Israel Attacks Humanitarian Aid Flotilla

[sixpackshaker]

But I am saying they are bringing contraband into a blockade.

Saying is one thing, proving is another. The reason why we have international waters in the first place is so one nation can't just say something as an excuse to attack another.

by most reports there were Hamas members on the boat where the violence happened.

Can you provide those reports? The only places I've seen saying that just link to IDF/Israeli government press releases, most of which seem to claim that because trained IDF special forces teams were attacked with pipes and chairs, it must be a terrorist organization.[/QUOTE]

By their own reports in the media they were carrying contraband to a blockade.

Hamas is a lot more than just a terrorist organization. There are educators, politicians, doctors, journalists, etc... These other fields that Hamas represents for the Palestinians are not manned by terrorists, but the sympathies are there with them.

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

 

[SpecialKO]

By their own reports in the media they were carrying contraband to a blockade.

That's not what I asked, I asked for reports that there were actual Hamas members on board, which you claim to have read.

As to whether its contraband or not, the same document that we keep coming back to points out that foodstuffs and other objects essential for survival cannot be blockaded if the target area requires them. Israel says it doesn't, Free Gaza says it does. I'd be interested to know what the Red Cross, under whose jurisdiction the interpretation of that document seems to have been placed, would say. There's a great deal of evidence that the blockade, regardless of whether it is being enforced by Israelis or Egyptians, does not meet the internationally-recognized requirements for a legal blockade.

Hamas is a lot more than just a terrorist organization. There are educators, politicians, doctors, journalists, etc... These other fields that Hamas represents for the Palestinians are not manned by terrorists, but the sympathies are there with them.

For the third time, where are those "most reports" about Hamas members? All I'm seeing are reports from the IDF that the passengers fighting their troops was a pre-meditated attack, and that those passengers who did are (according to the IDF, again) "Islamists with ties to Hamas and Al-Quaeda".

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

Good for him?

 

[Matt²]

What "humanitarian" activists plan on using night vision goggles, and bullet proof vests?

During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, as well as gas masks.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

 

[SpecialKO]

What "humanitarian" activists plan on using night vision goggles, and bullet proof vests?

During its searches of the Mavi Marmara on Tuesday, the military also discovered a cache of bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, as well as gas masks.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177169

Maybe they were concerned about getting shot at.

I'm inclined to think this is true, simply because if the IDF were going to pull a fast one, they would have said it was a cache of guns. Then again, maybe that would have been too implausible, since you would have expected the passengers to have used them if they were dangerous terrorists who, according to that article, premeditated a violent assault against the IDF. Then again, you'd think they would have used the vests and NVGs as well. Hmmm.

Honestly, I have a hard time taking anything the IDF claims at face value, at this point, without independent verification.

Side note: is there a Hebrew word that translates to "lynch" somehow? Because the IDF spokeperson is constantly using it, and at least in English, incorrectly.

 

[Matt²]

not sure, but maybe it was meant to be "attack" ? Anyhoo, I only see it once in the article.

 

[SpecialKO]

not sure, but maybe it was meant to be "attack" ? Anyhoo, I only see it once in the article.

No, I mean, in general. Almost every article I've read that includes an IDF statement is using it. It just seems like an odd choice of words. It's not like a "premeditated attack" is any better, for this purpose.

 

[tegid]

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

So? Should he have been stopped because he was Al Capone?

 

[Troll]

And Al Capone gave away food during the depression.

So? Should he have been stopped because he was Al Capone?[/QUOTE]

Of course not. But it doesn't erase his various crimes and make him a good guy either, and I think that's the point sixpack was trying to make.

 

[JONJONAUG]

Isreal fails propaganda forever

My friend Ibn Kafka has a wonderful post catching Israel in a propaganda f**k-up. The Israeli Ministry Foreign Affairs posted on its Flickr account pictures of the terrifying weapons they found on the IHH ship. You know, things like bulletproof vests for emergency services, pepper spray, kitchen knives, bits of wood and other weapons of mass destruction. Except that they did not realize that Flickr displays EXIF data, which is the information that cameras record when they take pictures: aperture, shutter speed, flash status... and the time the picture was taken.

