UN calls israeli raid 'excessive', 'unreasonable' and

[Wild Bill]

you can't guarantee such a thing. there will always be extremist groups on both sides. one thing that is guaranteed is that the occupation will continue to fan the flames of extremism. regardless, it's not israel's decision whether palestinians will have their own state. all israel can do is to stall what is going to happen.

give up security? how is allowing palestinians to have their own state giving up security?

they continued to occupy the land by controlling the borders, air and seas. so they didn't really stop the occupation of gaza, by the real definition. not only that, but it's fair to accept that the rockets are a response to the unfair treatment of the gazans through a brutal blockade which started when hamas was voted into power.

israel and u.s. will be side-stepped. they've had more than their share of opportunity to help create a palestinian state. they failed miserably because of those who control the israeli government. the extreme right wing zionist government is not interested to ever allowing a real palestinian state. they're still in lala land and dreaming of a greater israel.

Have you seen that youtube clip of the cat singing "I've got my tinfoil hat on"? You really should give it a google! Very cute!

[Wild Bill]

So you can't back up your claim. I'm surmising that you don't know the facts.

I'm with you, AW! I never saw anything other than a passing remark from Bud. No cite, no nothing. Looks to me like he just pulled the idea out of his butt!

But if we're all wrong would it bust his ass to post it again? The fact that he dodges the idea is pretty obvious troll work.

[Bob]

A man lying on deck on his stomach and executed with a shot to the back of the head....What a courageous (and necessary) "response"!

Excuse me, when did that happen?

[bloodyminded]

Well, he may have been a non-combatant at that point but what was he doing 5 minutes before?

First of all, the onus is on the extrajudical executioners to make the case...not those who wonder about the necessity of murdering a lying-prone, unarmed man in the back of the head.

Second, once he's so thoroughly disabled...well, i would love to hear the justification?

And isn't this apples and oranges compared to randomly firing rockets into residential areas and blowing up busloads of schoolkids and civilians?

I was responding directly to a post...odd that you didn't take that post to task for the subject matter.

[bloodyminded]

Excuse me, when did that happen?

It seems I might have made a small error: he may have been shot point blank in the face, either rather than in the back of the head (or possibly in addition). It sound smore horrific, but the distinction isn't of crucial importance, I don't think.

Edited September 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

It seems I might have made a small error: he may have been shot point blank in the face, either rather than in the back of the head (or possibly in addition). It sound smore horrific, but the distinction isn't of crucial importance, I don't think.

The real crucial distinction, of course, is that the death in question 'may have' happened that way - or may not have. The conclusion that it did happen that way is based solely on reports out of the flotilla crew - who also proclaimed themselves "peaceful" activists.

[bloodyminded]

The real crucial distinction, of course, is that the death in question 'may have' happened that way - or may not have. The conclusion that it did happen that way is based solely on reports out of the flotilla crew - who also proclaimed themselves "peaceful" activists.

Yes, we have two points of opinion: the flotilla eyewitnesses, and the Israeli military who were also there...and who aren't speaking about it, and are refusing an inquest. As all innocent folks are wont to do.

It's also based on a Turkish coroner's report. But ok, maybe Turkish officials are lying, including the coroner's report, and the flotilla eyewitnesses are lying...and the Israeli military are telling the truth (if they deny it...which so far they have not, not explicitly).

An independent investigation might go some way to clearing it up. But of the agents we're speaking of here, a certain specific one of them has refused.

Edited September 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, we have two points of opinion: the flotilla eyewitnesses, and the Israeli military who were also there...and who aren't speaking about it, and are refusing an inquest. As all innocent folks are wont to do.

Interesting that you can see that there are "two points of opinion" - as you pick up on one of those "opinions" and present it as fact.

But yes, we have the flotilla eyewitnesses - who also claimed they were "peaceful activists." So we know they lied and misrepresented themselves. As for the Israeli military - Israel has made its statement. Refusing an inquest in understandable. I'd refuse an inquest that I suspected would be biased and do me more harm than good - regardless of the actual circumstances - too. Seriously. What more would an "inquest" show? There would still be the same people involved, telling their stories.

So your claim regarding "innocent folks" refusing inquests et al is not a fact at all, but merely your opinion as to what innocent folks are wont to do. I've often wondered why politicians who are falsely accused of this or that don't just shut up about it - why they feel the need to go on and on about it. Seems the more they proclaim their innocence, the more what they say is taken out of context and repeated in support of the original accusation.

