All the BS on Israel firing on the GAZA Aid Flotilla....and now this? perhaps Israeli

[kylebisme]

Well, in the "land for peace" agreement Israel withdrew from both Gaza and the West Bank.

What agreement are you talking about here specifically?

The Al Jezeera reporter's account is predicated on totally irrational and nonsensical behavior on the part of the Israelis.

Based on your argument; anybody can get away with anything in your eyes as long as they do so acting nonsensically enough for you to accept their denial of the witness accounts.

 

[ericlp]

Terrorist? Where? This sounds more and more like a Bush move.

Maybe they should just kill em all and look for the WMD's? Start looking under tables and shit.

What a joke.

 

[PJABBER]

What agreement are you talking about here specifically?

"Land for peace" was a tenet of the Oslo Accords. This is not a complete history as it comes from Wiki, but it provides a background for what happened...

Palestinian Authority control (1994–2007)

In accordance with the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority took over the administrative authority of the Gaza Strip (other than the settlement blocs and military areas) in 1994. After the complete Israeli withdrawal of Israeli settlers and military from the Gaza Strip on 12 September 2005, the Palestinian Authority had complete administrative authority in the Gaza Strip. Since the Israeli withdrawal the Rafah Border Crossing had been supervised by EU Border Assistance Mission Rafah under an Agreement finalised in November 2005.[31]

Violence in the wake of 2006 election

Main article: Fatah–Hamas conflict

In the Palestinian parliamentary elections held on January 25, 2006, Hamas won a plurality of 42.9% of the total vote and 74 out of 132 total seats (56%).[32][33]

When Hamas assumed power the next month, the Israeli government and the key players of the international community, the United States and the EU refused to recognize its right to govern the Palestinian Authority. Direct aid to the Palestinian government there was cut off, although some of that money was redirected to humanitarian organizations not affiliated with the government.[34] The resulting political disorder and economic stagnation led to many Palestinians emigrating from the Gaza Strip.[35]

In January 2007, fighting erupted between Hamas and Fatah. The deadliest clashes occurred in the northern Gaza Strip, where General Muhammed Gharib, a senior commander of the Fatah-dominated Preventative Security Force, died when a rocket hit his home. Gharib's two daughters and two bodyguards were also killed in the attack, which was carried out by Hamas gunmen.[36]

At the end of January 2007, a truce was negotiated between Fatah and Hamas.[37] However, after a few days, new fighting broke out.[38] Fatah fighters stormed a Hamas-affiliated university in the Gaza Strip. Officers from Abbas' presidential guard battled Hamas gunmen guarding the Hamas-led Interior Ministry.[39]

In May 2007, new fighting broke out between the factions.[40] Interior Minister Hani Qawasmi, who had been considered a moderate civil servant acceptable to both factions, resigned due to what he termed harmful behavior by both sides.[41]

Fighting spread in the Gaza Strip with both factions attacking vehicles and facilities of the other side. In response to constant attacks by rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, Israel launched an air strike which destroyed a building used by Hamas. Ongoing violence prompted fear that it could bring the end of the Fatah-Hamas coalition government, and possibly the end of the Palestinian authority.[42]

Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk placed the blame for the worsening situation in the Strip upon Israel, stating that the constant pressure of economic sanctions upon Gaza resulted in the "real explosion."[43] Expressions of concerns were received from many Arab leaders, with many offering to try to help by doing some diplomatic work between the two factions.[44] One journalist wrote an eyewitness account stating:

Today I have seen people shot before my eyes, I heard the screams of terrified women and children in a burning building, and I argued with gunmen who wanted to take over my home. I have seen a lot in my years as a journalist in Gaza, but this is the worst it's been.[45]
​

Hamas control (2007–present)

Hamas take-over of the Strip

In June 2007, the Palestinian Civil War between Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) and Fatah (Palestine Liberation Movement) intensified. Hamas routed Fatah after winning the democratic election, and by the 14th of June, controlled the Gaza Strip. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas responded by declaring a state of emergency, dissolving the unity government and forming a new government without Hamas participation. PNA security forces in the West Bank arrested a number of Hamas members.

