Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »Gaza sea convoy incident
Quote My guess would be that an anxious or a nervous israeli soldier pulled the trigger and his fire was responded with a bloodshed on the end of the chain.
Let's not twist the picture. Your guess is not as good as mine.
Define anxious please. Is it someone who was stabbed? Beaten almost to death? Thrown off the deck?
Peaceful and humanitarian people would not have added fire to the chain. Six other ships had nop casualties.
If the ships did port in Gaza, then there could have not been a possiblity to peacfully check the contents as you suggested. Do twist my meaning on this one as well
Let's not twist the picture. Your guess is not as good as mine.
Define anxious please. Is it someone who was stabbed? Beaten almost to death? Thrown off the deck?
Peaceful and humanitarian people would not have added fire to the chain. Six other ships had nop casualties.
If the ships did port in Gaza, then there could have not been a possiblity to peacfully check the contents as you suggested. Do twist my meaning on this one as well
@ice-tea: with pasivity you reach nothing. A start could be that we, civilians, could reach an accord.
passivity is the dirtiest way of handling such issues. Wir haben het nicht gewusst.
passivity is the dirtiest way of handling such issues. Wir haben het nicht gewusst.
Inspecting can also be done at sea?
If you are that soldier and you approach a ship with men on it who have weapons I guess you would get a bit frightened? Maybe so frightened you pull the trigger and forget the 'hold your fire'-order.
Because who or why would (someone) shoot on an engaging force which outnumbers you many times? For god's sake why would a humanitarian force send by cyprus and turkey shoot the israelian navy while they are only carrying humanitarian aid?(then i skip the part of where some of the passangers have guns because only 1 boat had passangers with guns)
If you are that soldier and you approach a ship with men on it who have weapons I guess you would get a bit frightened? Maybe so frightened you pull the trigger and forget the 'hold your fire'-order.
Because who or why would (someone) shoot on an engaging force which outnumbers you many times? For god's sake why would a humanitarian force send by cyprus and turkey shoot the israelian navy while they are only carrying humanitarian aid?(then i skip the part of where some of the passangers have guns because only 1 boat had passangers with guns)
Let's not twist the picture. Your guess is not as good as mine.
Define anxious please. Is it someone who was stabbed? Beaten almost to death? Thrown off the deck?
Peaceful and humanitarian people would not have added fire to the chain. Six other ships had nop casualties.
If the ships did port in Gaza, then there could have not been a possiblity to peacfully check the contents as you suggested. Do twist my meaning on this one as well
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
What were the injuries of the IDF soldier now? A few bruises?
How did the 9 die? Committed suicide to make israel look bad? Sweep of machine gun fire over the deck? You're right that we don't know anything yet. But some scenario's look more plausible than others. If you've ever seen someone with too much power/authority and a way to get away with it in action, you know what could have happened. The track record of the IDF isn't that clean as well. And I wish it was different.
Define anxious please. Is it someone who was stabbed? Beaten almost to death? Thrown off the deck?
Peaceful and humanitarian people would not have added fire to the chain. Six other ships had nop casualties.
If the ships did port in Gaza, then there could have not been a possiblity to peacfully check the contents as you suggested. Do twist my meaning on this one as well
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
What were the injuries of the IDF soldier now? A few bruises?
How did the 9 die? Committed suicide to make israel look bad? Sweep of machine gun fire over the deck? You're right that we don't know anything yet. But some scenario's look more plausible than others. If you've ever seen someone with too much power/authority and a way to get away with it in action, you know what could have happened. The track record of the IDF isn't that clean as well. And I wish it was different.
And they had a right to board/capture the ship:
If the ship was suspected of [planning to] breaking a blockade. And let's be honest, that was the intention.
I believe this point was posted earlier, in some kind of charter?
If the ship was suspected of [planning to] breaking a blockade. And let's be honest, that was the intention.
I believe this point was posted earlier, in some kind of charter?
why dont we just nuke the entire region? *runs and hides*
What were the injuries of the IDF soldier now? A few bruises?
2 of them are in really bad position,
much more then few bruises
you probably say its cheap propaganda,
but it may explain the reason for this ship violence
2 of them are in really bad position,
much more then few bruises
you probably say its cheap propaganda,
but it may explain the reason for this ship violence
Again, same same.
