Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Infinite Chaos · Jun 7, 2010

Gardener said:
Your continued ridicule and posturing denial of what your are actually doing is duly noted.

My, you're a bitter fellow. Anyhow - please be patient, I have said I will respond to Apocalypse's last serious post.

ferrugem · Jun 7, 2010

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Egypt to supply electricity to Gaza

About 1.5 million Palestinians rely largely on Israel for supplies of electricty and the fuel for the territory's only 140 megawatt power plant.

Apocalypse · Jun 7, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
I'm genuinely laughing - not out of anger (even if you seemed to think I'm some kind of anti-semite on the last page) and I ain't going to hold any grudges or anything.

OK, once I wipe the tears from my eyes, I'll get back to your last post. The debate may be hostile and hard hitting (I hope) but no offence or anger or malice is intended.

OK, can't type anymore for laughing - I've had to retype this a few times already.

You were still wrong about Israel not supplying Gaza with any humanitarian aid, since it is one of its major electricity suppliers.
You're essentially laughing about yourself, I might have misunderstood your words but I did manage to show you that you're wrong.

alexa · Jun 7, 2010

Here a UK citizen gives his account of what he experienced. For us Brits perhaps we should be asking why he was not visited by British Embassy personnel

Kidnapped by Israel, forsaken by Britain | Al Jazeera Blogs

Infinite Chaos · Jun 7, 2010

Apocalypse said:
You were still wrong about Israel not supplying Gaza with any humanitarian aid, since it is one of its major electricity suppliers.
You're essentially laughing about yourself, I might have misunderstood your words but I did manage to show you that you're wrong.

Hey, knock yourself out if that makes you feel better / more manly whatever. Just out of curiosity - was it 15,000 tons of electricity?

:rofl

Infinite Chaos · Jun 7, 2010

Apocalypse said:
-- There is no real evidence to back that up, it's most likely as made up as the claim that soldiers were not attacked or that they came on board shooting.

Firstly, as Israel has all the phones and cameras from both flotillas, we cannot judge impartially can we? I only have various witness reports as given to the BBC – however, as we seem to have established – all sources that are not Israeli Govt sources are obviously false aren’t they?

Further – if you are trying to say I denied the soldiers were attacked – I’d be most pleased if you could find that post?

Apocalypse said:
-- By simply stating that those activists' words are facts, you make yourself an enemy of rationality.

Oh dear, tin foil hat time is it?

Apocalypse said:
-- Neither Amnesty nor the UN have ever proven the contrary.
Amnesty has only claimed that 80% of Gazans depend on humanitarian aid - that can't possibly base the assumption that they are 'forced' to depend on it.

There aren’t many jobs in Gaza, I read somewhere that some of the best paid workers are those building the tunnels into Gaza for Hamas – that doesn’t leave many people with regular employment or savings after years of blockade to buy what is imported does it? Not that I expect you to acknowledge this – somehow Gazans must have secret monetary sources somewhere eh?

Apocalypse said:
-- Because that was enough to prove your wrongness and expose you on a lie.

Um-hum…

Apocalypse said:
-- I thought we've already reached the agreement that Israel provides 15,000 tons of aid.

Hahahahahaha! (Sorry)

Apocalypse said:
-- After all it was you who stated that the UN says it's only a quarter of what's needed.
I am quite surprised that you lack the knowledge over such simple matters.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the...li_humanitarian_lifeline_Gaza_25-May-2010.htm
Admit it to be pathetic then.

Hoho!

Apocalypse said:
-- You said that Israel restricts movement within and outside of the Gaza Strip. I have in return explained that the restrictions come to stop militants from getting in/out of the strip.
You've then made the ridiculous claim that they can go into Israel if they want to, using the tunnels.

Already explained this.

Apocalypse said:
-- In other words, you've just recalled that it was someone else who've posted that report and have decided to let it go.

Already explained this.

Apocalypse said:
-- The credit for the minimal deaths amount goes entirely to Israel for the billions of dollars it has invested in security systems that nearly fully prevent such deaths.
Throw thousands of unguided rockets into London, and whether they hit near the Big Ben or near the Backingham Palace, you're still bound to get hundreds of deaths.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you even trying to understand my statements?
You were claiming that the rockets are not "killing weapons" because not many Israelis die from them.
I have in return made an analogy to a nuclear weapon that is being taken out in the air while not endagering anyone.
Guided or not, nuclear weapons have the potentiality to cause millions of deaths. Claiming that because the nuke was shot down it is hence not a killing weapon is extremely retarded, and that is the analogy I've made with the rockets not killing many Israelis, because of the Israeli security systems.

Yes, it must be retarded, after all – it’s only something that the Israeli Ministry of Defense said in 2006 about such rockets being more of a “psychological rather than physical threat.”

Oh… but wait! It’s an Israeli Govt dept that said it.. how do you reconcile your position these days?

Anyhow – I’ve discussed this previously with StevenA59 who (impressively after only 22 posts) seems to have quite extensive knowledge of my posting style and habits.

Apocalypse said:
-- Simply source your claims and spare me the headache.

Not my job. I’m doing this for Gardener’s health…

Apocalypse said:
-- I've posted a source earlier.

TeeHee...

Apocalypse said:
-- I don't think that I've left any serious claim they've made towards the illegality of the blockade untouched.

Yawn, you should have a seat on the Israeli Supreme Court. Why did they waste so much time dealing with this when you could deal with Gisha so comprehensively and so thoroughly if you had been there?

Apocalypse said:
-- I believe they were all debated about.

Apocalypse said:

-- Reuters is one of the best news sources there are.

Click to expand...

Did I say in the post you are responding to that I said Reuters wasn’t neutral?

Apocalypse said:

-- It was claiming that their legal experts have all neglected your claim that the interception was done illegally, and that there is no doubt currently that Israel was completely within its legitimate rights.