IMO, Israel is wise not to go on the defensive. Going on the defensive can backfire.

But do keep claiming one side's version as fact - and do judge accordingly. It speaks more of you than it does Israel.

It's also based on a Turkish coroner's report. But ok, maybe Turkish officials are lying, including the coroner's report, and the flotilla eyewitnesses are lying...and the Israeli military are telling the truth (if they deny it...which so far they have not, not explicitly).

So you would accept an Israeli's coroner's report as proof in a conflicting report? I highly doubt it. It's as you said. Maybe the Turkish officials are lying. The fact is, again, that we do not know. Yet you accept one side and present it as fact.

An independent investigation might go some way to clearing it up. But of the agents we're speaking of here, a certain specific one of them has refused.

And as I said, I don't blame them. Who would chose this independent team to do the investigating? "Independent" is not synonymous with "fair." As I said, sometimes going full force on the defensive actually makes one look guilty. Israel has made its statement. The blockade was found to be legal. The resistance was found to be illegal. Israel was met with violence. They had the right to fight back. They did.

But as I said, do keep presenting a situation that even the report says 'may have happened' as fact. You're not alone.

[bloodyminded]

But yes, we have the flotilla eyewitnesses - who also claimed they were "peaceful activists." So we know they lied and misrepresented themselves.

The Israeli military conducted a commando night raid.

Anyone who wouldn't try to defend themselves would be crazy.

As for the Israeli military - Israel has made its statement. Refusing an inquest in understandable. I'd refuse an inquest that I suspected would be biased and do me more harm than good - regardless of the actual circumstances - too. Seriously. What more would an "inquest" show? There would still be the same people involved, telling their stories.

So...you believe an inquest would be useless...and meanwhile you'll take the official Israeli version of events as accurate?

Why? Why is your opinion so clearly aligned with fact?

I've often wondered why politicians who are falsely accused of this or that don't just shut up about it - why they feel the need to go on and on about it. Seems the more they proclaim their innocence, the more what they say is taken out of context and repeated in support of the original accusation.

So you take it for granted that the Israelis are "innocent," then. Based on their say-so.

So what are you whining about my stance for?

IMO, Israel is wise not to go on the defensive. Going on the defensive can backfire.

But do keep claiming one side's version as fact - and do judge accordingly. It speaks more of you than it does Israel.

Right. They shouldn't have an inquest; they shouldn't go on the defensive. they shouldn't do anyhting, except wallow in the infignant and sycophantic support of you, who takes it as a given that they are in the right.

You ask for proof....and then you say you don't want any.

So you would accept an Israeli's coroner's report as proof in a conflicting report? I highly doubt it.

It would be a great start, wouldn't it? Israel is a democracy in which state interference of that sort is not as simple as you'd think. (Same goes with Turkey, by the way./..but you assume Turkish authorities are lying. But not Israeli officials! Gods, no!)

So it would certainly turn the conversation further in Israel's favour. And if the two coroner's reports showed contradictory results, then a third party is needed to try to navigate the issue.

That's how it's normally done with coroner's reports.

It's as you said. Maybe the Turkish officials are lying. The fact is, again, that we do not know. Yet you accept one side and present it as fact.

Yes, in fact you're right, maybe turkish officials are lying. Maybe Israeli officials are lying.

And as I said, I don't blame them. Who would chose this independent team to do the investigating? "Independent" is not synonymous with "fair." As I said, sometimes going full force on the defensive actually makes one look guilty. Israel has made its statement. The blockade was found to be legal. The resistance was found to be illegal. Israel was met with violence. They had the right to fight back. They did.

"Found" by whom? If you're talking about the UN report, you're omitting some crucial "findings," now, aren't you?

If you're talking about the official Israeli report, then you are taking as fact what is nothis is apparently very bothersome to you...except when it's your own tactic.

But as I said, do keep presenting a situation that even the report says 'may have happened' as fact. You're not alone.

And you keep whining about how Israel is always right, and how everyone's picking on it for no reason. You're not alone, either...though you are part of a fringe, sychophantic minority, to be sure.

Edited September 8, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

The Israeli military conducted a commando night raid.

Anyone who wouldn't try to defend themselves would be crazy.

They were wrong to try to break a legal blockade in the first place. It's like saying someone who is breaking the law has a right to defend themselves when confronted with the law. The volunteers on the other ships who were "crazy" enough not to "defend" themselves from the Israeli soldiers boarding their ships met with no harm.

So...you believe an inquest would be useless...and meanwhile you'll take the official Israeli version of events as accurate?