Abbas's government received widespread international support. In late June 2008 Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia said that the West Bank-based Cabinet formed by Abbas was the sole legitimate Palestinian government, and Egypt moved its embassy from Gaza to the West Bank.[46] The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip faces international, diplomatic, and economic isolation.

However, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt supported reconciliation and the forming of a new unity government, and pressed Abbas to start serious talks with Hamas. Abbas had always conditioned this on Hamas returning control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Hamas has been invited to and has visited a number of countries, including Russia, and in the EU countries, opposition parties and politicians called for a dialogue with Hamas and an end to the economic sanctions.

After the takeover, Israel and Egypt closed their border crossings with Gaza. Palestinian sources reported that European Union monitors fled the Rafah Border Crossing, on the Gaza–Israel border for fear of being kidnapped or harmed.[47] Arab foreign ministers and Palestinian officials presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas.[48]

Meanwhile, Israeli and Egyptian security reports said that Hamas continued smuggling in large quantities of explosives and arms from Egypt through tunnels. Egyptian security forces uncovered 60 tunnels in 2007.[49]

Conditions after the Hamas take-over

After Hamas' June loss, it started ousting Fatah-linked officials from positions of power and authority in the Strip (such as government positions, security services, universities, newspapers, etc.) and strove to enforce law in the Strip by progressively removing guns from the hands of peripheral militias, clans, and criminal groups, and gaining control of supply tunnels. According to Amnesty International, under Hamas rule, newspapers have been closed down and journalists have been harassed.[50] Fatah demonstrations have been forbidden or suppressed, as in the case of a large demonstration on the anniversary of Yasser Arafat's death, which resulted in the deaths of seven people, after protesters hurled stones at Hamas security forces.[51]

Christians were also threatened and assaulted in the Gaza Strip. The owner of a Christian bookshop was abducted and murdered,[52] and on 15 February 2008, the Christian Youth Organization's library in Gaza City was bombed.[53] Hamas has used hospitals and other public buildings as staging grounds for attacks and retaliation,[54] which has resulted in Fatah responding in kind.[55]

Hamas and other Gazan militant groups continued to fire home made Qassam rockets from the Strip across the border into Israel. According to Israel, between the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the end of January 2008, 697 rockets and 822 mortar bombs were fired at Israeli towns.[56]

In response, Israel targeted home made Qassam launchers and military targets and on 19 September 2007, declared the Gaza Strip a hostile entity. In January 2008 the situation escalated; Israel curtailed travel from Gaza, the entry of goods, and cut fuel supplies to the Strip on 19 January 2008, resulting in power shortages. This brought charges that Israel was inflicting collective punishment on the Gaza population, leading to international condemnation. Despite multiple reports from within the Strip that food and other essentials were in extremely short supply, [57] Israel countered that Gaza had enough food and energy supplies for weeks.[58] In early March 2008, air strikes and ground incursions into the Strip by the IDF led to the deaths of over 110 Palestinians and extensive damage to Jabalia.[59] The Egyptian border continues to remain closed with no significant international pressure to open it.[60]

 

[ericlp]

1) Why would a US warship attempt to support a blockade runner?

2) Should a ship contain contraband; it should not be allowed to proceed.
And how does one search a ship that is known to be loaded by supporters that are determined to break the blockade? The ship has to be unloaded under the inspection of Israel looking for contriband.

3) Cement is a contraband - it can be used to strengthen fortification of Hamas for use against the IDF. If cement is listed on the cargo manifest; then the ship should be detained. Before it gets to an Egyptian port based on the statements of the people that have charted the vessel.

Cement is a contraband because they may build something with it. Like a crapper or some foundation. Yeah, what a joke. Watch out man! He has a bag of cement there's the smoking gun. It's obvious Israel is the terrorist here by not giving medical and food supply.

 

[ericlp]

Nobody should arm Hamas or Israel.

Sheesh, the cats already out of the bad we armed Israel a long time ago. Your taxes at work!