Click to expand...

They’re not Reuter’s legal experts. Read your own source please.

Apocalypse said:

-- Unfortunately you cannot simply admit being wrong, certainly not about Israel, so we have this comment questioning the people behind the source that a moment ago was declared as neutral by you. (and it really is neutral)

Click to expand...

OK, I’m wrong, there aren’t legal experts all around the world disagreeing on the blockade or on the raid. None at all.

Oh, and again - did I say in the post you are responding to that I said Reuters wasn’t neutral? Or anywhere else?

Apocalypse · Jun 7, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
Firstly, as Israel has all the phones and cameras from both flotillas, we cannot judge impartially can we? I only have various witness reports as given to the BBC – however, as we seem to have established – all sources that are not Israeli Govt sources are obviously false aren’t they?

Their ships were delivering propaganda.
The activists have done everything they've done for the sake of propaganda.
They've went on the news and have clearly lied about Israeli soldiers not being attacked, Israeli soldiers opening fire for no goddamned reason, etc.
Clearly I do not see how any rational objective person is going to buy their claims that they were attacked on other ships.

Further – if you are trying to say I denied the soldiers were attacked – I’d be most pleased if you could find that post?

I'd like you to point at when I was talking about you when I said that.
I was talking about the activists from that boat.

Oh dear, tin foil hat time is it?

Truth hurts.
When you take the activists words for facts you do not simply state your bias, you also express deep irrationality.

There aren’t many jobs in Gaza, I read somewhere that some of the best paid workers are those building the tunnels into Gaza for Hamas – that doesn’t leave many people with regular employment or savings after years of blockade to buy what is imported does it? Not that I expect you to acknowledge this – somehow Gazans must have secret monetary sources somewhere eh?

There are craploads of jobs in Gaza that do not involve terrorism or smugglings.
Here is a hotel located in Gaza: .: Roots Club :.

Yes, it must be retarded, after all – it’s only something that the Israeli Ministry of Defense said in 2006 about such rockets being more of a “psychological rather than physical threat.”

Oh… but wait! It’s an Israeli Govt dept that said it.. how do you reconcile your position these days?

It is causing more psychological damage than physical damage - so far is true and I have absolutely not denied this.
I will repeat my statement for the sake of your reading comperhension skills: That the rockets cause minimal physical damage is completely due to the Israeli security systems.
Even that Goldstone report has stated that, so you're really in the minority with your thinking that the rockets are by themselves not a physical threat, because they're sent "unguided". It's absolutely ridiculous.

Not my job. I’m doing this for Gardener’s health…

Avoid personal attacks, they make you sound like a mentally damaged buffoon.

They’re not Reuter’s legal experts. Read your own source please.

I was quoting directly from the Reuters' Q&A article.
That for itself is showing that Reuters trust what's written within it, and that's undeniable.

You may notice that I have chosen not to respond to your "Hoho", "haha" "you should be on the Israeli supreme court" statements.
I find it wrong to waste my time replying to such trollish sentences.

deltabtry · Jun 7, 2010

kaya'08 said:
Such as? I can't see Obama risking whatever it is you have in mind, by doing it. If you loose the support of the Israeli lobby, your not going to get very far in the elections.

I had to go to work this morning sorry, so here is what I was talking about, all the U.S. has to do is defund the U.N., it's a waste of money, and not to mention to take their sorry asses else where.

deltabtry · Jun 7, 2010

ferrugem said:
well.. Israel gave them lands, one of the most important ground, one of the most fetilized area of all southern Israel, were given to them in 2005, Israel free their prosiners in exchange for dead Israeli civilians, Israel provides them electricity, Israel eve provides them water.
Where the motivasion ah..?
It would be much easier to disconect them from the electricity and water and let them hand their country on their own. BUT the world will say we unhumanitarian.

Some words of wisdome, by FOXnews channel:

I agree, I am not saying Israel hasn't done more on their part in those negotiations, they have and then some, what I am saying is the those who object to Israel really do need to drop the double standard and stop with inciting the Arab community..

I agree, I am not saying Israel hasn't done more on their part in those negotiations, they have and then some, what I am saying is the those who object to Israel really do did to drop the double standard and stop with inciting the Arab community..

deltabtry · Jun 7, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
The question of whether Palestinians have a country or not would throw up a whole load of problems for Israel. It's because Gaza and the West Bank aren't classed as countries that Israel can use weasel words when they are accused of not complying with the Geneva Conventions.

As justabubba posted a while back - that would really throw the fact that Israel is doing to others what was once done to them and why in some quarters there is a belief that Israel can be held to a higher standard than say North Korea etc.

Palistine also was never classed as a country either, never was.

Degreez · Jun 7, 2010

deltabtry said:
Palistine also was never classed as a country either, never was.

Classed by who? What are the qualifications for this classification? How does it relate to the Montevideo Convention?

deltabtry · Jun 7, 2010

Degreez said:
Classed by who? What are the qualifications for this classification? How does it relate to the Montevideo Convention?

Since before the Roman empire to the current U.N., Palistine has never been recognized as a sovereign country, just known as a territory named by the Roman Empire as Palaestina. Montevideo Convention?... what does have to do with the Middle East this was a agreement between Montevideo and Uruguay and the signatories where all from South America.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 8, 2010

Their ships were delivering propaganda.
The activists have done everything they've done for the sake of propaganda.

They were delivering aid, they also aimed to raise the issue of the Gaza blockade and with IDF help they succeeded.

They've went on the news and have clearly lied about Israeli soldiers not being attacked, Israeli soldiers opening fire for no goddamned reason, etc.
Clearly I do not see how any rational objective person is going to buy their claims that they were attacked on other ships.