Which, as Flickr commenters quickly pointed out, was sometime in 2006.

So the Israeli MFA quickly changed the EXIF date, but not before I was able to take snapshots of before and after

In particular, there were two different cameras and I think six different photos. Half of them had a 2006 date with one model of camera, and half had 2003 with another.

See article for pictures. In addition, all of the "weapons" in Isreal's photos are nothing more than the kind of stuff you would find at a Home Depot or other home goods department store.

 

[Chazwozel]

Isreal fails propaganda forever

My friend Ibn Kafka has a wonderful post catching Israel in a propaganda f**k-up. The Israeli Ministry Foreign Affairs posted on its Flickr account pictures of the terrifying weapons they found on the IHH ship. You know, things like bulletproof vests for emergency services, pepper spray, kitchen knives, bits of wood and other weapons of mass destruction. Except that they did not realize that Flickr displays EXIF data, which is the information that cameras record when they take pictures: aperture, shutter speed, flash status... and the time the picture was taken.

Which, as Flickr commenters quickly pointed out, was sometime in 2006.

So the Israeli MFA quickly changed the EXIF date, but not before I was able to take snapshots of before and after

In particular, there were two different cameras and I think six different photos. Half of them had a 2006 date with one model of camera, and half had 2003 with another.

See article for pictures. In addition, all of the "weapons" in Isreal's photos are nothing more than the kind of stuff you would find at a Home Depot or other home goods department store.

oh those wacky Jews...

 

[Dei]

Well, I'm certainly not defending Israel, because I think they pulled a stupid move, but they could also be too stupid to set the correct dates on their cameras. (I mean, 2003 and 2006? Those cameras are ancient in "electronic time")

 

[SpecialKO]

Well, I'm certainly not defending Israel, because I think they pulled a stupid move, but they could also be too stupid to set the correct dates on their cameras. (I mean, 2003 and 2006? Those cameras are ancient in "electronic time")

Yes, it seems far more likely that they just never set the date properly.

 

[Espy]

NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

 

[Chazwozel]

NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

Set correct or not, bulletproof vests and a couple of kitchen knives are hardly weapons of mass destruction...

 

[SpecialKO]

NO ITS A CONSPIRACY AND JEWS RIULE THE WORLD AND ALWAYS SET CAMERAS RIGHT.

Set correct or not, bulletproof vests and a couple of kitchen knives are hardly weapons of mass destruction...[/QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, it probably hurts a lot if someone hits you in the face with a bulletproof vest while you're trying to shoot them.

 

[Espy]

I don't think anyone would or has disagreed with or asserted that. I tend to agree with Veep Biden's views on the incident the more that comes out about it:

Vice President Joe Biden backed Israel's right to board ships bound for Gaza to prevent weapons smuggling on Wednesday, but said Washington remained concerned about the plight of Palestinians there.
"Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest," Biden said in an interview on PBS's "Charlie Rose" show, while reiterating the Obama administration's support for a transparent, impartial investigation of what happened.

The aim of the Israeli commando operation had been to seize control of the ships and escort them to Israel's Ashdod port. From there, Israeli authorities had promised to transfer the seized cargo to Hamas-controlled Gaza.

"They (Israel) have said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza." So what's the big deal here?" Biden said.

"What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?" he asked.

"Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping eight -- 3,000 rockets on my people,"' he said, referring to Hamas, the Islamist movement which rejects interim peace terms with Israel and has regularly fired rockets into the Jewish state.

But Biden said the U.S. also needed to "put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can" to allow in aid shipments such as building materials.

 

[SpecialKO]

"What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?" he asked.

Because under international law, humanitarian ships can do so? Whether they wanted to indulge in public civil disobedience is immaterial (and legal).

"Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship.

