Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   israeli navy kills gaza activists (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/154662-israeli-navy-kills-gaza-activists.html)

ottopilot 06-02-2010 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794509)
I've yet to see anything that justifies boarding a ship in international waters and shooting at unarmed civilians.
... yes, unarmed civilians with flash grenades, tasers, knives, chains and steel pipes used to beat the commandos to a pulp as they repelled from their helicopters.

silent_jay 06-02-2010 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2794517)
... yes, unarmed civilians with flash grenades, tasers, knives, chains and steel pipes used to beat the commandos to a pulp as they repelled from their helicopters.
So, they've gone from having metal pipes and knives, to metal pipes, bulletproof vests, NVG, and knives, now we're at flash grenades, tasers, knives, chains, NGV, bulletproof vests and steel pipes.

Jesus by tomorrow some here will be saying they had a nuke in their cargo hold, this just keeps getting more and more outrageous.

rahl 06-02-2010 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2794517)
... yes, unarmed civilians with flash grenades, tasers, knives, chains and steel pipes used to beat the commandos to a pulp as they repelled from their helicopters.
Do you honestly not see the absurdity in this statement? People repelling from helicopters with guns to kill people in international waters(which is piracy by the way) who are armed with pipes and knives.

ottopilot 06-02-2010 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2794521)
Do you honestly not see the absurdity in this statement?

People repelling from helicopters with guns to kill people in international waters(which is piracy by the way) who are armed with pipes and knives.
It's not absurd if you are aware of the facts. Simply read the article I quoted previously at the website (with pictures - that might help). The "peace activists" prepared in advance to engage with violence... and yes, they brought weapons.

The IDF boarded vessels that were given the opportunity to port in Egypt and Israel with offers to transport their humanitarian cargo to Gaza. The flotilla refused and demonstrated explicit intent to break the embargo and proceed to Gaza. The commandos boarded the vessels to verify contents and were armed with paintball guns as their primary deterrent. The commandos carried side-arms with orders not to use unless their lives were threatened. The passengers physically engaged the commandos first as they approached by sea and also swarmed the soldiers repelling to the decks. They beat the soldiers mercilessly with pipes and threw at least one off of the ship. The flotilla's intent was to provoke, and they were successful. The actions of the IDF are not unlike our coast guard boarding vessels with suspicious intent. The ship is contacted and informed that they will be boarded. If met with violence, they are obliged to defend themselves.

For many here, I know it comes to great shock and disappointment to imagine otherwise, but the IDF did not board the ship with the intent to commit a gun-blazing massacre.

The question of engaging the flotilla in international waters may be a problem for Israel. However, in researching the background of the primary flotilla organizers (IHH and Free-Gaza) you will find that they are in no way innocent humanitarian movements. IHH has a solidly documented history of terrorist activity and connections, "Free-Gaza" is a pro-Palestine/anti-Israel political scam.

Baraka_Guru 06-02-2010 06:23 PM
I don't see how any of this brings about a conclusion that the ends justify the means.

Let's assume that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Let's assume that the flotilla passengers were armed with non-military weapons that didn't include firearms until the IDF boarded.
Let's assume that the flotilla intended to break the blockade.
Let's assume that there could have been stuff aboard that were restricted materials according to Israel.

None of that justifies Israel's actions, and certainly none of it justifies the outcome.

Israel fucked up. It fucked up for fear of materials on a flotilla that will likely end up in Gaza anyway. It fucked up and now people are dead.

I mean, I understand that they're running a blockade and shit---which, of course, is part and parcel of a good quality siege---and I understand that they're highly concerned with terrorist activities and their own self-defense....but seriously...I can't understand how anyone can justify Israel's handling of this particular situation.

Can we not at least admit that Israel screwed up?

rahl 06-02-2010 06:54 PM
Piracy plain and simple

Willravel 06-02-2010 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794505)
So what I think you are saying is that by trying to forcibly push hamas out it is in turn the creation of the problem and that if left to their own devises the people themselves would grow beyond the tyranny, I think I understand this and in such theory I would like to believe the reality of this. I don't know that I believe Israel is attempting an ethnic cleansing, however, if one considers hamas as an ethnic entity, then yes, I believe you could say they are, but I tend to see hamas (as well as other tyrannical regimes) more as a cancer and the risk of its growth being so disruptive as to destroy the body of Palestine (or wherever they thrive) and any citizens that get in its way.
No, I was more talking about how all theocracies violate basic human rights. That includes Iran, that includes Hamas, and that includes the Jewish pseudo-theocracy Israel. You were asking about Israel's right to exist, and the very first thing that came to mind was, "Yeah it can exist as long as they drop their version of theocracy."

Marvelous Marv 06-02-2010 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2794532)
It's not absurd if you are aware of the facts. Simply read the article I quoted previously at the website (with pictures - that might help). The "peace activists" prepared in advance to engage with violence... and yes, they brought weapons.

The IDF boarded vessels that were given the opportunity to port in Egypt and Israel with offers to transport their humanitarian cargo to Gaza. The flotilla refused and demonstrated explicit intent to break the embargo and proceed to Gaza. The commandos boarded the vessels to verify contents and were armed with paintball guns as their primary deterrent. The commandos carried side-arms with orders not to use unless their lives were threatened. The passengers physically engaged the commandos first as they approached by sea and also swarmed the soldiers repelling to the decks. They beat the soldiers mercilessly with pipes and threw at least one off of the ship. The flotilla's intent was to provoke, and they were successful. The actions of the IDF are not unlike our coast guard boarding vessels with suspicious intent. The ship is contacted and informed that they will be boarded. If met with violence, they are obliged to defend themselves.

For many here, I know it comes to great shock and disappointment to imagine otherwise, but the IDF did not board the ship with the intent to commit a gun-blazing massacre.

The question of engaging the flotilla in international waters may be a problem for Israel. However, in researching the background of the primary flotilla organizers (IHH and Free-Gaza) you will find that they are in no way innocent humanitarian movements. IHH has a solidly documented history of terrorist activity and connections, "Free-Gaza" is a pro-Palestine/anti-Israel political scam.
Quit wasting your breath. The world recognizes that Israel was set up on this one, and for whatever reason, the posters in this thread support an organization that has sworn to eradicate Israel. You'll get them to listen when Hamas professes undying love for Israel, not before.

silent_jay 06-02-2010 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv (Post 2794562)
Quit wasting your breath. The world recognizes that Israel was set up on this one, and for whatever reason, the posters in this thread support an organization that has sworn to eradicate Israel. You'll get them to listen when Hamas professes undying love for Israel, not before.
Really the world does? You must have a lot of air miles from all that travelling. More of those outrageous statements with no proof that are becoming so common here from some posters, damn I'm really starting to miss Ustwo more and more, at least he could prove most of what he said.

Last I checked I didn't support any organization that has sworn to eradicate Israel, but then I doubt any of the posters in this thread does, but don't let facts get in the way of your story.

Sure is starting to smell like bullshit in here again.....

I really shouldn't feed your kind, but what the hell, got to have something to do, and it's always funny to see what colour the sky is in other people's world.

dippin 06-03-2010 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2794517)
... yes, unarmed civilians with flash grenades, tasers, knives, chains and steel pipes used to beat the commandos to a pulp as they repelled from their helicopters.
Knives, chains and steel pipes?

That is a veritable invading force! Every nation would tremble in front of such power!

Luckily, Israel bans those weapons, as well as all those other things that are clearly meant to be used for weapons, like notebooks, pens, a4 paper and fishing rods from going into gaza...

:rolleyes:

ottopilot 06-03-2010 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794569)
Knives, chains and steel pipes?

That is a veritable invading force! Every nation would tremble in front of such power!

Luckily, Israel bans those weapons, as well as all those other things that are clearly meant to be used for weapons, like notebooks, pens, a4 paper and fishing rods from going into gaza...

:rolleyes:
The critical point that is conveniently overlooked in this thread is that if the IDF was allowed to board and inspect the ship without being attacked, none of the "peace activists" would be dead or injured as a result.

This thread reminds me of the Census Worker thread... a poorly informed herd-mentality lynch-mob where the so-called victim turns out to be the perpetrator. In this case the villainous right-wing tea-bagger stereotype is replaced by Israel. Your prejudice is a cliché.

filtherton 06-03-2010 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottopilot (Post 2794571)
The critical point that is conveniently overlooked in this thread is that if the IDF was allowed to board and inspect the ship without being attacked, none of the "peace activists" would be dead or injured as a result.
Do you really think this point is lost on anyone here? Why don't you step of your high horse and spend some time reading what people have been writing and see if you can figure out why people are really being critical of the IDF and Israel here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I were on a flotilla in international waters and commandos boarded from a country which has shown itself all to willing to commit and successfully cover up acts characterized by independent investigatory bodies as war crimes, I might be inclined to fight back too. Even if I knew that it would ultimately by futile.

roachboy 06-03-2010 05:07 AM
sounds like our conservative comrades agree with the obama administration which has assumed the traditional position on its knees in front of the israelis.

Gaza flotilla raid: Joe Biden asks 'So what's the big deal here?' | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk

i imagine that's discomfiting.

meanwhile, the rationale for the raid is not convincing to alot of israelis. for example, this edito from haaretz

Exit strategy: Lifting the Gaza blockade - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

makes the same case that alot of people are making in this thread.
the problem is the siege of gaza.
that should stop. it is not only barbaric in its consequences, but it's bad policy. stupid and self-defeating. it generates effects entirely opposed to israeli interests.

personally i support all pressure brought to bear on israel to end it.

meanwhile, much is being made of the fact that hamas won't allow delivery of the materials that were on the flotilla until all people who were taken into custody are released.
it is entirely possible to oppose the siege and not find hamas a swell bunch of guys.
but that requires nuance and nuance isn't a big action item for the whatever-israel-does-is-correct crowd.
why their existence as regional military superpower is on the line.
evil lurks around every corner threatening the regional military superpower.
sheesh.

bad policy. bad consequences. just bad.

Idyllic 06-03-2010 05:16 AM
Quote:
soL

Ten questions to AKP concerning the “Mavi Marmara” issue
Thu, 06/03/2010 - 14:07

* Turkey

It was, at the beginning, only soL and a few other media. Now more people ask these questions, including some Islamist columnists. And, with every hour, new questions come up.

Here are ten questions that AKP has to respond to:

1. What was the reason that made the 15 AKP MPs, that had announced that they would participate in the aid convoy, change their mind and give up the idea? Did the government impede the MPs upon information that an attack would occur?

2. Why was the national flag of the Mavi Marmara vessel changed and the ship became, legally, a non-Turkish ship?

3. Did Turkey take any measures after Israel gave the message that “the ships would be stopped” diplomatically and publicly? Is there a “calculation error”, or were the results of an attack ventured?

4. How can the government, while telling that the convoy is a “civil initiative”, claim the whole political responsibility of it? How can a government, that many times acted paranoically to blame everyone guilty, vouch for the organizers of the convoy? If the claim, which even certain Islamist writers share, that “AKP is a part of this whole thing since the beginning”, who were those that were on mission on board in the ship in the name of “the state”?

5. Who serves completely fallacious news to the press about the counter-measures of Turkey against Israel? Do the government authorities, who blame the press for being “liars” at every oportunity, produce these to pressure Israel, or to amuse the public?

6. Was the fact that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Chief of General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces were abroad when it was obvious that Israel would stop the ships a precaution to gain time, or measure the reaction of the U.S. and other countries?

7. Why did AKP object to certain expressions in the draft resolution of the TBMM? While all the moves concerning the issue or made under the initiative of Erdoğan, how possible is it that AKP MPs would object to the declaration without his knowledge? What is the source the claim that “Erdoğan solved the crisis”, despite this fact?

8. The content of the telephone interview between Erdoğan and Obama has been explained by both parties. Some expressions from Obama’s explanation were censured in the explanation made by the Turkish Prime Ministry. Did the U.S. President say to Turkey “Find other means for help”? If not, why does not the Prime Ministry believe that? If he did, why do they conceal that?

9. The government had demanded Israel to liberate all those in the aid convoy without any legal process and given a period of time. Israeli authorities announced that they “expelled” those in the ships. However, those in the ships were captured by force by the Israelis in international waters. “To expel” is a legal process and is a sanction that is determined by both each individual country’s laws and the international agreements. Did the government ask Israel the reason of the decision “to expel”?

10. After the terrorist attack of Israel, which changes happened concerning the relations between Turkey and Israel except the cancellation of the war games as a reaction to the attack?
soL is:

Quote:
soL news portal is now in English

soL (the Left), which is being published since 2006 on worldwide web, is one of the most highly visited news portals in Turkey. As indicated by the very title of the portal, soL has never identified itself as an “impartial” and unscrupulous publication. We believe that the only consistent way of providing honest and accurate news requires one to take side in class struggles; to take side of the working class and toiling masses.

Hence, soL has never refrained itself from taking side in social and political issues; it has never concealed its distance from and battle with liberals, reactionaries and collaborationists of all sorts. soL has never refrained itself from saying aloud that Turkish and Kurdish workers have no other alternative, but wage a struggle together. And soL has never abstained from promoting anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggles of the world, and it has assumed solidarity with progressive political powers such as Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia etc. as a task of its own.

Hence soL did not abstain from declaring its principles at the onset:

soL adopts the universal values of the left,

soL is for egalitarianism,

soL is on the side of labor,

soL is anti-imperialist,

soL is patriotic,

soL is against chauvinism and fascism,

soL defends the unity of the workers of all countries,

soL is against all sorts of discrimination and exploitation,

soL supports enlightenment.
These principles have gained soL a prominent position and made it one of the most highly visited news portals of Turkey.

soL does not simply provide news on Turkey and the region; we also deem it necessary to provide “news with a perspective”. This perspective is given by the universal values and principles of the left.

Now, we feel that it is time to enlarge our scope and start contributing more to the establishment of a common sense among progressive, leftist forces of the world. We believe that our humble contribution would be to provide daily news and perspectives on Turkey, the region and the world.
For the time being, our contribution could be limited, but we pledge to improve the quality of work we carry out as we receive constructive critiques and proposals from our visitors.
The Turkish version of soL news portal publishes more than 80 news and 6-7 columns per day. The extent of the news covered by soL includes current political affairs, economics, local events, culture, sports, arts and world news. More than 50 columnists, some of whom are members of the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) and some independent intellectuals, contribute to the portal.

As a beginning, we will provide our international visitors with translations of the most critical news that would hopefully come to the attention of those who share the same vision and principles with us. Also we will provide you with some of the columns that are not difficult to follow for those who are not familiar with Turkish political agenda.

Reiterating the main slogan of the Turkish portal, we say, keep watching the day from the left (soL).

soL news portal
english@sol.org.tr

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794609)
sounds like our conservative comrades agree with the obama administration which has assumed the traditional position on its knees in front of the israelis.
It's not all that surprising, really, that the administration went against the grain and sided with Israel. Disappointing, yes, but not surprising. It goes to show the overall conservative environment in American politics.