 

[PJABBER]

Cement is a contraband because they may build something with it. Like a crapper or some foundation. Yeah, what a joke. Watch out man! He has a bag of cement there's the smoking gun. It's obvious Israel is the terrorist here by not giving medical and food supply.

Actually, one of the concerns of the Israelis, based on the operations they have had against Hizballoh and even Hamas, is the sophistication and concrete armoring of fortified sites they have to attack in case of war. These fortifications are emplacements for anti-armor weapons of the type that the Israelis are trying to stop by blockade as well as heavy machine guns, anti-air guns, etc. I am sure you have seen movies where infantry has to attack pill boxes, the fortified positions may channel armor or infantry into kill zones and then you get a barrage from an emplaced ambush and/or mines.

Concrete forms are also used in the manufacture of shaped charges which are used for demolitions and in anti-tank roles. The Iranians refined some of this technology by incorporating explosively formed penetrators, gave it to Iraqi insurgents and it has been used against U.S. armor quite successfully in the past until certain countermeasures were introduced. Concrete forms are also useful to cast the solid fuel for the Qassam rockets that have been used by Hamas.

When you consider any materials you have to think about what the Iranians offered up against the Allied forces in Iraq. Both Hamas and Hizballoh are Iranian trained and equipped. Iranian Qods Force leads some of the Hizballoh forces and may be leading some Hamas units. Hamas is an Iranian client force and they are eager to use both Iranian methods and materials against Israel. Which is why the Israelis do not want them to have things like concrete.

 

[kylebisme]

"Land for peace" was a tenet of the Oslo Accords.

Right, but you claimed "Israel withdrew from both Gaza and the West Bank", when in fact Israel kept expanding settlements throughout the Oslo process, and no wall of text or anything else can change that fact.

 

[kylebisme]

Actually, one of the concerns of the Israelis, based on the operations they have had against Hizballoh and even Hamas, is the sophistication and concrete armoring of fortified sites they have to attack in case of war

Sure; bunkers are for Jews, not Arabs, militant or otherwise. Hence, no Gazan shouldn't be allowed to buy any concrete at all. :twisted:

 

[woolfe9999]

What agreement are you talking about here specifically?


Based on your argument; anybody can get away with anything in your eyes as long as they do so acting nonsensically enough for you to accept their denial of the witness accounts.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying the plausibility of the described behavior is relevant in judging the credibility of the account. Are you in effect saying the opposite, that the plausibility of a narrative is irrelevant to evaluating the credibility of a source?

Of course, people CAN do stupid and irrational things. However, I'm not going to accept an account like this from 1) a lone, uncorroborated source, who is 2) suspect of bias, and 3) tells a story of unlikely behavior, even if such behavior is theoretically possible. With better evidence, I might accept the narrative even though the Israeli actions described make little sense, but not on one guy's word.

Have any other passangers said that the Israelis fired on the ship before boarding? This narrative should have been front and center if it's true.

- wolf

 

[kylebisme]

I'm saying the plausibility of the described behavior is relevant in judging the credibility of the account.

Right, which is exactly the excuse some people use to dismiss witnesses of Michael Jackson's inappropriate behavior with young boys and such.

 

[flavio]

The Israelis boarded 6 ships. All the others went without incident.

No, there were injuries on the other ships.

But this particular ship, they just arbitrarily decided to fire on it before boarding

Israel has admitted firing before boarding.

Some of the other Israel supporters here have admitted as much at this point.

 

[flavio]

Sure; bunkers are for Jews, not Arabs, militant or otherwise. Hence, no Gazan shouldn't be allowed to buy any concrete at all. :twisted:

Yes, bunkers are defensive. Can't have them being able to defend themselves.

Mostly though you wouldn't want them building or repairing homes when you're trying to expand illegal settlements.

 

[PJABBER]

Right, but you claimed "Israel withdrew from both Gaza and the West Bank", when in fact Israel kept expanding settlements throughout the Oslo process, and no wall of text or anything else can change that fact.

So, you are a liberal, despite all of your contentions to the contrary. I know this because you can't look up info on your own and anything you read has to be slanted left or you don't see it.