You can't back your claim the protesters lied because there's no way of verifying their claims unless their recording devices are released by the IDF – similarly, I can't claim they did beyond what they have reported to international journalists.
Lies have been told on both sides, including on this thread. This includes a claim that the flotilla protesters even had semi automatic weapons. However, I see no point in further posting interviews with the protesters about the violence against them on the other ships – you are simply no more than a spokesperson for the IDF. It's all clearly lies by the BBC and every other organisation that isn't approved by the Israeli Govt or yourself.

Further – if you are trying to say I denied the soldiers were attacked – I’d be most pleased if you could find that post?
I'd like you to point at when I was talking about you when I said that.

I was asking for clarification. There is a difference between “clarification” and “accusation.” Anyhow, your words in that post were obviously meaningless then. Thank you for clarifying.

Truth hurts.
When you take the activists words for facts you do not simply state your bias, you also express deep irrationality.

Oh yeah, just as I should take your simplistic denial? There are no examples of protester video left anywhere as their equipment has been confiscated. That leaves us by default with IDF versions of the “truth.”

There are craploads of jobs in Gaza that do not involve terrorism or smugglings.
Here is a hotel located in Gaza: .: Roots Club :.

Oh, so it's paradise then! Why ever must the UN be wasting time trying to feed such people? I'm actually surprised the israeli population aren't falling over themselves to get into such a paradise. I mean, if Netanyahu himself writes a glowing recommendation of the restaurant – who am I to argue different?

Step into Hasan Hasuna's grocery shop in Gaza City, the territory's main city, and you could be forgiven for thinking that Israel has a point.
Mr Hasuna's shelves boast a surprising variety of goods, many of them banned from entering Gaza by Israel, from pasta to chocolate. There was even a box of Cadbury Creme Eggs, hard to come by in the Middle East, placed strategically at the check-out counter.
Slightly dishevelled from their journey through the smugglers' tunnels that pass under Gaza's southern border with Egypt, they nevertheless tasted like the real thing.
It all goes to show, argues Gerald Steinberg, an Israeli commentator, that the perception of Gaza as a disaster zone on a par with parts of Africa is deeply misleading and one that has been deliberately fostered by "pro-Palestinian" employees of the UN.
"These UN reports are simply political propaganda," said Mr Steinberg, whose NGO Monitor seeks to redress what it claims is anti-Israel bias by some western aid agencies. "The entire humanitarian crisis claim, everything that comes out on the situation in Gaza is manipulated as political warfare against Israel."
Yet restaurants like Roots, an anomaly in Gaza, exist even in Africa's most benighted spots. The Shamo Hotel in Mogadishu served up lobster on its rooftop restaurant even when thousands were dying of famine in Somalia, while you could wash down a Carbonade Flamande with a decent Burgundy at The Orchid in Bukavu when eastern Congo was suffering the world's worst humanitarian crisis since 1945.
Gaza is not eastern Congo, nor is its suffering comparable. Yet by the standards of the Middle East, the poverty is palpable. In a territory the size of the Isle of Wight, 1.5 million people -- 1.1 million of them refugees from previous conflicts with Israel -- often live in conditions close to squalor.

You are this forums' own “Gerald Steinberg” – simply a spokesperson for the IDF. You think that posting a link to Roots and claiming earlier that you see loads of fat / obese kids in Gaza (Apocalypse propaganda) negates that approximately 80% are borderline suffering (Oxfam / UN / Savethechildren / UN sources on the ground)

-- I will repeat my statement for the sake of your reading comperhension skills: That the rockets cause minimal physical damage is completely due to the Israeli security systems.
Even that Goldstone report has stated that, so you're really in the minority with your thinking that the rockets are by themselves not a physical threat, because they're sent "unguided". It's absolutely ridiculous.

A bit rich to accuse me of poor reading comprehension but then you chose to ignore my explanation to others – I will check back but I remember saying the threat was more psychological: anyhow – why if the security systems are so good against rockets that are as likely to land in the middle of the desert has Israel instead invested in “Iron Dome?”

Never mind – keep up with the insults, it shows that you have nothing new to offer when you start misquoting me and I stand by what I originally wrote. I note you've abandoned the “nuclear weapon” argument?

-- Avoid personal attacks, they make you sound like a mentally damaged buffoon.

You do spot the incongruity of your own oxymoron? You ask me to stop personal attacks but have used words like “pathetic”, “trollish,” “buffoon,” etc in replies to me. Not to mention hoping to claim I'm anti-semitic when Zyphlin broke cover to ask me for clarification a page or so ago. You continue to use language I haven't used against you and claim I am the one making personal attacks..

I was quoting directly from the Reuters' Q&A article.
That for itself is showing that Reuters trust what's written within it, and that's undeniable.

You may notice that I have chosen not to respond to your "Hoho", "haha" "you should be on the Israeli supreme court" statements.

Yes, I was deeply wounded. :rofl
And I still repeat that I explained way earlier in the thread that Reuters AND other sources showed that opinion is divided across many international experts. You found one source that backs your version – fine, I found some that explained that opinions differ.

I find it wrong to waste my time replying to such trollish sentences.

Um-hum.. is it trollish to laugh at someone trying desperately to wriggle out of their own mistakes or is it trollish to use works like “pathetic” and “buffoon” in your posts to me?

Is it trollish to post a claim that automatic weapons had been brought on board the flotilla and then accuse others of lying?

Is it trollish to post false claims (automatic weapons found on board), not retract them – claim to misread what I said about Aid getting into Gaza when the evidence is clear that you built your false claim over a period of posts – all the while claiming I am pathetic?

Sorry dude, you deserve to be laughed at. If you hadn't tried to claim an honest mistake (one mistake in one post would have been enough but repeating that over a series of posts?) I would happily have left it at that.