Quote:
meanwhile, the rationale for the raid is not convincing to alot of israelis. for example, this edito from haaretz makes the same case that alot of people are making in this thread.
the problem is the siege of gaza.
that should stop. it is not only barbaric in its consequences, but it's bad policy. stupid and self-defeating. it generates effects entirely opposed to israeli interests.
This is why support for the siege boggles the mind. It's currently one of the most high profile human rights violations in the world. And, as you claim, it's self-defeating. I think it's because of its reactionary nature. Reactionary measures seldom allow one to come out of situations cleanly. I think American politics is all too familiar with this. Maybe there's some kind of empathetic connection here.

roachboy 06-03-2010 06:17 AM
well, if this turns out to be an actual policy shift rather than a media-specific warning to netanyahu, the consequences of this raid could be quite bad indeed for the israeli right's siege:

Quote:
New Israeli Tack Needed on Gaza, U.S. Officials Say
By ETHAN BRONNER

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration considers Israel’s blockade of Gaza to be untenable and plans to press for another approach to ensure Israel’s security while allowing more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area, senior American officials said Wednesday.

The officials say that Israel’s deadly attack on a flotilla trying to break the siege and the resulting international condemnation create a new opportunity to push for increased engagement with the Palestinian Authority and a less harsh policy toward Gaza.

“There is no question that we need a new approach to Gaza,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy shift is still in the early stages. He was reflecting a broadly held view in the upper reaches of the administration.

Israel would insist that any approach take into account three factors: Israel’s security; the need to prevent any benefit to Hamas, the Islamist rulers of Gaza; and the four-year-old captivity of an Israeli soldier held by Hamas, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Since the botched raid that killed nine activists on Monday, the Israeli government has said that the blockade was necessary to protect Israel against the infiltration into Gaza of weapons and fighters sponsored by Iran.

If there were no blockade in place, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Israeli television on Wednesday evening, it would mean “an Iranian port in Gaza.” He added, “Israel will continue to maintain its right to defend itself.”

But the American officials said they believed that even Mr. Netanyahu understood that a new approach was needed.

Yet Mr. Netanyahu has resisted American pressure in the past. The Obama administration initially demanded a complete freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but had to accept a 10-month partial freeze. Pressure on Israel also carries domestic political risks for Mr. Obama, given the passion of its supporters in the United States.

Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers from Gaza five years ago and built the makings of an international border. But after Hamas, which rejects Israel’s existence, won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, Israel cut back on the amount of goods permitted into Gaza. When Sergeant Shalit was seized in a raid in June of that year, commerce was further reduced.

A year later, Hamas drove the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority entirely out of Gaza in four days of street battles, leading Israel to cut off all shipments in and out except basic food, humanitarian aid and urgent medical supplies.

Hamas declines to recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence or accept previous accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The diplomatic group known as the Quartet, made up of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, has said that until Hamas meets those requirements, the Quartet will not deal with it.

But the world powers have grown increasingly disillusioned with the blockade, saying that it has created far too much suffering in Gaza and serves as a symbol not only of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians but of how the West is seen in relation to the Palestinians.

“Gaza has become the symbol in the Arab world of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and we have to change that,” the senior American official said. “We need to remove the impulse for the flotillas. The Israelis also realize this is not sustainable.”

At a meeting of the Quartet a year ago in Italy, for example, the group asserted that the current situation was not sustainable and called for the unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian aid within Gaza, as well as the reopening of crossing points.

But Obama administration officials made it clear that the deaths had given a new urgency to changing the policy.

Pressure against the blockade continued to grow on Wednesday: Turkey, which withdrew its ambassador to Israel after the raid, said full restoration of diplomatic ties was contingent on an end to the blockade.

The new British prime minister, David Cameron, also called for an end to the blockade, criticizing the raid as “completely unacceptable.”

In Israel, officials say there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza because the Defense Ministry makes sure that enough food and medicine reach the population. But international aid groups assert that real malnutrition is growing to about 10 percent and that problems with medical and sanitation supplies are rising perilously because of the Israeli and Egyptian embargoes.

In recent months, Israel has permitted increased — although still quite limited — movement of goods and people into and out of Gaza. One Israeli official said that under Mr. Netanyahu there had been a 20 percent increase in goods, including some limited building materials under third-party supervision so that Hamas would not get hold of them.

But Israel remains adamant, saying that if cement and steel were allowed to pass in any serious amount, they would end up in Hamas missiles and other weapons that would be aimed at Israel.

Discussion in Israel this week has largely focused on the details of the seizure of the ship where the deaths occurred rather than on the broader question of whether the blockade is good policy.

Amos Gilad, a senior defense official, said in an interview that in Gaza, “we only have bad solutions, worse solutions and worst solutions.” He added: “Hamas is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel’s destruction. We, on the contrary, are facilitating them to bring in all kinds of food, materials; they are even exporting strawberries and flowers.”

Aluf Benn, a senior editor and columnist for the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote on Wednesday that the time had come for a new Gaza policy.

“The attempt to control Gaza from outside, via its residents’ diet and shopping lists, casts a heavy moral stain on Israel and increases its international isolation,” he wrote. “Every Israeli should be ashamed of the list of goods prepared by the Defense Ministry, which allows cinnamon and plastic buckets into Gaza, but not houseplants and coriander. It’s time to find more important things for our officers and bureaucrats to do than update lists.”

He suggested sealing the Israel-Gaza border and informing the international community that Israel was no longer responsible for Gaza in any way, forcing Gaza to turn to Egypt as its corridor to the outside world.

Egypt has consistently rejected such an idea in the past, asserting that Gaza is Israel’s responsibility because it has occupied it since 1967.

One of the primary rationales for the blockade offered by Israeli officials is the need to create a material and political gap between the West Bank, run by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, and Gaza, run by Hamas. And political surveys have shown a preference for Fatah and discontent with Hamas among Palestinians. But the latest events, the American officials say, have given Hamas a dangerous lift.
New Israeli Tack Needed on Gaza, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com

hard to imagine a worse outcome for bibi's regime.

a couple other factoids of interest.

(1) the line being towed by our conservative comrades is exactly that taken by ole bibi himself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

(2) biden's line is defending the raid while deploring the siege.
the israeli line is that of course we want to improve conditions for the civilians of gaza and that's why lifting the siege is impossible.
the conservative line is that everything that happened is entirely justified and that the siege of gaza is not problematic because the israelis are doing it. so it's a matter of definition.
so there are differences i guess.

aceventura3 06-03-2010 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794569)
Knives, chains and steel pipes?

That is a veritable invading force! Every nation would tremble in front of such power!

Luckily, Israel bans those weapons, as well as all those other things that are clearly meant to be used for weapons, like notebooks, pens, a4 paper and fishing rods from going into gaza...

:rolleyes:
I seems clear to me, at this point, that the event was staged with the intent to instigate a fatal response. They accomplished their mission. I think the ultimate goal is to move world opinion closer to supporting what some hold as their goal of Israel's elimination. Peace loving people should not be "useful idiots" (look up the term before making charges against me) in this plan.

roachboy 06-03-2010 08:59 AM
geez, ace.....so you imagine that what holds israel in the realm of the extant is the siege of gaza and that if that siege is lifted israel will be hoovered down the drain of some giant bathtub?
no wait---you think hamas organized the flotilla, don't you?
and that hamas sees itself as able to eliminate israel.
israel the regional military superpower.
that one, right?

and you imagine that free gaza wanted the idf to murder 10 people?


that's crazy.
not even aipac goes that far down nutty lane.
hell, even eliot abrams is sensible in comparison.

Groups want stronger U.S. defense of Israel, Obama not obliging | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

dippin 06-03-2010 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794655)
I seems clear to me, at this point, that the event was staged with the intent to instigate a fatal response. They accomplished their mission. I think the ultimate goal is to move world opinion closer to supporting what some hold as their goal of Israel's elimination. Peace loving people should not be "useful idiots" (look up the term before making charges against me) in this plan.
This is nonsense. The event was clearly staged to draw attention to the blockade, but to claim that the people on those boats wanted to die is silly.

Of course, in binary world, everything is simple: if you are against the blockade, the gaza incursion, the profiteering that goes on because of the blockade, the evictions of Palestinians without recourse to create more settlements, etc. you must be for Hamas and terrorism, right?

Meanwhile, in this whole "Israel was defending itself" hysteria, we've yet to hear anyone actually defend the blockade as it is (you know, the blockade that bans notebooks and pens, not the fantasy blockade that people have in mind).

aceventura3 06-03-2010 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794668)
geez, ace.....so you imagine that what holds israel in the realm of the extant is the siege of gaza and that if that siege is lifted israel will be hoovered down the drain of some giant bathtub?
Read what I wrote. Perhaps there is an issue bigger than Gaza involved, have you given that any thought?

Quote:
no wait---you think hamas organized the flotilla, don't you?
Hamas may not be involved, and even if they are not there are many who could have orchestrated this - even a small group of people who came up with the idea outside of any formal religious or political organization. I don't know. Do you know, and with what level of certainty?

Quote:
and that hamas sees itself as able to eliminate israel.
israel the regional military superpower.
that one, right?
What I wrote is simple and clear, why take what I wrote and add faulty straw-man arguments? It seems I take a broader view of the issue than your questions suggest and if you understand that you may get a better understanding of my point of view here.

Quote:
and you imagine that free gaza wanted the idf to murder 10 people?


that's crazy.
The craziness is of your own making.

Have you ruled out the possibility the event was staged?
Have you ruled out the motivation of instigating a fatal response to garner positive PR for a cause?
Have you dismissed the fact that there are people highly motivated to destroy Israel?

My choice is not to be a useful idiot. If this matter was really about food and aid, this issue would not be newsworthy.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794669)
This is nonsense. The event was clearly staged to draw attention to the blockade, but to claim that the people on those boats wanted to die is silly.
Given the history of the tactics used by terrorists do you really want to stand by this statement? I am going to assume not and that we all realize that there are people willing to die for their cause - even people who are not terrorists have been willing to die for a cause.

Quote:
Of course, in binary world, everything is simple: if you are against the blockade, the gaza incursion, the profiteering that goes on because of the blockade, the evictions of Palestinians without recourse to create more settlements, etc. you must be for Hamas and terrorism, right?
Again, I will not ignore the fact that there are people highly motivated to eliminate Israel - some to the extent that they would be willing to initiate a world war.

Quote:
Meanwhile, in this whole "Israel was defending itself" hysteria, we've yet to hear anyone actually defend the blockade as it is (you know, the blockade that bans notebooks and pens, not the fantasy blockade that people have in mind).
I think food and aid is able to get to the people who need it, even with the blockade. War is war. If Israel is at war a blockade is a normal strategy. I believe Israel is in a state of war. If these matters are to be de-escalated, peace loving people have to be more proactive and blind support of staged events is not helpful.

roachboy 06-03-2010 09:48 AM
ace, what are you on?

the reason this is in the news is because the idf killed people in international waters. had the israeli military not bungled the operation---had they chosen to act otherwise---the flotilla would have in all probability got little attention in the mainstream press.

of course the event was organized. free gaza organized the event. these things don't spring up like worms from cheese. free gaza is an easy organization to check out. they have a website. here is a link:

Freegaza - News section



if this is really what you think, i would argue that in your one-man campaign to not be a "useful idiot" has focused all its energy on the adjective.
you might concern yourself more with the noun.
just a thought.

dippin 06-03-2010 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794670)

Given the history of the tactics used by terrorists do you really want to stand by this statement? I am going to assume not and that we all realize that there are people willing to die for their cause - even people who are not terrorists have been willing to die for a cause.
Who, exactly, were the terrorists on board that ship?

Quote:
Again, I will not ignore the fact that there are people highly motivated to eliminate Israel - some to the extent that they would be willing to initiate a world war.
The fact that there are people highly motivated to eliminate Israel does not excuse blatant human rights violations. This is a silly deflection that again ignores the problem that the embargo goes way beyond weapons.


Quote:
I think food and aid is able to get to the people who need it, even with the blockade. War is war. If Israel is at war a blockade is a normal strategy. I believe Israel is in a state of war. If these matters are to be de-escalated, peace loving people have to be more proactive and blind support of staged events is not helpful.
This is a "war" in which one side has significantly more firepower than the other, which doesn't even have a standing army. Collective punishment has never worked in these situations.

And "blind support" to me sounds a lot like supporting an illegal action that used significantly more power than necessary.

Cimarron29414 06-03-2010 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794677)
And "blind support" to me sounds a lot like supporting an illegal action that used significantly more power than necessary.
I agree with you guys on nearly everything you are saying except the above. What I'm about to ask might not be what you mean in the statement above. But, you have made mention several times about the types of weapons the one group had. You seem to think it was wrong to shoot because these guys "only" had pipes and knives.

I know they shouldn't have been there, I know it was in international waters, I know the seize is immoral. Let's focus on the millisecond of time where someone starts stabbing you.

Dippin, if you have a gun and someone starts stabbing you with a knife, are you going to shoot them or let them keep stabbing? This is a serious question. I'm not picking a fight here, I am just trying to understand the alternative once you are on your back being hit about the head with pipes and being stabbed.

roachboy 06-03-2010 10:34 AM
here's a clip and article about a uk activist who was on one of the boats the israelis raided. obviously not a single element in the idf's story is confirmed here. not one.

British survivor of Gaza flotilla raid: 'Israelis ignored SOS calls' | World news | guardian.co.uk

so no, i don't think this was "staged"---i think it was a colossal fuck up on the israeli part. but they fucked up with live ammunition so people ended up dead.

it seems really obvious that this is the case.
i can't understand the contortions people are willing to put themselves through to rationalize this.

as for why someone would shoot....the problem is the situation itself. within such a situation, things get chaotic very quickly, snap decisions are made based on appearance as much as anything else and people can get hurt or killed very very easily. but what the article/clip above make clear is that the idf came on in an extremely violent, aggressive manner. and if it is the case that they handcuffed the ship's medical staff and refused to help the wounded....then we're back in classic colonial brutality mode, aren't we? the kind of ordinary disregard for human life so prevalent in the occupied territories and embodied in the siege.

bad business.

Idyllic 06-03-2010 10:38 AM
Quote:
Why did they change the flag of Mavi Marmara from Turkey to Komor Islands?
Wed, 06/02/2010 - 10:59

* International

The story of the leading vessel of the Gaza aid flotilla, Mavi Marmara, presents a peculiar move on the part of AKP government concerning the consequences of the initiative.

Mavi Marmara (Blue Marmara), the vessel that was carrying more than 600 activists on board to Gaza and was attacked by the Israeli elite commandos and helicopters resulting in 9 deaths and dozens of wounded, has an interesting history.

IHH, the aid organization that was the main organizer of the "Freedom Flotilla"*, had tried to reach to Gaza before from land, from Egypt. That attempt was not successful, thus, the new plan of going by the sea (which had already been tried by many pro-Palestine organization) came up.

IHH started looking for vessels to rent, but nobody seemed to be eager to rent their ships for such a dangerous journey. Thus, IHH decided to buy the ship. The organization bought Mavi Marmara from Istanbul Deniz Otobüsleri A.Ş. (IDO - Istanbul Seabus Company) for 1 million 800 thousand Turkish liras (approximately 900 thousand euros). Mavi Marmara was used as a ferry in Istanbul. IHH soon changed the national flag of Mavi Marmara from Turkey to Komor Islands.

