BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:52 PM

Since my name came up...

I think CarolC was correct in posting replies to different posts as different entries- and have no problem with multiples from the same person.

In this case, IMHO CarolC is in the right.

(Bookmark this, as it will not be said often by me 8-{E)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:52 PM

LOL

I judge the effectiveness of my arguments by the number of personal attacks and smears I get from people like Joe and robomatic in threads like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:45 PM

Would you apply that same standard to beardedbruce, robomatic? Or does his rapid fire posting not count because you agree with what he is saying?

Like I said... that tactic is used by people who have to rely on smear tactics because they don't have any legitimate arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:38 PM

Joe was merely making plain what has been obvious in many forums over a long period of time. I used to judge my effectiveness by how many rat-a-tats I could get out of CarolC.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:28 PM

That tactic, along with accusations of anti-Semitism, are what hasbaristas resort to in the absence of having any legitimate arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:15 PM

Joe that was below the belt!

I have acknowledged and accepted the criticism from Ed that long posts are sometimes ineffective or even counter productive and I think it is only fair to support Carol's view that a number of separate points deserve separate posts.

Carol is by no means the only poster who has posted several posts one after the other - another immediately springs to mind!
However I did not see any such observation or accusation of 'obsession' in that instance.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:09 PM

By the way, Joe, I notice more than 14 posts from Keith during the time I was not posting. So tell me what would be the difference between Keith posting more than 14 since my last post, but at longer intervals in between, and me posting only 8 with much shorter intervals in between. Wouldn't you say that 14 is more than 8 in the same time period? Are you suggesting that Keith has an even bigger obsession than me, or does your comment only apply to people who see things differently than you?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:04 PM

Joe, I was gone for several hours and there are many points that were made in my absence. I could lump all of my responses in the same post, but I don't have time to read all of the posts since my last one at the same time and then try to organize my responses all in one post.

Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is between putting all of my points in one long post, or putting them in separate posts. And perhaps you can tell me what the difference would be if I had the same number of posts but others had posted in between.

Your post looks like a personal attack to me, and an attempt to discredit what I am saying using smear tactics rather than responding to anything I have actually said. Maybe you really are working for the hasbara people as that guest said you were.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 02:02 PM

Living rough in Gaza

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:59 PM

The video shows, despite the hysterical narration, that the ship was not attacked at all. Two soldiers descended to the deck and were brutally set upon.
The hard evidence is Carol's video and those we have all seen of people landing blow after blow with metal bars.

Keith, it is not accurate to say that the video shows that the ship wasn't attacked. It would be more accurate to say that the video doesn't show any actual attack. We might have had access to the feed that would have showed the firing that occurred prior to the start of the video in question but for two things. One: the Israelis were firing on sleeping passengers, and two, the people who were doing the live feed had only just then been able to reestablish the feed after it was interrupted by the Israelis. Now why, I wonder, might the Israelis not have wanted the live feed to get out during that particular time period. Hmmm... maybe so we would not now have any videographic evidence of the shooting that occurred before the Israelis boarded the ship.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:54 PM

Hmmmm. Eight messages in a row from the same person. Is this a discussion, or an obsession?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:50 PM

We know that footage and photographs have been confiscated because two people were able to get some of their material out, one through hiding it in her underwear, and the other was able to restore some of it from a drive that the Israelis thought they had destroyed. In both cases, the material showed that the Israelis were lying.

We know two things: one, that there were several journalists on board the Mavi Marmara, and that they were documenting what was happening on the flotilla. I know this because I have seen a lot of what they were able to send electronically before their signal was cut off. The second thing we know is that almost none of the material that they were not able to send before the signal was cut off has returned home with the people to whom it belongs. We also know that the Israeli government has used some of it in a highly edited form, so that also proves that it exists.

So we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the government of Israel is withholding information, and that every time any of the information that they are withholding is found and released, it supports the version of events given by the passengers, and it proves that the Israeli government is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:42 PM

"We mustn't tire of reminding others: the blockade concerns only arms and the material needed to manufacture them. It does not prevent the daily arrival, via Israel, of between 100 and 120 trucks laden with foodstuffs, medical supplies and humanitarian goods of every kind. Humanity is not "in danger" in Gaza, and it is a lie to state that people are "dying of hunger" in the streets of Gaza City."

