DobermanGuy
Well-Known Member
religion....its a hell of a drug.
Here is a video that shows the Isaelis attacked the passengers before they boarded
- Thread starter kendothegreenwizard
- Start date
Abe wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. lol
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Must be the zionist agenda somehow.That is very interesting. Why would Reuters do that? I mean, they are a news organization and they are supposed to report the truth, right? I would have to agree that editing a knife out is pretty fucking low. It was extremely relevant to the story and Reuters knew it. They also knew that if they took a bit of "creative license" with the story that it would make Israel look like the monsters they are portrayed as. I wonder what all the Israel haters have to say about this interesting little tidbit.
doc111
Well-Known Member
......the zionist controlled media perhaps???Must be the zionist agenda somehow.
Near
Active Member
What the "Israel haters" would remind you of is that the video that Israel released is also highly edited. It's not the complete video, it's the specific parts that they decided to release.That is very interesting. Why would Reuters do that? I mean, they are a news organization and they are supposed to report the truth, right? I would have to agree that editing a knife out is pretty fucking low. It was extremely relevant to the story and Reuters knew it. They also knew that if they took a bit of "creative license" with the story that it would make Israel look like the monsters they are portrayed as. I wonder what all the Israel haters have to say about this interesting little tidbit.
doc111
Well-Known Member
But what did the Israelis edit out? It appears that Reuters has been busted editing a knife out of the video. We should expect this type of thing from a government. Not from a supposedly unbiased, highly respected news organization. As long as the Israeli editing doesn't completely change the context like what Reuters did, I don't see a problem.
The palestinian sympathisizers are lucky they only got 9 of their people killed. I wouldn't fuck around with IDF commandos personally, but that's just me.
abe23
Active Member
I'm saying that israel has a very legitimate concern about weapons getting to hamas. I'm not saying that what israel is doing is fine because hamas thinks it's ok to kill children and other non-combatants, but you do need to keep things in perspective. It's a very nasty conflict. Iran has every interest in keeping it alive and does what it can to help hamas and hezbollah with weapons and whatever else. By the way....egypt also maintains the embargo on gaza, yet they don't get any of the blame for the humanitarian problem there. You might not be among them, but a lot of people ignore half of the facts when they talk about this stuff.
The Grinch
Well-Known Member
kendothegreenwizard, whats your definition of Zionism?
After reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism and http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&defl=en&q=define:zionism&sa=X&ei=doITTLiDFMKHccK3vIwM&ved=0CBcQkAE I'm a little confused about the link between a general ideology which seems to just be the belief that Jews should have a homeland, specifically in Zion (Israel) and any death.
Isn't that like saying that Muslims are terrorists? While there are certain extreme groups within it which may advocate terrorist acts and have adjusted their views and theology accordingly, it isn't a part of the basic ideology and it would seem to be a misrepresentation of an entire people to say otherwise.
So, I'm assuming you mean Nationalist Zionism (Revisionist).
It seems like your trying to equate Zionism to 'Manifest Destiny' (maybe I'm putting words in your mouth).
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen was very wrong in his assertion that all Amaleks should be killed (IMO). If you read the article in the haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/an-amalek-in-our-times-1.242717 you will see that half the article is dedicated to showing a different viewpoint. I completely disagree with his opinion, but as horrible as it is, he has a right to make it, and you have the right to call it rascist, or ignorant etc.
"The true outrage is that most of those authorised to issue Jewish religious opinions support the view of Rabbi Rosen, as confirmed by Haaretz newspaper" - That haaretz article doesn't agree.
As to the 60 years of violence perpertrated by the "Zionists" (as you put it) what countries roots aren't built on a foundation of blood? Why should Israel be any different. Do you advocate the return of all tribal land to American Indians, or Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris perhaps? Are you out there fighting for the Kurds right to a homeland? The violence of other countries roots isn't a justification, but your information at this point only seems relevant as a way of reasoning Palestinians hatred - which I'm not dismissing, they have every reason to be angry, but then so do most minorities in most countries, for the same reasons. But political leaders, on both sides, should be able to put aside these hatreds so that they can do whats best for their people.