Seems to me I've been saying repeatedly that we don't know. I'M not the one presenting one side as fact. That would be you and bud and jacee...........

Why? Why is your opinion so clearly aligned with fact?

Actually, yes, it is.

So you take it for granted that the Israelis are "innocent," then. Based on their say-so.

If you can show me where I've said that, I'd much appreciate it.

So what are you whining about my stance for?

Because I didn't do what you have claim I have done. But yeah, pointing out that you are taking one side of what even YOU recognize and refer to as "two opinions" is "whining." Real intelligent. I'm beginning to believe you when you say that you aren't that bright.

Right. They shouldn't have an inquest; they shouldn't go on the defensive. they shouldn't do anyhting, except wallow in the infignant and sycophantic support of you, who takes it as a given that they are in the right.

They didn't "do nothing." They made their statement. As for my "infignant and sycophantic support," taking it as "a given that they are in the right,' you're coming across as more ignorant by the second. You have simply stated what *I* believe - and proceeded to go on and on about the view you've assigned to me, insulting me - based on your claim.

I've simply stated that Israel was met with violence and responded. As for this specific incident, YOU are the one claiming one side as fact. I've simply been refuting the claim that it's FACT. It's not. YOU are the one assuming I am taking Israel's side in this matter - I have made no such claims. I've pointed out that we have two conflicting stories - and that is the fact of the matter.

You ask for proof....and then you say you don't want any.

I said no such thing. I said I didn't get any proof. Again. Even you admit that there are two different opinions. "Opinions" being the operative word - as you take one side and state it as fact.

It would be a great start, wouldn't it? Israel is a democracy in which state interference of that sort is not as simple as you'd think. (Same goes with Turkey, by the way./..but you assume Turkish authorities are lying. But not Israeli officials! Gods, no!)

Are you so ignorant, so incapable of comprehension, that you think "they may be lying" is the same as 'they are lying?' Quit claiming what *I* assume. You suck at it. :angry:

Yes, in fact you're right, maybe turkish officials are lying. Maybe Israeli officials are lying.

By George, I think you've got it!! FINALLY.

Good grief.

Yes, Turkish officials could be lying. Maybe Israeli officials are lying. Could be that's why I said: The fact is, again, that we do not know. Ya think?? As you accuse me of taking one side.

And you keep whining about how Israel is always right, and how everyone's picking on it for no reason. You're not alone, either...though you are part of a fringe, sychophantic minority, to be sure.

Yes, yes. When I post, I whine. When you post, it's discussion. I get it.

Fact is, I've never once posted, whined, cried, or otherwise stated that "Israel is always right."

But do keep accusing me of it. Do keep saying it. And do keep referring to my posts as "whining." It does oh-so-much to make your case. As you present one side of the activist's death in question as fact.

Edited September 8, 2011 by American Woman

[Bob]

It seems I might have made a small error: he may have been shot point blank in the face, either rather than in the back of the head (or possibly in addition). It sound smore horrific, but the distinction isn't of crucial importance, I don't think.

Got any proof of this, and can you provide the context surrounding it aside from "eyewitness testimony"? You're just parroting these pathetic lies which imply "executions" going on during the event. It's as if you think one of these "demonstrators" was standing, minding his own business, while and evil and bloodthirsty Israeli commando walked up to him and murdered him.

[Bob]

Look back a couple of pages in the thread, or google it.

I was surmising that he must have said something to annoy the Israeli soldier holding him at gunpoint, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps he said nothing and got shot anyway.

As usual, you have no problem creating a false narrative. If you're got proof, share it. We both know you're just making this shit up as you go along, with your buddy bloodyminded in tow. I anticipate that you'll link us to some "eyewitness testimony" from a site like counterpunch.org or some "Palestinian" advocacy group.

[Guest American Woman]

Got any proof of this, and can you provide the context surrounding it aside from "eyewitness testimony"? You're just parroting these pathetic lies which imply "executions" going on during the event. It's as if you think one of these "demonstrators" was standing, minding his own business, while and evil and bloodthirsty Israeli commando walked up to him and murdered him.

Exactly. There's absolutely no "proof" that it happened the way the flotilla volunteers on board said it did - and since they already lied about their position, their "peaceful" mission, their word means little to me.

[Bob]

Essentially, the problem the Israelis made was to use far too little force. They sent in the initial raiders largely unarmed, with paint guns, of all things. They clearly weren't prepared for frenzied Muslim fanatics clawing at their eyes and stabbing them with knives.