On the “assault weapons” link – I've used the search engine and it identifies this thread – it just doesn't show you the actual post – the old version of the forum used to.

ido_ · Jun 8, 2010

alexa said:
Here a UK citizen gives his account of what he experienced. For us Brits perhaps we should be asking why he was not visited by British Embassy personnel

Kidnapped by Israel, forsaken by Britain | Al Jazeera Blogs

:rofl

this:

What I will write in this entry is fact, every letter of it, none of it is opinion, none of it is analysis, I will leave that to you, the reader.

followed by this:

Dozens of speed boats carrying about 15-20 masked Israeli soldiers, armed to the teeth surrounded the Mavi Marmara which was carrying 600 or so unarmed civilians. Two helicopters at a time hovered above the vessel. Commandos on board the choppers joined the firing, using live ammunition, before any of the soldiers had descended onto the ship.

thats just absurd, but you can keep holding a grip on lies

Apocalypse · Jun 8, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
They were delivering aid, they also aimed to raise the issue of the Gaza blockade and with IDF help they succeeded.

With the help of the violent mob and pure propaganda, sure.
Let us not fool ourselves here, however, they were not doing anything for the sake of aiding Gazan people.
If that was the case then clearly they'll simply agree to the Israeli offer to end this peacefully and let Israel deliver the humanitarian aid.
Certainly they wouldn't have to lie about soldiers attacking them and them simply being unarmed innocent peaceful activists, certainly that's not the case here.

You can't back your claim the protesters lied

That's where you're ****ing wrong. They have stated that Israeli soldiers were not attacked, and that they came on board shooting.

because there's no way of verifying their claims unless their recording devices are released by the IDF – similarly, I can't claim they did beyond what they have reported to international journalists.

Yeah, just like I can't prove that God does not exist.
However by taking those activists' words for facts, for things that you know are true and are backed up with evidence, you are simply labeling yourself as an irrational person, which makes it a good thing that you oppose Israel over this.

Lies have been told on both sides, including on this thread. This includes a claim that the flotilla protesters even had semi automatic weapons. However, I see no point in further posting interviews with the protesters about the violence against them on the other ships – you are simply no more than a spokesperson for the IDF. It's all clearly lies by the BBC and every other organisation that isn't approved by the Israeli Govt or yourself.

The flotila activists have taken pistols from the soldiers and have opened fire on them with that.
There were two soldiers suffering gunshots.
However you are wrong when you, with all of your hatred towards the Israeli state, claim that I'm a spokesman for the IDF.
I am definitely not, I am a spokesman for truth and the truth is at the highest of my interests.
You have made truth to be your enemy, and I am here to expose the absurdness of your claims and statements.

I was asking for clarification. There is a difference between “clarification” and “accusation.” Anyhow, your words in that post were obviously meaningless then. Thank you for clarifying.

Apparently you believe that if my words were directed towards the activists and not you, then they are meaningless.
How bizarre. Are you suffering from some form of narcissism?

Oh yeah, just as I should take your simplistic denial? There are no examples of protester video left anywhere as their equipment has been confiscated. That leaves us by default with IDF versions of the “truth.”

I do not deny anything, I am referring to that which does not exist at the realm of truth as what it is, and I am referring to your claim that their words are facts to be rhetorical and ridiculously irrational.

Oh, so it's paradise then! Why ever must the UN be wasting time trying to feed such people? I'm actually surprised the israeli population aren't falling over themselves to get into such a paradise. I mean, if Netanyahu himself writes a glowing recommendation of the restaurant – who am I to argue different?

Netanyahu didn't write any recommendation, you're proving yourself to be a reality-disconnected irrational person even more with every comment.
That restaurant is however located in the Gaza Strip, and I find your brainwashed opinion that Gaza is the worst place in the world to be quite delusional.

You are this forums' own “Gerald Steinberg” – simply a spokesperson for the IDF. You think that posting a link to Roots and claiming earlier that you see loads of fat / obese kids in Gaza (Apocalypse propaganda) negates that approximately 80% are borderline suffering (Oxfam / UN / Savethechildren / UN sources on the ground)

I know of Gaza's situation way better than what you hear about from the media.
Seems to me like you'd claim anyone who exposes your words as false to be a spokesman for the IDF. You've already lost it.

A bit rich to accuse me of poor reading comprehension but then you chose to ignore my explanation to others – I will check back but I remember saying the threat was more psychological: anyhow – why if the security systems are so good against rockets that are as likely to land in the middle of the desert has Israel instead invested in “Iron Dome?”

Many rockets don't land in the desert, but in population centers.
Thousands actually.
So how come we don't have thousands of deaths?
Because the only deaths occur when someone is taking too long to get into the shelter, which is quite rare considering the alarms and security systems.
Israel has already developed the Iron Dome, it's currently in the production phase.

Never mind – keep up with the insults, it shows that you have nothing new to offer when you start misquoting me and I stand by what I originally wrote. I note you've abandoned the “nuclear weapon” argument?

No, the nukes analogy still stands.
A nuclear weapon being taken out while it's not damaging anyone doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to harm anyone.
A rocket not killing anyone because they're all in the shelters doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potentiality to kill anyone.
It's a ridiculous attempt at propaganda.

You do spot the incongruity of your own oxymoron? You ask me to stop personal attacks but have used words like “pathetic”, “trollish,” “buffoon,” etc in replies to me. Not to mention hoping to claim I'm anti-semitcic when Zyphlin broke cover to ask me for clarification a page or so ago. You continue to use language I haven't used against you and claim I am the one making personal attacks..

I did what?
I believe when Zyphlin asked the reason for your statement I've simply said that he knows what the reason is.
Now why would you assume that I was claiming you're an anti-Semite if you didn't find it an obvious implication from your words, yourself?
That's just too ****ing hilarious.

