I could understand a few wounds in backs and backs of heads during the scuffle, but the majority of dead bodies (5/9) have bullets in the backs of their bodies. We don't even know yet the condition of many of those injured from being shot. If you were surrounded by people with pipes and sticks and kitchen knives, all of them facing you, and you started firing in any direction, you would hit faces, chests, torsos, arms, and legs, all from the front. Maybe a few stray bullets get through, but 5 out of 9? Forgive me, but I'm very skeptical.

As I stated above, with a link to eyewitness reports for verification, the IDF forces opened fire before repelling onto the vessel. It's arguably the most important piece of information in this situation. The commandos were not acting as rational actors in this situation, only defending themselves. They opened fire onto a defenseless vessel. That lone constitutes an attempted execution, does it not?

In a gunfight, that's called winning. In a gunfight, you win or you die.

but...only one side had guns.

In a close-quarters situation, where one side has guns, -both- sides have guns. A sidearm accessory which was popular all the way through WWII before falling out of favour (and now gaining re-acceptance) is the pistol lanyard: a length of rope or elastic or even steel chain fastened to the solider/policeman's belt and to the butt of the pistol itself. The idea, obviously, was to prevent the weapon being grabbed away from its' owner and used against him. Someone who grabs for your sidearm means to kill you with it. I have no no truck with Israel or their political/territorial designs, but the -13 commandos in question don't seem to have acted as anything other than professionals.

The problem lies in the fact that they -are- professionals: elite professional soldiers. Head-crackers, ass-kickers, and name-takers. You don't send this kind of person to interdict an unarmed flotilla of hippies. You send the Coast Guard and a few Deputies borrowed from the County Sheriff (or the local equivalent). If heads need breaking, they break 'em with sticks and sap gloves. If somebody gets legitimately life-threatening, they take a .38 to the forehead and take a dirt nap. You send in the likes of these commandos when you want people killed and toys broken and the wreckage deposited on the bottom of the Med without any signal or survivor getting off the boat. That's what they're best at, and sometimes that sort of thing needs doing. But you don't mix the two: you don't send cops to fight Kim Jong Il, and you don't send soldiers to arrest and prosecute petty smugglers, murderers and thugs.

Just heard a quick blip that the Rachel Corrie ship has been captured.
No injuries.

Thank God. At least nobody died this time.

Edit: Nothing yet on AJ, CNN, Time.com, etc. Situation may be ongoing.

Yeah.

Daily Kos: News Happening Now: IDF takes the Rachel Corrie

But, as I've been saying, it wasn't a close-quarters situation in the beginning. According to eyewitnesses, the IDF forces (seriously, what are they officially called? IDF commandos? IDF navy? I honestly don't know) opened fire on the vessel from the air before anyone repelled anywhere. The only close quarters when the thing started were the folks on the boat being shot at from above, many of whom were being hit. This, ultimately, is the most important thing to bear in mind in all of this. IDF forces opened fire before repelling onto the flotilla.

BTW, the Turkish government said that the next aid ship to leave port from Turkey would have military escort. That scares the living shit out of me. The whole Israeli blockade could easily take on a few Turkish escort vessels, but, based on my watching the military channel religiously and doing a bit more research lately, it seems Turkey has a much more powerful navy than Israel, meaning Israel would need to deploy its air force. Undoubtedly, this would REQUIRE a NATO response, something not even the Israel-enabling US government could prevent, meaning it's Israel vs. NATO minus the US. And if NATO attacks, you can bet Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, GIA and any other group that feels wronged by Israel will come out of the woodwork. Then nukes would go off. I'm not cool with any of that.

Rifle cartridges? Maybe like the one that was found in an activists head?

---------- Post added at 11:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 PM ----------

None of that matters, that's my point. This interdiction took place in International waters, outside of the Gaza Blockade zone, and was therefore illegal. The people on those ships had every right to, and should have, thrown the Israeli commandos over the side and used whatever additional force was needed to repel boarders. Automatic rifles would have been an excellent start. For whatever reason, they chose not to do so.

The Israeli soldiers, OTOH, were in a life-or-death fight. Don't believe me? Take a whack from a 3' hunk of rebar or galvanised steel pipe: you'll understand.

This was never going to end well, for -either- side. The Israeli Gov't, OTOH...cui bono.

At least one of them did something right, it seems: Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal - Times Online

But, like I've also been saying, the IDF and Israeli government have already been caught lying and editing evidence it's releasing. Quite frankly, the IDF has lost its credibility on this. Should an independent investigation turn up any evidence whatsoever of the flotilla people being armed, I might be willing to entertain the possibility, but for the time being it's just one more piece of information being released with propaganda.

you know, it's pretty simple. the idf raided a flotilla of activists committed to non-violence in international waters. they fell into exactly the trap that non-violent actions set for state powers that have little regard for human life if that human life does not conform to certain rules. in that, the idf was totally, entirely chumped. and to that extent, i personally laugh at them. i mean, it's such a basic tactical error. jesus christ, it's not like ghandi's writings are hidden.

so this is a fundamental tactical error.
you want to know how to deal with this sort of action?
let it happen.
it'll disappear in 48 hours or so.

the israelis fucked up. there's little in the way of bigger lessons in this beyond something vaguely instructive about the pathological arrogance of colonial power.

Bottom line is that this is an act of PIRACY. These people were MURDERED. Israel had absolutely no right to board that ship in international waters, there is no excuse what so ever. The passengers rightfully defended themselves against piracy. All the arguing back and forth in this thread can not change the fact that it is both murder and piracy.

I agree...if they went Russian (or-gasp-Syrian) on Hamas and the Gaza Strip, this whole charade would be over within a week. Hamas is the latest in a line of unfortunate palestinian leadership more capable and concerned with terrorism and terrorist acts than governing. PLO, same thing. Nothing new there. But didn't Israel take out the top leaders/spiritual leaders/bombmakers of the PLO (minus Arafat)? They were simply replaced with the next goon in line. Look what happened with Fatah the minute they started making reasonable overtures towards Israel...Hamas spent their election victory party killing off as many members of Fatah as they could and taking over Gaza by force. These are the types of people to be dealt with rationally?