In light of this, we must conclude that Mr. Levy is lying, because we have seen the list of things that aren't allowed in and they include things like baby formula, antibiotics, incubators, school books, paper and pencils, chickens and other livestock, and other things that are in no way "materials needed to manufacture weapons", but in fact, are materials that are necessary to sustain life and a functioning society.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:27 PM

South African Apartheid is a misleading comparison. I'm not ashamed to criticize them who propose a fairy-tale vision of Hamas democracy, as CarolC does.

Please show me where I have characterized democracy under Hamas in this way. If you can't, then we know that you are lying.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:25 PM

As I've written previously, the Italian group on the flotilla was no doubt formed by anti-semite. Please, go and visit their site, TerraSantaLibera, HolyLandFree, there is also a section in English.. The demonstrations in Italy, as usual when Israel is involved, have had several anti-semite traits.

Roberto, what evidence do you have that she writes for this site rather than the site finding her work elsewhere and publishing it in their site? What evidence do you have that she is even aware that her work appears in that site?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:22 PM

Just because you post alot (the record on this tread speaks for itself), does mot mean you are posting anything new....that hasn't been said alot by your compadres on the web.
This is a very strange thing to say considering that all of the news of recent events in the Mediterranean were new prior to about a week ago. When one posts "news" (which could be defined as "new information"), one is posting something new. If someone posts a link to "news" that has not been posted before, he or she is posting news that no one else has posted before, meaning that has not been posted by his or her compadres. That's how it works with "news". That's why we don't call it "olds".

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM

Keith, you said this:

A blockade is a method of warfare between belligerent states.

Ok. So please tell me who the belligerent states are in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:15 PM

It is because it was a song from the Civil Rights Movement that I can't accept it to be bent to a sectarian support to a part that doesn't recognize at all civil rights, not even the idea of them, as Hamas regime. You are carrying the torch down a ditch. I'm from Italy.

On the contrary, the song is not being sung for Hamas. It is being sung for the people of Palestine. Don't forget, Israel would not exist today were it not for its own use of terrorism. And many of those terrorists still serve in Israel's government today. So to say we must punish the people of Gaza because of Hamas, or that we can't negotiate with Hamas because it has committed acts of terrorism is really the height of hypocrisy.

We Shall Overcome is a perfect song for this movement, although the Palestinians have some songs that are even better.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 01:10 PM

From Anna Baltzer, who is one of my heroes...

http://annainpalestine.blogspot.com/

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 12:26 PM

"It shows no firing untill nearly 3 minutes after the soldiers landed, were themselves attacked and two abducted."

Keith - sigh, the only people who were armed were the soldiers

All the bodies of the passengers who were killed show a number of very close range bullet wounds

No shots were fired at the descending soldiers as the passengers did not have guns

The descending soldiers, according to one report I read, were unable to fire as they abseiled down as they were wearing protective gloves which made this impossible - this seems very likely
Nevertheless they were masked and armed to the teeth at 4 am or so in the morning - it is not surprising that they may have been assumed to have lethal intent bur, as is clearly demonstrated, despite having the opportunity to kill them when the first commandos were overcome by force of numbers - none were.


The official Israeli story as of June 3, 2010 argues that three soldiers were captured when they were unconscious. Of course such elite commandos couldn't be be taken captive by civilians (unless they are spun as armed terrorists 'with murder in their eyes' of course)

However Haaretz reports that three commandos "were nearly taken hostage".

The report continues Haaretz that the commandos then regained consciousness and "managed to rejoin their comrades."

ok so - "hard-core" Islamic militants captured commandos only because they were unconscious, but then they just managed to wake up and return to their heavily armed squad - so 'abducted not abducted?


The Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren has publicly called the humanitarian activists "terrorists – hired killers who came to murder soldiers, not to assist the residents of the Gaza Strip."

Let us be perfectly clear on this issue: If the goal of the activists was to "murder soldiers", they would be murdered, because the activists had at least 10 minutes (by the IDF's recollection of events, which should be treated with caution) in which they could have killed the captive soldiers with or without weapons.

That they didn't, despite the opportunity, speaks volumes about their true intentions.

Abbas Al Lawati who graduated from Concordia University's
political science department was working as a reporter for the Gulf News newspaper, based in the United Arab Emirates on board

Here is his report as he watched and filmed one of the detained soldiers being dragged below deck it does not ignore or gloss over the anger and fear of the attack on both sides


"I saw angry activists drag one of the Israeli soldiers down the stairs and punch him, I lost my journalistic objectivity and found myself urging the activist to stop hitting the soldier.