There are just as many examples of Palestinian violence which I could present, and you could dismiss as Zionist Propoganda, in the same way as most Jews would dismiss what you wrote as Palestinian propoganda, or a palestinian spin on events. In the end, at this point, its only relevant as a reference to work out how much reperations should be alloted to whom once a 2 state solution is properly implemented. That isn't to say it isn't important to all those who are hurting in the blockade, and every person whose lost (and continues to lose) a friend or family member on both sides, but in the end, on a political level, it just doesn't change things. As W.T Sherman said "War is hell."
While I'm sure that your not anti-semetic, you should be more specific in your labelling of groups to avoid such claims.
After reading through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism and http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-SearchBox&defl=en&q=define:zionism&sa=X&ei=doITTLiDFMKHccK3vIwM&ved=0CBcQkAE I'm a little confused about the link between a general ideology which seems to just be the belief that Jews should have a homeland, specifically in Zion (Israel) and any death.
Isn't that like saying that Muslims are terrorists? While there are certain extreme groups within it which may advocate terrorist acts and have adjusted their views and theology accordingly, it isn't a part of the basic ideology and it would seem to be a misrepresentation of an entire people to say otherwise.
So, I'm assuming you mean Nationalist Zionism (Revisionist).
It seems like your trying to equate Zionism to 'Manifest Destiny' (maybe I'm putting words in your mouth).
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen was very wrong in his assertion that all Amaleks should be killed (IMO). If you read the article in the haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/an-amalek-in-our-times-1.242717 you will see that half the article is dedicated to showing a different viewpoint. I completely disagree with his opinion, but as horrible as it is, he has a right to make it, and you have the right to call it rascist, or ignorant etc.
"The true outrage is that most of those authorised to issue Jewish religious opinions support the view of Rabbi Rosen, as confirmed by Haaretz newspaper" - That haaretz article doesn't agree.
As to the 60 years of violence perpertrated by the "Zionists" (as you put it) what countries roots aren't built on a foundation of blood? Why should Israel be any different. Do you advocate the return of all tribal land to American Indians, or Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris perhaps? Are you out there fighting for the Kurds right to a homeland? The violence of other countries roots isn't a justification, but your information at this point only seems relevant as a way of reasoning Palestinians hatred - which I'm not dismissing, they have every reason to be angry, but then so do most minorities in most countries, for the same reasons. But political leaders, on both sides, should be able to put aside these hatreds so that they can do whats best for their people.
There are just as many examples of Palestinian violence which I could present, and you could dismiss as Zionist Propoganda, in the same way as most Jews would dismiss what you wrote as Palestinian propoganda, or a palestinian spin on events. In the end, at this point, its only relevant as a reference to work out how much reperations should be alloted to whom once a 2 state solution is properly implemented. That isn't to say it isn't important to all those who are hurting in the blockade, and every person whose lost (and continues to lose) a friend or family member on both sides, but in the end, on a political level, it just doesn't change things. As W.T Sherman said "War is hell."
While I'm sure that your not anti-semetic, you should be more specific in your labelling of groups to avoid such claims.
Fullmoon kid
Active Member
Ive always thought this one interesting. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
This is an excellent example of the double standard operating in the western 'main stream' media. Much concern over the cropping of a single photograph showing a knife that may have been used - against a heavily armed elite military commando unit. In the context of a conflict in which said unit killed at least nine people and wounded - with automatic weapon and pistol - some thirty more. Suffering - three wounded in the process.
But let's talk about a knife.
Where is all the footage shot by the dozens of members of the international press that were on the convoy? All the photos and video and sound recordings documenting the actual, lethal assault by IDF commandos in the dead of night, that would help us to form an accurate picture of the events on the Mavi Marmara? That, besides showing a knife or two, maybe shows IDF automatic weapons being discharged into human beings half a meter away?
Oh yeah, Israel has confiscated ALL of it, but for the few minutes smuggled out by a handful of activists. But I'm sure we can trust Israel to accurately report the facts.
So let's talk about a knife.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Lets talk about a wood chipper. If you throw yourself into a wood chipper you are likely to be seriously injured or killed. If you throw yourself at an Israeli blockade you are likely to face the same fate.