Again from Wiki, as I am rushing to get a bike ride in before dark!

In February 2005, the Israeli government voted to implement a unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza Strip. The plan began to be implemented on 15 August 2005, and was completed on 12 September 2005. Under the plan, all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip (and four in the West Bank) and the joint Israeli-Palestinian Erez Industrial Zone were dismantled with the removal of all 9,000 Israeli settlers (most of them in the Gush Katif settlement area in the Strip's southwest) and military bases. Some settlers resisted the order, and were forcibly removed by the IDF. On 12 September 2005 the Israeli cabinet formally declared an end to Israeli military occupation of the Gaza Strip.

To avoid allegations that it was still in occupation of any part of the Gaza Strip, Israel also withdrew from the Philadelphi Route, which is a narrow strip adjacent to the Strip's border with Egypt, after Egypt's agreement to secure its side of the border. Under the Oslo Accords the Philadelphi Route was to remain under Israeli control to prevent the smuggling of materials (such as ammunition) and people across the border with Egypt.

With Egypt agreeing to patrol its side of the border, it was hoped that the objective would be achieved. However, Israel maintained its control over the crossings in and out of Gaza. The Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza was monitored by the Israeli army through special surveillance cameras.

The Israeli position is that Gaza is no longer occupied, inasmuch as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions in the Gaza Strip.[19][20]

Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”[21]

Israel also notes that Gaza does not belong to any sovereign state.

Perhaps they should have stayed there and there would have been much less loss of Palestinian lives.

The West Bank is a fascinating study in whom can claim what...

The territory now known as the West Bank was a part of the British Mandate of Palestine entrusted to the United Kingdom by the League of Nations after World War I. The terms of the Mandate called for the creation in Palestine of a Jewish national home without prejudicing the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish population of Palestine.[9] During that time the area was called by the historic names of its two regions – Judea and Samaria.[10]

The current border of the West Bank was not a dividing line of any sort during the Mandate period, but rather the armistice line between the forces of the neighboring kingdom of Jordan and those of Israel at the close of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. When the United Nations General Assembly voted in 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an internationally administered enclave of Jerusalem, a more broad region of the modern-day West Bank was assigned to the Arab State. The West Bank was controlled by Iraqi, Jordanian forces, and the IDF in the northern West Bank especially Tulkarm and Qalqilya were under full Israeli control at the end of the 1948 War. Jordan annexed the West Bank after the war, though this was only recognized by the UK.[3] The idea of an independent Palestinian state was not on the table.

The United Nations Security Council,[50] the United Nations General Assembly,[51] the International Court of Justice,[52] and the International Committee of the Red Cross[53] refer to it as occupied by Israel.

According to Alan Dowty,

" ... legally the status of the West Bank falls under the international law of belligerent occupation, as distinguished from nonbelligerent occupation that follows an armistice. This assumes the possibility of renewed fighting, and affords the occupier "broad leeway". The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."[54]
​

The current status arises from the facts (see above reference) that Great Britain surrendered its mandate in 1948. Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel.

The West Bank was taken control of by Israel, during the Six-Day War in June, 1967. With the exception of East Jerusalem and the former Israeli - Jordanian no man's land, the West Bank was not annexed by Israel. Most of the residents are Arabs, although a large number of Israeli settlements have been built in the region since 1967. Close to 500,000 Israelis live in the West Bank settlements. Although international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) prohibits transfers of the population of an “occupying power” to occupied territories, media outlets often interpret the law to incur a responsibility on the part of Israel’s government to prevent Jews or non-Arab Israeli citizens from voluntarily residing in the West Bank, including cases where Israelis seek to restore Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs prior to Israel’s statehood, such as in Hebron and Gush Etzion.[4][5][6]

The 1993 Oslo Accords declared the final status of the West Bank to be subject to a forthcoming settlement between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. Following these interim accords, Israel withdrew its military rule from some parts of the West Bank, which was divided into three areas:

Area A comprises Palestinian towns, and some rural areas away from Israeli population centers in the north (between Jenin, Nablus, Tubas, and Tulkarm), the south (around Hebron), and one in the center south of Salfit.