A necessary note for non-Turkish readers should be written down. IHH, the humanitarian aid organization, was founded by the Milli Görüş movement, the far-right Islamic political movement in Turkey, upon the direct order of the historical leader of the movement, Necmettin Erbakan, back in the beginning of the 90s. The organization used to collect money from the Muslim community in Turkey and outside (especially in Germany) for humanitarian aid. The famous "Mercümek case" and the "Lost Trillion case", with the popular name of the case in Turkish, revealed that Milli Görüş movement had stolen billions from the aid collected.

This kind of aid organizations had always been used by Milli Görüş, and thus, by AKP, the governing party of Turkey, which was founded by a group of ex-leaders of the Milli Görüş line. Another similar organization, Deniz Feneri e.V., has been banned recently in Germany after the revelation of a huge scandal of financial fraud.

IHH, after the foundation of AKP, has been more under the influence of AKP line than the Milli Görüş line, though the organization still has members from both lines. The IHH's ex-chief of Europe, Eyüp Fatsa, is an MP of AKP. Therefore, IHH is an organization that is tied inorganically to AKP, and any possibility that the huge campaign of aid to Gaza was organized without the approval and support of AKP is out of question.

Another note to be written is the fact that a group of AKP MPs were planning to accompany the ships in April. But, curiously, starting from the beginning of May, AKP stopped all references to IHH from the party and cautiously erased all connection between the party and the Gaza aid campaign. The fact that AKP stopped its MPs from joining the ships is a sign that they were considering the possibility of an attack by the Israelis, which, for anyone that knows history even slightly, is easy to guess.

Why was the flag changed?
Coming back to the story of Mavi Marmara, if IHH had not changed the flag to Komor Islands and the ship had been attacked, it would have been recognized as an aggression against Turkish national territory, since the ship was on international waters. Thus, it would not only have resulted in a more fierce emotional reaction, but also in the coming up to the agenda of the famous (or infamous) Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which establishes that NATO states respond collectively to any armed attack against a member state.

So, the move of changing the flag seems to be the result of a neatly-adjusted and elaborately thought plan of AKP. The ship was an experimental attempt by AKP. The party, recognizing the possible consequences, restrained its MPs from joining the flotilla and supressed any implication of connections between the party and the flotilla. But still, the ties between IHH and AKP remove the possibility that AKP had no role in the plan. AKP sent the ships, with all the activists inside, to a dangerous journey without taking any necessary precautions as part of an experiment, to see the reaction of Israel.

The talk of Erdoğan after the attack in TBMM had much fierce discourse and no real, practical steps. The story of the vessel Mavi Marmara demonstrates that, from the beginning, AKP tried to avoid any real consequences anyway.

(soL)

* The name "Freedom Flotilla" was never used in Turkish with reference to the flotilla. The official name of the campaign was "Our route is Palestine, our load is humanitarian aid"
This whole thing goes much, much deeper than were seeing. There is no excuse for killing, but their is an excuse for self defense, regardless of whether the "activist" perceived they were in the right or wrong, they attacked the IDF brutally FORCING the soldiers to defend themselves, period. These “activists” could just as easily stepped back, they knew the procedures, and they also KNEW that if they had not fought they would not have died (martyrdom is taught to be the greatest gift to Allah by Islamic extremists), but for many of the "activists" their intent WAS martyrdom for their perceived cause, had they not put themselves at deaths risk, and pushed an attack, then the attention this incident would have garnered would have been minimal, if any at all. This did not have to happen but the blame is buried far deeper than the surface issues that we are seeing, this incident is merely a symptom of what is really occurring. We watch, we look, we listen to the world and each other and learn more each day, but to condemn either side right now, especially based on this incidence, when bigger hands may be at play here using these "activists," as well as possibly the Palestinians, the Gazan peoples, as puppets, will solve nothing.

I realize the attention has now been turned to the embargo and the blockade, but before it is lifted, Israel, as well as the world, needs to discover the responsible parties and the full involvement of others in this incident. If some entity were truly trying to bring in terrorists or weapons, what makes any of us think that the minute the blockade is ended the gaza strip won’t be flooded with weapons and terrorists whose singular wish is to bring about an assault on Israel that would then force Israel to respond which just ends in the deaths of more innocents on both sides. More answers are needed before the blockade should fall just yet, and I still believe that hamas should, at the very least, acknowledge Israel and all Israelis’ rights to exist before Israel should lower any defensive “walls” of protection.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

Free Gaza did not organize this event, IHH did, they bought the ship because no one would let them borrow one.

rahl 06-03-2010 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794692)
This whole thing goes much, much deeper than were seeing. There is no excuse for killing, but their is an excuse for self defense, regardless of whether the "activist" perceived they were in the right or wrong, they attacked the IDF brutally FORCING the soldiers to defend themselves, period. .
WHAT???

the commando's commited an act of piracy. Do you not understand what international waters mean? So, in your mind, you think it should be ok for a group of armed pirates to board your ship illegally and look through your things? You don't think you have the right to defend yourself from said pirates?

Xazy 06-03-2010 11:04 AM


Explains it better then I can, but personally I have noticed bias in the media against israel for years, ny times, cnn, bbc I have seen dozens of times when they have published articles only for weeks later make a small retraction (if ever).

Idyllic 06-03-2010 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2794697)
WHAT???

the commando's commited an act of piracy. Do you not understand what international waters mean? So, in your mind, you think it should be ok for a group of armed pirates to board your ship illegally and look through your things? You don't think you have the right to defend yourself from said pirates?
rahl, if pirates boarded my ship, I would let them have whatever they wanted, I would never offer my life for stuff, my life IS the most valuable commodity I own, dead I am useless to help any human any further. I would do as they asked and hope they would merely take whatever they wanted and leave. The only time I think I would fight is if I were doing something wrong and did not want to be discovered, or if I were intentionally attempting to prove some point, a point that at this time, I could not even imagine, would compete with my life.

dippin 06-03-2010 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2794684)
I agree with you guys on nearly everything you are saying except the above. What I'm about to ask might not be what you mean in the statement above. But, you have made mention several times about the types of weapons the one group had. You seem to think it was wrong to shoot because these guys "only" had pipes and knives.

I know they shouldn't have been there, I know it was in international waters, I know the seize is immoral. Let's focus on the millisecond of time where someone starts stabbing you.

Dippin, if you have a gun and someone starts stabbing you with a knife, are you going to shoot them or let them keep stabbing? This is a serious question. I'm not picking a fight here, I am just trying to understand the alternative once you are on your back being hit about the head with pipes and being stabbed.
Well, the thing is that the "pipes" weren't pipes, but railings from the boat. And the knives weren't combat knives, but kitchen knives. Certainly military helicopters and navy ships had other ways of stopping that ship that didn't involve shooting and killing up to 19 people.
Add to that the recent reports that multiple victims were shot in the head several times at close range, and the whole thing becomes even more outrageous. One of the bodies released to Turkey, for example, had 1 shot to the chest and 4 to the head at close range.

Cimarron29414 06-03-2010 11:09 AM
I am still trying to find any information to indicate why the commandos chose to raid in international waters rather than Israeli waters. It seems this is the strategic blunder that has made this such an issue. Whoever made that call is responsible for the outcome.

rahl 06-03-2010 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794709)
rahl, if pirates boarded my ship, I would let them have whatever they wanted, I would never offer my life for stuff, my life IS the most valuable commodity I own, dead I am useless to help any human any further. I would do as they asked and hope they would merely take whatever they wanted and leave. The only time I think I would fight is if I were doing something wrong and did not want to be discovered, or if I were intentionally attempting to prove some point, a point that at this time, I could not even imagine, would compete with my life.
I'm fairly certain you are being intentionally dishonest. I'm pretty sure you would defend yourself from a threat.

aceventura3 06-03-2010 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794677)
Who, exactly, were the terrorists on board that ship?
I have not concluded they were terrorists. I emphasized that there are people who are not terrorists who are willing to die for a cause.


Quote:
The fact that there are people highly motivated to eliminate Israel does not excuse blatant human rights violations. This is a silly deflection that again ignores the problem that the embargo goes way beyond weapons.
Seems to me that you may be engaged in a silly deflection. When this question is answered we will know: What was the motivation behind running the blockade? If it was only about food and aid, your position will be proven correct. In my view - if the motivation was really food and aid, no one would have died.

Also, why would reasonable unarmed people attacked armed military (people trained to kill)? You do not have an answer, do you?

Quote:
This is a "war" in which one side has significantly more firepower than the other, which doesn't even have a standing army. Collective punishment has never worked in these situations.
If not for US support and US clout, Israel would not exist. Israel is currently facing a big challenge given the Obama posture on Israel - US support is being tested and Israel is being tested. I think the risks of a world war is higher today than it has been in many years. This is no longer a theortical discussion.

Quote:
And "blind support" to me sounds a lot like supporting an illegal action that used significantly more power than necessary.
My concerns have more to do with this growing into a broader military conflict than with the blockade. If Israel over-reacted militarily they should be held accountable. If this was a staged event those responsible need to be held accountable. I have come to my conclusion and I have stated my basis - I hope I am wrong - but nothing you or anyone has presented has been able to shed any light on the issue. there are some very simple questions that can be answered if you are correct that can explain all of this. Perhaps we will see some interviews of those involved and can get a clearer understanding of their mission.

Cimarron29414 06-03-2010 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794711)
Well, the thing is that the "pipes" weren't pipes, but railings from the boat. And the knives weren't combat knives, but kitchen knives. Certainly military helicopters and navy ships had other ways of stopping that ship that didn't involve shooting and killing up to 19 people.
Add to that the recent reports that multiple victims were shot in the head several times at close range, and the whole thing becomes even more outrageous. One of the bodies released to Turkey, for example, had 1 shot to the chest and 4 to the head at close range.
Kitchen knives as in butter knives or kitchen knives as in steak knives? I honestly don't know. I've heard reports that some Israeli troops were shot (with guns that were taken from them.) We will never be able to piece together who did what first but the violence definitely escalated where one could reasonably assume that their lives were in danger (on both sides.)

It's an event that never should have happened, but once it starts, I'm assuming you'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, like me?

aceventura3 06-03-2010 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794691)

so no, i don't think this was "staged"---i think it was a colossal fuck up on the israeli part. but they fucked up with live ammunition so people ended up dead.
The lady was below deck asleep when these actions started. Not conclusive.

ring 06-03-2010 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794711)
One of the bodies released to Turkey, for example, had 1 shot to the chest and 4 to the head at close range.
If what I have heard is correct; that victim was a US citizen who lived in Turkey?

Idyllic 06-03-2010 11:20 AM
It is good to die for your cause, right? To many devout Muslims, however, death may possibly be better than the life their extremist leaders/rulers/dictators keep them thumbed under. Theocracy in any form is demoralizing and all forms of these tyrannical regimes, hamas, al qaeda, hezbollah, taliban insurgents, et al. believe in martyrdom, exponentially. Here's you better life, or should I say afterlife, here is a little of what killing yourself and killing others, even innocents (especially infidels), will buy you:

Quote:
Virtues of Martyrdom in the Path of Allah 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Azzam Article ID: 1012 | 8004 Reads

Adopted from the works of ash-Sheikh ash-Shaheed 'Abdullah Azzam
“The life of the Ummah is connected to the ink of the scholars and the blood of the martyrs. What is more beautiful than to write the history of the Ummah with both the ink of the scholar and his blood, such that the map of Islamic history becomes coloured with two lines: one of them black, and that is what the scholar writes with the ink of his pen; and the second red, and that is what the martyr writes with his blood. And more beautiful than this is when the blood is one and the pen is one, so that the hand of the scholar, which expends the ink and moves the pen, is the same hand that expends his blood and moves the nations. The extent to which the number of martyred scholars increases, is the extent to which nations are delivered from their slumber, rescued from their decline and awoken from their sleep.

So history does not write its lines except with blood. Glory does not build its lofty edifice except with skulls. Honour and respect cannot be established except on a foundation of cripples and corpses. Empires, noble persons, states and societies, cannot be established except with examples"

ash-Sheikh ash-Shaheed ‘Abdullah Yoosuf ‘Azzam – May Allah have mercy upon you Ya Sheikhana! For your blood was not shed in vain after your assassination in 1989.

Glossary:
Shaheed: Lit. A witness, a martyr
Shuhadaa`: Plural of Shaheed - martyrs
Shahaadah: Lit. Testimony, martyrdom

1 – The blood of the Shaheed smells of musk:
“By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, no one is injured in the Path of Allah – and Allah knows best who is truly wounded in His Path – except that he comes (with his wound) on the Day of Resurrection, its colour the colour of blood, and its scent that of musk." [Muslim and Ahmad]

2 – The Most Beloved of the drops to Allah:
“There is nothing more beloved to Allah than two drops or two marks. The teardrop that falls from the fear of Allah, and the drop of blood shed in the Path of Allah. And as for the marks, then a mark in the Path of Allah, and a mark in an obligation from the obligations unto Allah”. (Hasan, reported by at-Tirmidhi)
"al-Jihad" is the intended meaning of the phrase “in the Path of Allah” as explained by Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalaani in Fath al-Bari.
About the meaning of "Jihad" Ibn Rushd said: “The word Jihad when it is uttered means to fight the disbelievers with the sword, until they accept Islam, or pay the Jizya (tax) by hand in a state of humiliation”

3 – The Shaheed Wishes to Return to this World:
“Any slave [of Allah] who dies and has been bestowed good from Allah, does not wish to return to the World, even if he is given the World and what it contains; except a Shaheed, due to what he sees from the virtues of Shahaadah [Martyrdom]. So he wishes to return to the World in order to be killed again” – and in another wording – “So that he may be killed ten times due to what he receives from the honour” [al-Bukhari and Muslim]
Scholars differed with regards to the reasons behind naming a martyr “Shaheed” (lit. a witness). Al-Azhari says, “This is because Allah and His Messenger bear witness that he is in Paradise” an-Nadhr says, “ash-Shaheed (a witness), is alive, so they were named that because they are alive with their Lord”.
It is also said, “Because the angels of mercy bear witness and take his soul”, and “he is from those who will be a witness unto nations”, and “He is witnessed to have Iman and a good end in his outward appearance”, and “because his blood bears witness for him on the Day of Judgment”.
Sheikh 'Abdullah Azzam says: "They are Shuhadaa` [witnesses] to the fact that this Deen is greater than life, and that values are more important than blood, and that principles are more precious than souls"

4 – Haarithah in the Highest Firdaws:
The Prophet – May the Salaah and Salaam of Allah be upon him – said to Umm Haarithah bint an-Nu’maan – after her son was killed in the battle of Badr – after she asked: “Where is he (i.e. is he in Paradise or the Fire)?” – he replied, “Indeed, he is in the highest Firdaws” [al-Bukhaari]
In another Hadeeth reported by al-Bukhaari:
“Indeed, in Paradise are a hundred levels which Allah has prepared for the Mujahideen in His Path. The distance between each level is that of between the heavens and the earth. So when you ask of Allah, then ask Him for Firdaws, for it is the center of Paradise, and the highest part of Paradise, and above it is the throne of The Most Merciful, from whence, the highest Firdaws, the rivers of Paradise spring forth”