About the rockets and frog bombers...notice how few rockets and suicide bombers have gone off in Israel since the incursion and blockade. I believe that number is zero. Coincidence? It is unfortunate but what other options does Israel realistically have?

If you think violent militant extremists in Palestine can be intimidated by Israeli aggression, I'm afraid you don't know much about this conflict. If Hamas is smart, they'll lay back and do absolutely nothing as more and more aid ships are intercepted and international investigations start. The again, Hamas doesn't exactly control every 14 year old kid with a rocket, as we saw at the beginning of Oslo.

^^ Spot on. It's so plain to see that Israel is acting like a tyrant. Israel has been single-handedly carving up the Middle East ever since that fatcat Texan Bush and the US stopped giving a fuck about peace talks. I think it's more than evident that it's time for the UN to get step into this conflict if there's ever any hope for peace.

With respect to statements from the IDF, or any other military organization: we all realize that these organizations exist ostensibly to advance the policy goals of their parent nations and not to provide the clear, unvarnished, enlightening truth about their activities, right?

So we should trust official statements from the IDF or the Pentagon as much as we should trust that guy on late night TV on the pretend talk show talking about how his book is full of things "the experts don't want you to know." None of these folks is necessarily lying about everything, but they have shown over and over that they have no qualms about telling really big lies when it suits their purposes.

Gaza flotilla attack: Autopsies reveal intensity of Israeli military force | World news | The Guardian


edit (later): the narratives of what happened obviously cannot both be true at the same time. the idf is pretty sophisticated about manufacturing situationally appropriate reality replacement packages (as any military is) so....

but it is good that they managed to board the rachel corrie without anyone getting shot in the head, yes?

This is correct.

If Hamas sat on their hands and let Israel run amok, it will be Israel in the negative spotlight, not Hamas,...as this past weeks events have shown. Proof being global protests against Israeli aggression today.

And Israel has to provoke Hamas into retaliating to keep up with claims of being pushed into the sea, wiped off the map etc.

The more Hamas shows restraint, the more aggressive Israel will become. This will not bode well for Israel

People are not stupid and are becoming more well rounded concerning the facts of this longstanding conflict,...and the never ending Israeli claims of being the eternal victims of terror is getting stale.

Peace and Palestinian statehood is not on the agenda for Israel. Having the Palestinian's given the right of statehood and be recognized as a people would be a collosal failure for Israel. To be seen as equals is unimaginable.

And for that the future of Israel is in the hands of Israel itself. It is theirs to lose. Unfortunately Israel is its own worst enemy and as long as they carry on the charade of being the eternal victim, their future will get dimmer and their bargaining power much more limited.

Link- http://ht.ly/1UKDS

Still going at the 'terrorists' angle I see, well you're persistent I'll give you that much. Got a link to the story by the way, curious to see what source it came from.

The "source" for that is the IDF's spokesperson blog. And this after the own Israeli government has retracted it's al qaeda comment. Considering Idyllic has posted sources of every other copy and paste she's done, I wonder why this one was left without a source.

By the way, as always, that story is bull.

Ken O'keefe, for example, is a known anti War activist. Love him or hate him, I doubt he'd still be free if he were ever caught trying to enter Palestine to provide training to terror groups, or that he'd still be able to live in Ireland and fly around the world if this "known terrorist" tie had any truth to it.

But I must turn to Idyllic: what is your goal here? to debate things with people? or to ignore it when people question things you say to then just move on to the next copy and paste of information with questionable sources?

I figured it was from some place like that, especially considering she never posted the link to the source.

ive been travelling through lebanon, so i havent had internet access to get on TFP.

ive come back to see that my reporter friend has posted his eye witness account. He is still in Oman with his family.

This is his eyewitness account.


---------- Post added at 04:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------

Part 2 of 3

I think one of the fundamental problems preventing a peaceful solution to the Israeli and Palestinian issue is the fact that far too many refuse to acknowledge that there are millions of people (and some of them very motivated) in the world who care nothing about Palestinians, and only want to see the elimination of Israel. Israel is at war and they are acting like they are at war. This issue assumes a level of misunderstanding or lack of concern for Israel that I don't understand given no one here has openly said that Israel does not have a right to exist. How can there be productive dialog until there is honesty and a willingness to acknowledge an understanding of the consequences faced by Israel. Helen Thomas was finally honest about her views but how many years of subterfuge in her questions did we have to tolerate when all she wanted was for Jews to go back home.

Part 3 of 3



---------- Post added at 04:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 AM ----------

let me invert your comment if i may

you can look at it from both sides, or you can look at it from just one, as you have done. there are external forces at play on both sides here that dont allow this conflict to come to any sort of conclusion.

That said, there can not be any peace until there is honesty and willingness for both sides to want to understand the consequences faced by the palestinians.


am i making an sense here? it's a two way street.

Sorry, silent_jay, it was not my intent to miss siting the location, dippin is correct it is the IDF spokesperson website, I have placed the link below the quote. It was late and I thought is stated the info in the quote, I should have reread it after posting better. It was not intentional.

dippin, I have no goal here, that would imply I would win something and their are truly NO WINNERS in this conflict, but the losers are innocents on both sides. I am tired of Israelis' being attacked for defending themselves and their neighbors, the Israeli citizens are just as innocent as the citizens of Gaza. The non-combatant citizens of both areas are the real ones suffering here, both the Palestinians of Gaza and the Israelis' suffer at the hands of those who would use them to promote their jihad agenda (the people of the world suffer as we watch this unfold, there is nothing good about war, except the end in which tyranny is defeated). There is far more to this conflict than what is apparent on the surface, we will see where the questions lead us but we may never know all the answers, as this is much deeper and will persist until the minds of many are educated beyond the narrowness of religion alone.

I will say, however, that the Israelis' beat the shit out of Kenneth for some reason, interesting, though I will not comment on whether he deserved it, for it will just leave me open for attack and I am tired of being attacked for educating myself further on this issue. I avoid speaking as it really does not benefit me and you can get the just of my thinking from the information I post.

More will be exposed, and I read everything you all post. Thank you.