By that stirring argument, any ship of practically any major power on Earth can attack any ship they want anywhere on Earth. What's the point of even having international maritime agreements then?

Also, I wonder how VP Biden feels about them killing Americans in international waters?

Here's the other thing. Why is everyone all of a sudden assuming that the only way to stop and search a ship is by night-time supercommando raid? Not even counting other countries, Israel has stopped and searched ships with their Navy for decades.

 

[Espy]

I should clarify: I'm not saying I think they did this "right" or "well". It sounds like they tried to enforce their blockade and did a really, really bad job of it. Heads should roll.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

I should clarify: I'm not saying I think they did this "right" or "well". It sounds like they tried to enforce their blockade and did a really, really bad job of it. Heads should roll.

Heh. In many of your posts on politics, you usually take the middle ground, only to have someone misinterpret your intent then attack you for it.

It's not really relevant to this topic, just a sad and somewhat humorous observation on my part.

 

[@Li3n]

I guess Israel was bored with having Turkey as the only muslim country not officially wanting to destroy them...

 

[Eriol]

I guess Israel was bored with having Turkey as the only muslim country not officially wanting to destroy them...

Not that you're wrong in general, but Egypt is also formally at peace with Israel and has been for a long time.

 

[Krisken]

I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

 

[AshburnerX]

I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

What investigation? It's going to be a special ops team accountable to no one (who are protected by the security of their country AND the US) versus a bunch of civilians that are on tape attacking them. I'm not saying the Israelis didn't fire first, as I'm almost certain they did, but I am pointing out how ludicrous it is to believe that ANYTHING will come of this.

 

[Necronic]

I was watching Democracy Now and the interview with a member from another boat states the boat was fired upon before they came down from the helicopter and saw flashbangs go off before as well. Hopefully an investigation reveals what really happened.

Please don't quote Democracy Now. I'm sorry but that show is about as legitimate a news source as Glenn Beck is.

I think both sides in this really screwed up. I don't care what flag you wave, any country under seige has a right and a duty to board and search a vessel that large. But they should have been more careful as to how they did it. I don't think American's would have been half that careful, but we're America, I mean, hell, we just killed what? 30 civilians with a predator drone? Which is wholy inexcusable. And it gets like a 10 second blip.

Anyways, back to it. The use of the word "cache" with regards to the vests and goggles makes me wonder if we are talking about multiple packed crates or a handful of them. Either way, bullet proof vests....meh, that is a defensive tool (mostly), but night vision goggles? That's totally offensive tech.

 

[AshburnerX]

Either way, bullet proof vests....meh, that is a defensive tool (mostly), but night vision goggles? That's totally offensive tech.

That's like claiming a flashlight is offensive tech. It's a device that lights up the surrounding terrain much better than a flashlight ever could. There are countless legitimate reasons you could want Night Vision Goggles other than to arm assault teams.

 

[Krisken]

Please don't tell me what I can or can't quote. You don't like the show and that's fine, but I wasn't quoting the show, I was quoting the person being interviewed. If you don't like what the witness had to say, I'm afraid you have greater issues at hand.

It's not the first time Israel has attacked a boat unprovoked and lied about it.

 

[JONJONAUG]

Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

 

[Espy]

Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-militaryafter the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Wait a minute... are you equating firing warning shots to attacking?

 

[Vrii]

In fairness, it looks like they admitted to warning shots, not 'firing upon the flotilla'. There's a pretty different connotation there that you're adding in.

edit:...and Espy beat me.

 

[Krisken]

He said across their nose, not up it!

 

[JONJONAUG]

Israel has admitted to firing upon the flotilla and throwing flashbangs at one of the boats first.

Here's an interview from a guy who was with the commandos

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-militaryafter the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Wait a minute... are you equating firing warning shots to attacking?[/QUOTE]

When eyewitness reports say that said warning shots hit two people, yes.

 

[Vrii]

But you're saying that somebody involved admitted to shooting at them...which by the quote you provided, isn't true.