Quote Just for fun, I'll bounce the question back to you: you say the israeli's intended no harm, even though you clearly see 9 dead people on the civilian side and non on the IDF side. Yet you claim the humanitarians posed a treat for the soldiers...
I have heard that too,many times. Blaming Israel for winning a fight as proof for what?
And I repeat my original question:
Do you have a comment on the "humanitarian" action on board?
And some more?
Why did you comment OK on Hamas bombimng the power station that provides them with power?
And what about attacking the crossing? Don't you think that this may cause security measures that might delay the procedures?
Do you approve shooting rockets on civilians (and stating pride for this)?
Would you give aid to someone who consistently attacks you? I mean unless you are Israeli
Don't get me wrong. I dod not want you to share your national problems. However to make the discussion honest and mutual, I would only share my criticism on our side, with someone who would not twist my words. You never disapproved the other side though, for anything.
Quote Just for fun, I'll bounce the question back to you: you say the israeli's intended no harm, even though you clearly see 9 dead people on the civilian side and non on the IDF side. Yet you claim the humanitarians posed a treat for the soldiers...
I have heard that too,many times. Blaming Israel for winning a fight as proof for what?
And I repeat my original question:
Do you have a comment on the "humanitarian" action on board?
And some more?
Why did you comment OK on Hamas bombimng the power station that provides them with power?
And what about attacking the crossing? Don't you think that this may cause security measures that might delay the procedures?
Do you approve shooting rockets on civilians (and stating pride for this)?
Would you give aid to someone who consistently attacks you? I mean unless you are Israeli
Don't get me wrong. I dod not want you to share your national problems. However to make the discussion honest and mutual, I would only share my criticism on our side, with someone who would not twist my words. You never disapproved the other side though, for anything.
Would you give aid to someone who consistently attacks you? I mean unless you are Israeli
There is maybe a link between the siege and the attacks?
You know what? Let the committee spit out this most unfortunate event.
There is maybe a link between the siege and the attacks?
You know what? Let the committee spit out this most unfortunate event.
I have heard that too,many times. Blaming Israel for winning a fight as proof for what?
that it might have had overreacted. Like in: 3 dead civilians might have sent the same message.
And I repeat my original question:
Do you have a comment on the "humanitarian" action on board?
Do you comment on the IDF action?
I respond the same way you did for the IDF. If somebody shoots one of your fellow crewmen, you might respond in the same way as the "humanitarians" did. Scared and fighting for your life. Who knows.
Yes, I probably would have opted to surrender immediatly to the guys with the guns. Other people thought it was justified to exercise some justice for trying to stop them. Weird that you don't see it this way, because..
Blaming Israel for winning a fight as proof for what?
you're basicly blaming the humanitarians for wanting to win a fight here.
No, I don't approve of violence in either case, that is why I am in this topic.
But you seem to approve of violence in one case of the story. And I don't understand this paradox.
Why did you comment OK on Hamas bombimng the power station that provides them with power? Of course bombing is not ok!
And what about attacking the crossing? Don't you think that this may cause security measures that might delay the procedures?
Maybe it is because they are unhappy with the concept of border crossings per se. Don't you think these security measures might provoke the attacks?
(provoking an attack seems to be justifying it for israeli's, no offence)
Do you approve shooting rockets on civilians (and stating pride for this)?
Of course not!
My previous group of questions (which weren't answered) started with this very question!
Do you approve of shooting rockets on civilians as means of executing a nearby terrorist? And what is the difference with your own statement just above this one?
Don't get me wrong. I dod not want you to share your national problems. However to make the discussion honest and mutual, I would only share my criticism on our side, with someone who would not twist my words. You never disapproved the other side though, for anything.
I disapprove of plenty. Of both sides. I wish there was a palestine here.
that it might have had overreacted. Like in: 3 dead civilians might have sent the same message.
And I repeat my original question:
Do you have a comment on the "humanitarian" action on board?
Do you comment on the IDF action?
I respond the same way you did for the IDF. If somebody shoots one of your fellow crewmen, you might respond in the same way as the "humanitarians" did. Scared and fighting for your life. Who knows.
Yes, I probably would have opted to surrender immediatly to the guys with the guns. Other people thought it was justified to exercise some justice for trying to stop them. Weird that you don't see it this way, because..
Blaming Israel for winning a fight as proof for what?
you're basicly blaming the humanitarians for wanting to win a fight here.
No, I don't approve of violence in either case, that is why I am in this topic.