Seeing the anger in the activist's eyes, I thought that he would kill him. I had images of the wars that Israel has waged over its captive soldiers, and the number of people that have died as a result of them.
My thought was that if an Israeli soldier was to die on that ship, the entire flotilla would be bombed until it sank.

That was, of course, before I saw the bloodshed. The activists' anger was suddenly put in context when I saw a number of people carrying a dying man down the stairs.
His face was unrecognisable, covered in blood. He was apparently one of the first to go down, after an Israeli gun targeted the centre of his forehead from a helicopter, spilling his brains into the hands of another activist who was trying to look after him.

I took a few deep breaths and went back to get some footage on my tiny HD camera. Still indoors, I remained by the staircase where, by now, the organisers of the flotilla had pushed aside activists and forbade them to hurt the soldiers.

I took a few steps down to film the other captive soldier, struggling to keep my balance with so much blood under my feet. He stood in a corner being attended by two medics onboard, in shock, crying.

It was surreal. I knew that that soldier could destroy the entire flotilla, and thought I would get some close up footage of him. I took my camera as close as possible to his face and asked his name twice. He was too traumatised to answer. I could see fear of death in his eyes. He was petrified. Then I heard women screaming. "They are coming!"

This shocking but authentic sounding version of events could be proven or disproved if Israel were to release Al Lawati's footage,

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:41 AM

Israel was established to be the Jewish Homeland

No, no, it's not a Jewish homeland. Listen to Ed T. He knows everything. It's not a Jewish state, it isn't, it isn't, it isn't.

Whew. Okay, I'm better now.

Ed, I wasn't equating Israel with Judaism. It's plain that there are Jews who are not Israeli citizens (although they could become so at the drop of a hat just by moving there), and it's plain there are Israeli citizens who are not Jews. So let's get that attempted slander out of the way first. I was not saying that Israel=Judaism. Nice try though. 9 out of 10 for effort, although 0 out of 10 for accuracy.

But Israel is a Jewish state. It was created FOR Jews (as Rig was so kind as to point out), and is run BY Jews. Why has Israel not annexed the occupied territories, as they had every right to do at the end of the 1967 war, if it was not because that would topple the Jewish majority in Israel? They are little by little de facto annexing the West Bank, but of course only bits that are exclusively inhabited by Jewish settlers. If the current rate of nibbling continues, though, they will soon have it all and the Palestinians will be pushed out of the Territory entirely. But maybe that's a subject for another thread.

As for ethnicity haven't you been following the conversation about DNA markers?

Judaism is not a "nation" -- Israel is a nation, and you've already chided me for equating it with Judaism. You want to eat your cake and have it, here.

Rig, why aren't Christians and Muslims drafted into the Israeli army, if Israel is a secular state where all men are equal? Answer: it's not a secular state where all men are equal. Christians and Muslims are second-class citizens. This is shown just by the fact they are not included in the "universal" draft. Sure, they can volunteer. But if Israel is really a "religion-blind" state, as Ed T assures me it is, then they wouldn't have to. They'd be inducted like their Jewish neighbours are. Conclusion: Israel is not a "religion-blind" state. Jews have special privilege.

I had never heard that the JNF doesn't sell but only rent land, and I stand corrected on that point. Also on the 6.5% of land allowed to be owned privately. Of course having a land trust called the Jewish National Fund is something of a giveaway -- this really isn't the secular state Ed wants to portray it as. You might as well argue that Turkey is really a secular state, kof kof.

Does this make me an anti-semite, because I am willing to face the truth that the state of Israel discriminates against its non-Jewish minority, and was founded as a homeland for the Jews? Whatever. Remember Humpty Dumpty paid words extra when he abused them.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:20 AM

Mouse crook,

"Only Jews can own land in Israel"

Not true.


"Only Jews are registered and called up in the selective service. "

ONLY Jews are REQUIRED to serve in the military- Isralei Arabs MAY if they choose, but are NOT require.


"Jews from anywhere in the world are given a free immigration pass, but no other people group has that privilege "

Since Israel was established to be the Jewish Homeland, the requirement that ALL JEWS be able to move there seems to make sense.