5 – The Souls of the Shuhadaa` in the Hearts of Green Birds:
“Indeed the souls of the martyrs are in the hearts of green birds, and they have lanterns hanging underneath the 'arsh (the throne of Allaah). They roam around in Paradise wherever they wish, then they return to their lanterns. So, their Lord enquires: “Do you desire anything?” They say, “What can we desire for, when we roam around in Paradise wherever we wish?” And He asks them this three times. When they realize that they will not cease to be questioned, they say, “O Lord! We wish that you return our souls to our bodies, in order that we be killed in Your Path again” When it is realized that they have no need, they will be left alone.” [Muslim]

6 – Special Favours for the Shaheed:
“The Shaheed is granted seven special favours from Allah. He is forgiven (his sins) at the first drop of his blood. He sees his place in Paradise. He is dressed in the clothes of Iman. He is married to the Hoor al-‘Ain (beautiful women of Paradise). He is saved from the punishment of the grave. He will be protected from the great fear of the Day of Judgement. A crown of honour will be placed on his head, one jewel of which is better than the whole world and what it contains. He is married to seventy-two of the Hoor al-‘Ain (beautiful women of Paradise), and he will be able to intercede for seventy members of his family.” [Saheeh – Related by Ahmad, at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibbaan]

7 – The Shuhadaa` of Uhud:
“When your brothers were killed at Uhud, Allah placed their souls in the hearts of green birds. They frequent the rivers of Paradise, and eat from its fruits, then return to the lanterns under the Throne. When they enjoy the good in their food and drink, and their excellent speech, they say, “We wish that our brothers knew what Allah has prepared for us, so that they will never abstain from Jihad, nor will they refrain from war” So Allah said, “I will inform them of you” So Allah revealed these verses to His Messenger:
“Think not of those killed in the Path of Allah is dead...” (3:169) [Ahmad, Abu Dawud, al-Hakim classified it Saheeh and adh-Dhahabi agreed]

roachboy 06-03-2010 11:23 AM
this is easier to navigate if you click on the link below, but i wanted to paste it up before i forgot about it:

Quote:
Passengers recount mid-sea horror


Israel has released and deported most of the 700 activists it captured after Israeli troops stormed a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Here are excerpts of what some of the freed passengers had to say (click on a name to jump to that passenger's testimonial):

* Andre Abu-Khalil, Al Jazeera cameraman
* Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter
* Othman Battiri, Al Jazeera crew member
* Hazem Farouq, Egyptian MP from the Muslim Brotherhood
* Issam Zaatar, Al Jazeera cameraman
* Haneen Zubi, Palestinian member of the Knesset
* Norman Paech, former member of the German parliament
* Mihalis Grigoropoulos, Greece
* Nilufer Cetin, Turkey
* Youssef Benderbal, France
* Dimitris Gielalis, Greece
* Mutlu Tiryaki, Turkey

Andre Abu-Khalil, Al Jazeera cameraman

First they [the Israelis] tried to come by helicopter and tried to come down on the main deck. But the Turkish people were gathering on the rooftop and they managed to grab three of the soldiers, which led to a second helicopter to come and start shooting live bullets on the people.

People [on board] did not have any guns. All what they had were some wooden sticks which is normal.

I was on the Mavi Marmara [the lead ship of the flotilla].

I wasn't on the rooftop deck. I was on the first deck floor where the Israelis tried to climb by the ropes on the deck.

There were 20 Turkish resistance guys throwing tomatoes, anything that they managed to throw, on the Israelis.

Then one of these Turkish guys got a bullet just in the head. When the Turkish people saw that, they pulled him inside when the Israelis started firing on the deck.

[After the Israelis took over the ship] they kept us tied up, hands behind the back, for nine hours until we reached the Ashdod port and from there they took us for individual interrogation and then shipped us all to Be'er Sheva jail.

The organisers [of the flotilla] swapped the four Israelis kidnapped, or caught, by the people on the ship, and because they were beaten up, because it's kind of resistance from our side, we swapped the Israeli soldiers to [get] to treat our injured.

Mohamed Vall, Al Jazeera reporter

The Israeli assault took those of us on the ship by complete surprise.

During that hour an half in the early morning everybody on board the ship thought that no-one would survive the Israeli attack because we saw about 30 war vessels surrounding this ship and helicopters attacking with very luminous bombs, the sound of them makes you think you are dead

That was a fear of war, complete war, on a ship that was full of men, women and even children.

The first soldiers on the ship were not killed, they were not shot at, they were captured by the defenders of the ship.

Moments later another bigger helicopter landed more troops and this time they fired immediately at people and killed as many as they could so that they could reach the cabin and take control of the ship.

I saw blood spilt on the ship and everyone knew that there was no weapons. we all knew the Israelis would intercept us and try to stop us, but we didn't think that they would open fire at the first moment.

I have been shown the picture of a Yemeni man, and this is ridiculous, who was on the ship and most people know that every Yemeni in the world has a Yemeni style knife, that is a cultural thing and does not have anything to do with violence.

I understand now that in Israel they are trying to make a big deal about that, saying that the boat was full of violent people and just because of that one man.

Othman Battiri, Al Jazeera crew member

At 4:15, tens of Navy boats carrying tens of soldiers tried to board the ships. They were met by resistance. Peaceful resistance. Helicopters came and tried to download soldiers. They could not.

At that moment, they started firing live ammunition.

First, they fired sound and gas bombs and rubber bullets. Some people were injured from the rubber bullets. Then, live bullets were used. I saw several men being wounded. We tried to help some of the wounded. I saw four people who were killed.

I saw two people die before my eyes. One of them had a bullet in the chest. The other was bleeding but I did not know where he was shot.

We went down to see the other dead people. One had a bullet in his head as if he was hit by a sniper. Live bullets were every where.

They did not respect that all those on the ships were civilians. There were no weapons.

There was not firing by the activists on the soldiers. As media we stand witnesses on that.

They four dead people that I saw were all Turkish. Two were old men. The other two were younger. One of the young people was a coordinator in the media room. His name is Juwdat.

We heard that more people were killed. I only saw four. Most of the fighting took place on the upper level around the room of ship captain, where the activist tried to prevent the soldiers from trying to control the captain’s room. This is where live ammunition were used.

The attack started at 4:15 and ended around 5:30 when we heard that the ship was controlled by the Israeli's.

Around 7:00 they asked us to leave our rooms and they started tying our hands.

Hazem Farouq, Egyptian MP from the Muslim Brotherhood

Helicopters were flying above us. Four military ships and 10 Navy boats surrounded us. They rained us with sound and gas bombs as if we were in real war.

Four people died before my eyes and in my hands. We could not find any first aid material. What happened required a field hospital to treat the injured. I did not have the necessary material to treat their bleeding wounds.

When we tried to carry the injured, the Israeli soldiers refused to allow men to carry the wounded. They pointed their guns with laser light toward their heads. They asked women to carry the wounded. Some women could not.

The wounded were very hurt because they were not carried in the proper way through the stairs and narrow doors.

Farouq is a dentist who was on board Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the flotilla. He spoke to Al Jazeera after arriving in Cairo.

Issam Zaatar, Al Jazeera cameraman

I was filming, and then he [an Israeli solider] ran after me with a stun gun.

He could not catch me. One of his colleagues hit my hand from behind with a stun gun. My camera fell down. He ran to crush the camera with his feet.

I told him, don't break my camera. If you want the tapes, I will give them to you. I told him these are media equipment. They had no limits.

They used rubber bullets. They used tear gas bombs. It was an unbelievable scene.

Haneen Zubi, Palestinian member of the Knesset

We were expecting the Israeli army to stop us, to prevent us from entering but surely we didn't expect such a war against us.

It was 14 ships which approached us, nearly at 4.30 in the morning. Fourteen ships that I could count and one helicopter. Maybe more than 10 soldiers, I couldn't say exactly [how many] were getting out of the helicopter.

On the second floor of the ship there were just passengers who are journalists, a nurse and organisers of the flotilla who didn't have anything in their hands.

After 20 minutes, maybe 15 minutes, there were three dead bodies.

It ended at six, when a voice from the microphone said the ship was controlled by the Israelis, 'please enter the rooms'.

Norman Paech, former member of the German parliament

This was not an act of self-defence [by the Israeli army], but rather it was completely disproportionate - although we were counting on our ship being blocked and maybe checked.

This was a very serious offence, this was a war crime.

I personally saw two and a half wooden sticks which were used [by activists].

We had not prepared in any way to fight. We didn't even consider it.

No violence, no resistance - because we knew very well that we would have absolutely no chance against soldiers like this.

Mihalis Grigoropoulos, Greece

I was steering the ship, we saw them [Israeli soldiers] capture another ship in front of us, which was the Turkish passenger vessel with more than 500 people on board and heard shots fired.

We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to. What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard?

The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired upon with plastic bullets and were stunned with electric devices.

There was great mistreatment after our arrest. We were essentially hostages, like animals on the ground.

They wouldn't let us use the bathroom, wouldn't give us food or water and they took video of us despite international conventions banning this.

Nilufer Cetin, Turkey

We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire.

My son has been nervous since yesterday afternoon ... I did not need to protect my son.

They knew there was a baby on board. I put a gas mask and life jacket on my son.

We did not experience any other problems on board, only a water shortage.

We took walks on the deck, played games with my son. The curtains were drawn, so I did not see the raid as it was happening. I only heard the voices.

There are lightly and heavily wounded people.

There are thousands, millions of babies in Gaza. My son and I wanted to play with those babies. We planned to deliver them aid. We wanted to say: 'Look, it's a safe place, I came here with my baby-son.'

I saw my husband from a distance, he looked okay. The ship personnel was not wounded, because they [the soldiers] needed them to take the ship to port.

I will go again if another ship goes.

Cetin returned to Istanbul airport with her one-year-old son.

Youssef Benderbal, France

The instructions were clear. Do not provoke, remain calm and go to meet them [the commandos] saying 'we are pacifists and not terrorists'.

Masked commandos took possession of the ship. They were aiming for the captain's cabin.

Benderbal was not on board Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the flotilla, but on one of the other five ships. He gave this account to Europe 1 radio after arriving at a Paris airport.

Dimitris Gielalis, Greece

Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat.

They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used.

Gielalis was on board the ship Sfendoni.

Mutlu Tiryaki, Turkey

When we went up to the deck, they emerged from helicopters and military boats and attacked us.

They approached our vessel with military ships after issuing a warning. We told them we were unarmed. Our sole weapon was water.
Passengers recount mid-sea horror - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

aceventura3 06-03-2010 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794707)


Explains it better then I can, but personally I have noticed bias in the media against israel for years, ny times, cnn, bbc I have seen dozens of times when they have published articles only for weeks later make a small retraction (if ever).
It is interesting how the knee-jerk reaction by some is stuff like this and the conclusion that I came to is craziness or silliness. I can admit that I may be wrong, but I am not naive.

Idyllic 06-03-2010 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794711)
Well, the thing is that the "pipes" weren't pipes, but railings from the boat. And the knives weren't combat knives, but kitchen knives. Certainly military helicopters and navy ships had other ways of stopping that ship that didn't involve shooting and killing up to 19 people.
Add to that the recent reports that multiple victims were shot in the head several times at close range, and the whole thing becomes even more outrageous. One of the bodies released to Turkey, for example, had 1 shot to the chest and 4 to the head at close range.
Basic combat training, two to the chest, still moving, one to the head. Any soldier who deviated from this when being brutally attacked by any weapon that could kill them is REQUIRED to react in this manner. Training, dippin, it's all about the training, these soldiers did their jobs as they were taught to. Actually the more shot shows to me the true fear these soldier were experiencing at the time of this incident.

silent_jay 06-03-2010 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794731)
Basic combat training, two to the chest, still moving, one to the head. Any soldier who deviated from this when being brutally attacked by any weapon that could kill them is REQUIRED to react in this manner. Training, dippin, it's all about the training, these soldiers did their jobs as they were taught to. Actually the more shot shows to me the true fear these soldier were experiencing at the time of this incident.
Except you can't seem to read what dippin typed, it was 1 to the chest, 4 to the head, not 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.
Quote:
1 shot to the chest and 4 to the head at close range
I love how you keep using the word 'brutally' like it makes it so.
Quote:
Actually the more shot shows to me the true fear these soldier were experiencing at the time of this incident.
You sure do read a lot into everything for someone who so often doesn't seem to read what people actually type.

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794726)
this is easier to navigate if you click on the link below, but i wanted to paste it up before i forgot about it:
I'm wondering if this will provide direct context to the IDF video footage. If the passengers on the ship had already been subject to live fire, then the rappelling of soldiers to the deck could have been viewed as "the next phase" of further attack.

Acts of self-defense?

Idyllic 06-03-2010 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2794714)
I'm fairly certain you are being intentionally dishonest. I'm pretty sure you would defend yourself from a threat.
As you say rahl, "My life is mine alone," however, I really do wish to rise up and live it, not lie down and give it, especially not for stuff on a boat when I know it will get their another way, and if I am around to help I can try again and again, isn't that what you would do to, or would you die for the cause. the cause being the one they died for, which at this time was attention from the press about a problem we are already aware of.

roachboy 06-03-2010 11:37 AM
you might be interested in this:

Both sides of flotilla story - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

rather than simply relying on idf video.

aceventura3 06-03-2010 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794726)
this is easier to navigate if you click on the link below, but i wanted to paste it up before i forgot about it:
In 1968 I was 8 years old when riots broke out in the city I lived in. First my parents told me - whatever you do, when interacting with a person with a gun - cooperate, more so than ever, because everyone was on edge. Second, I had an older cousin who was an active militant at the time and she told me the same thing and to get away if I was near a fool instigating police or national Guard. Why no quotes from people explaining why they made the choice to fight rather than cooperate? Their actions defy common sense.

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794736)
you might be interested in this:

Both sides of flotilla story - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

rather than simply relying on idf video.
I think the Al Jazeera footage should be released.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794739)
Their actions defy common sense.
It makes more sense if they were already being fired upon and feared taking more fire.

Xazy 06-03-2010 11:53 AM
They were carrying almost a million euro in their pockets, Israel found spent bullet cartridges that are not used by Israeli troops. Also they found video on the boat filled with passengers injured by troops, but those films were filmed during daylight prior t the exact operation. Yes, I am sorry if I doubt al Jazeera reporters, and pollywood (we had a whole threat maybe a year back showing fake Palestinian videos). Israel has in the past diverted other aid, all peacefully, and delivered whatever aid was on those ships, this was not about delivering aid.

Oh and lets not forget that there really are 10000+ rockets fired at israel in past 5 years imagine if it was your neighboring country doing it

dippin 06-03-2010 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794739)
In 1968 I was 8 years old when riots broke out in the city I lived in. First my parents told me - whatever you do, when interacting with a person with a gun - cooperate, more so than ever, because everyone was on edge. Second, I had an older cousin who was an active militant at the time and she told me the same thing and to get away if I was near a fool instigating police or national Guard. Why no quotes from people explaining why they made the choice to fight rather than cooperate? Their actions defy common sense.
And how does that make the actions of those with guns right or moral?

aceventura3 06-03-2010 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2794734)
I'm wondering if this will provide direct context to the IDF video footage. If the passengers on the ship had already been subject to live fire, then the rappelling of soldiers to the deck could have been viewed as "the next phase" of further attack.