No worries as I said I was just curious as to where it came from.
Now this is where it gets interesting and the victim act starts again.

No one has attacked you, disagreeing with you position or calling 'bullshit' when you post something that can't be backed up is not an attack, like the 'hate filled animals' comment, or the implied terrorists comment, then acting like you never knew that connection was there in your post, that was on what page 1 that dlish asked for proof of that, we're now on page 6 and guess what still no proof, so this bullshit of being 'attacked' is just that bullshit, and honestly, the victim act is getting old really quickly.

You speak of educating yourself further, but it's evident from your first post on this topic you had your mind made up from the start as to who was to blame for this incident, even though you say 'passing judgement now is too soon', you've done nothing but pass judgement in this entire thread.

idyllic: this is a contentious area. the fact that it is so the case never fails to surprise me because i assume there's a common factual starting point to some things at least relative to which one can argue one line or another but still with respect to something more or less agreed upon. when it comes to israel/palestine it seems that there are 2 distinct realities, that of the israeli right, which is also that of the dominant organization in the united states that speak in the name of israel, and that of the palestinian people. somewhere in between there is the israeli left, which represents a range of viewpoints that tend to get erased in us-based debates. which is a shame because that range of viewpoints is the most direct way to undo the either/or that is at the center of the contentiousness.

what makes this interesting i think despite the contentiousness and result that people rarely move in any given debate from the point they start from is the relation between starting point and information flows, the extent to which from one starting point you can, if you like, locate data that's entirely self-confirming of the viewpoint from which you start. you don't have to of course, but it's easy to fall into.

for what it's worth, i may argue from politcal viewpoints that are well to the left but i read around across the political spectrum. it's important to understand what the adversary is going to do, just in case the game gets interesting. but it rarely gets that interesting in debates like these, for the reasons i outlined above.


btw the israeli navy killed 4 palestinians seemingly for wearing diving gear. as usual there's mutually exclusive fogs of disinformation. but what i found strange was an idf spokesman who felt the need to mention the therapeutic value these killings would have for the idf itself. that seemed to speak volumes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...estinians-gaza

What baffles me the most in this conflict is how even those who one would think most genuinely support the palestinians are typically the ones exploiting them the most and doing the very least to actually help them out. The Egyptians have a revolving blockade which they open and close depending upon which islamic extremist group they have to placate domestically, Jordan (after kicking them out of their country) and Saudi Arabia chime in when it is politically expedient to do so, Iran (who arent even arab) pledge their 'solidarity' with arab-palestinians yet have no problem killing 500,000 iraqi arabs in war and are obviously more interested in pulling strings and dominating the region. Instead of open and legitimate humanitarian support sent in from surrounding arab countries - supposed brother arab countries who never miss an opportunity to take a shot at Israel - we have rogue flotilla ships from Ireland filled with armed goons sponsored by shady third party operatives with extremist origins...the single unifying subcontext among all being the demise of Israel of course.

I have no objection to the presentation of that point of view and I acknowledge that the history of the Palestinian people as been a difficult on filled with occupation. I agree that there are some who would simply want them to go away as a means to, as they may perceive, to end conflict. I further believe that if Palestine existed as a nation without Israel in the picture they would have many enemies in the ME and would be at risk. Personally, I would like to see two independent, peaceful, self-sustaining nations.

I have given my honest point of view on what you presented.

source: Doc's Talk: IDF: Mercenaries to blame for violence



source: The Woodward Report - Conservative News, Politics


These mercenaries (hate filled animals) boarded a ship of 700 people who were there for humanitarian reasons, had these mercenaries been able to push the IDF to the point of true retaliation, image the deaths that could have been attributed to their plan, to these selfish few in their violent mercenary provocation, image the damages that could have been done to the true innocents on this ship.... that is what terrorism is. Terrorist use innocent people, most of the ships passengers were truly attempting to help the Palestinians, the mercenaries changed the efforts of good people to coincide in a destructive "cause" and never actually cared if these innocent protesters got hurt or not, they would have simply served as collateral damage in just trying to make Israel look bad, in fact the more innocents these mercenaries could have gotten killed, the more negative attention for the IDF and Israel, the better for their jihad cause. I hate terrorism, it uses good people, it preys on innocence and the hungry, it IS tyranny in action and it resides within hamas' jihad mentality.

Do you acknowledge that some may have had another agenda, other than humanitarian reasons?

Why didn't they use the path of least resistance if the only reason was humanitarian?

Didn't they anticipate there would be a conflict? Doesn't the eye witness account you provided show that they anticipated a conflict? Is it your position they were surprised that there was violence? Did they not know there was risks? Why was there violence on this one ship?

There are many simple questions that can help a person like me understand this situation from your point of view - why no answers?

You believe everything that comes out of the IDF(hate filled animals)(see I can do it too, doesn't make it true), you say you're here to educate yourself, but you haven't shown that yet at all, you've had your mind made up from the beginning and are just looking for sources to back up your point of view, this is a wasted conversation, your mind is made up, anything the IDF says is true, utterly pointless to continue this song and dance, have fun 'educating' yourself.

Edit: You'd think such a big story like mercenaries on the boat would have hit actual new agencies rather than a blog that links back to the Jerusalem Post, or a site that has the header 'Conservative News, Politics'. A simple Google search and not a one actual news agency, look for yourself, so sorry Idyllic all this proves is you don't want to educate yourself, you just want to find sources to back up your stance and hope for the best.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa...otilla&spell=1

idyllic,still trying to make the connection with hamas i see?

ill wait for the source. probably an IDF article, but nontheless it's a source.

ace,

what would palestine be at risk of if it stepped on too many toes?

generally in the ME, they arent look upon with any sort of favouratism because of the negative effect the palestinian question has had on its arab neighbours...lebanon, jordan, syria, egypt in particular.

The thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the information coming out of this incident will be based on IDF investigations and reports. Unless there is some kind of third-party investigation, you can assume that much of the information that comes out of this will have come from IDF sources.

I'm not going to hold my breath for them to release unedited footage, especially the unedited footage recorded by Al Jazeera journalists. I'm not going to hold my breath for third-party investigations either. Though it should be the case since the incident happened in international waters.

