Sorry, unless things have changed since the links were posted by myself and Alexa last week – there were reports of violence, beatings and electric shock on the other boats.
Only the activists who were on those ships say that.
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.
By simply stating that those activists' words are facts, you make yourself an enemy of rationality.
Yeah, and in a perverse way (as I said in my previous) that raised the blockade back into conciousness in a way that previous flotillas failed. Israel previously allowed other flotillas to get through and because they were peaceful – there was no international outrage.
Correct, but irrelavent to my argument.
And how do you prove this? Amnesty and the UN aren't just giving away the aid and sitting around in Gaza because they have nothing better to do?
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.
Hahahaha! Why do you quote one bit and then leave all the pertinent bits out?
Because that was enough to prove your wrongness and expose you on a lie.
You're trying to say Israel gives aid to Gaza? Source please! If you cannot prove it Ill await your apology and recognition it's you acting dumb.
I thought we've already reached the agreement that Israel provides 15,000 tons of aid.
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.
In a typical week the IDF coordinates the transfer of hundreds of trucks containing about 15,000 tons of supplies.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the...li_humanitarian_lifeline_Gaza_25-May-2010.htm
I'll agree it's all pathetic if you can prove as you claim that Israel actually gives aid to Gaza as opposed to what I've been saying which is “Israel allows in”.
Admit it to be pathetic then.
No, I said “Gaza” and posted this link -
Gaza tunnels and I remember making a comment about a cow being brought in. You later said something about a goat.
I do remember
one post where I mistakenly said “Israel” but all my links are about the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. You must be fixated on that one post and ignoring all the others.
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.
I'm moving on – I'm not searching back through 139 pages for you. There are bigger fish to fry.
In other words, you've just recalled that it was someone else who've posted that report and have decided to let it go.
They're not guided rockets – they simply go up and then come back down. They're psychological in that nobody can tell where they will land – no even Hamas. As a rocket with a relatively small payload their effect is more psychological than actual. I agree dozens have died – but when you consider some 6-7000 plus have been launched – that's a poor return. And before anyone thinks I'm saying “if only Hamas had better rockets....”
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.
Nice. A nuclear weapon usually (if we're talking US / Israeli / UK etc) has a guidance system that takes it to a predesignated target. I'm surprised I have to explain this.
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.
And is still an extension of economic and welfare blockades that began in 2001...
Simply source your claims and spare me the headache.
We'll see what aid Israel gives to Gaza shall we?
I've posted a source earlier.
Insufficiently I'm afraid. However, I'm not translating them for you – you were the one claiming you could rubbish everything they said in Israeli Supreme Court..
I don't think that I've left any serious claim they've made towards the illegality of the blockade untouched.
I believe they were all debated about.
Good article however it's a report on the views of the law firm “Norton Rose” and by the partner Philip Roche. I've already posted a while ago a link to claims on both sides by international lawyers at different law firms and universities that it is undecided. This is one of those quoted in my earlier link.
Reuters is one of the best news sources there are.
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.
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)