Area B adds other populated rural areas, many closer to the center of the West Bank.

Area C contains all the Israeli settlements, roads used to access the settlements, buffer zones (near settlements, roads, strategic areas, and Israel), and almost all of the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, and Judean Desert.

Areas A and B are themselves divided among 227 separate areas (199 of which are smaller than 2 square kilometres (1 sq mi)) that are separated from one another by Israeli-controlled Area C. [25] Areas A, B, and C cross the 11 Governorates used as administrative divisions by the Palestinian National Authority, Israel, and the IDF and named after major cities.

While the vast majority of the Palestinian population lives in areas A and B, the vacant land available for construction in dozens of villages and towns across the West Bank is situated on the margins of the communities and defined as area C.[26]
The Palestinian Authority has some "civil control" in area A, area B is characterized by some joint-administration between the PA and Israel, while area C is under full Israeli control. Israel maintains overall control over Israeli settlements,land, roads, water, airspace, "external" security and borders for the entire territory.

An assessment by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2007 found that approximately 40% of the West Bank was taken up by Israeli infrastructure. The infrastructure, consisting of settlements, the barrier, military bases and closed military areas, Israeli declared nature reserves and the roads that accompany them is off-limits or tightly controlled to Palestinians.[27]

What a mess! And to think that Israel did not even want to go there!

In May 1967 Egypt ordered out U.N. peacekeeping troops and re-militarized the Sinai peninsula, and blockaded the straits of Tiran. Fearing an Egyptian attack, the government of Levi Eshkol attempted to restrict any confrontation to Egypt alone. In particular it did whatever it could to avoid fighting Jordan. However, "carried along by a powerful current of Arab nationalism", on May 30, 1967 King Hussein flew to Egypt and signed a mutual defense treaty in which the two countries agreed to consider "any armed attack on either state or its forces as an attack on both".[12][13]

On June 5, the Israel Defense Forces launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt[14] which began what came to be known as the Six Day War.

Jordan soon began shelling targets in west Jerusalem, Netanya, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[15] Despite this, Israel sent a message promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[12] On the evening of June 5 the Israeli cabinet convened to decide what to do; Yigal Allon and Menahem Begin argued that this was an opportunity to take the Old City of Jerusalem, but Eshkol decided to defer any decision until Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin could be consulted.[16]

Uzi Narkis made a number of proposals for military action, including the capture of Latrun, but the cabinet turned him down. The Israeli military only commenced action after Government House was captured, which was seen as a threat to the security of Jerusalem.[17]

On June 6 Dayan encircled the city, but, fearing damage to holy places and having to fight in built-up areas, he ordered his troops not to go in. However, upon hearing that the U.N. was about to declare a ceasefire, he changed his mind, and without cabinet clearance, decided to take the city.[16]

After fierce fighting with Jordanian troops in and around the Jerusalem area, Israel captured the Old City on 7 June.

No specific decision had been made to capture any other territories controlled by Jordan. After the Old City was captured, Dayan told his troops to dig in to hold it. When an armored brigade commander entered the West Bank on his own initiative, and stated that he could see Jericho, Dayan ordered him back. However, when intelligence reports indicated that Hussein had withdrawn his forces across the Jordan river, Dayan ordered his troops to capture the West Bank.[17]

Over the next two days, the IDF swiftly captured the rest of the West Bank and blew up the Abdullah and Hussein Bridges over the Jordan, thereby severing the West Bank from the East.[18] According to Narkis:

First, the Israeli government had no intention of capturing the West Bank. On the contrary, it was opposed to it. Second, there was not any provocation on the part of the IDF. Third, the rein was only loosened when a real threat to Jerusalem's security emerged. This is truly how things happened on June 5, although it is difficult to believe. The end result was something that no one had planned.[19]
​

The Arab League's Khartoum conference in September declared continuing belligerency, and stated the league's principles of "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it".[20]

In November 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 was unanimously adopted, calling for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles:" "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.

Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[21] The text did not refer to the PLO or to any Palestinian representative because none was recognized at that time.