Oh, and Palestinian Media Watch.... yeah. It's good to have unbiased reporting.

Agreed, there should eb a third party investigation, but of course Israel doesn't want that, I mean you'd think since they were 'provoked' by what is it now 'mercenaries', Hamas, Al Qaeda, hate filled animals, they'd have no problem with such an investigation.
BBC News - Israel 'to reject international ship raid inquiry'

Well, this is one of several things that will explain why Israel will be doing some hardcore wagging of the dog on this.

BG, just remember that with everyone on that boat taken in by the israelis, theres no way they'll let incriminating evidence back out.

all you have is testimonies like that of my reporter friend. he lost all his belongings and will never see them again

Thanks for posting your friends account of what happened dlish, it was a very good read, and glad to see he got out safe, too bad he couldn't bring out his personal effects with him, it seems like he had a lot of film of the incident that possibly could have shed some light on this, but as you said Israel isn't going to let any incriminating evidence get out after a clusterfuck such as this.

Given the history in the region, it is my belief that the potential for conflict would be high.

I am very sensitive to B.S., admittedly overly sensitive at times. I tend to error on the side of assuming B.S., but my way of managing that is to make an effort to slow down and ask questions. I have present questions, there have been no answers.

In 1930 Gandhi embarked on his infamous Salt March, protesting the British salt tax and in general British rule over India. His objectives were clearly communicated in advance and he openly did not allow females to participate because he expected violent response to a non-violent act. This started a series of non-violent actions that lead to India gaining their freedom from Britain. There was no B.S. in what he did, what he expected, and how he went about it, and it was not about salt. There was honor.

In the matter of the blockade being run, I see subterfuge, misdirection, and attempts to manipulate public opinion using innocent people. And, I am not clear on if you don't see some of the problems, you perpetuate the deception, or if you just want to pretend some of the problems with what and how things happened are not real.

Ace, sure, I would image that some of the passengers were there for a myriad of reason, personal, humanitarian, journalistic, political, etc.. but the mercenaries, the terrorist linked individuals, these are the ones I have issue with, the persons who would not just invoke violence but who thrive off of violence and fear as a means to an end. You may want to read my posts, I am all about the necessity of the IDF to defend themselves and that this was a plan orchestrated by self-indulgent anti-Zionistic, anti-Hebraic, anti-infidel individuals to bring about bad press for Israel and to devalue the importance of the embargo. I don't think that ALL 700 of the original passengers were aware of the fully violent plans and intentions of many of these unsavory characters, but I am a mother in a free country who would never subject my children to violence in the name of a cause so it is hard for me to grasp that women brought their children on board with the knowledge of what was coming, whereas many in the jihad culture will consider this a just maneuver in jihad, martyrdom is a very, very powerful weapon.

I am pretty sure if you read my posts you can figure out my view of this incident. We are still not done with the realty behind this incident either, espionage is a cyclic action that in exposing one angle you will in turn expose your assets if you move to quickly, so patience and distant and time are inherently one of the coverts most valuable tools. These deaths happened for attention, and attention is exactly what hamas is getting (just not the kind they wanted as they wanted negative press for IDF and Israel and positive press for Palestinians), however, more intelligent people are beginning to recognize the depths terrorists will go to feed their own warped appetite for death and destruction in the singular oppressive cause they seek to justify, not merely the surface cause of a few who simply wished to bring attention to the plight of the citizens of Gaza.

50 men with approximately $10,000.00 each would be pretty close to $500,000.00, at about $5,000 each, this kind of money could have bought the lives of 100 hungry people hoping to help their families, and the deaths of many innocents that these hungry, pigeonholed, and tyrannized suicide bombers could have blown up in their attempts at martyrdom, or simply a way out of hamas’ tyranny. Obviously this is all in my humble opinion, and many will say I seek out only the information that fulfills my views, and that that information is found only within the realms of pro-Israel and pro blah, blah, blah, or whatever it is that I am attempting to prove or my goal, but the reality is, I have no goals, I attempt to prove nothing. I am merely witnessing what is before me and stating my points of perception regarding these actions based on my own education in the realms of terrorism and what is unfolding in the ME. I have no stake in this conversation, it is not even a debate to me as I simply see this as black and white and it is blatantly apparent to me, terrorism and terrorist linked humans are tyrannical regime cohorts and that theses tyrannical regimes can, will and do persist in continuing and spreading, if permitted, the use of anybody and everybody within their ability to achieve their singular goals in the continuations of said self vindicating, tyrannous views of fear, hate and genocide, it really is that simple to me.

Terrorism: The killing of non-combatants, with the specific intent of spreading or perpetuating ones own political, religious or ideological agenda by instilling fear of death in those who would normally, without coercion, reject the views of the movements leaders. Non-combatant being the key term here.

Yes it is easy, and quite comical for someone who says she's trying to 'educate herself further' and that it's too sonn to 'pass blame on this incident'
Umm they have got negative press Idyllic, if you opened your mind to read actual news, not just sites that support your views, you'd see they are getting a ton of negative press, just not on your 'sources', but as you said your views are easy to see from your posts, so why look at other sources other than what backs up your views?.

In the interest of contributing a few data points, the Times has some (I think) new photos from inside the ship during the attack. They show some commandos injured at the hands of the passengers. Of course, the pictures don't really give you context - who instigated the violence, for example.