Absolutely. Israel made big mistakes with such a soft response. Everyone on the deck should have been ordered to lie flat on their stomachs via the boats and helicopters, and if they didn't comply, to be shot at prior to the boarding of the soldiers. Barak is a fool to send in soldiers onto a hostile ship packed with hundreds of Jihadi Islamist filth looking for blood. Subdue the enemy, and then board. These assertions that Israel was "too aggressive" are beyond stupid.

[Bob]

Exactly. There's absolutely no "proof" that it happened the way the flotilla volunteers on board said it did - and since they already lied about their position, their "peaceful" mission, their word means little to me.

All the proof we have demonstrates exactly the opposite. We've all seen the videos. The Mavi Marmara passengers on the deck were the exact opposite of "peaceful protestors". They were chanting Jihadi prayers and wishing for martyrdom prior engaging the Jewish enemy. They were all amped up on bloodthirst. Upon the boarding of the soldiers, they were viciously assaulted. Any reasonable person would realize that in such a situation the use of deadly force for self-defense by the IDF was entirely justified.

[Guest American Woman]

All the proof we have demonstrates exactly the opposite. We've all seen the videos. The Mavi Marmara passengers on the deck were the exact opposite of "peaceful protestors". They were chanting Jihadi prayers and wishing for martyrdom prior engaging the Jewish enemy. They were all amped up on bloodthirst. Upon the boarding of the soldiers, they were viciously assaulted. Any reasonable person would realize that in such a situation the use of deadly force for self-defense by the IDF was entirely justified.

I do think Israel was justified in using force in response to the violence it was met with. My opinion is that the volunteer in question was not "executed" the way it's being claimed. There's nothing to convince me that he was. Even the coroner's report can't shed any light on that claim - a coroner has no idea if the man in question was armed, was reaching for a weapon, etc.

[Bob]

The Israeli military conducted a commando night raid.

Anyone who wouldn't try to defend themselves would be crazy.

Who is defending themselves from whom? They are deliberately provoking Israel by refusing the comply with lawful orders to STOP and be SEARCHED. You're acting as if this flotilla has some sort of right to sail to Gaza unimpeded, and that somehow this right was violated from the IDF. Do you not realize that there are legitimate security concerns that Israel has regarding Gaza? If you do recognize that, why is it then impossible for you to acknowledge that it is reasonable to expect Israel to enforce its blockade and require searches of vessels destined for Gaza? Israeli and other lives are at risk, and the blockade seeks to reduce these risks. And here you are, playing the role of the useful leftist idiot, acting as if their "right" to travel freely in the seas was violated by the evil IDF and that they had some right to "defend" themselves. Imagine if I refuse a lawful instruction from an officer or soldier (albeit in a war-zone), and then force is about to be used to make me comply with the order.... may I then "defend" myself lawfully?

How are you so blind to not realize that these Jihadis got exactly what they wanted, in their very own words? Have you not seen the videos of the "demonstrators" on the Mavi Marmara openly stating their wishes to become martyrs (Shahids) less than hours prior to these events? They wanted to die for "Palestine".

[Bob]

I do think Israel was justified in using force in response to the violence it was met with. My opinion is that the volunteer in question was not "executed" the way it's being claimed. There's nothing to convince me that he was. Even the coroner's report can't shed any light on that claim - a coroner has no idea if the man in question was armed, was reaching for a weapon, etc.

It's just another lie in a long list of lies far too long to remember. I'm sure this Jihadi from Turkey was singing lullabies and kumbaya when a bloodthirsty IDF commando murdered him in cold blood.

[GostHacked]

Absolutely. Israel made big mistakes with such a soft response.

Killing people is not a soft response.

Everyone on the deck should have been ordered to lie flat on their stomachs via the boats and helicopters, and if they didn't comply, to be shot at prior to the boarding of the soldiers.

Was the boat in international waters when Israeli commandos stormed the boat? If so, they could have shot back without repercussions.

[Bonam]

It seems I might have made a small error: he may have been shot point blank in the face, either rather than in the back of the head (or possibly in addition). It sound smore horrific, but the distinction isn't of crucial importance, I don't think.

It kind of is, I'd think. Someone lying on the ground with his back side up is not a threat, while someone standing in front of you facing you may well be advancing on/threatening you.

[bloodyminded]

Seems to me I've been saying repeatedly that we don't know. I'M not the one presenting one side as fact. That would be you and bud and jacee...........