BTW, why is it that so many here insist that Palestinians whose families left Israel in 1948 have the right to go back, but Jews who were drven out at various times ( from Babylonian times to the present) have no such rights?


What is the time limit that is being proposed- and will you hold the 640,000 Palestinian refugees to the same standards as you hold the 820,000 Jewish ones driven from Arab countries?

How long will someone have to have lived in a place before they can claim it, and how long must they be gone before they lose the right to go back?

And about those Christian Palestinians who fled the Moslims in 1948- do THEY get THEIR land back? If so, the town of Ramallah just became A CHRISTIAN TOWN, and the present inhabitants better get out.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 11:06 AM

That is spin!
If they were asked, "would you like us to take you below, or would you prefer to stay here" what do you HONESTLY believe they would reply?

If they did not want to go it was abduction.

The "witnesses" spoke of being fired on from boats and helicopter before the landings.
The narrator does not mention this.
I can not believe that he would be either unaware, or fail to mention incoming fire.
When the firing does start, they react, switch off the lights and disperse.
It is obvious if you consider the evidence rationally that no shots were fired until nearly 3 minutes after the landings.
They lied.
Watch Carol's video.
They intended what happened.
Watch my Hamas TV video where it is laid out the previous day.

(Did not the firing come from the landing site, about 30 feet below helicopter and about 30 yards from camera/microphone ?)

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 10:02 AM

"two abducted."

Nope - sorry but that is your misleading spin.

They were brought to safety below decks and their injuries were treated.

There is photographic evidence of this.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:58 AM

"The gunfire is as far away as the helicopter but is clearly heard."

Not true - it is on the deck just behind the reporters. Before the troops abseiled closer to the reporters they were further away on the helicopters.


"The narrator speaks of unspecified, out of sight injuries, never of incoming fire. Just the cannisters."


True. His comments however are still consstent with the testimony of eyewitnesses on board.

Hence they serve to corroborate the passengers version of events.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:57 AM

Lucky we have that video Stringsinger.
It shows no firing untill nearly 3 minutes after the soldiers landed, were themselves attacked and two abducted.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:54 AM

What is being done here is speculation. The Israel Commandos systematically destroyed all evidence. This was a criminal act by its action. It was a "dead man tells no tales" scenario.
The Mark Regev PR blitz is not to be trusted.

There is no real argument, here. A vessel bound for Gaza to break the blockade offering assistance for the Gazan people was attacked by armed military commandos with the purpose of throwing fear into the unarmed and peaceful resistance.

If you don't get that, then there is no discussion that will make sense here.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:54 AM

I meant 4 legs good. Animal Farm.
Never mind.

You will never accept it Lox, but to anyone looking at it rationally, the video makes liars of those who say there was shooting before the landing.

Remember too that Yemeni professor who had been told what was going to happen. Spookily prescient?
I find it easier to believe the flotilla commander did tell him that martyrdom was the main objective.

I think that we may as well give up now, unless more evidence emerges.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:52 AM

DonT, referring to Israel: "An oasis of fascism, racism, and discriminatory constraint, would probably be a more apposite description."

My goodness, what an absolutely horrible place that must be. Why in the world would 77% of it's Arab citizens say they would rather live in Israel than in any other country in the world. Sure makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:44 AM

Firstly, I was wrong to say only two commandos descended.
I was wathching the timer and missed the others.

The microphone used for the commentary was very low sensitivity.
It does not pick up voices a few feet away. You barely hear the helicopters.
The gunfire is as far away as the helicopter but is clearly heard.

The narrator speaks of unspecified, out of sight injuries, never of incoming fire. Just the cannisters.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:29 AM

"Lox, they would have heard shots from the boats and seen them fired.
Do you accept that was a lie?"

"it is very hard to believe that the narrator and those around him were oblivious"

Keith.

First they commented that there were ALREADY numerous injured passengers on both sides of the boat.

Then they commented that this number was increasing.

The deplored, bewailed and bemoaned this tragedy and hoped there would not be more injured, but were shocked to report that the numbers were increasing.

Then AFTER that they commented that canisters were being dropped onto the boat.

This is hardly evidence that they were oblivious to anything.

They weren't oblivious to it, they were REPORTING IT.

As for the other alleged lie,

I don't think we can say that the video proves there were no shots from the boats.