Acts of self-defense?
No. First, given what they were doing I am pretty sure they had a plan. If we get boarded do... If we get attacked do... This is how they are trained to respond, so if...do...

What do you think their plan was? Perhaps something like: If they shoot, run below get a sling-shot, take your sling-shot and aim at the ones with helmets on??? And when throwing tomatoes aim at their feet so they fall...???

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794746)
And how does that make the actions of those with guns right or moral?
The message to me was to cooperate and live to see another day.

roachboy 06-03-2010 11:58 AM
another segment, this from democracy now:

Flotilla Passengers Huwaida Arraf of Free Gaza Movement and Retired Army Col. Ann Wright Respond to Israeli Claims on Deadly Assault


this is in french, but here's another series of statements from people who were on the boats that were raided by the idf that totally contradict the idf's line.

"Comme dans une guerre" - LeMonde.fr

dippin 06-03-2010 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794747)

The message to me was to cooperate and live to see another day.
Which again ignores the issue...

roachboy 06-03-2010 12:10 PM
Quote:
Author Henning Mankell Says Israel Committed Piracy (Update1)

By Catherine Hickley

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Henning Mankell, the Swedish author of crime novels featuring the detective Kurt Wallander, said Israel committed an act of piracy and kidnapping by attacking aid-laden ships headed for Gaza in international waters.

Mankell was aboard the Sofia, one of six ships in the flotilla in the May 31 campaign. He said the boat was carrying cement, building materials and prefabricated houses to Gaza. About 25 passengers were on board, many of them Swedish. Mankell and the other participants in the flotilla were detained in Israel after they were captured.

“This happened on international waters, so this was an act of piracy,” Mankell, 62, told journalists in Berlin, where he is starting a promotion tour for his new novel. “When they took us to Israel, we were kidnapped under international law.”

Israel has faced international criticism over its raid by naval commandos that left nine dead aboard the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships taking aid to the Gaza Strip on May 31. The United Nations Security Council condemned the violence and Turkey has asked for an official apology, an international investigation and an immediate end to the embargo on Gaza. All nine killed were Turkish.

The activists, in a flotilla of six ships, were attempting to sail into Gaza, which has been under Israeli blockade since the Islamic Hamas movement took control of the territory in 2007. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S., European Union and Israel.

Knives, Clubs

Israel said its soldiers were attacked with knives and clubs after boarding a vessel and seven soldiers were wounded, including by gunfire, after activists aboard the ship managed to grab Israeli firearms. Israel has said it has by now expelled all the campaigners with the exception of some still in hospital.

“It was about 4 a.m., and I had gone to bed,” Mankell said. “We thought we had at least two hours before we got to Israeli waters.” He said the Mavi Marmara was about 1 kilometer away from the ship he was on.

“We could see lights and helicopters and we could see gunfire but we couldn’t know what was happening,” Mankell said. “It was only three days later when we boarded the Lufthansa flight that I found out people were killed.”

His own ship, Mankell said, was boarded about an hour later by Israeli navy commandos.

Machine Guns

“The idea was not to make any resistance,” Mankell said. “They were carrying machine guns. They came to the bridge and told us we had to go down. Some older people were a bit slower. One of them was attacked by an electric gun in his arm, very painful. Another was shot with a rubber bullet.”

Palestinians, backed by the United Nations and human- rights groups, say the restrictions on food imports and construction materials have created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel says it needs to control Gaza’s borders or Hamas will smuggle in material to make rockets and attack its territory.

“I thought the Israelis would use the navy to stop the convoy,” Mankell said. “But I thought they would do it nearer their territorial waters. I thought they would use force only against boats, not against people.”

Mankell, who is in Berlin to promote his new book, “The Troubled Man,” divides his time between Mozambique and Sweden. His wife, Eva Bergman, is a theater director and the daughter of the film director Ingmar Bergman, who died in July 2007.

The Wallander mysteries have sold more than 10 million copies worldwide, according to the website of his English- speaking fan club.
Author Henning Mankell Says Israel Committed Piracy (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Idyllic 06-03-2010 12:22 PM
And it is right and moral to attempt to beat the life out of a man who is doing his job because you want to protect the "aid" on a ship, how is that right or moral, "aid" that could have been delivered another day, another way, without all this conflict and death, why the hostility, what were these "passive," "free Gaza," "humanitarian loving," "activist" trying to prove here. The soldiers being beaten in these images herewith were doing their jobs, simple as that, we may not like their jobs, they may not like their jobs, but to be killed over a shipload of "aid" that could have been delivered without all this death and drama had the "activist" simply gone to the port offered, why did they even attack the soldiers at all, unless there were ulterior motives involved here. Had the "activist" wished to be truly blameless then they should have just stood there and let the soldiers shot them, but then the "activists" knew that without provocation the soldiers would not have shot them, hell, they didn't even wait to find out, had the "activists" been truly passive and without malicious intent, then they could have legitimately cried foul when they were being shot for not beating the shit out of the soldiers, don't you think?

dippin 06-03-2010 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794761)
And it is right and moral to attempt to beat the life out of a man who is doing his job because you want to protect the "aid" on a ship, how is that right or moral, "aid" that could have been delivered another day, another way, without all this conflict and death, why the hostility, what were these "passive," "free Gaza," "humanitarian loving," "activist" trying to prove here. The soldiers being beaten in these images herewith were doing their jobs, simple as that, we may not like their jobs, they may not like their jobs, but to be killed over a shipload of "aid" that could have been delivered without all this death and drama had the "activist" simply gone to the port offered, why did they even attack the soldiers at all, unless there were ulterior motives involved here. Had the "activist" wished to be truly blameless then they should have just stood there and let the soldiers shot them, but then the "activists" knew that without provocation the soldiers would not have shot them, hell, they didn't even wait to find out, had the "activists" been truly passive and without malicious intent, then they could have legitimately cried foul when they were being shot for not beating the shit out of the soldiers, don't you think?
No, the aid could not have been delivered another day, another way.

According to the Israeli military itself, the cargo of the ships included toys, wheel chairs, and construction material. All things which are on the list of items Israel has embargoed.

aceventura3 06-03-2010 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2794751)
Which again ignores the issue...
Sorry that I don't get your point. I agree murder is wrong - and should be punished. Use of excessive force is wrong and should be punished. Innocent people being killed when they are trying to do good is wrong.

However, if someone knowingly leads innocent people into a situation that results in their death that is also wrong.

Instigating violence is wrong. Hate is wrong. Wanting to eliminate people based on religion or nationality is wrong.

I want to live in a world of peace. I want freedom for all people. I want people judged on the content of their character.

The situation in the ME with Israel is wrong - peace loving people need to be proactive and actively work to bring peace in the region.

What do you want?

silent_jay 06-03-2010 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794761)
And it is right and moral to attempt to beat the life out of a man who is doing his job because you want to protect the "aid" on a ship, how is that right or moral, "aid" that could have been delivered another day, another way, without all this conflict and death, why the hostility, what were these "passive," "free Gaza," "humanitarian loving," "activist" trying to prove here.
You know Idyllic, for someone who says
Quote:
.but to condemn either side right now, especially based on this incidence, when bigger hands may be at play here using these "activists," as well as possibly the Palestinians, the Gazan peoples, as puppets, will solve nothing.
You sure do condemn one side more than the other in each and every one of your posts in this thread, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, and still using "activists" like they weren't activists, yet we're still waiting for proof of this that was asked for on page oe, when you first condemned them as 'hate filled animals' and implied they were terrorists.

rahl 06-03-2010 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794761)
And it is right and moral to attempt to beat the life out of a man who is doing his job because you want to protect the "aid" on a ship, how is that right or moral, "aid" that could have been delivered another day, another way, without all this conflict and death, why the hostility, what were these "passive," "free Gaza," "humanitarian loving," "activist" trying to prove here. The soldiers being beaten in these images herewith were doing their jobs, simple as that, we may not like their jobs, they may not like their jobs, but to be killed over a shipload of "aid" that could have been delivered without all this death and drama had the "activist" simply gone to the port offered, why did they even attack the soldiers at all, unless there were ulterior motives involved here. Had the "activist" wished to be truly blameless then they should have just stood there and let the soldiers shot them, but then the "activists" knew that without provocation the soldiers would not have shot them, hell, they didn't even wait to find out, had the "activists" been truly passive and without malicious intent, then they could have legitimately cried foul when they were being shot for not beating the shit out of the soldiers, don't you think?
Please just come out and say it. the people on the ship were terrorists "activists", they had military weapons "aid" aboard. then you won't have to keep using quotation marks.

and for the record, they "israeli's" weren't doing their job, if they were they would have stopped or boarded the ship in israeli waters. They did commit an act of piracy though.

Willravel 06-03-2010 12:38 PM
This is Furkan Dogan. He was 18 years old when this picture was taken in November of 2008. He was born in 1991 in New York, but later moved to Turkey with his family. He was studying social sciences in Turkey. He wanted to help people. Today, his body was returned from Israel with four bullet holes in his head and one in his chest, all from close range. No IDF commandos were killed and the ones injured are expected to make a full recovery.

What was he killed for? He volunteered to be on an aid ship challenging the blockade preventing necessary building materials, food, clothing, and medical supplies from getting to Gaza. He wanted to help people. When the IDF boarded the vessel, according to eyewitnesses, they opened fire almost immediately. There's no evidence Furkan was armed when he was executed (I use that word only because he was shot four times in the head and once in the chest by trained military commandos).

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl (Post 2794770)
Please just come out and say it. the people on the ship were terrorists "activists", they had military weapons "aid" aboard. then you won't have to keep using quotation marks.
Well, anyone who wants to free Gaza basically wants to free terrorists.

Amiright?

Xazy 06-03-2010 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by silent_jay (Post 2794767)
You know Idyllic, for someone who says

You sure do condemn one side more than the other in each and every one of your posts in this thread, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, and still using "activists" like they weren't activists, yet we're still waiting for proof of this that was asked for on page oe, when you first condemned them as 'hate filled animals' and implied they were terrorists.
Maybe because this one time out of a number of shipments they decided not to cooperate. And last few ships redirected by Israel had their aid all delivered peacefully. Maybe this shipment was out to make more of a statement no matter who got harmed rather then to just simply bring aid.

roachboy 06-03-2010 12:45 PM
or maybe the israelis fucked up this time.

what is so difficult to fathom about that?

Xazy 06-03-2010 12:46 PM
A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship. That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.

silent_jay 06-03-2010 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794776)
or maybe the israelis fucked up this time.

what is so difficult to fathom about that?
Isarelis, do something wrong, well that never happens, they're always in the right......

rahl 06-03-2010 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794777)
A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship. That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.
please cite these facts.

How does any of that justify piracy and murder again?

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794777)
A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005. And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship.
Don't individuals have a right to protect themselves from being fired upon and boarded in international waters?

Willravel 06-03-2010 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794777)
A country has a right to defend itself, if they are constantly under rocket fire, over 10000 since 2005.
There were 15 Israeli deaths from rocket fire between 2000 and 2008. Also, the flotilla didn't have any weapons on board, as was verified by the Turkish government. The IDF knew they didn't have weapons because the Turks were very public about their inspection. There were no rockets on the boat. There were no guns. When the people on the boat fought back against the attackers, they had to use kitchen knives and sticks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794777)
And the video I posted earlier and I have seen all show the soldiers being attacked upon boarding the ship.
But do you know why? The IDF started firing teargas and smoke bombs onto the main flotilla before boarding, and they hit a man in the head. That was the first attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xazy (Post 2794777)
That does not take in to account the fake videos of people being injured found on the ship, almost a million euro, and other facts that do not add up yet. Instead we all jump in and scream instead of waiting for the facts to piece together a whole picture.
You've clearly made up your mind on the issue without all the facts. Please do everyone the courtesy of following your own advice.

Idyllic 06-03-2010 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794758)
Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.

Quote:
The Swedish writer Henning Mankell, whose mysteries my wife adores, also uses the word apartheid, repeatedly. He went to the Palestine Festival of Literature and got an eyeful of the occupation, from Hebron to Jerusalem, and wrote a piece for Aftonbladet, translated here. Excerpt:

What I saw during my trip was obvious: the state of Israel in its current form has no future. Moreover, those who advocate a two-state solution have not got it right.

In 1948, the year of my birth, the state of Israel proclaimed its independence on occupied land. There are no reasons whatsoever to call that a legitimate intervention according to international law. What happened was that Israel simply occupied Palestinian land. And the amount of land under possession is constantly growing, with in the war in 1967, and with the increasing number of settlements today. Once in a while, a settlement is torn down. But it is just for show. Soon enough, it pops up somewhere else. A two-state solution will not be the end of the historical occupation.

The same thing will happen in Israel that happened in South Africa during the Apartheid regime. The question is whether it will be possible to talk sense into the Israelis in order for them to willingly accept the end of their own Apartheid state. Or if it this has to take place against their own will. Nor can anyone tell us when this will happen. The final insurrection will of course start from within. But emergent political changes in Syria or Egypt will contribute. Equally important is that, probably sooner than later, the United States no longer will afford to pay up for this horrible military force that prevents stone throwing youths from having a normal life in freedom.

When change is coming, each Israeli has to decide for him- or herself if he or she is prepared to give up their privileges and live in a Palestinian state. During my trip, I met no anti-Semitism. What I did see was hatred against the occupants that is completely normal and understandable. To keep these two things separate is crucial….

The state of Israel can only expect to be defeated, like all occupying powers. The Israelis are destroying lives. But they are not destroying dreams. The fall of this disgraceful Apartheid system is the only thing conceivable, because it must be.

The question, therefore, is not if but when it will happen. And in what way.
Let us all just pretend that nothing existed on this land prior to 1948, except the Palestinians, right? This man is totally biased against the state of Israel to begin with.

Quote:
Quote from Charles Krauthammer - The Weekly Standard, May 11, 1998

"Israel is the very embodiment of Jewish continuity: It is the only nation on earth that inhabits the same land, bears the same name, speaks the same language, and worships the same God that it did 3,000 years ago. You dig the soil and you find pottery from Davidic times, coins from Bar Kokhba, and 2,000-year-old scrolls written in a script remarkably like the one that today advertises ice cream at the corner candy store."

-------

3,000-2,000 B.C.
Early Bronze Age. Arrival and settlement of Canaanites (3,000-2,500 B.C.).
ca. 1,250 B.C.
Israelite conquest of Canaan.
965-928 B.C.
King Solomon. Construction of the temple in Jerusalem.
928 B.C.
Division of Israelite state into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

587 BCE Babylonian Destruction of the first Temple.
538-333 BCE Persian Return of the exiled Jews from Babylon and construction of the second Temple (520-515 BCE).
333-63 BCE Hellenistic Conquest of the region by the army of Alexander the Great (333 BCE). The Greeks generally allowed the Jews to run their state. But, during the rule of the king Antiochus IV, the Temple was desecrated. This brought about the revolt of the Maccabees, who established an independent rule. The related events are celebrated during the Hanukah holiday.
63 BCE-313 CE Roman The Roman army led by Titus conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple at 70 CE. Jewish people were then exiled and dispersed to the Diaspora. In 132, Bar Kokhba organized a revolt against Roman rule, but was killed in a battle in Bethar in Judean Hills. Subsequently the Romans decimated the Jewish community, renamed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and Judea as Palaestina to obliterate Jewish identification with the Land of Israel (the word Palestine, and the Arabic word Filastin originate from this Latin name).