Yes, I was deeply wounded.

So were the soldiers that were nearly murdered by the precious peaceful activists you choose to protect.

And I still repeat that I explained way earlier in the thread that Reuters AND other sources showed that opinion is divided across many international experts. You found one source that backs your version – fine, I found some that explained that opinions differ.

Your irrationality is showing.
Reuters, a notable, famous, neutral, credible news agency has stated, without any doubts, that the only conclusion right now is that Israel was completely within its rights.

Degreez · Jun 8, 2010

deltabtry said:
Since before the Roman empire to the current U.N., Palistine has never been recognized as a sovereign country, just known as a territory named by the Roman Empire as Palaestina.

State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 100 countries have made a formal statement recognizing the State of Palestine.

I noticed, though, that you didn't answer my question. What and who defines a sovereign State?

deltabtry said:
Montevideo Convention?... what does have to do with the Middle East this was a agreement between Montevideo and Uruguay and the signatories where all from South America.

...

Montevideo is the capital of Urugay. The signatories were not all from South America. They were from the Americas as a whole. The United States was also a signatory.

What does that have to do with the Middle East? I think qualifications for statehood has a lot to do with the Middle East, especially when the discussion is related to Palestine.

alexa · Jun 8, 2010

ido_ said:
:rofl

this:

followed by this:

thats just absurd, but you can keep holding a grip on lies

Be aware ido, I said this was his experience, not my views. My one view was the British people should question why our Embassy staff did not visit him. Your insults are your actions. The truth is not yet known.

kaya'08 · Jun 8, 2010

deltabtry said:
I had to go to work this morning sorry, so here is what I was talking about, all the U.S. has to do is defund the U.N., it's a waste of money, and not to mention to take their sorry asses else where.

Thats certainly fine.

Thing is, the UN is actually effective in one region. I dont have a problem with them providing aid or giving the international community the necessary legal framework to impose international pressure on violent regimes through sanctions. Would it be possible to impose sanctions on Iran without the UN? International sanctions? How about the international human rights bill and the laws of international waters? I dont trust countries to mandate there own human rights bill. Because you end up with stupid things like the Cairo bill of human rights.

Andalublue · Jun 8, 2010

deltabtry said:
I had to go to work this morning sorry, so here is what I was talking about, all the U.S. has to do is defund the U.N., it's a waste of money, and not to mention to take their sorry asses else where.

The US owes the UN billions in unpaid contributions. It has effectively "defunded" (sic) the UN already. The US is only one member of the UN and even if it continues to default on its debts, the UN will carry on with its essential work. Just because a couple of member states aren't happy with how the UN works doesn't mean the other 190 members aren't.

Infinite Chaos · Jun 8, 2010

Apocalypse said:
With the help of the violent mob and pure propaganda, sure.
Let us not fool ourselves here, however, they were not doing anything for the sake of aiding Gazan people.
If that was the case then clearly they'll simply agree to the Israeli offer to end this peacefully and let Israel deliver the humanitarian aid.

I’ve already gone over this umpteen times and even more recently. The point was to raise the profile of the blockade. If you read my link to the Israeli ambassador’s article in the Guardian 3 years ago – previous aid ships were allowed to land in Gaza and nobody heard anything more. Israel cocked up by taking on this particular flotilla in the way they did. You already know this. The whole aim was propaganda through the delivery of Aid and they hoped for Israeli mismanagement – which happened.
That’s ONE repeat of something I’ve already explained to other posters in this thread (with links)

Apocalypse said:
Certainly they wouldn't have to lie about soldiers attacking them and them simply being unarmed innocent peaceful activists, certainly that's not the case here. That's where you're ****ing wrong. They have stated that Israeli soldiers were not attacked, and that they came on board shooting.

I personally haven’t seen any full unedited video and most news sources I check have said the whole chain of events including the moments when the soldiers opened fire have been kept out of the news.
SO tell me how you know 100% for sure Mr Steinberg? Especially when so few others outside the IDF don’t either?

Apocalypse said:
Yeah, just like I can't prove that God does not exist.
However by taking those activists' words for facts, for things that you know are true and are backed up with evidence, you are simply labeling yourself as an irrational person, which makes it a good thing that you oppose Israel over this.

I posted links – and I think if you find that I have not said the stories were definites – there’s still lots of doubt over the events and you yourself know the IDF and Israeli Govt have retracted statements AND made apologies. Alexa posted a link in another thread.

Apocalypse said:
The flotila activists have taken pistols from the soldiers and have opened fire on them with that.
There were two soldiers suffering gunshots.

Yes, fully agreed – I think you’ll find this is what I posted earlier in this thread when others (including you) were claiming the activists brought their own firearms.
That’s the SECOND repeat of something I’ve already explained to other posters in this thread (with links)

Apocalypse said:
However you are wrong when you, with all of your hatred towards the Israeli state, claim that I'm a spokesman for the IDF.

You have no argument so simply resort to trying to smear your opponent. I’ve read other posters say that disagreeing with Israeli propaganda (every Govt in the world engages in propaganda so get off your high horse before you try) makes you anti-Semitic or an Israel-hater. So be it.
1) The UN is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
2) Amnesty International is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
3) Oxfam is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
4) The BBC is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
5) Gisha is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
6) The Israeli Supreme Court is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
7) Switzerland was wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
8) The EU is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
Any more I need to add?

Apocalypse said:
I am definitely not, I am a spokesman for truth and the truth is at the highest of my interests.
You have made truth to be your enemy, and I am here to expose the absurdness of your claims and statements.

Yawn. I see delusions of grandeur here.

Apocalypse said:
Apparently you believe that if my words were directed towards the activists and not you, then they are meaningless.
How bizarre. Are you suffering from some form of narcissism?

I was trying to get a clarification. Make of it what you will.