Photographs of Battered Israeli Commandos Show New Side of Raid - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

I don't know how to elaborate very much on the position I stated earlier. I think that the only truly salient structural fact here is the nature of the blockade itself and its disastrous humanitarian impact on Gazans. Everything else surrounding this event is largely an exercise in PR.

hiredgun, if you read the 3 part story that my reporter friend made a few days ago, you'll see that he reported the bashing of the israeli soldier.

idyllic - i take it you havent heard of the 'children overboard scandal'? you know..the story where the australian government used the sinking ship as a motive to politicise the presense of children on a boat. the only difference was that it was in australian waters governments could never lie.

source: Gandhi and King on the Mavi Marmara / Waging Nonviolence

Non-violent protest, would it have drawn the deaths, would it have drawn the attention? It is easy to find the realities of this incident if you look beyond the surface rhetoric of media outlets that have numbers of viewers to gain, pointing out that these terrorism linked individuals mentality resides within the pro-violence sect of Islamic extremism is easy if you open your eyes to jihad mentalities, these are not your everyday peace loving activist trying to change the world for the better of humanity, these extremists thrive on terror and death as do hamas, al qaeda, hezbollah, the taliban, etc. These extreme terrorism regimes and their ideologies are what I am talking about.... these criminals are against personal freedoms and they deeply oppose a quilted religious world that can and does create humanities peaceful coexistence. These tyrannical regimes leaders and followers will use any means, any peoples, any reason to kill in the name of their self glorification and extreme ideologies. This is the reality of extremism in Islamic fundamental religious sects.

eventually I will learn how to embed pictures....... maybe, so if you wish to see the actual pictures you will need to go tho the sources listed, sorry. I am waiting for my husband to teach me, it may be a while.

source and you can see the two images here: FOXNews.com - Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive

But of course this is FOX, so whether Reuters admits to cropping or not, just because FOX released it, it must be wrong, right? Truths can be ascertained in common sense and history of conflict also, this conflict and the ME connections with Islamic extremism needs to be taken into account when trying to understand the realities of this incident. This is not the first time ships have sailed for Gaza under intentions of humanitarianism and have been stopped exposing tons of heavy weapons on-board (I am not referencing the Mavi Marmara.....).

If you wish to see another different cropped image, visit here: Little Green Footballs - Another Cropped Reuters Photo Deletes Another Knife - And a Pool of Blood

It seems to me perspective is less in the eye of the beholder and more in the eyes of the seller, it just depends on what side you wish to purchase your brand of truth from. As I have said before, I read it all, and make my decisions based on my own perceptions of history and the stories of both sides, mixed in with what I consider to be common sense and from that, I still will never say I am 100% right, but I am still 100% hungry for understanding WHY, WHY the fuck humankind has to treat each other this way, it baffles me. But then extremism within religious ideologies in this day in age baffles me too, however, I was given the opportunity for a free education from the time of my birth, something many humans are not blessed with in this world today, especially many middle easterners. Where I feel education is the answer to humanities cohesiveness, I believe many Muslims view education (outside of the Koran) as the end to their perceived way of life, especially the basic education of ALL Muslim women, though this is just my opinion.

dippin was making this point earlier, but it's worth repeating in the blizzard of idf infotainment coupled now with arbitrary materials that defines non-violence every which way the sole point of which is to somehow "demonstrate" that the idf's version of reality is reality much in the way that a nike commercial's version of reality is reality. you know, that acquiring an active lifestyle is a matter of shoe purchases.

anyway, israel has broadened the list of materials allowed into gaza to include things like jam and halwa. here's a new article that goes through the stuff that dippin posted earlier about what the israelis, those champions of human rights, are letting into gaza:

Howard Schweber: Israel's Blockade of Gaza: What Items Are Allowed In?

on conditions in gaza brought to you by those champions of human dignity on the israeli right:

Damning Report: Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Worst in 40 Years - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Gaza's markets of unaffordable goods conceal reality of people under siege | World news | guardian.co.uk

BBC News - Guide: Gaza under blockade

but hey, the important thing is to be able to quibble about whether the flotilla of unarmed people that were attacked on the open ocean by the idf using live fucking ammunition fall under a shifting and disengenously constructed definition of non-violence.

Yes and it's obvious from your sources in this and other posts what side you purchase yours from, I mean and IDF Spokesperson Blog, FoxNews, and now another blog, and they even type like you and use "peace activists", I mean really.
Well this is kind of false, you had your mind made up from your first post in this thread, and have just been trying to find sources that make it so, I mean come on Idyllic, your first post you implied there were terrorist connections and have just spent what is it 7 pages now looking for sources to make it so, so I mean to say you read it all and base your decisions on both sides is well to put it nicely false.
I mean here's a post of yours from page 1, and you've just been looking for sources to make it so for the rest of the thread, say you have an open mind all you like, but your posts say otherwise.
Edit: A fun article about Charles Johnson the 'Righteous Gentile' of Israel and founder of 'Little green footballs':
That's just a snippet of the article, to see the rest here's the link:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/62000

More on the investigation here.

Some are taking the position that the proposed investigation is flawed. It looks like they won't be permitted to interrogate the soldiers involved in the incident, for example, and that the primary focus will be on the lead-up top-down decisions and tactics—factors/conditions that occurred before things turned bad.

Experts mock Israeli inquiry into attack on flotilla

Ya'alon: Probe needed of navy tactics

Reuters under fire for removing weapons, blood from images of Gaza flotilla - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

Article explaining how Reuters cropped a knife out of an activists hand. That site probably takes Israel's side more often than not, but this same story is on many other news sites.

The pictures prove that there were weapons aboard the ship.

I would be very surprised if a boat that size didn't have knives on board. To act as if that changes anything or makes the use of live ammunition from attack helicopters somehow a symmetrical response is worse than anything reuters has done.

And as far as editing goes, we still don't have a full release of the videos and photos confiscated.

No it doesn't, it shows there was a knife on the ship, and probably more than one knife on it, don't know many ships that go out to sea and don't have knives on board, they're quite helpful for many different things, to say it proves there were 'weapons' on the ship is false and quite the stretch of the imagination.

By weapons I meant knives. My fault for not clarifying. I didn't want "weapons" to mean "guns", though I believe the activists did have guns.

I'm not debating any attack coming from the choppers, to be honest I don't really know much about that. Would you like to give me the post number that explains that part of this story, dippin?

A large part of the debate was whether the activists had attacked the Israeli's first, right? Isn't it possible that the activists attacked the Israeli's with knives, provoking the commandos to use deadly force in self defense?

Ahh, sorry about that, the only guns they had were the ones that were taken from the Israeli commando at least that's my understanding.

As for the second part, it appears the Israeli's were firing from helicopters at the activists, check out dlish's 3 part post of his reporter friends account of what happened, it's from someone who was actually on the ship and was quite an informative read.