But you seem to approve of violence in one case of the story. And I don't understand this paradox.
Why did you comment OK on Hamas bombimng the power station that provides them with power? Of course bombing is not ok!
And what about attacking the crossing? Don't you think that this may cause security measures that might delay the procedures?
Maybe it is because they are unhappy with the concept of border crossings per se. Don't you think these security measures might provoke the attacks?
(provoking an attack seems to be justifying it for israeli's, no offence)
Do you approve shooting rockets on civilians (and stating pride for this)?
Of course not!
My previous group of questions (which weren't answered) started with this very question!
Do you approve of shooting rockets on civilians as means of executing a nearby terrorist? And what is the difference with your own statement just above this one?
Don't get me wrong. I dod not want you to share your national problems. However to make the discussion honest and mutual, I would only share my criticism on our side, with someone who would not twist my words. You never disapproved the other side though, for anything.
I disapprove of plenty. Of both sides. I wish there was a palestine here.
Quote
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
That's another showcase of twisting propaganda instead of a honest reply.
Israel constantly delivers goods to Gaza. Why would they not deliver this innocent shipping?
Beside, even to your words - there was enough international attention over this case, anyway, so all goods would have gone through.
This is not just a humanitrarian aid. It is a political action, where one side gets points, no matter what the outcome might be. It is a bold provocation.
And strategically, if Israel would allow free moveent of ships, who would guarantee that larger missiles or other weapons would not follow?
Please give us credit. We have good reasons to suspect, and they have good reasons to smuggle. Unfortunately we do not share the same interests.
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
That's another showcase of twisting propaganda instead of a honest reply.
Israel constantly delivers goods to Gaza. Why would they not deliver this innocent shipping?
Beside, even to your words - there was enough international attention over this case, anyway, so all goods would have gone through.
This is not just a humanitrarian aid. It is a political action, where one side gets points, no matter what the outcome might be. It is a bold provocation.
And strategically, if Israel would allow free moveent of ships, who would guarantee that larger missiles or other weapons would not follow?
Please give us credit. We have good reasons to suspect, and they have good reasons to smuggle. Unfortunately we do not share the same interests.
Quote
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
That's another showcase of twisting propaganda instead of a honest reply.
Israel constantly delivers goods to Gaza. Why would they not deliver this innocent shipping?
Because, as I already mentioned, only a small part of the aid actually gets delivered.
When the outside world blames israeli's it is precisely for these things. You seem to be under the impression that all is well inside gaza, while our journalists (with UN reports in hand) state that only a quarter of the recuired needs are fulfilled.
And of course there is smuggling. Smuggling is bad and needs to be stopped. But why holding back the humanitarian aid?
Seeing how israel restricts the entrance of goods, it is kinda doubtful they would have delivered all goods without international press looking over their shoulders. So that guess isn't as good as the other.
That's another showcase of twisting propaganda instead of a honest reply.
Israel constantly delivers goods to Gaza. Why would they not deliver this innocent shipping?
Because, as I already mentioned, only a small part of the aid actually gets delivered.
When the outside world blames israeli's it is precisely for these things. You seem to be under the impression that all is well inside gaza, while our journalists (with UN reports in hand) state that only a quarter of the recuired needs are fulfilled.
And of course there is smuggling. Smuggling is bad and needs to be stopped. But why holding back the humanitarian aid?
Quote
There is maybe a link between the siege and the attacks?
Sure there is.
Hamas states clearly that they want to destroy us.
The attackes came first. There were times that there was no siege.
Therefore there is a siege.
Compare it to the west bank.
They do not (yet) intend to throw missiles, and surprise! No siege.
There is maybe a link between the siege and the attacks?
Sure there is.
Hamas states clearly that they want to destroy us.
The attackes came first. There were times that there was no siege.
Therefore there is a siege.
Compare it to the west bank.
They do not (yet) intend to throw missiles, and surprise! No siege.
That's another showcase of twisting propaganda instead of a honest reply.
An Israeli speaking about propaganda, eh !?
LOL
An Israeli speaking about propaganda, eh !?
LOL
some might say the siege is there to get rid of iran-friendly hamas, not the other way around
(edited)
(edited)
Another question: Do you really think a siege helps in any way to come to a peacefull agreement? In my opinion it will only make the people in the area more determined to 'destroy Israel'. I don't believe for a second that it's in your own best interest.