Keith - ever been on the deck of a ship going at full speed? In this case with two noisy helicopters 20 or 30 metres overhead, numerous powerboats with large engines on all sides, and the sea wind whippping any sound from those boats back and away from the ship, and the noise of the Mavi Marmaras engines and the melee of scared passengers and reporters on board, we cannot say that not hearing such shots is evidence that they didn't happen.

The reporters are shouting to be heard on microphones they are holding next to their faces.

If the video doesn't prove that no shots were fired from the boats, then it doesn't prove that testimony to be aa lie either.


Sorry, but there is no evidence of lies being told about shooting yet.

There is evidence to corroborate the passengers testimony though.



So Two legs, four legs, whatever thats all about, is of no interest to me.

Your attempt to discredit the passengers testimony has utterly failed.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:15 AM

Emma, that account actually is consistent with the video.

The commentary does not speak of any shots before the landings, only of cannisters and unspecified injuries.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:11 AM

"We mustn't tire of reminding others: the blockade concerns only arms and the material needed to manufacture them."
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE - I've yet to hear of arms made of cement, yet this formed a large part of the cargo and is desperately needed to rebuild the schools and hospitals damaged and destroyed by the Israelis during their last incursion into Gaza This is included on their list of banned marterials.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:10 AM

Lox, they would have heard shots from the boats and seen them fired.
Do you accept that was a lie?

If people on the ship were being hit by live rounds it is very hard to believe that the narrator and those around him were oblivious. They were aware of "some kind of cannisters" hitting the ship but not bullets???

It is impossible to believe that the commandos would descend without weapons to hand if they had already fired on the ship.

You have seen the video evidence but close your mind to its story.
Two legs good, four legs bad.
No other evidence accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 09:07 AM

The testimony of 'staff Sergeant S,' who is being considered for a medal, is contrary to initial Israeli Army reports

He has stated the shooting had started within minutes as he and his comrades were set upon by a "mob of mercenaries". and taking charge, he formed his men in a perimeter around the wounded, pulled his 9mm Glock pistol and opened fire on passengers he accused of shooting at the boarding party with guns taken off the first soldiers, who had been overwhelmed as they landed one by one.
"These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us."

Now none of this holds up with 'official' reports, the testimony of the passengers or even the video Keith linked to which is quite explicit (in French) of the events unfolding

Amongst the inescapable anomalies is the instance by the Israeli government that "The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds.
After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind NOT used by the naval commandos."

WHAT not even Staff Sergeant S's Glock?

The not particularly left wing or pro Palestinian Times points out in its reporting that

"Israeli officials have accused the Turks who attacked them of links to terrorist groups, although it was unclear why, in that case, the soldiers of Flotilla 13, the elite Navy Seals unit involved in the operation, were briefed only to expect peaceful resistance.
The question also remained as to why the passengers, if they were indeed terrorists, did not use deadlier weapons against the approaching naval launches and helicopters hovering overhead.

Alexandra Lort-Phillips, 37, an activist from Hackney, was on the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed and described seeing an Israeli soldier taken down into the stairwell below the deck where the soldiers landed

"I saw a gun being taken. His gunbelt was removed and someone, I don't know who, ran past me with the weapon and disappeared. They could have shot him but didn't."

Report from Haaretz

"The Israeli Navy says it went over "incidents and responses" in preparation; these included opening fire at charging activists with melee weapons. In case of a threat to their lives, the commandos were ordered to shoot to kill even as they were on their way onto the deck.
Another officer said that "we became a little spoiled, as a society, expecting perfect performances."

According to a senior officer…..

"NO REAL PEACE ACTIVIST WAS INJURED. NO SOLDIER WAS KILLED, EVEN THOUGH IT CAME PRETTY CLOSE. IN THE END THE SHIPS ARE DOCKED AT ASHDOD. IT WAS VERY COMPLICATED AND THE RESULT IS NEAR PERFECT."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:56 AM

"There is no mistaking the point on the video when the first shots are fired.
They can clearly be heard, and the people react and disperse."

The ones on the deck can be heard.

What about shots from a noisy helicopter - could they be heard Keith?


I can't see your trousers - does it follow that I have proved you not to be wearing any?


No - but that is the principle of your nonsense argument.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:53 AM

"The witnesses who say that live rounds were fired before the landing are proven liars."

Which ones?

And by whom?

Link please ...

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:52 AM

"Carol's video shows that to have been a lie."

In order to show this it would have to prove beyond doubt that no bullets were fired.