Apocalypse said:
I do not deny anything, I am referring to that which does not exist at the realm of truth as what it is, and I am referring to your claim that their words are facts to be rhetorical and ridiculously irrational.

Please find me where I said their words were facts.

Apocalypse said:
Netanyahu didn't write any recommendation, you're proving yourself to be a reality-disconnected irrational person even more with every comment.
That restaurant is however located in the Gaza Strip, and I find your brainwashed opinion that Gaza is the worst place in the world to be quite delusional.

You didn’t (surprise surprise) read the article linked did you? And did I say Gaza was “the worst place in the world.”
Are you going to pretend that you misunderstood what I was asking here too? Please find those words in my previous posts.

Apocalypse said:
I know of Gaza's situation way better than what you hear about from the media.
Seems to me like you'd claim anyone who exposes your words as false to be a spokesman for the IDF. You've already lost it.

Whatever you expose if I have deliberately misled or lied I’ll heartily take back. You on the other hand, built up a lie in your mind, called me pathetic for disagreeing and then had the cheek to try and accuse me of “reading comprehension” failures.
Hahahahahaha!

Apocalypse said:
Many rockets don't land in the desert, but in population centers.
Thousands actually.
So how come we don't have thousands of deaths?
Because the only deaths occur when someone is taking too long to get into the shelter, which is quite rare considering the alarms and security systems.

I hear the rockets take seconds from launch to impact. They are unguided missiles just as likely to end up in the deserts and any wastelands as in towns.

Apocalypse said:
Israel has already developed the Iron Dome, it's currently in the production phase.

Yes, I know – I read my own sources.

Apocalypse said:
No, the nukes analogy still stands.
A nuclear weapon being taken out while it's not damaging anyone doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potential to harm anyone.
A rocket not killing anyone because they're all in the shelters doesn't mean that it doesn't have the potentiality to kill anyone.
It's a ridiculous attempt at propaganda.

If you wish to continue to compare a small rocket like a Kassam or a Qud to a nuclear bomb or nuclear missile be my guest. If you think the proximity danger range of a Kassam going off 60ft or further from a settlement as big a physical danger as a nuclear bomb going off (lets be generous) a mile or further from another settlement (And nowhere have I said “an Israeli settlement / Israeli town) then keep deluding yourself.
Your analogy is as rubbish as most of your posts on this thread. I’ve posted an MFA and other links where I got the “psychological rather than physical” threat and they are Israeli Govt but hey – shall we add the Israeli Govt to this list?

me said:
1) The UN is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
2) Amnesty International is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
3) Oxfam is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
4) The BBC is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
5) Gisha is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
6) The Israeli Supreme Court is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
7) Switzerland was wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
8) The EU is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
9) The MDF is wrong about the psychological threat posed by Kassam and similar rockets

Apocalypse said:
I did what?
I believe when Zyphlin asked the reason for your statement I've simply said that he knows what the reason is.

Weasel words. Have the balls to accuse me of being an anti-Semite will you? You’ve graduated to calling me an “Israel hater” in this thread so go one further step and show how Goodwin’s law has evolved.

Apocalypse said:
Now why would you assume that I was claiming you're an anti-Semite if you didn't find it an obvious implication from your words, yourself?
That's just too ****ing hilarious.

More weasel words.

Apocalypse said:
So were the soldiers that were nearly murdered by the precious peaceful activists you choose to protect.

I’ll ask for proof that I’ve “protected” the activists please. I’ve stated that I think personally believe the blockade is illegal, that I personally believe the raid on the flotilla was wrong (I originally said piracy – but found in my own reading that piracy can not be attributed to a state) and that there were quotes that other activists on the other ships had been beaten / electrocuted etc.
Where have I “protected” the activists please?

Apocalypse said:
Your irrationality is showing.
Reuters, a notable, famous, neutral, credible news agency has stated, without any doubts, that the only conclusion right now is that Israel was completely within its rights.

And I will repeat for your comprehension that I and explained that a report on the BBC and elsewhere found that opinion is divided across the world.

That’s the THIRD repeat of something I’ve already explained to you (or others) in this thread (with links)

Cassandra · Jun 8, 2010

Thankfully, not all Israelis buy into the notion that any critic of Israel (including Jewish critics) is by definition anti-semitic. The words of Uri Avnery sum it up pretty well

"The idea of a flotilla as a means to break the blockade borders on genius. It placed the Israeli government on the horns of a dilemma - the choice between several alternatives, all of them bad. Every general hopes to get his opponent into such a situation.

The alternatives were:

(a) To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come.

(b) To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or "terrorists", then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade.

(c) To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board.

As our governments have always done, when faced with the choice between several bad alternatives, the Netanyahu government chose the worst.

Anyone who followed the preparations as reported in the media could have foreseen that they would lead to people being killed and injured. One does not storm a Turkish ship and expect cute little girls to present one with flowers. The Turks are not known as people who give in easily.

The orders given to the forces and made public included the three fateful words: "at any cost". Every soldier knows what these three terrible words mean. Moreover, on the list of objectives, the consideration for the passengers appeared only in third place, after safeguarding the safety of the soldiers and fulfilling the task.

If Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, the Chief of Staff and the commander of the navy did not understand that this would lead to killing and wounding people, then it must be concluded - even by those who were reluctant to consider this until now - that they are grossly incompetent. They must be told, in the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem.

The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order "to talk" and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word "lynching".

On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites"......

Kill a Turk and Rest

Andalublue · Jun 8, 2010

I think this article is a very interesting resumé of reasons for opposing the Israeli blockade of Gaza, whilst at the same time maintaning a broadly pro-Israeli, anti-Islamist position.