And yet, directly subsequent to this preposterous claim, you answer my remark about your thinking that your opinion is fact:

Actually, yes, it is.

Because I didn't do what you have claim I have done.

Yes, you certainly have. See above. Also, you state "findings" as plainly objective, ignoring the fact that plenty of "findings" are producing multiple narratives.

You seem bent on holding others to a much higher standard than you hold yourself.

Real intelligent. I'm beginning to believe you when you say that you aren't that bright.

Boy, for someone who complains a lot about "insulting language," in this post and elsewhere, you sure don't mind dishing it out.

Hell, not so long ago you said I was an "asshole" with whom you weren't going to speak to anymore.

And yet you don't believe what proven liars have to say?........Does that principle extrapolate inwards?

[bloodyminded]

All the proof we have demonstrates exactly the opposite. We've all seen the videos. The Mavi Marmara passengers on the deck were the exact opposite of "peaceful protestors". They were chanting Jihadi prayers and wishing for martyrdom prior engaging the Jewish enemy. They were all amped up on bloodthirst. Upon the boarding of the soldiers, they were viciously assaulted. Any reasonable person would realize that in such a situation the use of deadly force for self-defense by the IDF was entirely justified.

Sure, they were "amped up on bloodthirst" and ready to kill the IDF...but they forgot to bring suitable weaponry for the job. Slipped their mind.

Did all the propaganda sites you've visited honestly and sincerely overlook this interesting matter?

Is such an glaring error of ommission even possible?

By god, I think it is. The wonders of propaganda, eh?

[bloodyminded]

Who is defending themselves from whom? They are deliberately provoking Israel by refusing the comply with lawful orders to STOP and be SEARCHED. You're acting as if this flotilla has some sort of right to sail to Gaza unimpeded, and that somehow this right was violated from the IDF. Do you not realize that there are legitimate security concerns that Israel has regarding Gaza? If you do recognize that, why is it then impossible for you to acknowledge that it is reasonable to expect Israel to enforce its blockade and require searches of vessels destined for Gaza?

Israel has a formidable navy. They could have surrounded the flotilla. Easily. They could have disabled the propellers.

That they took the most dangerous and least rational approach should anger you, not get you screeching about the evils of the dead men and so on.

Israeli and other lives are at risk, and the blockade seeks to reduce these risks. And here you are, playing the role of the useful leftist idiot

That's not too friendly.

[Guest American Woman]

And yet, directly subsequent to this preposterous claim, you answer my remark about your thinking that your opinion is fact:

Because my thinking is/was clearly stated that WE DON'T KNOW. I hadn't even given my opinion beyond that at that point - much less stated it as FACT.

Try to keep up with what I've said - then you won't have to state my opinion for me according to your beliefs. Seriously. It's beyond annoying.

Yes, you certainly have. See above. Also, you state "findings" as plainly objective, ignoring the fact that plenty of "findings" are producing multiple narratives.

I'm ignoring that .... how?? I'm the one who clearly said that "we don't know for fact." And we don''t. I'm since gone on to clearly state my opinion.

You seem bent on holding others to a much higher standard than you hold yourself.

You seem bent on claiming I've done/said/believe what I haven't done/said/believe. You seem bent on accusing me of doing the what you have done. I have not. Not in reality. In your head, perhaps - but I'm not accountable for what goes on inside your head.

Boy, for someone who complains a lot about "insulting language," in this post and elsewhere, you sure don't mind dishing it out.

I insulted your view in no way - until you started throwing insults around. If you don't like it, stick to discussing things without the accusations of "whining" et al. When you do that, I'll call it as I see it. Furthermore, YOU are the one who has claimed more than once that you are not that bright. If you don't want people to believe it/comment on it, I suggest you don't say it.

Hell, not so long ago you said I was an "asshole" with whom you weren't going to speak to anymore.

I'll correct you when you're wrong. You're not going to get a free pass on that. It's beyond annoying when you continually speak me - claim that I believe what I have never said I believe. I repeat. Don't speak for me. Don't assign beliefs to me - and then respond to me as if they are my beliefs.

And yet you don't believe what proven liars have to say?........Does that principle extrapolate inwards?

I have no idea what you're on about. If you're insinuating that I'm a liar, I suggest you back it up - pronto. :angry:

Edited September 8, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

It kind of is, I'd think. Someone lying on the ground with his back side up is not a threat, while someone standing in front of you facing you may well be advancing on/threatening you.

Even someone lying on the ground with his back side up could be reaching for a gun.