The remaining Jewish community moved to northern towns in the Galilee. Around 200 CE the Sanhedrin was moved to Tsippori (Zippori, Sepphoris). The Head of Sanhedrin, Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi (Judah the Prince), compiled the Jewish oral law, Mishna.
313-636 Byzantine
636-1099 Arab Dome of the Rock was built by Caliph Abd el-Malik on the grounds of the destroyed Jewish Temple.
1099-1291 Crusaders The crusaders came from Europe to capture the Holy Land following an appeal by Pope Urban II, and massacred the non-Christian population. Later Jewish community in Jerusalem expanded by immigration of Jews from Europe.
1291-1516 Mamluk
1516-1918 Ottoman During the reign of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Population of the Jewish community in Jerusalem increased.
1917-1948 British Great Britain recognized the rights of the Jewish people to establish a "national home in Palestine". Yet they greatly curtailed entry of Jewish refugees into Israel even after World War II. They split Palestine mandate into an Arab state which has become the modern day Jordan, and Israel.
Who has been denied their home? 3,000 years old, one of the oldest collectively cultured peoples and religions known to mankind. Some of the oldest written words known to mankind come out of this religion. I don't think first matters anymore, a right to exist, however, does.

silent_jay 06-03-2010 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794786)
Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.
A lot of people don't approve of Israel's occupation, are we to just throw away their opinions on this issue? Again with the "" around words, it is an occupation, what else would you call it, a holiday, a prime posting?
Or is this like the "activists" where you're really saying they're terrorists yet hiding behind the quotation marks so if anyone calls oyu on it you can make something up to defend it without actually showing any proof what so ever to prove your claims.

The_Dunedan 06-03-2010 01:46 PM
Idyllic:

You might want to do more research into the history of Zionism. It's actually a very new idea compared to the long history of Judaism, and until WWII was largely regarded as a dangerous and unsanctified heresy. A significant portion of the Orthodox/Hasidic Jewish population -still- defines Zionism in those terms. Check these guys out:
True Torah Jews Against Zionism

They go into far more detail than I can here, but suffice it to say that until very recently, the political re-occupation of the Holy Land by the Jews was seen as effrontery to God: "We get the land back when the Messiah -gives- it back. Until then, it's not ours to give OR TAKE" was the essence of mainstream Jewish teaching until Theodore Herzl came along and turned 1800-ish years of Jewish tradition regarding the Holy Land on its' head.

Edited to add: I would have been all in favour of the Jews being given, say, Germany. Japan. Any piece thereof. Maybe Vichy France. The Germans and Japanese, after all, started the whole beastly mess and surrendered unconditionally after engaging in a series of war-crimes and crimes against humanity which have since set the standard for atrocity and scale of mass murder. The terms of the Treaty Of Versailles were ridiculous and unfair, but the problem of this humiliation was much worsened by the fact that Germany and Germans were allowed to believe that they had not been defeated. Japan, in particular, could probably do with the sorts of improvements that would have come at that point with the arrival of several hundred thousand armed and very pissed-off settlers supported by the US military. I'm sure Stalin would have been happy to get the Soviet Jews off his hands as well. Maybe the creation of something like Israel in the land of people who actually had it coming would have convinced the Japanese that after being caught raping entire cities, and after having had two cities vaporised, they were this time going to learn to goddamnedbehaveorelse. This would include, among other things, not erecting statues of generals responsible for horrors such as Nanking, along with bothering to teach their schoolchildren more about WWII (and how the Japanese Empire came to be involved) than just "there was a war, and then the Americans dropped two horrible atomic bombs and killed lots and lots of innocent people."

dippin 06-03-2010 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2794786)
Henning Mankell does not approve of the Israelis "occupation" of Palestine anyway, why would anyone who believes that Israel has a right to exist at all care what he thinks.



Let us all just pretend that nothing existed on this land prior to 1948, except the Palestinians, right? This man is totally biased against the state of Israel to begin with.



Who has been denied their home? 3,000 years old, one of the oldest collectively cultured peoples and religions known to mankind. Some of the oldest written words known to mankind come out of this religion. I don't think first matters anymore, a right to exist, however, does.
You do know that being against the occupation of Palestinian territories is not the same as saying that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, right?

This is more of the ridiculous binary thinking: if you are against the eviction without recourse of Palestinians, the establishment of Jewish-only roads, the restriction of Palestinian access to water, and a blockade that keeps even basic necessities out, then you must be for terrorism and the destruction of Israel.

Of course, that is bullshit, but apparently some people refuse to move beyond that.

ring 06-03-2010 02:23 PM
Idyllic: Many of the posters in this thread are demonstrating an amazing
amount of patience & understanding with your ignorance. (lack of knowledge)

Please check out the links regarding the history, that others have provided.

Idyllic 06-03-2010 08:10 PM

Baraka_Guru 06-03-2010 08:50 PM

roachboy 06-04-2010 03:40 AM
Quote:
I don't write poems but, in any case, poems are not poems.

Long ago, I was made to understand that Palestine was not Palestine;
I was also informed that Palestinians were not Palestinians;
They also explained to me that ethnic cleansing was not ethnic cleansing.
And when naive old me saw freedom fighters they patiently showed me that they were not freedom fighters, and that resistance was not resistance.
And when, stupidly, I noticed arrogance, oppression and humiliation they benevolently enlightened me so I can see that arrogance was not arrogance, oppression was not oppression, and humiliation was not humiliation.

I saw misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
But they told me that they were experts in misery, racism, inhumanity and concentration camps and I have to take their word for it: this was not misery, racism, inhumanity and a concentration camp.
Over the years they've taught me so many things: invasion was not invasion, occupation was not occupation, colonialism was not colonialism and apartheid was not apartheid.

They opened my simple mind to even more complex truths that my poor brain could not on its own compute like: "having nuclear weapons" was not "having nuclear weapons," "not having weapons of mass destruction" was "having weapons of mass destruction."

And, democracy (in the Gaza Strip) was not democracy.
Having second class citizens (in Israel) was democracy.
So you'll excuse me if I am not surprised to learn today that there were more things that I thought were evident that are not: peace activists are not peace activists, piracy is not piracy, the massacre of unarmed people is not the massacre of unarmed people.

I have such a limited brain and my ignorance is unlimited.
And they're so fucking intelligent. Really.

Ghassan Hage is professor of anthropology and social theory at the University of Melbourne.
ei: A massacre is not a massacre

aceventura3 06-04-2010 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2794771)
This is Furkan Dogan.

What was he killed for?
Given three categories:

One, those who are concerned about the about Palestinian people, their needs and rights.

Two, those who are concerned about the Palestinian people, their needs and rights - also with a dislike of Israel and the way Israel is handling the issue.

Three, those who simply hate Israel and want it eliminated off of the face of the earth.

I think most people involved with running the blockade fit into categories one and two. However, and I don't know what portion, there are some in category three. Category three is the problem. Category three is the reason there was violence.

Given an old, passive, toothless dog, if you trigger the survival response (SR), violent action will result. Worse, if you have young, testosterone loaded males, with guns, trained to kill and SR's are triggered, people will die and get hurt.

Reasonable people have to consider this question - Are my odds of avoiding death and the death of others increased or decreased by triggering the SR's or heightening the SR's in those being confronted?

Who lead these people?
What was their intent? Goal?
What did they think would happen?
Were they actually surprised by the result?

I can understand young and naive people getting caught up in the moment and doing unwise things, but I can not understand those who would lead others into this without clearly explaining the risks. If the risks were known, the innocent are not so innocent. If the risks were not known, I don't know what to say about that, but they know now.

roachboy 06-04-2010 07:24 AM
no, ace. that's not the problem. your imaginary 3rd category of people who you imagine were on an imaginary version of the flotilla. this is much more accurate as an explanation for the problem:

Quote:
Israel’s commando complex
Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a 'propaganda problem.'
By Doron Rosenblum Tags: Gaza flotilla Gaza Hamas IDF

It’s impossible to understand or explain Israel’s passive-aggressive responses to the “flotilla crisis” without reference to the ground from which its current leaders emerged. Both the prime minister and the defense minister are dyed-in-the-wool “creatures of military operations.” Both were steeped in the instant-heroism mentality and the commando spirit − the ethos in which a military force shows up at the height of a crisis like a deus ex machina and in a single stroke slices through the Gordian knot.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s public image grew out of the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sabena passenger plane, during which he was seen standing on the wing of the aircraft waving his pistol. And one cannot imagine the political career of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu without Operation Entebbe and the myth-cloaked death of his brother Yoni − a mission so glorious and electrifying that its inspiring charge alone could turn his brother into a star, both as “Mr. Terror” and as a veteran of Sayeret Matkal, the Israel Defense Forces general staff’s elite special-operations force.

Those 1970s rescue operations were seen as the continuation of the largest and most miraculous one of all, the Six-Day War. Although decades have passed since the moral “high” was injected into our veins our leaders have never stopped trying to reconstruct it in order to atone for their ineffectiveness as statesmen. And the greater the number of successive failed missions, the greater the longing for the next redemptive mission that would “heal” the trauma and the bad trip of its predecessor. The next “jackpot” always appeared to be around the corner: if not in Lebanon, then in Gaza; if not in Gaza, then in Iran.

Netanyahu and Barak came into power for the second time, despite each man’s record of failure, on the wings of two contradictory, or complementary, hopes: First, that in combination they would deliver the goods and create the redemptive “operation to end all operations,” the smartest one of all. Second, that they of all people − and not civilian leaders such as Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres or Amir Peretz, who felt a need to overreact militarily − could gain the maturity necessary for an act of diplomatic courage. But so far they haven’t fulfilled either hope. They have demonstrated both a total absence of courage and inspiration in the diplomatic sphere and an absence of creativity in the use of force. So what’s left?

The failure of the flotilla operation is less troubling than the national “jonesing” that has followed it: the frenetic flitting between the poles of reflexive victimhood − Oy oy oy they resisted, they had knives, swords and other weapons, the activists who were killed were “big-bodied” − and of inert heroism ‏(praise for the restraint and sensitivity that resulted in only nine and not 600 deaths; the desperate attempt to cling to the vestiges of the myths of military prowess and the increased stifling of criticism with the slogan “Quiet, we’re saluting”‏). All of these, together with a great sense of missed opportunity: the illusion that a “successful” operation − difficult to define and to imagine in any event − would have relieved, even temporarily, a certain existential angst.

All these responses were more intense this week, although in fact they are constant. They are the responses of addicts who are repeatedly denied their fix: the perfect IDF “operation,” or the decisive war, which will stifle any question and complaints ‏(and any need for statesmanship‏).

Some point to a sea change in the Palestinian, and even the Hamas, leadership, saying that they have finally discovered the advantages of propaganda and statesmanship over violence and terror. Instead of encouraging and wholeheartedly adopting this approach, Israel, which hasn’t changed its thought patterns for decades, is “caught by surprise” and even dismayed. ‏(Recently an intelligence official actually called the absence of Palestinian terror a “propaganda problem”‏). In the absence of statesmanship, all Israel can offer is another clumsy operation in which it comes off looking like some relic from the 1970s and ‘80s with a commando knife between its teeth. Even worse: It looks like Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, Moshe Ya’alon and all the rest.

Israel has always complained, condescendingly, that the neighbors it is forced to deal with are Arabs rather than “Norwegians and Swedes.” Now, when it is dealing with Europeans and the entire world, Israel can see how it itself is perceived − and to blush furiously. If it still can.
Israel?s commando complex - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News


o yeah, the rachel corrie is due to get to israeli waters in about 24 hours.
israel is trying to get the ship to go to ashdod.
the rachel corrie has no plans of making any stops other than gaza.

Israel: We don't want a confrontation with Gaza-bound ship 'Rachel Corrie' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

so this ain't over.

ring 06-04-2010 07:30 AM
Israel's current government leaders are also nervous about maintaining
their 'don't ask, don't tell' position regarding their nuclear weapons, & NPT status.

But that could & probably should be a topic for another thread.

aceventura3 06-04-2010 07:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794935)
no, ace. that's not the problem. your imaginary 3rd category of people who you imagine were on an imaginary version of the flotilla. this is much more accurate as an explanation for the problem:
I am not clear on what you have a problem with. Are you suggesting there is no category three? Are you saying there is a category three, but they were not involved in this? How do you know, either way?

What is your explanation for the excessive risk taken by those running the blockade? Do you think they did not expect there was risk? There are many simple core questions that are not being addressed in my view - when I give thought to theses questions, I can only conclude, the matter was staged.

And to be clear, just because it was staged is not a judgment on it being "good" or "bad", that is another question. "staged" events can deliver results, but it is what it is. I think we can be honest and call things what they actually are, and if we do that we (not you and me but everyone interested in resolving conflict in the ME) can move on to bigger and broader issues.

roachboy 06-04-2010 07:42 AM
ace, i have no interest in debating your imaginary entities, your curious hypotheticals because i don't see either the need for them analytically or the interest of ceding a question of fact to one of aceventura's imaginings.

if you actually read the piece from ha'artez i copied, you'd see that the terrain worth focusing on is almost the opposite of yours, and this not only in the sense empirical world/ace's imagination, but also in the sense set into motion by the subheading of the piece, which i'll leave it to you to scroll way back up there and find.

i'm also not interested in your notion of "excessive risk" being run by the activists. the idf raided the boat in international waters well before there was any reason to assume "Excessive risk"---at the point the ships crossed into gazan waters, the rationale would be like that which obtains for any other act of non-violent civil disobedience.

this is not rocket science, ace.

aceventura3 06-04-2010 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794948)
ace, i have no interest in debating your imaginary entities, your curious hypotheticals because i don't see either the need for them analytically or the interest of ceding a question of fact to one of aceventura's imaginings.

if you actually read the piece from ha'artez i copied, you'd see that the terrain worth focusing on is almost the opposite of yours, and this not only in the sense empirical world/ace's imagination, but also in the sense set into motion by the subheading of the piece, which i'll leave it to you to scroll way back up there and find.

i'm also not interested in your notion of "excessive risk" being run by the activists. the idf raided the boat in international waters well before there was any reason to assume "Excessive risk"---at the point the ships crossed into gazan waters, the rationale would be like that which obtains for any other act of non-violent civil disobedience.

this is not rocket science, ace.
Simple questions.

Reminds me of a quote from Schopenhaur:

"All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Dude, the event was staged. Those who lead were not surprised by what occurred, they expected it. Regardless of one's position on the politics of the issue, the event was staged. So the next questions are by who and why?

roachboy 06-04-2010 08:22 AM
staged. you mean organized as an act of civil disobedience? for non-violent actions to be other than a simple massacre there has to be attention. there has to be publicity, has to be exposure. it's because of the exposure that the maladroit execise of power looses. and that is what the idf did.

i don't think anyone set out to fuck up. but they did. and there's little sense in trying to locate some absurd conspiracy behind the scenes to stand all the little soldiers back up again.

the reason they launched the raid is pretty well summed up in the article above, i think...at the level of political generalities anyway. at the level of who made what decision when and how they combined to generate debacle for israel, that's still being handed around.

but the bottom line here is the siege of gaza. if that siege were not in place, none of this would be happening. it's about defending the siege. what you are doing by attempting to concoct some absurd conspiracy to explain why the idf had to murder 10 unarmed people in international waters is to divert attention away from the problem.

the israelis have brutalized the people of gaza for 3 years.
because they did not like the way an open election turned out, they decided to collectively punish a civilian population.

that's the problem behind all this.

powerclown 06-04-2010 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794983)
hamas have brutalized the people of gaza for 3 years.
Fixed.