Even the israelis, who confiscated everything on the boats, acknowledge there were no guns on the boat. The only guns the people on the boat eventually got were the ones they got from the 2 soldiers.

Trying to board a ship in international waters IS an attack, so by definition the Israelis attacked first.

No problem, bro.

While dlish's report was compelling and a very interesting read, I think any and every story should be taken with a grain of salt. CNN, FOX, BBC, they're all biased in some way. Israel is trying to justify what they did, so they're going to spin it to make themselves look good. The activists are trying to make Israel look like shit, so they're going to say anything they want and hope it sticks.

I think Israel had the right idea, they just went about it wrong. Slightly wrong, at the least. Both sides could have done more right. Based on what I've read, and along with my prior beliefs and values, Israel has my support. Like I said, everyone could have done something better, but Israel had the right idea; something went wrong along the way.

I have a fairly open mind, but I can't see my opinion changing unless someone comes out with hard evidence. I bet a lot of people here share that reasoning.

im not sure where you're going with this idyllic, except to say that its not really about the flotilla or the israeli raid.

but to rephrase what you're saying is that "ALL" muslims believe that the education of women is a thread to their society. you dont know many muslims by the looks of it do you. if you're thinking of women in afghanistan...then thats ridiculous. 99.9999% of muslim women dont live under taliban rule.

sure there are social pressures at play here, as there are political, theological and economic ones for the lack of education in 'muslim' countries, but thats for another thgread. but to say that muslims believe that all women shouldnt be educated is absurd. she-lish is a testament to that.

extremism isnt limited to religious ideology.... extremist idiocy is just as dangerous

The same could be said of people of most religions, including Christians. And not just Christians in certain developing nations, but even in the US.

you're right, israel does have a right to protect its borders, as does any sovereign nation.

what they dont have a right to do is attack a ship in international waters that posed no immediate threat. with that reasoning, al qaeda though that the USS Cole was fair game as it was in yemeni waters and posed a threat, but it doesnt mean that the USS Cole should have been bombed.

pearl trade - i agree. even journalists cant be objective, and im sure of an arab slant to the story. at least it gives a different perspective to the IDF's/idyllics version that seems to paint everyone as terrorists onboard the flotilla.

there truth lies somewhere herein.

So you don't think that Israel has a right to inspect ships carrying weapons to Hamas...or you don't think that the ships are carrying weapons to Hamas...or you think they should be carrying weapons to Hamas?? If they are smuggling weapons to Hamas does it really matter if the ships were 1, 3, 5 or 100 miles outside Israel's territorial waters when the intention (from an Israeli perspective) is to deliver weapons specifically intended to harm Israelis??

but they weren't bringing weapons to hamas and everyone including the israelis knew that they weren't. so what's your point?

If you are going to maintain a blockade to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas I think it stands to reason you are going to want to inspect each and every large ship capable of carrying such that is headed into Gaza. Why else do you think they bother to inspect the ships at all?

that's not what the blockade is primarily about, powerclown. look at the information posted earlier about what's excluded by it. the argument that it's about weapons is ludicrous. it's not not about weapons, just as until yesterday is was also not not about halwa and fruit jelly (which were also prohibited).

Well, we wouldn't want Hamas to get a hold of kitchen knives and slingshots, would we?!

Those marbles aren't toys; they're munitions.

you wouldn't think this necessary to say.

Op-Ed Contributor - Talking About Israel, Without the Clichés - NYTimes.com

for the record, i think the mistake here was in not allowing the ships to do their off-load and leave as if the publicity from that was too dangerous for israel to bear because, presumably, it would get information out into the international press about actual conditions in gaza. which aren't great. like at all. at. all.
so the mistake was strategic and followed from the logic of conservative politics in israel which relies way way too much on the phantom of "terrorism" to legitimate its various forms of colonialism.
and from specific people inside netanyahu's cabinet who are nameless of course.

once the idf was dispatched with real weapons and live ammunition and was seemingly instructed to forcibly board the ships, it was not surprising that something bad happened, really. i mean, there are weapons and real ammunition and aggression and panic all happening in a confined space.

seems to me that the attempt to act as though all that matters is the dynamics that unfolded on the boats is pretty disengenuous. not as disengenuous as the attempts to paint everyone on the boats as some sort of "terrorist" operative. but still, all very idf disinformation, don't you think?

bet you dont know what halwa is...

it's better known as 'halawa' in lebanon, jordan, palestine and syria

AL AMEERA FOOD INDUSTRIES

http://www.alameerafood.com/eng/gallery/th/3.jpg

---------- Post added at 02:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ----------

powerclown, no i dont think they had the right to board without reasonable cause to believe that they were carrying guns. thats because israel knows they werent carrying guns to hamas.

even then, they could have waited till they came into israeli waters. there was no immediate danger to any israeli citizens. in fact israeli put its own soldiers at risk with their cowboy attitude that could have easily gotten their guys killed.

Wow, why would Israel bar something so delicious?

probably so that israel can sell it to them instead i presume..or maybe they'll use the pestachia nuts as slingshot pellets.. who knows

Maybe they thought it can be used as a coagulant for homemade bomb materials or something.

its made of sesame seed mainly..maybe its oil would be refined to be used for hamas jeeps

It also has trace amounts of copper. They could smelt it and then Gaza would hit the Copper Age.

Yeah, maybe they were more concerned with policing nautical speed limits and the potential harm done colliding with dolphins, sea turtles or flying fish or maybe even other ships fumbling to deliver god knows what into Gaza probably just more gummy bears and tampons. You don't want to acknowledge the smuggling of weapons into Gaza because then your whole story would fall apart.

It's pretty much impossible to have a rational conversation about things when both sides are simulateously right and wrong.

i dont think anyone in this thread has denied that there are attempts to smuggle guns into gaza..it just so happens that those guns were not on that boat. had they been, israel would have flaunted it to the worlds media by now.

i think you dont want to acknowledge that there were no weapons or terrorists, otherwise your story would likewise fall apart. keep the accusations going. thats the best way to sell it to fox and the rest of the world.

Well, there's the rub, isn't it? It's difficult to sort these things out when the one holding the bag and all the marbles is the IDF.