The actions of the people in the boat provoked the confrontation. The actions of the people in THAT PARTICULAR BOAT caused casualties due to them attacking the Israeli commando's. Our police are well armed too!!! And if you dont physically assault them they do not draw their weapons and fire. Kinda like what happened on that boat eh?
Israel is not sailing around assaulting ships, it is performing a naval blockade to prevent arms shipments from reaching Gaza. These people chose to try to run the blockade. That being unsucessfull they attacked and israeli boarding party with knives and pipes. The video shows that quite clearly, those people were not peaceful like the people on the other boats.
So lets talk about a wood chipper....
let's talk about that blockade.
it's purpose isn't to prevent arms from comming through. that's what israel tells you.
the purpose is to drive all those arabs and palestinians into such misery and poverty that they'll at one point stop existing. israel is really hoping that this blockade will be enough to either drive those palestinians out of their own land or have them die off, no matter how slow it goes.
(Israel is a shared territory. historically it has been Primarily Arab. Jews have never had a homeland perse, even the biblical Canaan was an Arab city that was seized and taken over by the jews; Jewish and British elites chose that stretch of land we call Israel by picking it out on a map after a night of heavy drinking...the notion that Israel is jewish land is false, that land has 5000 years of Arab residents vs. 40 something years of Israeli control)
That blockade prevents chips and cookies through too. it's not because those chips can be made into dangerous rockets. it's admittedly because that would make Gaza strip residents' life more miserable.
they also don't allow cement through. because that would help them reconstruct their buildings and let them have a good way of life.......
as long as there's israel there will never be
.
abe23
Active Member
It's not illegal under any law to prevent weapons from getting to your enemy in an armed conflict. Hamas refuses to recognize israel and negotiate peace. Iran would also love to send them weapons.
And if you're wondering why israel is so paranoid about hamas, it's because a couple of years ago they were up to stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Massacre
It sucks that the people in gaza can't get cement and other necessities and that's the reason it's in everyone's interest to get a peace deal...but it's not going to happen if buses are getting suicide bombed and rockets landing in schools, which is exactly what will happen if israel ends the blockade and let's iran send hamas new rockets and weapons.
And if you're wondering why israel is so paranoid about hamas, it's because a couple of years ago they were up to stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Massacre
It sucks that the people in gaza can't get cement and other necessities and that's the reason it's in everyone's interest to get a peace deal...but it's not going to happen if buses are getting suicide bombed and rockets landing in schools, which is exactly what will happen if israel ends the blockade and let's iran send hamas new rockets and weapons.
The Grinch
Well-Known Member
redivider: Whose else would you listen to besides Israel to determine their motivations? You can call them liers if thats what you believe, but no other country, news agency, reporter or individual is capable of reading the minds of another to give a real account of their motivations. I don't read Israeli news papers, policies or government statements to get the Palestinian, and greater Arab, point of view. I look at Al'Jazeer, Hammas, Iran, etc. statements to figure that.
The purpose of a blockade is to make life within its borders miserable, in this case as a means of reducing the power of Hamaas. The fact that it hasn't achieved this, is a very good reason to argue why it should be ended.
How do a group of people "stop existing" from a blockade? Yes the Gazaan economy has crashed. Yes most of the population is reliant on handouts. Yes they are unable to rebuild infastructure as a result of the blockade. No, the Palestinians within Gazaa "at one point stop existing."
Besides a list of items which have to be let into a blockaded area, the blockading country chooses what they can and can't let in. If you have a problem with this, write to the UN and ask/make them increase the list to items you consider that Israel has no right to deny them. See Below.
"Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection."
Although specific members have come out condeming the blockade, an official statment calling it illegal has not been made, in which case, as abe said, it isn't. Please direct to a reliable source if you find one.
Wordz: I'm assuming your refering to another instance where Israel did infact bomb a ship, because thats not what happened here.
Just to make it clear, I am against the blockade and the ill treatment of the Palestinian population within Israel, and the rest of the middle east, where they are regularly treated as 2nd class citizens, and used as pawns in the ambitions of other countries. I am also against the ill treatment of the Iranian opposition who, since their defeat and political uprising, have been tortured, raped and abused into submission; The abuse of the Kurds in Turkey who suffer ongoing civil and human rights abuses; The Sri Lankan human rights abuses; The ill treatment of Nepalese by the Chinese; The banning of mosques in Switzerland; The unacceptable divide of wealth, land and education between Aboriginal Australians and the greater population - The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point...