Sympathise with Israel, but not the blockade | Nick Cohen | Comment is free | The Observer

I have very divided feelings about the work of Nick Cohen. He used to be strongly socialist in his philosophy and as recently as 2002, he wrote an article "Why it is right to be anti-American", arguing that US foreign policy had a part to play in the rising clash between Islam and the West. All this changed with the invasion of Iraq and what he saw as the capitulation of the liberal left in the face of the common cause emerging between the left and radical Islam. This new position is spelled out in his book, "What's Left". It's one of the most interesting writings of the past few years, I was stimulated and appalled by it in equal measure. He accepts the term neo-con but maintains a much more interesting and broad set of positions on social and economic issues than you'd normally expect from a commentator of such vehemence.

He raises many issues in it that really demand to be taken seriously by liberals and leftists, such as:

Why do supposedly progressive forces make apologies for Islamist extremists who represent every rancid, anti-liberal position that progressives hold dear?
Why do liberals support the repression of women/gays/ethnic and religious minorities in conservative societies whilst still pretending to hold these rights as being fundamental in their own societies?
Why do left liberals spend so much time attacking Israel and so little attacking Sudan, Burma, Iran etc etc?

There are many more, but these are legitimate questions, even if there are legitimate answers available to those who seek them out, rather than seeing the questions as polemical points scorers in themselves.

Liberals and leftists on both sides of the Israel/Palestine debate need to take a step back occasionally and consider these more fundamental questions and many others with a rational head. It's very difficult to do so when, by taking a more balanced position against Hamas terrorism and against the Israeli blockade, you butt heads with the evolved version Godwin's law, as IC signals above.

Being demonised by the blindly partisan Israel-can-do-no-wrong lobby is as dense a smoke-screen to see clearly through as is that of the every-criticism-of-Islamism-is-Islamophobia position.

As far as I can see, the only way through is to hold onto the fundamental truths of one's belief system. From my lefty standpoint that means reminding oneself every so often of some of the following:

Not every Israeli supports the blockade and the ultra-hawkish position of the Bibi administration
Even if it is clear that Hamas isn't just a terror group but a reflection of the democratic wishes of a strong portion of the Gazan/Palestinian people, don't mistake the violent basis of it's political positions and it's fundamental anti-Israeli/anti-semitism for mere resistance.
When supporting the well-being and legitimate needs of the Palestinians, make sure you don't forget the same need for security of the Israeli people. Just because the body count is loaded in one direction doesn't mean that the other side doesn't have the same rights to protection from fear.
Whilst supporting legitimate aims of the Palestinian people, never give unquestioning support to organisations and movements for whom the Palestinian cause is just one part of their conservative/nationalist/religious agenda. Supporting the call for the end to the Gaza blockade should be just that, because the blockade is hurting the Palestinian people and reinforcing the position of Hamas. It needs to be spelled out that it is an end in itself, to alleviate the parlous situation of the people holed-up in Gaza, and not just a stepping stone to the anti-Western, Islamist revolution.

Good grief, there are so many more contradictions and pitfalls in engaging in these issues that it makes your head hurt. Those who see things in black-and-white, us-v-them terms have a so much easier time of it, but those who acknowledge the complexity and paradoxes of the situation are obliged to work harder and think more deeply. Such voices are not well represented in these DP debates but they need to have the conviction of their beliefs and to not shut up.

Apocalypse · Jun 8, 2010

Infinite Chaos said:
I’ve already gone over this umpteen times and even more recently. The point was to raise the profile of the blockade. If you read my link to the Israeli ambassador’s article in the Guardian 3 years ago – previous aid ships were allowed to land in Gaza and nobody heard anything more. Israel cocked up by taking on this particular flotilla in the way they did. You already know this. The whole aim was propaganda through the delivery of Aid and they hoped for Israeli mismanagement – which happened.
That’s ONE repeat of something I’ve already explained to other posters in this thread (with links)

So you're basically agreeing with the statements you were responding to?
Because nothing that you've said contradicts them one way or another.

I personally haven’t seen any full unedited video and most news sources I check have said the whole chain of events including the moments when the soldiers opened fire have been kept out of the news.
SO tell me how you know 100% for sure Mr Steinberg? Especially when so few others outside the IDF don’t either?

Well Mr Chomsky, the footage published by the IDF, the one you're trying so hard to ignore, shows the activists attacking the soldiers the moment they've boarded the ship.
They were grouping up at the top deck and were waiting with knives and crowbars for the arrival of the soldiers, certainly not looking like they were just shot at or are being shot at.

I posted links – and I think if you find that I have not said the stories were definites – there’s still lots of doubt over the events and you yourself know the IDF and Israeli Govt have retracted statements AND made apologies. Alexa posted a link in another thread.

I believe that is irrelevant.
Let me make this clear to you:
By taking the words of the activists for granted(=as facts) you're admitting to a deep agenda-motivated dishonesty and irrationality.
I do not see any sane reason to take the word of those who came there for the sake of anti-Israeli propaganda, definitely not as they have no evidence to back their claims and most definitely not as they were caught lying more than once.

You have no argument so simply resort to trying to smear your opponent.

My thoughts on you.

I’ve read other posters say that disagreeing with Israeli propaganda (every Govt in the world engages in propaganda so get off your high horse before you try) makes you anti-Semitic or an Israel-hater. So be it.

I've never heard any other poster saying such things.
You've seen a poster who's an anti-Israeli being called an anti-Semite.
That by no means implies that being anti-Israeli means you're an anti-Semite.

1) The UN is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
2) Amnesty International is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
3) Oxfam is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
4) The BBC is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
5) Gisha is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
6) The Israeli Supreme Court is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
7) Switzerland was wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
8) The EU is wrong on everything to do with Israel and Gaza
Any more I need to add?

Those bodies are wrong when they're wrong and right when they're right, enough said.

Please find me where I said their words were facts.