Jazz I think you are right.
I'll do this one last thing, and let it go:

MV Francop: Cargo Ship Laden with Tons of Weapons

With the Israelis it seems pretty simple: Just stop bombing us please.

Lebanon is not Gaza and a highly publicized flotilla of activists is not Iran.

As for the second part, the Palestinian authority and the West Bank have been "rewarded" for ceasing attacks and being the most willing to negotiate by the fastest expansion in settlements in recent history.

I think the 'international waters' bit is also kind of a red herring, for two reasons.

1) Historically, it has been acceptable for countries to enforce blockades outside of their own territorial waters. (The distinction, of course, is that this blockade is not widely recognized as legitimate - but the precise location of the incident is not really the issue.) Interception of goods en route is routine in a blockade.

2) Consider the counterfactual - if precisely the same incident had taken place a few miles east, in Israeli (or really Gazan) territorial waters, would it really change your mind about the meaning of the event? Would it have played out any differently? For me, the answer is a resounding no.


If you look at the list of goods restricted, it is obvious for anyone with eyes to see - really, truly obvious, and I dare you to say otherwise - that a primary purpose of the blockade (along with keeping out weapons) is to deprive the Gazan population as political leverage. Make of this whatever you will. Many sanctions regimes work this way, and sometimes they are preferable to the alternatives. But please do not deny it or offer 'weapons' as a misdirection.

For my part, I would argue that this blockade of deprivation - as opposed to the blockade of arms - is counter-productive. It might seem like a good idea to prevent Hamas from succeeding, but the audiences that matter believe that the Gaza crisis is Israel's fault, and the suffering of the Gazans is hurting rather than helping Abbas/Fayyad in the PA. So why continue? I appreciate that it is politically difficult for Israel to lift the blockade on its own without losing face - which is why I think the US could facilitate the change.

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:14 PM ----------

Send the Sixth Fleet to Gaza | Stephen M. Walt

But the issue is one of legitimacy. So the fact that it happened in international waters is certainly relevant. For be it as it may regarding other blockades, it is still a violation of international law. And it speaks to the sort of mindset of the Israeli leadership that that distinction between a legal action within it's waters and an illegal one outside of it is completely lost.

Sure, had it happened inside Israeli waters the disproportionate use of force would still be an issue, but it would be a different matter altogether.


The best example of why these distinctions matter is what happened in Cuba in 1996, when the Cuban air force shot down 2 planes flown by protesters, and a week later more protests were organized.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's not quite correct. The enforcement of a blockade in international waters is legal by longstanding precedent.

Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? | Reuters

The ship had certainly declared that it was on the way to Gaza and intended to break the blockade.

So the location of the incident is irrelevant; what's relevant is the legitimacy of the blockade (whether Israel has the right to impose it, whether Gaza counts as a belligerent territory), and of course its utility (whether or not Israel has the right, does this course of action make any sense?)

If the blockade is legitimate, then it doesn't matter where it happened - Israel had a right to board the ships.
If it is illegitimate, then it doesn't matter where it happened - Israel had no right to board the ships.

The "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea:"

International Humanitarian Law - San Remo Manual 1994

relevant passages:

So, first things first. There is the question of whether this is a conflict recognized by international law, as Gaza is not an independent state. But even if we consider this to be a legitimate conflict, there is the question of the legality of the blockade.

But even if we grant that the blockade is legal (highly doubtful), there is still the matter that the ship was sailing under a neutral flag. As the San Remo document makes clear, neutral ships can only be stopped and searched in non-neutral waters.


And this is all talking about this specific document. This document does not overrule the convention of the high seas, which clearly states that:

You are only breaching a blockade once you are not on neutral waters anymore.

This is why I've given up on a lot of Israel/Palestine arguments. You've got to keep up with the PA, Hamas, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and all of the extra third parties like the IHH*.

The problem outside is that too many people desperately want for things to be simple, they can't accept that it's possible for this to just be a crapsack situation where both side has legitimate beefs with the other and one side screwing up doesn't automatically negate that side's arguments. Israel running a crappy blockade doesn't negate their argument that it's utterly wrong for Hamas to be launching craptons of rockets and mortars with civilians as shields, and Hamas being hellbent on genocide doesn't make Israel's blockade any less stupid for restricting things it has no reason to. A whole bunch of people think it DOES though, and that's a problem.


*Banned from Turkey's 1999 relief efforts: "Ultimately, Turkey was forced to ban the IHH from participating in earthquake aid efforts because it was counted among several “fundamentalist organizations” operating “secret bank accounts” that were refusing to allow local authorities to oversee the distribution of their aid resources"
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publicat...2006-7.web.pdf

Except that customarily no one has interpreted this in the way that you are suggesting, and custom is the most important determinant of international law. That's all I've got on that subject.

Interesting info I just stumbled on. (No, I do not imply anything with that statement) This quoted material has IDF written all over it (and it is apparent how many of you feel about the IDF), I wasn't there so I can't confirm or deny it's validity, but I find it interesting to read, as well the next story after this one which talks about the planned summer celebrations for the Palestinian/Gazan children in which there appears to have been attacks by hamas (as per this story) in an attempt to thwart the celebrations. These issues surrounding the tyrannical ideologies of hamas are what I am looking at and for. Nothing I am saying here, or in my prior posts, states that I justify the suffering of any peoples, especially innocent citizens caught between the power hungry and self-righteousness of both parties involved this war. I am merely trying to understand the mentalities involved in such intense hatred, and I still keep coming back to base intolerance in many religious/ideological views. I am not being specific here or exclusive as all religious/ideological views that would incite the destruction of other human-beings based on ones own personal beliefs where violence is justified as a means to an end, is to me, anti-humane, tyrannous and the root of all mankind’s most atrocious forms of corruption.

source: Middle East Analysis


source: Gaza's boys and girls come out to play - Middle East, World - The Independent

And why not? If elections are held as a means of representing the wishes of the citizenry, the choice of Hamas wasn't exactly the most inspired. What kind of backward thinking does it take to elect a 'government' that you know is incapable of competent governance, is for the destruction of Israel, and is really only capable of bringing further pain and suffering to Gaza? And why wouldn't you as a concerned, responsible citizen who just voted in Hamas speak out against them after they started murdering members of other palestinian political parties??