If the 'siege' were not in place, Iran et al would be shipping in arms to Hamas by the ton for the sole purpose of attacking Israel. This particular flotilla was organized by an islamic extremist group based in Turkey, thats some coincidence. The blockade needs to stay up until Hamas recognizes Israels right to exist and ceases it plans for its destruction. Thre is a reason why there have been no suicide bombings in Israel the past few years and it has nothing to do with Hamas not trying.

roachboy 06-04-2010 08:59 AM
right powerclown. so collective punishment for an election result you don't like is education in correct conduct and the massacre of 1500 civilians a bit of tough love and up is down and white is black and so it is in the rigid little world of people who imagine that supporting israel means justifying every last thing israel does, no matter how misguided, no matter how brutal (occupation anyone? colonialism anyone?) or self-defeating.

you got a hotline to AIPAC?
you never fail to repeat their line.
is eerie.
fixed maybe.

powerclown 06-04-2010 09:13 AM
The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.

dippin 06-04-2010 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2795006)
The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.
Maybe because Israel bans every other country from doing so. And "humanitarian aid' here is very loosely defined. I've posted the list of banned items before. They are common knowledge at this point. Why do people still insist on the "blockade is keeping weapons out" argument?

The_Dunedan 06-04-2010 09:31 AM
The problem, PC, is that the aid wouldn't be needed in the first place if Israel hadn't turned Gaza into something like Warsaw, 1941: a walled-off disease farm where people exist on starvation rations or the near equivalent.

Look, this is Israel we're dealing with. Home of Mossad and Shin Bet. If two of the premier intelligence/counter-terrorism formations in the world can't figure out how to whack the leadership of a terrorist organization that is already pinned in place, they've fallen a long, bumpy way. If Hamas is a problem, I'm fully in favour of taking out their leadership. Hell, whack the leadership and a few firstborne sons, go Russian on their asses. Then make sure the next generation of Hamas/Fatah/whoever-takes-over gets the picture. Play ball, and you get to live. Get froggy with the rockets and suicide bombers, and get ready to die choking on your own cock, while somebody else who's probably smarter than you takes your spot in the Organization and the Government. Anybody who orders the launching of rockets against civilians deserves whatever flavour of nasty comes calling. But punishing the entire population of Gaza for the actions of their government is ridiculous. Garishly punishing the givers of orders while leaving the rest of the population unmolested, however, strikes me as a very effective means of achieving Israel's desired ends: security from Hamas attacks and a socially-integrable Palestinian population. This current silliness, OTOH, is counterproductive at best and is rapidly turning into an albatross.

roachboy 06-04-2010 09:40 AM
except that the israeli military and the political right/ultra-right need that command structure to plausibly be in place because it allows for the marketing of the Cause in the way it is marketed.

for example, if you don't want to make any meaningful progress with the west bank because it will inevitably mean dismantling the settlements, then the myth of a symmetrical conflict is useful. that's it's obviously entirely false is beside the point. reality is always secondary in these matters.

the fate of the ultra-right is directly at stake in this, and that of the political right is by extension.

your position presupposes that there's actually an interest in taking out hamas. there isn't any such interest. the only thing that interested the israeli right less than that was allowing hamas to govern, so to moderate. that would have been bad bad bad. whence the siege.

Baraka_Guru 06-04-2010 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2795006)
Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies.
Quote:
Is Hamas only a terrorist group?

No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations

This helps explain why Hamas became popular enough to get elected. People seem to only know about Hamas' militant aspect.

Quote:
Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.
Yes, and this is because of Israel, as is obvious, and it's down to 100 truckloads a day (with an item variety of only 74), compared to well over a dozen times that before the siege.

Do you deny that Gaza is facing a humanitarian crisis?

hiredgun 06-04-2010 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown (Post 2795006)
The fact remains that very few countries around the world recognize or correspond with Hamas, so I wouldn't be so quick to put this on the United States. Hamas has done nothing to improve the plight of their people, on the contrary they keep them in misery with their extremist policies. Do you know how many countries ship in truckloads of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a daily basis? One: Israel.
This is like saying that a jailer should be lauded for providing food for his prisoners. Yes, the Israelis are to some degree discharging their responsibility for the civilians trapped in their siege. That doesn't imply that the siege itself is hunky-dory, that it is justified, and most importantly, that it is strategically effective in any way.

Willravel 06-04-2010 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2794933)
Given three categories:

One, those who are concerned about the about Palestinian people, their needs and rights.

Two, those who are concerned about the Palestinian people, their needs and rights - also with a dislike of Israel and the way Israel is handling the issue.

Three, those who simply hate Israel and want it eliminated off of the face of the earth.

I think most people involved with running the blockade fit into categories one and two. However, and I don't know what portion, there are some in category three. Category three is the problem. Category three is the reason there was violence.
Hold on just a second, I think we may be operating with different information. The civilians captured, taken to Israel, and released have started to give their eyewitness accounts of what happened, and all of them, without exception, say IDF opened fire before landing on the flotilla... not just with teargas and smoke grenades as I previously posted, but with suppressive fire that hit some of the humanitarians. There's already been write-ups about this in the NYT, Guardian, and elsewhere, starting about mid-day yesterday. IDF naval forces opened fire with live rounds before anyone on the aid ships could have possibly done anything to instigate violence other than sailing for Gaza, which isn't an instigation of violence but belligerence.

While I suppose it's certainly possible some people on those aid ships are the third type you describe (though, seriously, as someone relatively active in the Palestinian freedom movement, these people are exceedingly rare), I'm not entirely sure it matters in this specific instance. The violence on the flotilla as the IDF forces foolishly repeled into a crowd was a direct response to the shooting of unarmed civilians, not the other way around. If that wasn't bad enough, the IDF commandos that landed also opened fire. This is when the American citizen from Turkey had 4 shots to the head and one to the chest all from short range.

With all due respect, I cannot see how anyone could be trying to justify the actions of the IDF under orders from Israeli officials given the available information.

Here is a link to the NYT article, in which witnesses attested to the actual timeline of events.

Baraka_Guru 06-04-2010 12:17 PM
Will, much of the problem is this:
Israeli PR machine won Gaza flotilla media battle | Antony Lerman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Idyllic 06-04-2010 12:18 PM
Quote:
A flotilla smoke screen?
By JONATHAN SPYER
06/04/2010 12:33

The world condemns Israel for the deadly raid on the Mavi Marmara, ignoring the growing threat of radical Islam.
The international reaction to the events surrounding the Gaza flotilla this week reflects the growing divide between the real strategic situation facing the Middle East, and a strange “virtual” conflict conjured up by Islamist propagandists for consumption by their Western dupes. The emergence and proliferation of this latter perception is testimony both to the tireless, skillful and fervent activity of Islamist ideologues and organizations, and to the profound credulity of considerable sections of Western public opinion.

What happened on the flotilla is a product of the growing Islamization of regional politics and, it appears, the failure of Israeli planners to develop a coherent response to this. The Turkish IHH group (Insani Yardim Vakfi – Humanitarian Relief Foundation), which sponsored the Mavi Marmara, is a grouping connected to the global Muslim Brotherhood. Going back to the 1990s, it has engaged in facilitating the journeys of young Islamists to some of the hottest fronts of the international jihad: to Afghanistan, and before that to Chechnya and Bosnia.
Like other organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, IHH is openly and unambiguously opposed to the existence of Israel, and is keen to assist Islamist organizations seeking to destroy it.

IHH has read the zeitgeist of the early 21st century well. It seeks to combine a superficial commitment to “human rights” and the mantle of victimhood, with support for Islamist militancy against the West. These aspects, and the contradiction between them, have been very much in evidence this week.

Journalists who covered the previous “aid convoy” to Gaza – George Galloway’s over-ground Viva Palestina extravaganza last year – were among the groups least surprised by the week’s events. On that convoy, there was a very notable divide between young, Western leftist participants, and a hard-core group of Turkish Islamists, who openly proclaimed their commitment to jihad and fighting Israel. The Turkish Islamist contingent was there courtesy of IHH.

The latter group were centrally involved in the clashes with Egyptian security forces on the southern Gaza border at that time, in which one Egyptian policeman was killed. Western participants in the convoy, some of whose genuine naivete and out-of-placeness in the Middle East cannot be overstated, were afraid and depressed by their unexpected companions.

It remains a mystery as to how the Israeli authorities remained unaware of this very significant divide between the participants in the flotilla. The Turkish Islamists came to fight in an ongoing conflict whose aims and dimensions they understood with perfect clarity. This may be ascertained by their preparations, their actions and by statements made by them prior to the events.

AT FIRST glance, it appears that simple ignorance of this situation led to the inadequate planning that resulted in what happened on the ship. In the usual Israeli fashion, poor preparation was to some degree offset by the rapid adjustment and skillful performance of the naval commandos. Still, it is to be hoped and expected that the following item of knowledge will now penetrate the awareness of the security establishment: What took place on the decks of the Mavi Marmara was a skirmish in the Israel-Islamist conflict.

The meeting between the ambitions of Islamist states such as Iran from above, and the genuine and massive energies from below that are being generated by Islamist movements form the engine behind this conflict. The Hamas enclave in Gaza is the distant, furthest west outpost of the Iranian-led regional Islamist bloc.

The IHH activists wanted to open the sea road to Gaza. Their purpose was not humanitarian. As has been seen, the Hamas authorities have rejected the rapid entry into the Strip of the paltry aid brought by the convoy. Rather, it was strategic. They hoped to break Gaza’s isolation, and allow the blighted Strip to flourish – as an armed camp pointed at the Jewish state and as an example of Islamic governance.

They have not yet succeeded in this. They have, however, scored an achievement in their accompanying goal of deepening the diplomatic solitude of Israel.

Such were the plans of the Islamist element on the Mavi Marmara, and of the IHH organizers behind them.

In much of the West, there is a flat refusal to engage with or internalize this reality. Instead, an avalanche of copy and media coverage was generated by the events in which Israel’s concerns were seen as utterly inexplicable, the Islamist militants on the ship were depicted as peace-loving humanitarians and it was suggested that sanctions against Israel would be the best way to solve the problem.

What is perhaps chiefly ironic in the situation is that the Western lack of awareness of what is really taking place in the Middle East may even have been mirrored by the Israeli planners who failed to note the difference between Islamist militants and Western fellow travelers. But whether or not that was the case, the Western response to these events reflects a profound disconnect between perception and reality in relation to the region. The establishment of this disconnect is one of the chief strategic achievements of the Islamist side.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Iran, the chief beneficiary of Western and Israeli confusion, this week announced its determination to continue enriching uranium to 20 percent and beyond. Iranian official Ali Asghar Soltanieh casually dismissed the possibility that proposed sanctions would divert Teheran from its course. He also refused to commit to abandoning enrichment, even if the proposed Turkish-Brazilian fuel swap deal were implemented.

This item was buried at the bottom of the front page on the Reuters Web site, below a report of a cyclone off the coast of Oman. The main headline, at the top of the page and accompanied by a large photograph, was on Binyamin Netanyahu’s opposition to an international inquiry into the Mavi Marmara events. The news agenda suits the aims of the Teheran regime and its allies perfectly. The real business proceeds quietly, while the world remains diverted by the noisy sound and light show 1,500 kilometers to the west.

The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
Words from the website listed above, Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations wherein it is these words, quoted below, that far surpass the “humanitarian” action of hamas for their own people, considering that if they just accepted Israel’s right to exist and stopped the persecution and killing of Jews and real non-combatant innocents (people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period), then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants. If I were a tyrannical autocratic theocracy, using my people to shield me and to die for me and to “expose” my enemy as some ruthless tyrants I would want them to love me enough to at least make it look like I really give a shit about their welfare, when in actuality the only thing they care about is the destruction of Israel and all Israelis, and next all infidels who stand against the regimes based on extreme fundamental Islam.

Quote:
What is Hamas?
Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement. In January 2006, the group won the Palestinian Authority's (PA) general legislative elections, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA's president, Mahmoud Abbas, and setting the stage for a power struggle. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions. Historically, Hamas has sponsored an extensive social service network. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

What are Hamas’s origins?
Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization founded in Egypt with branches throughout the Arab world. Beginning in the late 1960s, Hamas's founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, preached and did charitable work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which were occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1973, Yassin established al-Mujamma' al-Islami (the Islamic Center) to coordinate the Muslim Brotherhood's political activities in Gaza. Yassin founded Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood's local political arm in December 1987, following the eruption of the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.
The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

Where does Hamas operate?
Historically, Hamas has operated as an opposition group in Gaza, the West Bank, and inside Israel. Most of the population of Gaza and the West Bank is officially ruled by the Palestinian Authority government, so Hamas’ new role as the legislature’s controlling party has forced the group to reconsider the function and scope of its operations. For instance, since taking power in 2006, Hamas leaders have embarked on several diplomatic visits throughout the region. Early on, some observers hoped that political legitimacy—and the accountability that comes with it—could wean Hamas away from violence. But to date, the group has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist. In the summer of 2007, Hamas tensions with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah man, came to a head and Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank. The result was a de facto geographic division of Palestinian-held territory, with Hamas holding sway in Gaza and Fatah maintaining the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Egyptian efforts to reconcile the two factions have come to nothing.
Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border, sometimes producing casualties. Israel consistently alleged that Iranian and other weapons were being smuggled into Gaza through a series of tunnels, and with Egypt maintained tight control on the enclaves borders. International aid agencies say this led to severe shortages. A six-month ceasefire calmed things somewhat in 2008, but toward the end of the year, Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. The response was an air assault in late December and, in the first week of 2009, a full blown Israeli invasion of the territory.

In what does Hamas believe and what are its goals?
Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the PA with an Islamist state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raising "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." Its leaders have called suicide attacks the "F-16" of the Palestinian people. In July 2009, Khaled Meshaal said Hamas was willing to cooperate with the United States (WSJ) on promoting a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas, he said, would accept a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders provided Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel and East Jerusalem be recognized as the Palestinian capital. The proposal fell short of recognizing the state of Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks.

Is Hamas only a terrorist group?
No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. Indeed, the extensive social and political work done by Hamas - and its reputation among Palestinians as averse to corruption - partly explain its defeat of the Fatah old guard in the 2006 legislative vote. Hamas funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services, and Hamas's efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.

How big is Hamas?
Hamas’s military wing is believed to have more than one thousand active members and thousands of supporters and sympathizers. On March 22, 2004, more than two hundred thousand Palestinians are estimated to have marched in Yassin’s funeral. On April 18, 2004, a similar number publicly mourned the death of Rantisi.
Where does Hamas’s money come from?
Since its electoral victory to lead the PA, Hamas has had public funds at its disposal, though it does not have access to the foreign-aid dollars traditionally provided by the United States and European Union to the PA. Historically, much of Hamas's funding came from Palestinian expatriates and private donors in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Iran also provides significant support, which some diplomats say could amount to $20 million to $30 million per year. In addition, some Muslim charities in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe funnel money into Hamas-backed social service groups. In December 2001, the Bush administration seized the assets of the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Muslim charity in the United States, on suspicions it was funding Hamas.

