look at such complex problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?ref=middleeast

This is exactly what makes you a transparent troll. You make an arguement to counter something I did not say on an unrelated topic. Do you take P&N posters for fools?

 

[flavio]

And still waiting for flavio to point to the legal finding on the legality of the blockade that he still is so loudly trumps is illegal.

The UN warned Israel that it was illegal. I'm waiting on you to point to the legal finding disproving that it is illegal.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Can't believe this epic fail thread has reached almost 1800 posts

Long ago turned into a "you lie, NO YOU LIE", Yo MAMMA thread.

Give it a decent burial all ready

 

[EagleKeeper]

The UN warned Israel that it was illegal. I'm waiting on you to point to the legal finding disproving that it is illegal.

You claim that is was illegal; but have yet to show where a legal finding is.
Where is the research that you claimed you did?

You keep pointing to one person's opinion that has not been followed up by the UN.

You have not provided anything else because you can not.

Full of hot air and lack of reading comprehension:thumbsdown:

 

[flavio]

You claim that is was illegal; but have yet to show where a legal finding is.

You claim it is legal even thought the UN warned them that it is illegal. Where is your legal finding?

You have not provided anythingbecause you can not.

Full of hot air and lack of reading comprehension:thumbsdown:

 

[palehorse]

The UN warned Israel that it was illegal.

This is getting old... the "UN" did NOT fucking warn Israel that the blockade is illegal.

Rather, ONE woman released a DRAFT report in August 2009 wherein she alone concluded that the blockade is illegal. One month later, said paper was presented to the UNSC where they dismissed it outright and never brought it up again.

Since then (September 2009), the UN itself has NOT decided or commented on the legality of Israel's blockade of Gaza -- and neither has any other international ruling body.

I'm waiting on you to point to the legal finding disproving that it is illegal.

For the last time, that is not how legality is determined son. In the real world, something must be demonstrably illegal, not the other way around. The burden of proof lies on the prosecutors (you), not the defendants (Israel).

In other words, YOU must point to a ruling -- any binding international ruling -- that has found the current Israeli blockade of Gaza to be illegal.

There hasn't been one, so good fucking luck.

Until such a ruling occurs, the blockade remains completely legal.

 

[flavio]

For the last time, that is not how legality is determined son. In the real world, something must be demonstrably illegal, not the other way around. The burden of proof lies on the prosecutors (you), not the defendants (Israel).

Sorry that's not how it works son. You can't blockade nations willy nilly and consider them legal.

The blockade is illegal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/21/2851891.htm

 

[senseamp]

I find it sad and extremely stupid that we still have people so one sided as to say, " I find it hilarious that people are still bickering over the stopping of a ship full of terrorists"

Even if people can share your possible assumption that Hamas is the root problem in Gaza, this is an example or how more mature people look at such complex problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world/middleeast/11gaza.html?ref=middleeast

Sounds like Israel destroyed the Gazan middle class and created perfect conditions for extremism to flourish.

 

[KMFJD]

Sorry that's not how it works son. You can't blockade nations willy nilly and consider them legal.

The blockade is illegal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/21/2851891.htm

 

[EagleKeeper]

You claim it is legal even thought the UN warned them that it is illegal. Where is your legal finding?

You have not provided anythingbecause you can not.

Full of hot air and lack of reading comprehension:thumbsdown:

All you are doing is that you can not prove your statement and or can not deliniate between an opinion and finding

 

[palehorse]

Sorry that's not how it works son. You can't blockade nations willy nilly and consider them legal.

The blockade is illegal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/21/2851891.htm

jesus h christ kid, one man "condemning" something does not equate to an international body, with jurisdiction or authority, finding or ruling something "illegal."

You yourself are "condemning" the blockade, but does your individual opinion make it illegal?

derrrrrr...

 

[Lemon law]

In my minuscule mind, the entire legality or illegality of the Gaza blockade is at present a pissing contest.

And I hope the UN will take a strong stand one way or the other to end the debate once and for all. But the UN also straddles the fence for now. And to some extent it looks like Israel is looking for some face saving way to lift the blockade before the question is militarily tested, but that is somewhat politically impossible in Israel at this time because too many within Israel demand taking a hard line.

But if any UN member state has a right, just on its own, has a right to a naval blockade of another nation, why could not Iran have a right equal to Israel should it decide to blockade the Persian gulf?

 

[flavio]

You yourself are "condemning" the blockade, but does your individual opinion make it illegal?

derrrrrr...

You yourself are "condoning" the blockade, but does your individual opinion make it legal?

derrrrrr...

 

[flavio]

All you are doing is that you can not prove your statement and or can not deliniate between an opinion and finding

It's obvious at this pointyou can not prove it's legal and or can not deliniate between an opinion and finding.

 

[Lemon law]

jesus h christ kid, one man "condemning" something does not equate to an international body, with jurisdiction or authority, finding or ruling something "illegal."

You yourself are "condemning" the blockade, but does your individual opinion make it illegal?

derrrrrr...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The palehorse problem is that he is in the exact same legal limbo that he tries to consign flavio to. By the same token, just because Israel and palehorse say it is legal does not equate to an international body saying its legal.