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.