The purpose of a blockade is to make life within its borders miserable, in this case as a means of reducing the power of Hamaas. The fact that it hasn't achieved this, is a very good reason to argue why it should be ended.
How do a group of people "stop existing" from a blockade? Yes the Gazaan economy has crashed. Yes most of the population is reliant on handouts. Yes they are unable to rebuild infastructure as a result of the blockade. No, the Palestinians within Gazaa "at one point stop existing."
Besides a list of items which have to be let into a blockaded area, the blockading country chooses what they can and can't let in. If you have a problem with this, write to the UN and ask/make them increase the list to items you consider that Israel has no right to deny them. See Below.
"Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, a blockade is a legal method of warfare at sea, but is governed by rules. The blockading nation must publish a list of contraband. The manual describes what can never be contraband. Outside this list, the blockading nation is free to select anything as contraband. The blockading nation typically establish a blockaded area of water, but any ship can be inspected as soon as it is established that it is attempting to break the blockade. This inspection can occur inside the blockaded area or in international waters, but never inside the territorial waters of a neutral nation. A neutral ship must obey a request to stop for inspection from the blockading nation. If the situation so demands, the blockading nation can request that the ship divert to a known place or harbour for inspection. If the ship does not stop, then the ship is subject to capture. If people aboard the ship are resisting capture, they can be attacked. It is still not allowed to sink the ship, unless provision is made for rescueing the crew. Leaving the crew in liferafts / lifeboats does not constitue rescue. If a neutral ship is captured, any member of the crew, resisting capture can be treated as prisoners-of-war, while the remainder of the crew should be released. A neutral nation may choose to send a convoy accompanied by warships. The warship can provide guarantees that the convoy does not contain contraband. in which case, the blockading nation does not have any right of inspection."
Although specific members have come out condeming the blockade, an official statment calling it illegal has not been made, in which case, as abe said, it isn't. Please direct to a reliable source if you find one.
Wordz: I'm assuming your refering to another instance where Israel did infact bomb a ship, because thats not what happened here.
Just to make it clear, I am against the blockade and the ill treatment of the Palestinian population within Israel, and the rest of the middle east, where they are regularly treated as 2nd class citizens, and used as pawns in the ambitions of other countries. I am also against the ill treatment of the Iranian opposition who, since their defeat and political uprising, have been tortured, raped and abused into submission; The abuse of the Kurds in Turkey who suffer ongoing civil and human rights abuses; The Sri Lankan human rights abuses; The ill treatment of Nepalese by the Chinese; The banning of mosques in Switzerland; The unacceptable divide of wealth, land and education between Aboriginal Australians and the greater population - The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the point...
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I think in #134 redivider hits the nail on the head here. While Israel's tactical goal may be the suppression of Hamas whose grip on power seems only strengthened after three years of blockade its unstated strategic goal must surely be the ultimate elimination of remaining Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza. Such analysis remains taboo in the western media but is available to anyone capable of rising above the propaganda and dispassionately analysing the 'facts on the ground'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To Israels' defenders I have only one question: if Israel is serious about making peace, why does it continue to build settlements on Palestinian land? Because you cannot have both peace with your neighbours AND continue to violently displace them from their ancestral homes. The unpalatable fact is that the Israeli state is ruled by a faction of violent terrorists who have led that nation down a bloody, colonizing path since its inception and show no signs of letting up. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Indeed, you don't need to look anywhere else to find the roots of the ongoing conflict. Time and again Israel has violated ceasefires and truces in order to pursue this strategic goal. Each act of aggression is delivered to the world cloaked in carefully calibrated propaganda accusing the Palestinians of one transgression or another. Israel ALWAYS has excuses to hand but after several decades the pattern is undeniable, as any map will prove. The Occupied Territories continue to shrink and the settlement populations continue to grow. Israel is not 'defending' itself. It is 'expanding' itself and violently suppressing those who resist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NLXSK1 in #132 The actions of the people in THAT PARTICULAR BOAT caused casualties due to them attacking the Israeli commando's.