In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."[22][23]

So, the West Bank is a complicated place, with a wicked complicated history with Israelis, refugees, Jordanians, etc. in the mix as well as "Palestinians." This history is why there should never be any claim that there ever was a Palestinian "State" somehow supplanted by the Israelis. It always was a mishmash of interests and claims and populations.

The "Palestinian" parts are run by Fatah, itself having a violent history with such notorious groups as Force 17, Black September, and Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades coming from their general organization. These days they are considered the Palestinian government rather than a terrorist group. Of course, Hamas disagreees and would like to kill them, but that is a story for another day.

 

[kylebisme]

So, you are a liberal...

No I'm not, but you are obviously a moron who spams walls of text full of facts I'm already well aware of in your denial of the facts which contract your delusions.

 

[PJABBER]

No I'm not, but you are obviously a moron who spams walls of text full of facts I'm already well aware of in your denial of the facts which contract your delusions.

You posts indicate you are actually quite ignorant of history and the background to current events. That your view of the world is shaded by pink sunglasses is no excuse for this. :awe:

 

[kylebisme]

Says the guy who speaks of a fictional agreement where he imagines "Israel withdrew from both Gaza and the West Bank."

 

[JEDIYoda]

You posts indicate you are actually quite ignorant of history and the background to current events. That your view of the world is shaded by pink sunglasses is no excuse for this. :awe:

actually Kylebisme has a twin brother on these forums....his name is Flavio!!! rofl

 

[flavio]

actually Kylebisme has a twin brother on these forums....his name is Flavio!!! rofl

It's like you never post anything useful. Just more trolling.

Maybe you should leave this to people that have actual content in their posts.

 

[fallout man]

It's like you never post anything useful. Just more trolling.

Maybe you should leave this to people that have actual content in their posts.

rofl... you antio-semiter/... LOL ROFL

 

[kylebisme]

I came across this thorough analysis of Israel's ridiculous attempts to link the flotilla to terrorism, and also a surprising admission from the NYT that Israel did attack the ship before boarding:

The crack of an Israeli sound grenade and a hail of rubber bullets from above were supposed to disperse activists, but instead set them into motion. And when three Israeli commandos slid down ropes out of helicopters to take over the ship, a crowd set upon them.

 

[Noobtastic]

The crack of an Israeli sound grenade and a hail of rubber bullets from above were supposed to disperse activists, but instead set them into motion. And when three Israeli commandos slid down ropes out of helicopters to take over the ship, a crowd set upon them.

when you are hit with stun grenades and rubber bullets, you do not "go into motion" you flee and run.

hundreds of people fled in this instant, but 50 or so turks didn't flinch. why?

because they were trained ex-military, and we have video showing their preparations for the israeli boarding.

they were then caught dumping ammo and munitions overboard, and stealing a soldiers pistol and using it against him.

this is not what humanitarian workers do.

now there is evidence supporting a turkish extremist movement and osama bin laden's son.

anyways, if israel wanted to kill people it wouldn't have wasted its time on stun grenades and smoke bombs.

israeli soldiers almost died, 1 was thrown overboard and 4 others were shot and stabbed.

this is what happens you try to play nice with homicidal "activists." they simply use your ROE against you, and even when you respond in the most restrained way, you still come off as a murdering zionist bastard11!!!

 

[flavio]

when you are hit with stun grenades and rubber bullets, you do not "go into motion" you flee and run.

Not if you're a man.

hundreds of people fled in this instant, but 50 or so turks didn't flinch. why?

Manlier.

because they were trained ex-military

Even manlier.

they were then caught dumping ammo and munitions overboard

I think you made that up. Source?

and stealing a soldiers pistol and using it against him.

Even manlier still. Fuck yeah.

this is not what humanitarian workers do.

Yes, the manly ones do apparently defend themselves when attacked.

now there is evidence supporting a turkish extremist movement and osama bin laden's son.

I think you lie. But go ahead...source?

anyways, if israel wanted to kill people it wouldn't have wasted its time on stun grenades and smoke bombs.