"According to reports, people were attacked and were beaten on other ships as well" = depending entirely on the witnesses words and referring to the incidents as facts, using the term "according to reports", implying that it's a news report and not a questionable witness account by one of the activists.

You didn’t (surprise surprise) read the article linked did you? And did I say Gaza was “the worst place in the world.”
Are you going to pretend that you misunderstood what I was asking here too? Please find those words in my previous posts.

You're saying that Gaza has no jobs, no industries, what's not.
So in return I've supplied you with an example of a hotel in Gaza.
Now are you going to say that this hotel is the only place to find jobs at besides at the terrorist organization of Hamas?
Until when are you going to make those baseless statements and believe that you'd be able to get away with it?

I hear the rockets take seconds from launch to impact.

40 seconds in average.

If you wish to continue to compare a small rocket like a Kassam or a Qud to a nuclear bomb or nuclear missile be my guest. If you think the proximity danger range of a Kassam going off 60ft or further from a settlement as big a physical danger as a nuclear bomb going off (lets be generous) a mile or further from another settlement (And nowhere have I said “an Israeli settlement / Israeli town) then keep deluding yourself.

Now you're just making a fool out of yourself.
I was not comparing their power but has laid an analogy based on your claim that if a weapon doesn't kill many it means that it is not a "killing weapon".

I’ve posted an MFA and other links where I got the “psychological rather than physical” threat and they are Israeli Govt but hey – shall we add the Israeli Govt to this list?

Once more, you're making a fool out of yourself.
Let's lay out the differences between the government statement and your statement here, shall we now?

The government statement refers to the actual result.
The actual result of those rockets is more of a psychological damage than a physical damage.

Your statement claims that the rockets are not "killing weapons", referring to the physically damaging potentiality of the weapon by itself.

Clearly my issue is with your statement and not the government's, since I have agreed with the government's statement and have explained the reasons for the results being more psychologically damaging than physically damaging.

Weasel words. Have the balls to accuse me of being an anti-Semite will you? You’ve graduated to calling me an “Israel hater” in this thread so go one further step and show how Goodwin’s law has evolved.

Why I'll never even dream about calling you an anti-Semite, since I do not believe that you are.
Once more, you've drawn the conclusion entirely on your own, which should really be enough to deliver the message.

I’ll ask for proof that I’ve “protected” the activists please. I’ve stated that I think personally believe the blockade is illegal, that I personally believe the raid on the flotilla was wrong (I originally said piracy – but found in my own reading that piracy can not be attributed to a state) and that there were quotes that other activists on the other ships had been beaten / electrocuted etc.
Where have I “protected” the activists please?

I'm referring you to the statements above the question mark.
The flotilla raid, as far as international law is concerned, was fully legit.
The Q&A of Reuters agrees with me, as I've shown you, so I do not feel the need to waste further time debating over the obvious truth.

And I will repeat for your comprehension that I and explained that a report on the BBC and elsewhere found that opinion is divided across the world.

I couldn't find any real news source (Reuters, AP, etc) that says the Israeli actions were against international law.

I do not doubt for a moment that you too know that the Israeli raid was done fully in accordance with the international law, yet you just cannot admit to being wrong.

Apocalypse · Jun 8, 2010

Cassandra said:
Thankfully, not all Israelis buy into the notion that any critic of Israel (including Jewish critics) is by definition anti-semitic. The words of Uri Avnery sum it up pretty well

Thankfully the majority of the Israelis would tell you that Uri Avnery is an idiot.
Even more thankfully, you are correct in your assertion that not all Israelis are "buying into the notion that any critic of Israel is by definition anti-semitic", since I for one do not even know one person who follows that line of thought.
Answering Avnery:

The alternatives were:

(a) To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come.

Israel isn't interested in the ending of the blockade.
Clearly that was done before, but we can all see the result of that action now, it has drawn more ships just as Avnery admits here.

(b) To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or "terrorists", then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade.

So far for being ridiculously stupid, doing that would still cause the same results, including the activists' attack on the soldiers and everything that came with it.
Besides that the state is not capable of searching tons of humanitarian aid while the ship is in the sea.
The ships need to be brought to the nearest port and there they will be unloaded and the cargo inspected.

(c) To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board.

As if option (b) didn't risk that! What a buffoon.

Gardener · Jun 8, 2010

Apocalypse said:
Thankfully the majority of the Israelis would tell you that Uri Avnery is an idiot.

and any sort of intelligent, reasonable person anywhere else as well.

Apocalypse said:
Even more thankfully, you are correct in your assertion that not all Israelis are "buying into the notion that any critic of Israel is by definition anti-semitic", since I for one do not even know one person who follows that line of thought.

I have seen countless hate sites that make this same claim. Those who are predisposed towards accepting it then pass on the meme which acts to throw a smokescreen obfuscating the fact they ARE antisemites, have indulged in much antisemitic rhetoric, and this ruse is intended to frame those who object to their bigotry as overreacting. It is nothing but a very calculated, cynical ploy utilized to legitimize their bigotry and cast aspesions upon those who do not share it. I'm reminded of those who vent their spleen constantly about gay people who then try to cop the plea that they were "only objecting to gay marriage". Most intelligent people do not fall for that cr@p, but somehow they do when the subject is Jews.

It is not ANY criticism of Israel that is antisemitic in nature -- it is the completely demonizing nature of the points of view that are so biased against Jews that no other explanation could possibly suffice by way of definition.

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

Infinite Chaos

ferrugem

Member

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

alexa

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

deltabtry

deltabtry

deltabtry

Degreez

deltabtry

Infinite Chaos

ido_

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Degreez

alexa

kaya'08

Andalublue

Hello again!

Infinite Chaos

Cassandra

Andalublue

Hello again!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Gardener

free market communist