You're using 'attack' in a very creative way. As in, 'the old lady 'attacked' the violent offender's baseball bat with her nose'. When you find yourself visiting such indignities upon the English language just to stay on-message, maybe the problem isn't the grammar? I note you do not address my point that the IDF have confiscated all documentary evidence of their attack. Because you cannot, because their continued withholding of this material confirms there is a telling gap between their version of events and the reality captured in the seized media.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Abe23, if I may, I find your comments generally fairminded but in #136 you link to an account of the 'Passover Massacre' as an example of Hamas atrocity. This sort of cherrypicking is a little disingenuous don't you think? In the two weeks prior to the 'massacre' the IDF had invaded both the West Bank and Gaza and over 200 mainly civilian Palestinians had been slaughtered. The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was under siege in his own compound, ambulances had been attacked, hospitals cut off by tanks and hundreds of homes destroyed. If Hamas is not permitted the arms to defend its own families in their own territory it seems only human to expect them to resort to other means to return Israeli kindnesses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Once again: if Israel wants peace, why is it building settlements?
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]To Israels' defenders I have only one question: if Israel is serious about making peace, why does it continue to build settlements on Palestinian land? Because you cannot have both peace with your neighbours AND continue to violently displace them from their ancestral homes. The unpalatable fact is that the Israeli state is ruled by a faction of violent terrorists who have led that nation down a bloody, colonizing path since its inception and show no signs of letting up. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Indeed, you don't need to look anywhere else to find the roots of the ongoing conflict. Time and again Israel has violated ceasefires and truces in order to pursue this strategic goal. Each act of aggression is delivered to the world cloaked in carefully calibrated propaganda accusing the Palestinians of one transgression or another. Israel ALWAYS has excuses to hand but after several decades the pattern is undeniable, as any map will prove. The Occupied Territories continue to shrink and the settlement populations continue to grow. Israel is not 'defending' itself. It is 'expanding' itself and violently suppressing those who resist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NLXSK1 in #132 The actions of the people in THAT PARTICULAR BOAT caused casualties due to them attacking the Israeli commando's.
You're using 'attack' in a very creative way. As in, 'the old lady 'attacked' the violent offender's baseball bat with her nose'. When you find yourself visiting such indignities upon the English language just to stay on-message, maybe the problem isn't the grammar? I note you do not address my point that the IDF have confiscated all documentary evidence of their attack. Because you cannot, because their continued withholding of this material confirms there is a telling gap between their version of events and the reality captured in the seized media.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Abe23, if I may, I find your comments generally fairminded but in #136 you link to an account of the 'Passover Massacre' as an example of Hamas atrocity. This sort of cherrypicking is a little disingenuous don't you think? In the two weeks prior to the 'massacre' the IDF had invaded both the West Bank and Gaza and over 200 mainly civilian Palestinians had been slaughtered. The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was under siege in his own compound, ambulances had been attacked, hospitals cut off by tanks and hundreds of homes destroyed. If Hamas is not permitted the arms to defend its own families in their own territory it seems only human to expect them to resort to other means to return Israeli kindnesses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Once again: if Israel wants peace, why is it building settlements?
[/FONT]
Smokatoka39
Member
Here is what I see in this entire situation....hate. Constant ingrained and pervasive hate. It's sad that this area of the world is so full of hate.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Israel has been attacked over and over again. Most of the Arab states would like to see Israel gone. Israel knows this and has adopted a very agressive posture in responding to these attacks. Unfortunately, this agressive posture has resulted in some unfortunate civilian casualties. The difference is that the Palestinian "freedom fighter" does not differentiate between civilian and military. They are one and the same, both targets equally worthy of anhilation. This is the definition of terrorism. It doesn't matter that your enemy has one of the most capable military machines on the planet. The Palestinians are masters at portraying themselves as the victim. Victims don't launch rockets and suicide bombing attacks aimed at civilian targets of opportunity. They can't have it both ways and until the Israelis have a committed partner for peace the settlements will probably continue. The Palestinians have shown that they are not committed by electing a known terror organization like Hamas as the leaders of their "government".