No, I'm sure they were hoping they'd just roll over. But these people defended their ship. Got to give them props.

israeli soldiers almost died, 1 was thrown overboard and 4 others were shot and stabbed.

That's what you get when you attack people willing to stand up for themselves sometimes.

this is what happens you try to play nice with homicidal "activists." they simply use your ROE against you, and even when you respond in the most restrained way, you still come off as a murdering zionist bastard11!!!

No, that's what happens when morons attack a ship in international waters at night that has some people willing to stand up for themselves. Israel free pass revoked.

 

[Noobtastic]

Not if you're a man.



Manlier.



Even manlier.

intelligent, really.

I think you made that up. Source?

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177475

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177457

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452

there is VIDEO and AUDIO footage proving this. and let's not forge the "jews are dogs" shout.

Yes, the manly ones do apparently defend themselves when attacked.

to you, anyone who attacks a jew or an israeli is defending themselves. do you consider the taliban or al qaeda defending themselves when they attack US soldiers?

clearly you do.

No, I'm sure they were hoping they'd just roll over. But these people defended their ship. Got to give them props.

when the boat refused to go to ashdod and said they intended or crossing the blockade, they LEGALLY exposed themselves to attack.

before they left the boat many crewmembers said they intended on becoming martys, and they got their wish.

all of the "civilians killed" were involved in the fighting, had israel used live fire to begin with, im sure many more would have died and 4 israeli soldiers would not be in the hospital right now.

i could only imagine the blood bath had it been the US seals storming the ship.

That's what you get when you attack people willing to stand up for themselves sometimes.

right, antisemite jihadists with links to osama bin laden and extremist islamist movements...standing up for themselves.

are you retarded?

No, that's what happens when morons attack a ship in international waters at night that has some people willing to stand up for themselves. Israel free pass revoked.

LOL. as proven many times, boarding a ship at high-seas (international waters) is perfectly legal if to enforce a blockade. if the ship said it intended to break the blockade in the indian oceann, the IDF could legally board the ship.

just as NATO boats board somalia pirate ships in international waters on a routine basis.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's like you never post anything useful. Just more trolling.

Maybe you should leave this to people that have actual content in their posts.

truth hurts huh??
Didn`t know Kylebisme and you were brothers...lol

 

[flavio]

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=177475

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177457

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452

So you stated they were caught dumping ammo and munitions but even your jpost article says "may have" so I've already caught you in a lie.

But seriously man, you've complained about me using the BBC and Times as a source and you pushing JPost propaganda at us? Get some real sources.

there is VIDEO and AUDIO footage proving this. and let's not forge the "jews are dogs" shout.

Feel free to link up video and audio.

to you, anyone who attacks a jew or an israeli is defending themselves.

Nope, when someone attacks first the people fighting back are defending themselves. They attacked the ship, the passengers were defending themselves.

do you consider the taliban or al qaeda defending themselves when they attack US soldiers?

No, I'm not sure how this is related.

when the boat refused to go to ashdod and said they intended or crossing the blockade, they LEGALLY exposed themselves to attack.

Nope, the blockade is illegal. So Israel has no jurisdiction to attack a humanitarian ship in international waters.

before they left the boat many crewmembers said they intended on becoming martys, and they got their wish.

I haven't seen any proof of that but even if it was true it doesn't change the fact that Israel attacked the ship and the passengers defended themselves.

all of the "civilians killed" were involved in the fighting, had israel used live fire to begin with, im sure many more would have died and 4 israeli soldiers would not be in the hospital right now.

Point?

i could only imagine the blood bath had it been the US seals storming the ship.

Go ahead and fantasize whatever you want.

right, antisemite jihadists with links to osama bin laden and extremist islamist movements...standing up for themselves.

A bunch of claims with no evidence followed by the truth. Yes, they were attacked and defended themselves.

are you retarded?

No....you?

LOL. as proven many times, boarding a ship at high-seas (international waters) is perfectly legal if to enforce a blockade. if the ship said it intended to break the blockade in the indian oceann, the IDF could legally board the ship.

As proven many times the blockade is illegal. So Israel has no jurisdiction to attack a humanitarian ship in international waters.