What attacks is Hamas responsible for?
Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

How does Hamas recruit and train suicide bombers?
The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older. The recruits do not fit the usual psychological profile of suicidal people, who are often desperate or clinically depressed. Hamas bombers often hold paying jobs, even in poverty-stricken Gaza. What they have in common, studies say, is an intense hatred of Israel. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.
The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Is Hamas popular among Palestinians?
According to Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, in late 2006 Hamas still enjoyed public backing, though most Palestinians also wanted to see a negotiated settlement with Israel. According to Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, the U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Territories, brutal internal clashes in Gaza have caused Hamas to lose some goodwill among Palestinians. In fact, the group has a history of fluctuating approval: Following the collapse of the peace process in the late 1990s, Hamas’ popularity rose as Arafat’s fell. In the spring of 2002, during a period of intensified armed conflict between Israeli security forces and Hamas militants, polls showed that Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO and the Islamists each commanded support from roughly 30 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (the remaining Palestinians were either independent, undecided, or supported other factions). But trust in Hamas reportedly dropped in 2004. In a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC) after Arafat's death, 18.6 percent of Palestinians named Hamas as the Palestinian faction they most trusted, down from 23 percent a year earlier. Hamas experienced a short-lived spike in popularity after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005; after a rocket explosion at a Hamas rally September 23, 2005, killed fifteen people, Hamas blamed Israel and launched rocket attacks against it. Israel retaliated with punitive air strikes, which Palestinians blamed Hamas for provoking. The explosion was revealed to be an accident. In late 2008 and early 2009, during another violent flare up which resulted in Israeli land raids into the Gaza Strip, several news agencies reported that Hamas' popularity had stayed constant or even increased. By the end of June, public support for Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell again to 18.8 percent, according to recent JMCC polls.
Facts found within the above information;

1. Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement.

2. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions.

3. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets.

4. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel.

5. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

6. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.

7. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

8. hamas has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist.

9. In the summer of 2007, Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank.

10. Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border.

11. Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. Which led to the dec08/jan09 invasion by Israel.

12. Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.

13. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire.

14. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

15. The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older.

16. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.

17. The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.” How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!

dippin 06-04-2010 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2795052)
Words from the website listed above, Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations wherein it is these words, quoted below, that far surpass the “humanitarian” action of hamas for their own people, considering that if they just accepted Israel’s right to exist and stopped the persecution and killing of Jews and real non-combatant innocents (people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period), then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants. If I were a tyrannical autocratic theocracy, using my people to shield me and to die for me and to “expose” my enemy as some ruthless tyrants I would want them to love me enough to at least make it look like I really give a shit about their welfare, when in actuality the only thing they care about is the destruction of Israel and all Israelis, and next all infidels who stand against the regimes based on extreme fundamental Islam.



Facts found within the above information;

1. Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement.

2. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions.

3. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets.

4. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel.

5. In Arabic, the word "hamas" means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for "Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya," or Islamic Resistance Movement.

6. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence.

7. The first Hamas suicide bombing took place in April 1993.

8. hamas has refused to eschew violence and remains adamant about reversing the decision by its rival faction, the more secular Fatah movement, to recognize Israel's right to exist.

9. In the summer of 2007, Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank.

10. Since coming to power in Gaza, rockets fired from the Hamas enclave have consistently landed on Israeli cities near the border.

11. Hamas called off the truce and resumed firing rockets into Israel. Which led to the dec08/jan09 invasion by Israel.

12. Hamas is believed to have killed more than five hundred people in more than 350 separate terrorist attacks since 1993.

13. Not all Hamas's attacks have been carried out by suicide bombers. The group has also accepted responsibility for assaults using mortars, short-range rockets, and small arms fire.

14. In 1996, Hamas bombings played an important role in undermining the election hopes of Labor Party leader Shimon Peres, who represented the succession to assassinated Oslo Accords signatory, Yitzhak Rabin. (Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, who ran against the accords, won instead). Between 2001 and 2003, in particular, Hamas and its comrades of Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out dozens of such attacks, ultimately leading Israel to begin construction of a barrier between itself and Palestinian regions.

15. The organization generally targets deeply religious young men—although some bombers have been older.

16. After a bombing, Hamas gives the family of the suicide bomber between three thousand dollars and five thousand dollars and assures them their son died a martyr in holy jihad.

17. The recruits undergo intense religious indoctrination, attend lectures, and undertake long fasts. The week before the bombing, the volunteers are watched closely by two Hamas activists for any signs of wavering, according to Nasra Hassan, writing in the New Yorker. Shortly before the "sacred explosion," as Hamas calls it, the bomber records a video testament. To draw inspiration, he repeatedly watches his video and those made by his predecessors and then sets off for his would-be martyrdom after performing a ritual ablution and donning clean clothes. Hamas clerics assure the bombers their deaths will be painless and that dozens of virgins await them in paradise. The average bombing costs about $150.

Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.” How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!
Quote:
This is more of the ridiculous binary thinking: if you are against the eviction without recourse of Palestinians, the establishment of Jewish-only roads, the restriction of Palestinian access to water, and a blockade that keeps even basic necessities out, then you must be for terrorism and the destruction of Israel.

silent_jay 06-04-2010 12:50 PM
Quote:
(people who are not carrying chains, and metal poles, and flash grenades, and knives…. using these things as weapons makes you an armed combatant, period)
Are you ever going to show proof the activists on the ship were terrorists, or are you just going to keep this circle jerk of implying it going repeatedly?
Quote:
then the issues between Palestine and Israel would begin to smooth over and the two, Palestinians and Israelis, could find ways to work together, as this IS what Israel wants.
You sure do assume to know what Israel wants a lot, and for someone who said earlier that passing blame on this incident at the moment is too soon, you sure do pass blame at every opportunity, you're just all over the place on this one, one minute they're "activists"(terrorists even though you won't come right out and say it), then it's don't pass blame, yet you blame the activists from your first post when you called them 'hate filled animals', really Idyllic, you're all over the place, and talkign out both sides of your mouth, it sure would be nice to get a straight response from you other than these implied terms, then you feigning ignorance when you're called on it.

Baraka_Guru 06-04-2010 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idyllic (Post 2795052)
Yes, hamas are very good people, they treat their constituents well, they “fund” them and keep them feed and happy with their 70 million a year help, what good would being in Gaza do if they lost all there would be bombers er.. scratch that, “support.”
I'm not defending Hamas; I'm pointing out the broader scope of what they really are, unlike you who would rather wag the dog.

Quote:
How many suicide bombers at 3 to 5 thousand plus 150 dollars each, can 70 million buy? A lot!
At least 13,592 a year. That's 37 a day. What's your point?

Never mind, because it was completely lost.

I could list the law and human rights violations conducted by Israel, but that wouldn't be the point here. We're not watching a scoreboard. We're not keeping a tally.

aceventura3 06-04-2010 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2795049)
Hold on just a second, I think we may be operating with different information. The civilians captured, taken to Israel, and released have started to give their eyewitness accounts of what happened, and all of them, without exception, say IDF opened fire before landing on the flotilla... not just with teargas and smoke grenades as I previously posted, but with suppressive fire that hit some of the humanitarians.
I don't know what happened and the truth may prove elusive because even eye witnesses may not know the whole story. I stand by the points in my post. I acknowledge that there may have been innocent victims. I acknowledge that people on both sides may have over-reacted given their SR's. But, the simple questions remain on the table in my opinion and I still come to the same conclusions.

Quote:
There's already been write-ups about this in the NYT, Guardian, and elsewhere, starting about mid-day yesterday. IDF naval forces opened fire with live rounds before anyone on the aid ships could have possibly done anything to instigate violence other than sailing for Gaza, which isn't an instigation of violence but belligerence.
Why go in guns blazing on this one ship? If what you share is true, we are talking cold blooded murder. Do you think the Israeli government authorized this act of potential murder as described or was it a case of individuals over-reacting?

Quote:
While I suppose it's certainly possible some people on those aid ships are the third type you describe (though, seriously, as someone relatively active in the Palestinian freedom movement, these people are exceedingly rare), I'm not entirely sure it matters in this specific instance. The violence on the flotilla as the IDF forces foolishly repeled into a crowd was a direct response to the shooting of unarmed civilians, not the other way around. If that wasn't bad enough, the IDF commandos that landed also opened fire. This is when the American citizen from Turkey had 4 shots to the head and one to the chest all from short range.
Again, a fundamental question is why would they take the high risk of challenging trained military (trained to kill), in the dark, with a radio response of defiance, with innocent people on-board (aged and children), and not be prepared for a potential violent response? They had to be prepared for this, or they expect us to accept the unbelievable. Why would they expect a reasoned response from young people in the military? Again, at this point, you will never make me believe they did not know or expect that there would be violence.

I am not arguing the politics of the issue, I am just stating what I now see as obvious given the information made available to me. The motivation has to go beyond food and aid. And if so, what was the motivation - I think I know - but do you insist that it was only food and aid?

Quote:
With all due respect, I cannot see how anyone could be trying to justify the actions of the IDF under orders from Israeli officials given the available information.
My questions are simple. I have not read clear responses. Hell, you could even say they where just foolish and reckless. Even if the other party is wrong or responds with excessive force, they should have known the risk and I expect that they did. There was clearly another agenda outside of food and aid - we may disagree on what that is, but how can you honestly take the position that food and aid was the only thing on the agenda?

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2794983)
staged. you mean organized as an act of civil disobedience?
I personally know people who actively engaged in civil disobedience both in this country and in African nations. There was never, according to their accounts, any pretense of the risks involved and they were fully aware of what and why they did what they did and where willing to accept the consequences. They would not allow participants to not know and understand the risks, nor would they put children on the front line. There was honor. In this case, why does it take so much effort to get to what is obvious? Why didn't/don't they say what is obvious from the very beginning? I think I know why, do you?

Willravel 06-04-2010 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2795073)
I don't know what happened and the truth may prove elusive because even eye witnesses may not know the whole story.
So far we have definitive evidence the information coming out of Israel is dishonest (edited tapes, lies about people on the flotilla, stories changing), however we still don't have any evidence the witnesses from the aid shipment are lying. This, to me, signals that, if you are to put the word of one party over the other, logic dictates it should be the civilian humanitarians. A lot of people may be uncomfortable with that answer, but it remains regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2795073)
Why go in guns blazing on this one ship? If what you share is true, we are talking cold blooded murder. Do you think the Israeli government authorized this act of potential murder as described or was it a case of individuals over-reacting?
Judging by the recent history of IDF reaction to what it perceives as a threat, it seems perfectly reasonable. Please remember, Israel has an admitted policy of asymmetrical warfare, in which they respond much more strongly than what's necessary in dealing with any perceived attack or threat. This flotilla represents a new kind of threat to Israel, one they don't know how to defend against. Consider the case of the young American woman that was run over by an Israeli bulldozer for trying to, using nonviolent protest, stop the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to expand settlements. They didn't hesitate to respond to nonviolent resistance with deadly force.

The simple concept behind the asymmetrical response policy is deterrence. The Israeli government justifies the way it reacts to possible threats with the rationalization that it will deter further possible threats of a similar nature. Consider how it reacted to Lebanon in 2006 or Gaza in 2008. These were not proportional responses by any measure. Similarly, the response to blockade running in the name of nonviolent resistance was always going to be a violent one on the part of the IDF because that's how they respond to anything. What I don't think the humanitarian protesters understood was just how far the IDF was
prepared to go in the name of preventing the next aid flotilla.

The irony is Israel's policy of extreme response is its greatest threat in that it inspires similarly extreme reactions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2795073)
Again, a fundamental question is why would they take the high risk of challenging trained military (trained to kill), in the dark, with a radio response of defiance, with innocent people on-board (aged and children), and not be prepared for a potential violent response?
Why? For the people of Gaza. It's the same reason aid workers go into war zones all over the planet, from Darfur to Burma, with the singular mission of helping the helpless. Is it foolish? I can't really say. It's certainly idealistic and it's absolutely brave. The only way this blockade is going to end is if pressure from the rest of the world becomes unbearable, and this incident has certainly set us on that path.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2795073)
I am not arguing the politics of the issue, I am just stating what I now see as obvious given the information made available to me. The motivation has to go beyond food and aid. And if so, what was the motivation - I think I know - but do you insist that it was only food and aid?
The primary mission was to get aid to Gaza. The secondary mission was nonviolent protest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2795073)
My questions are simple. I have not read clear responses. Hell, you could even say they where just foolish and reckless. Even if the other party is wrong or responds with excessive force, they should have known the risk and I expect that they did. There was clearly another agenda outside of food and aid - we may disagree on what that is, but how can you honestly take the position that food and aid was the only thing on the agenda?
So the "agenda" of nonviolent protest against a humanitarian disaster should be condemned? I strongly, strongly disagree. These people risked their lives, and some of them lost their lives, in the name of freeing an imprisoned and abused people. They chose to respond to the Israeli government in a much more brave and selfless way than the Palestinian terrorists who fire rockets. We could all learn a thing or two from the agenda they were pushing.

Willravel 06-04-2010 04:01 PM
Additional findings of the dead humanatarians:
Quote:
The results revealed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back. A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has US citizenship, was shot five times from less that 45cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back. Two other men were shot four times, and five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, said Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the council of forensic medicine.
Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

Self-defense gunshot wounds do not occur in the backs of the aggressors. The IDF naval commandos are highly trained, suggesting that shots fired are not going to miss their mark and coincidentally hit a whole bunch of people from behind because of poor marksmanship, but due to intentional executions.

Let that word sink in: executions.

The_Dunedan 06-04-2010 05:44 PM
I'll forsake further comment in favor of our military members, but to say this: such wounds are easily achievable when dealing with a self-defense shooting at close and crowded quarters.

hiredgun 06-04-2010 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2795097)
Additional findings of the dead humanatarians:

Gaza flotilla activists were shot in head at close range | World news | The Guardian

Self-defense gunshot wounds do not occur in the backs of the aggressors. The IDF naval commandos are highly trained, suggesting that shots fired are not going to miss their mark and coincidentally hit a whole bunch of people from behind because of poor marksmanship, but due to intentional executions.

Let that word sink in: executions.
I don't think it's likely that execution is an accurate description. What is the evidence for this? For whatever reason, some passengers picked up knives and bars and attacked the boarding party - this means that the moments that followed were likely very chaotic, and in hand-to-hand combat the injuries we see here don't surprise me.

Badly botched, unprepared to subdue the passengers in a practical way, yes. Execution? I really don't think that's what happened.

ring 06-04-2010 06:15 PM
More eyewitness accounts from the activists:

http://www.examiner.com/x-38220-Orla...egin-to-emerge

Four shots to the head? Five shots to the stomach?

If you don't believe these were executions,
would you agree that perhaps this could be the excessive asymmetrical warfare tactics
that Will mentioned earlier?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:32 PM.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360