And what is your source for that? Surely the lawyers interviewed in the reuters story aren't "everyone." I can point to several other lawyers who disagree.

And the catch is, for any of the laws of blockades to be valid, this has to be an international armed conflict, which means Hamas is a part of the war, and that therefore they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva convention.


Israel has certainly done it's share to make Hamas popular. It has "rewarded" the Palestinian Authority's willingness to negotiate and cease attacks with the fastest expansion of settlements in recent history, even as they withdrew from Gaza under Hamas' attacks. And then with the blockade, the population is heavily dependent on the services and contraband that hamas provides.

At the end of the day, the situation is so complicated because the people who can derail negotiations are also the ones profiting the most from the status quo.

powerclown: it's always a real delight to read your kach party a hair's breadth from racist intepretations of things to do with palestine.

it's all about the breadth of that hair.

so how about you knock off the "they're too stupid to govern themselves" and "they can't think rationally or make rational choices" horseshit, hmm?

Who exactly is profiting from this blockade and how are they profiting from it?

I am not sure I understand how anyone is profiting from this blockade except to think that hamas is suffering from it, at least this is what is supposed to be occurring, and I recognize that part of the blockade is an attempt to turn the Palestinian/Gazan citizens against hamas, (that logic befuddles my mind, like choke the kid til it hates the babysitter kinda logic {oversimplified}), but either way, who is profiting?

The Israeli producers and farmers who have lobbied successfully to have their goods be allowed through the blockade? The intermediaries in Israel, since everything that goes into gaza from other countries has to be imported into Israel, and then re exported into Gaza? The people in gaza who handle the contraband?

This has been discussed in this thread already.

Doesn't most of what is considered aid get paid for via the people of the world and or the Israelis and or donations from this group or that group or, etc..... Sure the farmers get paid, but they would get paid to not farm either way, just thinking their system may be some what akin to U.S. farmers. So it seems to me in reality allowing the Palestinian/Gazans to govern themselves and make their own money, food, exports would be more beneficial for everyone involved (if we could just minus the bombings from hamas), just my sidewards thinking I guess? As I said, I don't see anyone profiting from this war, except maybe in some sick warped way, hamas in continuing to tyrannize the citizens of Gaza and completely discredit the nation of Israel, but that is their goal anyways, isn't it?

Except I am not talking about aid. People still buy and sell things in Gaza, and given the blockade of basic materials, most of that stuff goes through Israel.

A liter of corn oil costs the equivalent of 7 US dollars in Gaza. Where do you think the excess profits are ending up?

O Jerusalem, Take Heed
 

What needs to be done is to implement a REAL solution to prevent terrible events like this from ever happening again. This is an interesting suggestion I read by Amitakh Stanford. The only chance for peace is a two state solution. Both the Palestinian state and the Israeli state need to have a seaport and continuous borders. The neighbouring muslim nations should think about granting some land to the Palestinians. However, now we are getting to the crucial part, which is Jerusalem. Jerusalem needs to be either wholly in Palestine or wholly in Israel. A "Berlin Wall" will not work, there would be continued friction and threats of war. Both Israelis and Palestinians are religious, so they should be open to an unconventional solution:


"O Jerusalem, take heed. The current situation in Israel is untenable; there is an unending conflict between the Palestinians and the Jews. Jewish inhabitants distrust the Palestinians, and vice versa. The age-old struggle between them has cost many lives, much hardship and untold sorrow. The conflict has generated tremendous anger, hatred and distrust – forcing them to live under a single umbrella has proven to be a formula for unending friction.

. . .

Jerusalem is a major sticking point in regard to a two-state solution, which affects not only the parties, but peace in the region. Both sides have long-standing reasons to be inflexible regarding the city. Both sides have long historical, cultural and religious reasons for their intransigence regarding Jerusalem. This has led many people to insist that the two-state solution have a shared Jerusalem. That is, severing Jerusalem in twain, part to one nation and part to another, or granting co-ownership of the city to both nation states. Are either of these proposals wise?

The twentieth century saw what happened when secular powers divided up Berlin into sections. The situation was so bellicose that the Berlin Wall was erected to section off the city. For decades, the Wall divided the people and caused tremendous misery until it was finally demolished.

The same mentality of erecting “Berlin Walls” is very active in modern-day Israel, as is seen by the walled-off sections of the West Bank. Fencing off sections of Berlin did not work, and it should not be encouraged in Jerusalem. Further, if there are national borders running through the city of Jerusalem, it will guarantee that there will be continued friction and bloodshed in the city.

It is understood that neither party wants to relinquish all rights to Jerusalem, but, in reality, to have lasting peace in the area, is there any other choice? I suggest that there is not. Many centuries of conflict support my position. Therefore, in my opinion, Jerusalem should either be wholly within the nation of Israel or wholly within the newly created Palestinian state. To accomplish this, one side or the other would necessarily have to relinquish Jerusalem voluntarily, if it is to be settled amicably. It should be realized that the side that vacates Jerusalem should be amply compensated for it when boundaries for the two newly-formed nation states are drawn.

Clearly, both parties’ claims to Jerusalem are heavily based on religious grounds. If neither side will voluntarily relinquish the city, then, after solemn prayers, a lot should be cast over which nation state will house Jerusalem. Those who sincerely believe in the Divine should accept that the lot will result in the Divine’s will being carried out."

I think you are confusing criticism with racism. Keith Olbermann made a nice career for himself by calling republicans every name in the book during the Bush 2 administration, but I don't think any of it was racially intended. I think its more than obvious to say both hamas and the plo - as political choices - have done far more harm than good to the palestinians.

I've been looking for any blips about an investigation, & any info about
future plans the Flotilla has.

This is something:
Israel probing claims of flotilla ship thefts - CNN.com

This reminds me. There's a Canadian group planning on breaking through the blockade.

Canada Boat to Gaza: Mission Statement

To what end though? Only the one ship ever had problems, and as soon as it was searched the rest of the aid was sent to Gaza for Hamas to promptly refuse.

All of it?