In fact it does no such thing.

In fact, it corroborates eye witness testimony.

Which makes your comment plain wrong.

Nice try but no cigar.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:51 AM

It is hard evidence.
There is no mistaking the point on the video when the first shots are fired.
They can clearly be heard, and the people react and disperse.
The narrator only speaks of "some kind of cannisters" from the boats.
He would hardly overlook being shot at!
The witnesses who say that live rounds were fired before the landing are proven liars.
And you are shown to be naive and credulous.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:48 AM

"Carol's video shows that to have been a lie."

Come on then Keith, explain how it shows that?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:45 AM

"Carol's video shows that to have been a lie."

No it doesn't.


The word "Deplore" in French is not a judgemental word.

It alsio means to "Bewail" and "Bemoan".

Its use is more sympathetic than critical.

The reporters are effectivley grieving that passengers have been injured.

This is not 100% proof thet live rounds were fired before the troops landed, but it does corroborate the eye witness testimonies of passengers who claim that they were shot from above before troops landed and who say that they saw people being shot before troops landed.


The live commentary of the reporters in the live feed is evidence that accusations of the Israelis firing before they landed are true and accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:39 AM

"The hard evidence is Carol's video and those we have all seen of people landing blow after blow with metal bars."

That is only Some of the hard evidence Keith.

You need to consider all of it together.

The murderous passengers didn't murder anyone.

They could have very easily.

They claim they were trying to disarm the soldiers.

This claim bears scrutiny.


There is no evidence upon which to base doubts about their testimony.

Til there is, it stands up as evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:36 AM

It was claimed that the helicopter fired on the ship before the landings, and you repeated it just now Lox.
Carol's video shows that to have been a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:29 AM

Lox. Pity we are not allowed to see them.
Were their "injuries" caused by the "some kind of cannisters"???
Why is there no obvious concern as when the shooting starts?
The cannisters obviously do not explode.
What could they be?
I suggested earlier that the boats were trying to get lines on board.
That would not have been necessary had the ship complied with the requests.
I suppose that could cause a bruise or a graze if someone got in the way.

The video shows, despite the hysterical narration, that the ship was not attacked at all. Two soldiers descended to the deck and were brutally set upon.
The hard evidence is Carol's video and those we have all seen of people landing blow after blow with metal bars.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:27 AM

Then the next frame says,

"On deplore plusieur blesse, Oui il y a plusieurs blesse"

to translate -

"On deplore plusieur blesse"

Means "one deplores more injured [as if to say lets hope there are no more injured]"

"Oui il y a plusieurs blesse"

Meaning "Yes there are more injured"


The commentary then goes on about the ship being under seige and being in international waters.

All this before the English speaking reporter comes online and all long before the troops abseil down.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 08:17 AM

The French Subtitles at the very start read as follows:

"Il y'a actuellement des blesses des deux cotes du navire"

Which means "There are actually injured [people] on both sides of the ship."

That is before Anything at all happpens in the video.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:57 AM

Do watch it again.
The "attack" on the ship is by just two soldiers who do not fire a shot.
Help does not arrive for about 2minutes.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:50 AM

Carol's video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAuz6HoqV4g

The soldiers descend at 2 minutes 3seconds.
The narrator says nothing of fire from above, only of some kind of cannisters fired from boats which seem not to cause any alarm.
There is talk of the two captured soldiers, and then first shot are clearly heard and reacted to at 4 minutes 44seconds.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:45 AM

"Your uncritical acceptance of one side of the story is foolish."

Uncritical?

I have responded to the available evidence.

We have yet to see grounds upon which to base doubts on the testimony of the passengers of the ship.

We have on the other hand seen numerous and varied grounds to doubt the testimony of the IDF and te Israeli Govt.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Lox
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 07:36 AM

Ed T,

I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

In fact I wasn't referring to any post of yours at all.

I was referring to the article posted in the following post from Bobad.

"From: bobad - PM
Date: 09 Jun 10 - 06:42 AM"


I would add thought, that even if you had posted the article, in criticizing it or questioning the motives of the authour, I would in no way wish to suggest that I was making the same criticism or asking the same questions of the poster.

My response would be an attempt to scrutinize and debate the content of the article.


Hence, in responding to Bobas article I do not attribute the views of its authour to him, but nonetheless feel it is deserving of the response I have given.